as Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Home Affairs, dated 26 March 1986, as follows:

Mr Chairman, I should like to say a few brief introductory words, since we are now starting to discuss this crucial vote in the administration of South Africa. They concern a matter which is of crucial importance in our debate, a matter which was raised earlier this year in various debates.

†The Government has, by adopting the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act, 1984, committed itself to the pursuance of equal educational opportunities for every inhabitant of the Republic. I can now announce that the Government, after receiving advice from the South African Council for Education—SACE—and the Universities and Technikons Advisory Council—UAT—has taken certain firm decisions in respect of the long-term objective concerning the financing of education for all population groups in the Republic of South Africa. Unfortunately, some delay has occurred with regard to this matter. Part of the delay was owing to the new and important accent on the determination of priorities concerning the broad areas of Government spending. Certain studies had to be completed before sensible decisions on education could be taken.

It was necessary to ascertain that educationally justifiable objectives could really be afforded. The negotiations concerning the composition of the SACE also took much longer than expected. As it was important to the Government first to obtain the advice of the SACE, the delay in constituting that body also delayed decision-making on financial matters.

The Government remains determined to achieve the objective of equal educational opportunities within the shortest possible period. At this stage the setting of specific target dates and rigoristic norms to obtain this objective should, however, not be insisted upon. There must still be scope for adjustments owing to factors such as the future growth in the economy, the growth in population and the success that will be attained with the Population Development Programme, and also the rate at which rationalisation in education can be achieved without prejudicing educational standards as such or seriously disrupting educators, students and pupils.

This, however, does not mean that we should not move ahead according to a fixed minimum plan. Therefore the Government has decided, as a first step, to put into operation a far-reaching 10 year plan to upgrade the provision of education in the RSA. [Interjections.] I am presently in the process of working out the final details in consultation with my education colleagues.

In this process there will be intensive negotiations with all parties involved. On completion of this process information on the long-term objective, the basic formula, as well as the 10 year plan will be presented to all groups involved, including the education study committees of all the parties in Parliament.

The aforementioned 10 year plan will be based upon a real increase of total education expenditure of at least 4,1% per annum. This growth rate is linked to the expected growth in the economy. The funds will be allocated in order of priority to those departments experiencing the biggest backlogs. As a result of this alone the annual expenditure on education in the RSA will increase from the present R6 800 million to R10 000 million—in rand terms of 1986—by 1996. The major share of these funds will be spent on additional expenditure resulting from the increase in qualification levels of teachers, on improving the pupil-teacher ratio, and on accommodating the increase in pupil numbers in the Department of Education and Culture of the House of Representatives, the national states and the Department of Education and Training. Simultaneously, provision will have to be made for rationalisation and increased productivity, which will release additional funds.

I sincerely believe that it will be possible, in this manner, to achieve substantial, even spectacular, progress within the relatively short period of 10 years, although the object of equal educational opportunities will not yet have been fully achieved by that stage.

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

At the start of the debate I wish to take the opportunity to thank the Chairman of the Standing Committee on National Education as well as the Director-General of National Education and his officials for the patience, friendliness and ability with which they carried out their task during the sittings of the standing committee.

Once again I wish to make use of the occasion to object most strongly to the limited time allocated to the discussion of this very important Vote. The Government contends that this department is an indication of the seriousness with which it regards education in South Africa and that it is Government’s sincere desire that, as an overall department, it will remove many of the grievances of other population groups. The Government also wishes this department to act effectively in setting norms and standards and in financing education at all levels. Nevertheless the Official Opposition is granted only 30 minutes for this important Vote. When the discussion of the apartheid Vote of White Education and Culture during the own affairs debate is involved, however, we have two and a half times as long. Where the most trifling scrap of legislation is involved on which all are in agreement, hon members will rise here and hold forth for half an hour on that legislation. [Interjections.] There is unlimited time for that. I appeal urgently that something be done about this.

Obviously the PFP welcomes the announcement just made by the hon the Minister. We learnt a lesson in the past, however, and burnt our fingers by praising Government announcements before seeing and studying details. Consequently, as regards this announcement, we shall first view the realities as well as the way the Government puts it into practice.

I wish to appeal to the hon the Minister to give us straight answers to our straight questions. He must not use evasive rhetoric. I want to tell the hon the Minister further that he has the opportunity to introduce reform in South Africa because education offers him the greatest opportunity for active and effective reform. To date, however, this hon Minister has acted in a reactionary manner and he is the leader of the reactionary elements in the governing party. [Interjections.]

Education is a matter closely connected with the violence in our country. Black people’s dissatisfaction and the humiliation they have experienced for centuries are the outcome of the inferior education to which they have been subjected. That is the cause of the frustration they experience; it is the cause of the ominous opposition which has built up over the past few years and the in evitable violence which has broken out.

The Government can take a decision in that sphere. It can either accept that South Africa is doomed to violence or it can decide to take active steps to bring about true reform in education to combat violence in this way. The Government’s actions belie its words. The Government says internally and abroad that apartheid will be abolished, discrimination will be removed and equal opportunities created but then it comes with deeds which cry out to heaven. The system of own affairs forces new forms and systems of apartheid on South Africa; new forms of discrimination rear their heads from time to time.

A reality is thwarting South Africa. The new Constitution is a prescription for the creation of apartheid through the enforcement of a system of own affairs. The Government is making a futile attempt to convince South Africa and the outside world that own affairs are not apartheid. No, it is something new now with new terminology; it is “differentiation” now and no longer apartheid. Who is misled by this transparent statement? Neither the other population groups in South Africa nor the world.

Only the CP!

Not many people in the NP are misled either—only the unenlightened remnant in the NP is misled by this. The Government should realise the reality that it is supported by less than 10% of the South African population but it decides unilaterally that educational apartheid will be forced on the whole of South Africa against the wishes of and in the face of opposition from more than 90% of all South Africans. This is a reality the Government has to take into account.

Who is inexorably opposed to educational apartheid in South Africa? I think almost the entire Black, Coloured and Indian population as well as more than 50% of the White population of South Africa. I hope and believe this includes more than 50% of the NP.

Who supports educational apartheid then? As those ranged with the hon the Minister of National Education in the perpetuation and maintenance of educational apartheid, I can only enumerate the unenlightened in the NP, the “Kappiekommando”, the “Volkswag”, the “Afrikaner-weerstandsbeweging”, the HNP and the CP—all that remain in the entire world still believing in apartheid.

How can this be reconciled with self-determination? The Government has said self-determination is a sacred principle to it, but it does not permit other population groups to decide whether their children may attend school with children from different population groups. What about the principle of freedom of choice of the individual, the parent and the community which is incorporated in Government legislation? No, that principle is dashed and ignored in the application of apartheid education. Will this Government never learn the lessons of history? Just think of the 1976 riots in Soweto. Weeks and months before them we and others warned the Government seriously against its arrogant action as regards Black education in South Africa. Nevertheless the Government chose not to listen. It elected arrogantly and vigorously to decide for the Black man and the Black man simply had to accept Government decisions. The standpoint the Minister expressed at the time was: “Ons betaal, daarom sal ons bepaal.” [Interjections.] What did this cause? Mr Chairman, just think of the grief and misery, the damage, the hate and anger it caused.

In 1985 many of us warned on what awaited South Africa. I myself wrote and discussed at least three memorandums with various members of Government, with various hon Ministers and with various officials. Nevertheless the Government paid no heed and look at the results. I now wish to ask this hon Minister how many people have yet to die and how much blood has yet to flow before the NP finally and effectively abolishes apartheid education in South Africa. The Government and the hon the Ministers of National Education and of Education and Culture cling and stick to apartheid like toffee to a blanket. Here we are dealing with Toffee No 1 and Toffee No 2! [Interjections.] I wish to tell these hon Ministers in all sincerity, honesty and sympathy that they should change their views very rapidly or ask the CP to make room for them in its ranks.

But there is a solution. The Government already has 18 Education Departments. Let us create another one. This is like a man with 18 wives who takes a nineteenth and hopes she may provide a solution to all his problems. Let us create a Department of Open Education and let the controlling body of every school, college, technikon and university decide for itself whether it wishes to fall under the open education department or one of the apartheid education departments. Surely that is the application of the principle of the devolution of decision-making and responsibility to the community.

By doing this the Government will reduce tension and make a significant concession to the wishes of the other population groups and the communities of parents. The Government will then no longer be the target of the envy and hatred which is linked to this matter. The hon the Minister should then permit those educational institutions to arrange their own affairs without State intervention. The Government should pay an identical subsidy for their pupils and students regardless of the racial composition of the institution concerned.

I can do no other than refer again to the disgraceful document we received for scrutiny reflecting Government policy as the hon the Minister admitted. It is laid down there that the subsidy for private schools in South Africa will be linked directly to the racial composition of their pupil numbers. [Interjections.] Can one believe that in the year 1986, after the State President and the Government have undertaken to abolish apartheid and discrimination, the Government could be so crude as to come forward with such an ugly form of racism! The Government states that, if Black enrolment in a private school is below 10%, that school receives a 45% subsidy. If it has between 10% and 20% of Black pupils, the Government will give the school a 15% subsidy.

Where did you see that?

It is in the document. If it has between 20% and 30%, we shall register it but, if it has more than 30%, we shall not register it. [Interjections.] Is that not utterly discriminatory? I shall send the hon the Minister a copy of the document. Perhaps he is unaware of its existence. [Interjections.] Is that not utterly discriminatory? Is it not bribery and blackmail on a racial basis? Is the Government unable to realise how humiliating it is to the Black people, the Coloureds and the Indians of South Africa? Is the Government unable to realise what anger it unleashes towards the White man and the Government and is it unable to realise how it resounds through the world and what damage it does South Africa? [Interjections.]

I wish to make an urgent appeal to the Government in all sincerity, most sympathetically and in the interest of South Africa. We shall never escape the tension and violence in our country, we shall never arrive at a point at which we shall be able to negotiate a significant, stable constitution for South Africa with the other racial groups; we shall never progress, we shall never bring about peace until such time as the Government finally and completely expunges apartheid from South Africa. I am now speaking of apartheid at all levels because it is an absolute prerequisite before people can sit round a table in dignity and sincerity to negotiate a constitution for their country. [Interjections.] If the Government were prepared to accept that reality—after all, it is the basic reality of South Africa—we and the rest of the country would not only praise it but also co-operate with it to bring about a stable and peaceful South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I am experiencing considerable difficulty in bringing myself to reply to the hon member for Bryanston as I am unsure whether the hon member is serious about what he said. I am unsure whether he was not merely presenting a facade whereas he was well aware that he was disseminating untruths to a great degree.

A further point is also true. The hon member made a number of statements here which will be recorded and will be enormously useful to those wishing to bring about further hate and polarisation in South Africa. He did this knowing that what he was saying was not a reflection of the truth.

Tell me what you are talking about.

I can point out numerous examples to the hon member but the single most important aspect—the hon member for Bryanston is as well aware of this as I and every other hon member in this House—is that the factual state of affairs in the composition of this country, as reflected in education and in the school situation, cannot be changed overnight by him or any other member in this House.

Why are Christians not permitted to attend school together?

The education system of a country is ultimately structured to serve the factual situation. If we therefore speak of differentiated education, it is not a magic word to define something new we wish to institute instead of apartheid but to express the reality we finally have to take into account in education.

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

No, unfortunately I do not have the time now to reply to questions.

The hon member is as well aware as the rest of us that in the final analysis that is what we are struggling with in education. We are battling on the one hand to do justice to the reality of the composition of our community and on the other to satisfy the demands and requirements of Black youth and Black education. The final answer to bringing these all together does not lie in the simple clichés the hon member used this afternoon and with which he contributed to sowing suspicion against the good intentions and the bona fides of the Government toward education.

The hon member for Bryanston spoke of Toffee No 1 and Toffee No 2. I feel obliged to say I am afraid he is not much more than candy floss. Children call it “spookasem”; one thinks one has something but it turns out to be nothing. [Interjections.] The hon member is not much more than that.

In gratitude I have to revert to the hon member for Bryanston and thank him for his amiable words at the outset as regards the standing committee. I also have to say in all sincerity that, contrary to what the hon member said here, his contribution was constructive in the standing committee. This also applies to his colleague, the hon member for Pinetown. I take pleasure in thanking them for that. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to the departmental report which was submitted a day or two ago. Here I wish to thank Dr Roe Venter, the Director-General, and his department very heartily for a very good, thorough annual report on the activities of the department. It reflects the good work done by the department and is certainly very informative on the functioning of this department. It makes the reader realise that the department is endeavouring to furnish service in a scientific way, for instance in the formulation of the national educational policy and in the attendant negotiations and consultations.

It provides those genuinely interested with the assurance that these sensitive matters are being dealt with very scrupulously. It emerges simultaneously that tried and sophisticated methods are being used to ensure that the responsibility of authority toward the educational system is being carried out. I therefore wish to voice my thanks to Dr Venter and his department for their good work.

In the second place I should like to refer to the activities of the standing committee. As is widely known, we still have five pieces of legislation before the standing committee with a bearing on the South African Certification Council and related legislation. We all know the institution of a certification council is the principal question being dealt with before the standing committee. Without doubt this is a sensitive area. At this stage negotiations are actually still in progress in an effort to solve differences existing in the committee on these aspects. I believe all hon members on the standing committee seriously desire that we attempt concluding the relevant legislation during the current Parliamentary session. I personally hope we shall succeed in doing this and shall consequently be able to make such progress in the standing committee.

Mr Chairman, I should next like to deal with the question of how we have progressed with the white paper. Here I should first like to point out that, to my mind, the most important progress involved is that in South Africa today we have one Minister of Education and a single central department of education with overall responsibility for education in the country in general and consequently also for that of all population groups in South Africa.

I can tell the hon member for Bryanston that he is also contributing to the fact that this message is not being disseminated properly and clearly to everyone in the country. I am afraid there is still too much ignorance on this historic event which has taken place in South African education over the past year or two. I actually believe each of us has a responsibility in contributing to a greater degree of calm, especially in bringing home the message regarding the existence of this department and that a central recommendation of the 1982 HSRC Report is being carried out in this way. I should like to call upon the hon the Minister again in this regard—I know steps were taken earlier on this in a statement of September 1985—that an effort be made to market the extent of the new educational dispensation correctly so that all interested parties may take note of it properly and it can come to general attention.

It is a fact that the Government has pledged itself to the provision of equal educational opportunities and resources with a view to equal treatment of all recipients of education in the country. We had fresh proof of that pledge in the State President’s speech on 31 January 1986. The Government has also pledged itself to this on numerous occasions in the words of the hon Minister.

A significant fact I have already mentioned is that the important central recommendation of the HSRC Report has been carried out. This hon Minister and the policy he determines is actually the cohesive factor in the educational system as a whole in South Africa today.

A second matter to which I wish to refer briefly is that, in execution of the White Paper, the SA Council for Education was established on 1 October 1985. This council has to advise the hon the Minister on the general policy on formal and non-formal education in South Africa. We all take pleasure in welcoming the statement made by the hon the Minister this afternoon. It is the direct consequence of inter alia the work already done by this council over the past few months. I think we may look forward in great anticipation to future and certainly essential work this council will perform.

As regards the White Paper as a whole, we may therefore say that, with the exception of the certification aspect, all important aspects of this paper have been carried out. We hope to reach the aspect of certification during this session by means of work in the standing committee.

With one further remark I wish to say we all know that education in South Africa is most probably the most politicised area. I actually think emphasis has shifted to the subject of education over the past 18 months. It is certainly the sphere in which the greatest unrest is being instigated and where the greatest disruption is taking place. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Johannesburg West is not only the chairman of the standing committee but also a prominent, enlightened “New Nat”. It is very interesting that this hon member was a little loud toward the hon member for Bryanston. The hon member for Innesdal is known to the PFP as “Our Albert” but the hon member for Bryanston is known to the “New Nats” as “Our Horace”. [Interjections.] Today the hon member for Bryanston added nothing to what he had said in the standing committee; he made the same comments here as in the standing committee. I put it that hon members of the NP did not oppose the hon member for Bryanston’s standpoints in the standing committee.

That is not true.

The hon members for Bryanston and Innesdal are actually blood brothers; they are twins. They are the actual link between the “New Nats” and the PFP. Both are so emotional when our future here in South Africa is discussed.

The CP rejects this new dispensation and we reject the concept of standing committees on which a Coloured, Mr M R E Lewis, who should actually be the chairman of his own people’s study group, is the deputy chairman of our standing committee.

Today the concept of “general education” is actually introducing integration to education as one finds the question of “bussing” in America. We are at the start of integration now. The liberals envisage obtaining integrated education with their onslaught. The hon member for Bryanston pleaded for this and the hon member for Innesdal said he accepted power-sharing with Blacks at every tier.

There is important legislation which cannot be tabled because the standpoint of the Brown people and the Indians in the standing committee—like that of the hon member for Bryanston—is that a person cannot attain equal norms and standards without integrated schools. I should very much like to see how the hon the Minister is going to get around this. I want to state it clearly again today that there is no such thing as own education and self-determination of White education. Own education or the self-determination of education is subject to an integrated coalition government.

I also want to put straight questions to the hon the Minister today and I should like straight answers to them. Our present political dispensation is to lead us to a new political dispensation at the end of this year or next year in which a minority people will share power with Black peoples in this country. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said a Black man could become the State President of South Africa under certain circumstances. I now ask the hon the Minister of National Education—I am looking him straight in the eye—to rise as the leader of the so-called rightist group within the NP … [Interjections.] I do not know if he is the leader. If he is not, it is the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs or the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

I want to make a straight statement to the hon the Minister of National Education today. Under our present dispensation a Brown man or an Indian can be a Minister in the Government Cabinet. I accept that; it is the system. He can become a Minister today. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister of National Education: Can a Black man become the Minister of the Department of National Education under the dispensation he is planning? Can a Black man become the Director-General of the department?

The hon the Minister told us he had a ten-year plan to introduce so-called equality to South African education. I wish to tell the hon the Minister he does not have even a three-month plan for the South African constitutional dispensation. [Interjections.] He spoke of a ten-year plan he had for education in South Africa. The hon the Minister must tell us explicitly today what the future of White education in our country is to be in a position of power-sharing with Blacks.

I wish to express a few thoughts on the annual report of the department and also thank the officials who compiled it. I want to tell the hon the Minister we obtained this report only on Monday and I think one cannot scrutinise such a publication thoroughly in the midst of other activities. Obviously there is an endless number of matters in it which should be discussed.

I wish to tell the hon the Minister I read the report and found nothing which was not actually just White own affairs. White own affairs form the entire content of this report. I wish to remind the hon the Minister again that, in the matters he indicates in the report, he has taken what is the White’s heritage and placed it under the jurisdiction of other peoples in this country who have nothing to do with it.

On page 121 of the annual report there is mention of an exchange of std 9 pupils with West Germany in terms of the Cultural Agreement. It runs:

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the responsibility for children up to std 10 is not an own affair. I read in the report about a number of girls from all population groups—a multiracial group therefore—visiting West Germany. Is that the way the hon Minister wishes to soften up our schoolchildren for the process of integration by voting money in this way to send multiracial groups of schoolchildren overseas? I should like the hon the Minister to provide comprehensive details on this.

The hon the Minister granted the FAK an amount of R5 000 to bring two pupils who are direct descendants of the early Afrikaner settlers in Argentina to South Africa. In principle I am altogether in favour of our remaining in touch through cultural bonds with the Afrikaners who moved to a possible new fatherland at a period when an alien population group occupied our country.

Under the leadership of the hon the Deputy Minister and other hon members, the NP has seen to it that this party now controls the FAK in South Africa; it is becoming a type of NP arm. [Interjections.] Meanwhile another Afrikaans cultural organisation has arisen, the “Volkswag”, and I wish to ask the hon the Minister whether he will in principle also grant similar amounts to the “Volkswag” so that it may attempt similar projects. I should very much like to know this.

There is also reference here to the composition of the South African Council for Education etc. A few Black persons have been included in those councils but in the new dispensation the hon the Minister is planning— the composition of councils will obviously take place on the basis of numbers—it is happening gradually that policy-making even as regards White children is being transferred to individuals of which the majority will be Third-World people. I am stating here today—we shall repeat this in the course of the year when we make speeches outside the House—that the policy, including the educational policy, of the hon the Minister is moving in a direction in which the Third World will ultimately assume control.

I wish to read a passage to the hon the Minister which he may review again calmly later. A few years ago, after we had formulated a new educational policy, it was said:

We said that in this House when the old NP still stood for the principle of separate development. Notwithstanding the hon the Minister’s conservative standpoints now it was the Progs and some of his colleagues who voted against that Act at the time who are now aiding him in taking a new direction.

In the months ahead the hon the Minister should reflect very seriously on his personal position as a leader in his community. He should also return to, or at least page back and review, the true principles on which not only the constitutional structures but also education in South Africa were built.

Mr Chairman, I hope my contribution will strike a better and more positive note in this debate than that of the two hon speakers from Opposite ranks.

Complementary to the fine announcement made here by the hon the Minister, we wish to say this hon Minister should design a new credo for his department. I wish to offer hon members a thought. We should call this portfolio the “portfolio of investment” because here we are investing in the South African child and this child is our best material. Our gold becomes exhausted, droughts affect our lands and there is a levelling off in the economy but the child is our greatest good! [Interjections.] This department is providing for the child of the future with this splendid plan. We are not raising children for the past; they can read that up in history books. We are raising children for the future in this country with all its challenges.

The hon member for Rissik can spin his child into the tightest cocoon possible but the realities of tomorrow will break that cocoon open and bring him face to face with reality. Whether his daughter was included in a group which went overseas or not, the fact remains they will have to make contact, and closer contact, with those people because we want to see this land progressing in peace. [Interjections.]

In my saying the credo should be “the portfolio of investment”, we should remember the hon the Minister announced that the amount would be increased to R10 000 million. This also places a responsibility on the shoulders of the business world and on those of the parent community as the private sector which also has to make an equal contribution in support of the State and this hon Minister in particular in his splendid future efforts. The State cannot bear this responsibility alone. The entire community is responsible for a financial contribution to enable the hon the Minister to realise this plan within the compass of 10 years. [Interjections.]

Order!

No, Mr Chairman, let them make a noise. [Interjections.]

I wish to continue my speech by putting the question: Where do we want to go with education and the child? I wish to add in passing that I think South African education is very thoroughly and well cared for thanks to the allocation of this House and Parliament. This applies to all components of education. The hon member for Johannesburg West said that for the first time we now had a central ministry for all education in our country as well as two chief directorates with respective functions under their control. We have advanced instruments at our disposal. There is light on the road ahead.

Where are we heading with the child? We want to develop the potential of each child to the maximum bestowed on him by his Creator …

Let them attend the same school!

Each child should have an interest in his right of existence in this country.

Yes! [Interjections.]

Order!

Every child, be he White, Black or Brown …

That is your new policy!

Order! Will the hon member for Langlaagte control himself. The hon member for Standerton may proceed. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

He does not take any notice of anybody.

Order! If the hon member for Langlaagte is not prepared to abide by the rulings of the Chair, he will compel me to take stronger action against him. The hon member for Standerton may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Every child in this country should feel that he has an interest in his own survival and that of his own people and that this interest is worth defending. No child who grows up to maturity here should feel he is a hireling; he should feel he has an interest somewhere—this is essential. Our methods of instruction and the provision of education should be directed at developing and utilising each child maximally. Only then can we build a country of which to be proud—the hon members sitting there as well—so that we may have the ability to generate and produce in the total industrial structure or whatever sector or terrain in this country. That is essential. [Interjections.]

Consequently I say to the hon member for Bryanston, who said we should instantly scrap all arrangements and open all doors, that that is no solution. The matter is not as simple as that so he should not create more tension.

Against that I also say to the hon member for Rissik that a totally rigoristic attitude just cannot apply here. While we are dealing with these important matters, they are arguing about trifles. [Interjections.]

In saying this, I wish to appeal to Black children to stop burning down their schools. They should cease attempting to solve problems by arson.

There is a vast source of goodwill we can utilise—still among Whites as well—to transfer expertise from this “lending” source to help the other sectors in education but then the possibility should be created for this.

We foresee dovetailing between different education departments by means of the instruments and the activities of this department. They will have the ability to arrange their affairs so that our children can help to work out a fine future in this country and to plan so that no limit is set for a child in the development of his abilities.

Should they all be able to become the State President?

These hon members have time for light and simple politics. [Interjections.] He should have the opportunity of striving to reach the maximum of his ability without a ceiling being placed over his head. Only when he has that awareness will we be able to obtain peace in this land.

Mr Chairman, I have in fact already expressed my appreciation—on a previous occasion when we were dealing with legislation—to the chairman of the standing committee and the Director-General and his staff. I do so again in view of the fact that it has been mentioned, and I would not like to be in default by omission as it were.

Some interesting points of view have been expressed here today and I would like to turn to them later. By way of introduction, however, I think it is important to note that the process we are involved in is a very long one. In fact, it is important to note that since the commissioning of the Human Sciences Research Council’s enquiry—known as the De Lange Commission—in June of 1980, and the submission of its report to the State President in 1982, legislation has followed in the form of the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act, which was passed by this House in 1984. More recently, of course, there has been the question of the constitutional application of the different educational departments. That already represents a period of six years, and the hon the Minister has told us this afternoon of a ten-year plan in order to achieve the goals set by that process of six years of planning and legislation. I venture to suggest that on the way to achieving those goals, we are going to be faced with considerable problems. In fact, one is running into them already.

I think that what the hon member for Bryanston had to say, has a great deal of merit, except that it is not even necessary to form another department at all. I do not know why the general affairs department of the hon the Minister does not simply allow the schools as outlined by the hon member for Bryanston to come into existence, leaving the schools under the own affairs department with a local option, something which the Government is using to an increasing extent during debates in these Houses. We heard it only a few days ago from the hon member for Innesdal. It is valid currency in all the journals and writings about political matters in the country today. The question of group areas is moving in that direction. The whispers going around are that local option is going to be the type of mechanism employed. If one uses that mechanism and people are allowed to live in mixed areas—in terms of our policy, this would always be with the proviso that mixed or open areas are built as well—then it is axiomatic that those people will have to have attendance at schools which have opted through their school committees for the right to admit whomsoever they may wish.

Right here in the Peninsula we had the situation this year when one of South Africa’s oldest and most famous schools opted for just that. The South African College School, SACS, opted for that, thereby providing the hon the Minister with the ideal opportunity.

I think that the circumstance complicates itself even more—and perhaps the hon the Minister would like to comment on this in his reply—in that the House of Representatives has exercised local option by indicating that they are to go ahead and open their schools. Surely we can pre-empt that unnecessary sort of conflict by doing something such as making accommodation within the structure of the Department of National Education for general affairs schools. One will then have the option that the hon member for Bryanston discussed, and one can still apply the aspect of local option under the own affairs education system when the various areas are sorted out.

Obviously it would follow axiomatically that each House would then have a local option and be able to deal with its educational matters as it saw fit. Why do we have this Teutonic obsession with uniformity when the NP itself likes to use such terminology as “strength in diversity”? We are a diverse nation, we have many cultures and we have many regional differences but we fail to accommodate them because we are too rigid and will not allow for communities to be brought into play to sort out conflicts on a local basis. They will be able to do so far better than the central Government can ever do. Communities working together are devoid of that feeling of suspicion.

You know, Sir, it is a great game to blame everything on Pretoria—it is so easy—but when one works at the community level, that is not on. People have to debate very clearly and make decisions by which they will have to stand and with which they will have to live. Therefore, when they make those decisions, they do so in respect of the composition of that community. They consider their neighbours, their relations with them and their ability to come to terms with them.

It appears to me that we really need a degree of flexibility in order to proceed and succeed with the 10 year plan which the hon the Minister announced today in this House, with the participation, contribution and enthusiasm of ail the race groups. Then I would say that the hon the Minister should indicate that a degree of flexibility will be permitted and is in fact desirable.

Do you think they will survive ten years?

No, you are quite right there but, of course, that is another matter and a separate debate entirely. [Interjections.]

I believe that we have definite opportunities in this respect. It is something which one sees at constitutional level. We admit that regions have different requirements and needs, as well as different natures, characteristics and different compositions of peoples, but then we stand back and do not do anything about it. When one looks at the process of planning in education, one sees that while all that beneficial activity has been going on, very little has actually been happening at the interface of society. In this respect I must perhaps correct myself by excluding the area of Black education in this regard where there has been a great deal of input and where much negotiation has been done by that department and by the hon Ministers concerned.

However, it does seem that if the Government can find a wrong way of doing things, then it will do it that way. [Interjections.] The hon member for Johannesburg West said that the hon member for Bryanston was sowing suspicion about the good intentions of the Government, but where on earth did that idea come from? The hon the Minister of Education and Culture interjected by asking where the hon member for Bryanston had got that from and said that it was untrue. The hon member for Bryanston said he would supply him with the information. It must have come from somewhere! Some bright spark must have thought it up, and it must be on paper.

Now, if people are going to get the idea that those are the Government’s intentions, namely that there is going to be an inverse application of subsidy based on how few people of colour are allowed in private schools, then any belief that one has in the beneficial and good intentions that the hon member for Johannesburg West mentioned is simply going to be wrecked. It is a terribly sensitive area, as has been mentioned over and over again this afternoon. That is why that sort of thing must never see the light of day. However, it has seen the light of day and it certainly does not come from any party other than the NP, or some branch of its organisation or administration.

There is no question that education is going to have to receive a great deal of attention and a sensitive and sympathetic approach. If one wants the sort of support and recognition that the hon member for Johannesburg West has mentioned for the Government’s good intentions and willingness to spend resources and its planning ahead to meet our demographic projections and matters of that nature, then one must hearken to the people’s wants. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should also like to refer to the announcement made here by the hon the Minister and I particularly want to thank him for it. I am sure the hon member for King William’s Town will excuse me for not taking him up on his argument. He put questions to the hon the Minister which I think he will reply to.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister for having issued this statement before the actual debate began. It helps us in this debate, because it is a point that was not cleared up last year in response to questions we put at the time. I want to thank the hon the Minister for that.

I should like to link up with what was said by some previous speakers who spoke about this announcement about the norms and standards for the financing of education. I want to express my thanks to the SACE and the UTAC—ie the South African Council for Education and the Universities and Technikons’ Advisory Council—firstly for the contribution they have made to this. Secondly I want to thank them for the sober logic with which they comprehend the necessity for reaching parity, in some or other way, as quickly as possible in this case—here I am referring to education.

The Government has committed itself to equal opportunities in education, and I think this is another step towards achieving this. I should also like to thank these two bodies for having agreed to the initial proposals the hon the Minister discussed with them. I think this indicates the necessity for the existence of bodies such as the SA Council for Education and the Universities and Technikons’ Advisory Council. This also points to the sense of responsibility with which these two bodies do the work for which they were established in terms of the legislation we debated in the House last year.

What is very important is that the hon the Minister placed this statement of his in the context of the determination of priorities in the overall pattern of State expenditure. I think that qualification should again be highlighted, I think we should again emphasise it, because when certain things in the economy happen, this will also have an influence on the hon the Minister’s statement. I should like to focus on one sentence from the hon the Minister’s statement and quote it:

I sincerely want to thank and congratulate the hon the Minister, the department and these two bodies, which he consulted, for having placed the matter within the context of the objectives that have to be achieved. When all is said and done we could probably achieve parity or equal opportunities in education this evening if we had all the money under the sun. I think that one of the greatest shortcomings—there are also other things such as teacher training, etc—is the shortage of money. So I am very glad the hon the Minister stated this very clearly here, and we should take note of it.

Finally, in connection with the hon the Minister’s statement, he lays down a period of ten years. And this is a period in which he says we shall endeavour to achieve as much as possible. We shall not, however, achieve everything in ten years. I want us to take note of the fact, even now, that it will not be possible to have complete equality within ten years. There are many reasons for that. One of the most important reasons involves the enormous task that is also set out in this statement, and that is the task involved in training teachers of colour at least to matric level plus three or four years of post-matric training. That is one of the most important aspects of equal education. We must get teachers to the point where all of us can make teachers of the same quality available to children or students.

I now want to go on, Mr Chairman, and make a few brief remarks about the HSRC. I very briefly want to discuss the HSRC today and make a few positive points in connection with that organisation. There are, of course, also negative points in connection with the HSRC. I do not, however, think it is necessary or essential to refer to them today. At this stage I just want to express my thanks to the hon the Minister of National Education for his contribution to the abolition of the surcharge on books. I know the hon the Minister has broached this matter on several occasions and I therefore want to thank him very sincerely for the fact that he and the hon the Minister of Finance reached that decision. It is a great pleasure for me to say this, in particular because we are discussing the National Education Vote here today—a vote incorporating universities as an own affair and, of course, also libraries and so on.

I should like to point out that the HSRC’s terms of reference are subdivided into four important branches, ie undertaking, promoting, supporting and co-ordinating human sciences research. The HSRC has added an additional element to its terms of reference, ie the determination of research priorities, ensuring the distribution of findings and the promotion, evaluation and implementation of research findings in the human sciences field. Particularly the latter aspect, that of the implementation of the available research findings in the human sciences field, is something that will have to be done on a much larger scale in this country. Much research is being done, and I get the impression that a large amount of that research merely ends up as so many volumes on library shelves. The hon member for Pretoria East will elaborate further on this point. He will also be discussing it in much more detail. I therefore do not want to go into it any further. I just want to point out that he will also be broaching the matter. This is also largely applicable to human sciences research.

I also want to express the hope that the HSRC, in particular, will be focussing attention on this important matter in the next few years.

The terms of reference, when seen as a task entrusted to the HSRC, is of enormous scope, also making very great demands. The demands are so great because during the past two or three years so many people have looked to the HSRC for research results, for the answers to certain questions and, in other respects, for the pinpointing of certain bottlenecks. I am thinking, for example, of the large numbers of reports. Some of them are more acceptable to certain people than to others, depending of course on their particular political standpoints. There have also been some of those reports which have, during the past twelve months, proved less acceptable to certain people.

There is, however, one point I should like to raise here, and that relates to the amount that has been allocated for the HSRC. The amount allocated for the HSRC this year is in the vicinity of R40 million. This includes approximately R8 million for research grants. Seen in the light of the many demands made on the Central Appropriation, that is not an adequate sum of money. I nevertheless want to express my thanks for the money being made available.

I should now also like to make an appeal to hon members. The hon member for Bryanston made an appeal—if I am not mistaken—for other bodies to co-operate, too, in the task of education. This also includes private bodies, if I am not mistaken. I also want to make a similar plea in regard to research tasks in the human sciences. I want to ask people outside those disciplines also to make money available to the HSRC for research into those matters that are important to them. The State cannot finance all human sciences research in this country. That is completely impossible. We do not have the necessary money. There are also too many fields in which research has to be done. That is why I am also asking the private sector— appealing to the private sector—to contribute towards the HSRC’s finances.

For example Sabra.

Mr Chairman, let me tell the hon member for Jeppe that since he represents the left wing of the Conservative Party, he and I understand each other very well. He must now keep quiet for a moment and give me a chance to say something too. I promise him that I shall not be shouting all kinds of things to him. I shall also keep perfectly quiet when he is speaking. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I also want to point out that we shall have to try to harness the brainpower of all those—and here I am including the members of all population groups in the country—who are prepared to help with this task. The days have passed when only Whites were in a position to do the research for everyone else. The problem of this country are far too complex, and I therefore also want to encourage the HSRC to go forth and stimulate interest in research, particularly amongst Black lecturers at Black universities, so that they do research about their own communities. In that respect they are, after all, still the best researchers. The best researchers in a specific community are, after all, those who are members of that community. We are grateful for the role the HSRC has played in this regard. I believe, however, that its future role in this regard is going to be a much greater one. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I cannot be present for the whole debate so I hope the hon the Minister will allow me to change the subject and direct a few remarks at sport which is my responsibility under his portfolio.

Firstly, I am on record wishing the organisers of and players in the All-Black tour well. I should, however, like to make three points to the hon the Minister. The first is that I think it is tragic that the policies which he and his Government have followed over the years have forced South African sports organisers—and, in fact, South African sport—into the situation where today the only tours that we can arrange are paid “rebel” tours. [Interjections.]

Secondly, I sincerely hope that the Government is not going to make matters worse by channelling money into this tour, either by way of direct grants or by way of substantial tax allowances. It is really quite extraordinary. We foul the thing up in the first place with our policies, and then we try to buy our way out of it afterwards. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, something else I would like to say—I am sure all the hon members in the House will agree with me on this—is that we all look forward to the day when we can welcome an All-Black team, an Australian team or Welsh team, inter alia, as teams fully representative of their own countries, instead of their finding some clandestine way of coming into the country. How we long for that day! We now have a complete generation of youngsters in South Africa who have no idea of the excitement of having an All-Black side or British Lions side in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I am sorry to say this, but I do not think we are going to see that day until such time as we have scrapped all apartheid and discrimination in this country.

And the NP! [Interjections.]

Yes, until the Nats have gone or have substantially changed. That will mean that we will not have silly debates such as the one we are having today in this House about own affairs education and that type of thing.

Hear, hear!

The next item I would like to address myself to is the Government policy statement on the provision of sport in South Africa. I refer now to the SANED report No 181 issued by this hon Minister. First of all we support the broad guidelines laid down by the Government in this statement, namely the establishment of an autonomous, representative sports body. This party has always called for it. In fact, my colleague, the hon member for Sandton, even tabled a Bill in this regard at one stage. I hope the sporting organisations will get together and look towards forming such a body. We also accept the Government’s decision to keep completely out of it.

I should like to caution the Government on one item, however; and that is the channelling of money to sport organisations through this representative body. South African politics being what it is right now, it is highly likely that there will be a lot of sports bodies which will decline to join or affiliate themselves with the umbrella body. Politics being what it is, too, these bodies will generally be bodies representing poorer sections of our community, for instance, Black sportsmen; and if we only channel money through this umbrella body we will of course be aggravating matters in sport. I therefore make an appeal to the hon the Minister to ensure that it is not only through this umbrella body that money will be channelled.

Thirdly, I should like to raise the issue of school sport once more. The Government neatly sidestepped this issue again in this report, saying that this is a matter for local government. This affair, however, now falls under the control of the central Government, and I believe it is now within the hon the Minister’s power to, at the very least, allow schools to start making their own decisions as to whom they will play sport with.

With all the problems we have in our country and all the prejudice there is of at least making a start and allowing the present generation of schoolchildren to start getting to know one another a little better and perhaps be a little less prejudiced than their parents’ generation.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South accused the Government of the fact that it was specifically the Government’s policy of apartheid which resulted in other countries not being able to send national sports teams to our shores.

It is true!

He knows, does he not, that the Government’s sports policy has developed to such an extent that today there is no longer any apartheid in sport.

Do the schoolchildren play football against each other?

Yes!

He knows, after all, that it is the world at large which specifically wants to use sport as an instrument against South Africa and applies unreasonable, double standards to us, as in many other cases, and he also knows that it is not a question of sport or apartheid in sport.

When one pages through the annals of history, one sees an interesting phenomenon, and that is that time and again the opposition parties make politics of a new subject so as to get at the Government and its policy.

Many years ago sport was specifically the subject that was chosen for this purpose. When one looks at the debates and the burning issues in South Africa today, it is remarkable to see that politics in sport as a political football has disappeared. It now seems to me as if education is being dragged in as a point of dispute in political debates.

It is ironic that it was specifically the sports policy which, at the time, persuaded the first small group of right-wing supporters to break away from the NP. It is interesting that the spectres conjured up at the time about the so-called multiracial playing of sport did not, when all was said and done, materialise.

In the few minutes available to me today I want to try to indicate how the scare-mongering stories told to the electorate at the time did not come true. It is very interesting to page through the debates and newspaper reports of those years and see what rediculous arguments were used by the then small group of far right-wing supporters who broke away. I am now referring to the party of the hon member for Sasolburg. Let me give the committee a single example. I shall quote a small portion of an interview with that hon member’s leader at the time. It was reported in Die Transvaler of 26 September 1969:

Surely that is blatant pigmentocracy. Those people have gone beyond racism. They are pigmentocrats—people must appear to be White, and that is good enough. [Interjections.]

At the time the late Dr Albert Hertzog, in a debate in this House of Assembly in 1970, referred to the NP as the strongest party South Africa had ever known, the party that could withstand the greatest onslaughts or threats. Dr Hertzog then asked where the NP stood. He described it as a rag-tag party with thousands of its most loyal supporters leaving it in droves.

Time has shown that this did not come to pass. After all, from 1970 to the present day the NP has gone from strength to strength. [Interjections.] What Dr Hertzog apparently had in mind when he spoke of droves of people still moving away was that at the time there were still HNP-orientated NP members left in the NP. That was proved at a later stage when the hon CP members broke away.

It was my privilege, in the early seventies, to have been private secretary to the then Minister of Sport, Dr Koornhof. I can attest to the problems he had with the hon members to whom Dr Hertzog referred, ie the HNP-orientated members who remained in the NP. It would perhaps have been better for South Africa if all the far right-wing elements had broken away at the time and had not remained in the NP to place difficulties in the way of any progress. [Interjections.] I think that one can say that today the CP is nothing more than “new” HNP. [Interjections.]

Today I should like to thank Dr Koornhof and pay tribute to him. He played a major role in the formulation of the Government’s policy relating to the eventual normalisation of sport in this country to the point where we find ourselves today, that of sport being completely normalised. I think we can rightly say today that South Africa is an example to many other governments in the world, illustrating that politics and sport should not be mixed or that sport should not become a political punitive instrument.

We have seen the results of the Government’s sports policy. Apart from the fact that other governments try to impose a sports boycott on South Africa, the truth is that we still play international sport. International sportsmen and sportswomen come to our country. Last year we had the cricket tour. The South African Games are in progress at the moment, with 5 000 participants and 20 foreign sports teams. This proves that boycotts—it makes no difference what the nature of the boycott is—do not succeed.

Today I should like to pay tribute to the sportsmen, sportswomen and sports administrators in South Africa who, in spite of the boycotts and the difficult times they have been facing …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member? [Interjections.]

No, my time is unfortunately very limited.

In spite of the sports boycotts, in this country we have sportsmen and sportswomen achieving world-class standards. Just think of the past few weeks in which there have been world-class achievements in athletics.

Just as the far right-wing elements conjured up spectres at the time about the dangers inherent in mixed sport—this having been proved to have been false—so shall the spectres being conjured up today about other matters also be proved by time to have been mere figments of the imagination. I think we can rightly say that much.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to spend a great deal of time on the hon member Mr S J Schoeman’s speech, but I just want to tell his this: In spite of the fact that the NP has totally integrated sport, today we are still so isolated in South Africa because it was not a question of sport at all, but rather one of politics, specifically aimed at bringing the NP to the point where it relinquished and integrated its Parliament. Sport was merely the means to an end.

I want to come back to the debate on education. Today I finally want to tell the Official Opposition that now and in the future the CP rejects and will reject any idea or any form of one education department for all the population groups in South Africa. That is why the CP not only has problem with the Department of National Education in its present guise, as a general department, but also finds it unacceptable. I want to say why this is our standpoint.

The hon the Minister entrusted with this department must, in terms of the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act, 1984, determine general education policy for all the formal, informal and the non-formal categories of education when it comes to specific matters. One, which the hon Minister broached in his statement this afternoon, is that of setting norms and standards for the financing of both the capital and current costs of education. In other words, White education is dependent, in the first instance, on what the hon the Minister of National Education is prepared to do or sees his way clear to doing in terms of his policy.

I know it is stated that he confers with the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the Minister’s Council, but when all is said and done, it is a matter of the policy that the hon the Minister of National Education tenders for financing. This does not only apply to the Whites, but also to the Coloureds and Indians. It is also said that it is not really a matter of equal opportunities in education, but also a matter of equal standards in education.

That is my first problem. The hon the Minister has repeatedly given us the assurance that the standard of White education would never be tampered with in the sense of the standard being lowered. The standard would ostensibly rather be increased. A ten-year plan is now being announced. Does the hon the Minister think this country is able to provide sufficient funds for the other education departments to be brought to the same financial level as that prevailing with present-day standards in White education, without the standard of White education being adversely affected in the process because of the curtailment of those finances made available to increase its standard? Does this mean, by implication, that as far as finances are concerned, standards in White education must, as it were, stagnate in order to give others an opportunity to reach an equal level and achieve equal standards? That is a problem as far as we are concerned.

That is why we believe that the policy in regard to the financing of the capital and running costs for White education—the Whites are, after all, the ones we represent in this House of Assembly—should be planned by our own Department of Education and Culture. That department must determine that policy, but it must not be forced upon them from above and they must not feel bound by a policy laid down by the hon the Minister.

There is, however, a second related matter I want to touch upon, and that is the question of teachers. As far as the salaries, the conditions of service and the professional registration of teachers are concerned, section 2 of the National Education Policy Act expressly provides for the Minister to determine the overall policy in this connection. There is no mention whatsoever of his determining norms and standards. In terms of this Act, the Department of Education and Culture (Own Affairs) has no say in this. It has no say in the salary scales and conditions of service of its staff, because the Act places the determination of policy in connection with such conditions of service in the hands of this hon Minister. It is only right, as far as the salaries, conditions of service and registration of its teachers are concerned, for the White education department to have the right to determine policy for itself. It must not be prescribed to from above by a general department entrusted with introducing equal standards and equal treatment in this connection. White education should be free to determine its own policy and follow that policy as it sees fit.

Education derives from the culture of a specific people. That is why one expects the education of a specific population group, having its own education department, to be rooted in that population group, but now an extraneous body, on which Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks serve, determines the salary scales, the conditions of service and the requirements for registration of its people’s teachers.

In the third instance it is also stated that the norms and standards of the syllabus that is employed, together with the examination and certification of candidates, should form part of the overall policy determined by the hon the Minister. This is not determined by the own departments, and I think it is completely wrong for the White Education department not to have the right to draw up its own policy for syllabusses and implement this saying: “That is how I want things done—I want examinations conducted in this way and certification to be dealt with in this way.” Now, however, a policy is prescribed which has to be complied with. When we debated this legislation at the time, the hon the Minister’s predecessor said it was essential because we all had to compete on an equal footing in the market place. Let me tell hon members, however, that it is not true that we obtain equal matriculation certificates. If a White child has steadily worked through his syllabus throughout the year without boycotts, without stone-throwing and without setting schools alight and has written his examination, I want to see how he is going to obtain a certificate of equal or lesser value than those who, for long periods of the year, did not do their work, were not at school, took part in stone-throwing, committed arson and, what is more, when schools were to commence this year, decided by way of another outside body, to commence their schooling 20 days later.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Development Aid says: “Oh, how lovely that these people want to give us such wonderful co-operation.” [Interjections.] Would the hon member for Johannesburg West not like to keep quiet, because he does not know what this is all about. [Interjections.] Would the hon the Minister please tell me whether, in his policy of providing finances and in his determination of norms and standards, he also makes provision for the requirements of education departments controlling schools in which children burn down their facilities, thus enabling those facilities to be rebuilt. Does he also make provision for that?

My time is running out, but I also want to refer quickly to the HSRC. The HSRC has done commendable work in the past. It has done fantastic research and is again being given R8 million for research this year. I object to the fact that although the HSRC brought out a report in which it stated that it had tested people’s opinions about abolishing or retaining certain apartheid legislation, and that although the evidence collected indicated that the overall majority of the Whites were in favour of retaining that legislation, that report was suddenly ignored. Another report on ethnic relations is published … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Koedoespoort says the hon member for Johannesburg West must keep quiet because he does not know what this is all about. If that is the criterion, the hon member for Koedoespoort should not have been given the floor at all. [Interjections.] The hon member put certain questions to the hon the Minister. I am convinced of the fact that the hon the Minister will be replying to him on that issue.

To be able to make anything like a meaningful contribution to a discussion of the more than 200 museums that we have in the RSA, it is necessary for us to be clear in our own minds about exactly what a museum is. In order to do so, we must inevitably determine what the definition of a museum is and what its aims and functions are, as entrenched and given substance throughout the years. In his book, Principles of Museum Administration, G Brown Goode stated in 1985:

In his book, Administrasie van Museums in die RSA, Dr Hannes Oberholzer states:

During the tenth annual meeting of UNESCO’s International Commission on Museums the following definition of a museum was accepted:

Let us now listen to the formulation of the aims and functions of a museum by the venerable Minister of National Education, Senator Jan de Klerk, father of the present hon Minister of National Education, which gave this definition on 4 March 1969 during the introduction of the Cultural Institutions Bill (Hansard, col 1840):

I have quoted at length and I think it is very clear and irrefutably true that a museum is, by definition, an educational institution. I also want to contend that it should not be typified as such merely by definition, but every museum worth its salt should indicate in practice that in its aims and functions it is nothing short of an educational institution. This being so, I should like to associate myself with representations already made by the hon member for Hillbrow about this issue. I advocate that donations to museums, regardless of the nature of such donations, should qualify for tax concessions, as in the case of universities, colleges and technikons.

Because museums do not share in these tax concessions as far as donations are concerned, certain major donations of museum articles and properties have been made to South African universities in recent years.

Firstly a collection of African works of art was donated to the University of the Witwatersrand. Secondly the Van Tilburg collection, consisting of hundreds of items of Chinese porcelain, furniture and painting, was donated to the University of Pretoria by a businessman. Thirdly there is the Van Wouw dwelling donated by Dr Anton Rupert to the University of Pretoria in 1974, a dwelling containing valuable objets d’art and objects of cultural-historic importance. Fourthly there is the Liesel Katz bequest of paintings and drawings to the University of the Orange Free State. Fifthly there is the dwelling of Dr J B M Hertzog in Bloemfontein, purchased by Dr Anton Rupert and donated to the University of the Orange Free State.

In connection with such donations to universities, I cannot put the matter more succinctly than Dr Hannes Oberholzer who stated:

A further question in connection with these donations to universities is: To what extent are these collections reasonably easily excessible to the man in the street or the tourist so that they can be viewed?

Dr Ludwig of Germany expressed this so beautifully when he gave his collection of art works to the museum in Cologne:

The works of art:

It is important to remember that museums are one of the biggest tourist attractions, particularly for foreign tourists in South Africa. As much as 80% to 90% of all foreign tourist always have museums on their sightseeing agenda.

I very briefly want to say something about our museums in general. Firstly museums lack any proper co-ordination of their activities. A lack of time prevents me from elaborating on this, but it is a generally accepted fact that the proper co-ordination of activities has become an urgent necessity. This also includes co-ordination in the training of staff and so on, but not merely between museums. The co-ordination of activities between museums and other institutions concerned with preserving certain objects, for example archives and libraries, is equally essential.

Secondly the buildings, the storage and preservation facilities of our museums leave a very great deal to be desired. I want to advocate that museum boards be granted the authorisation, subject to ministerial approval, to negotiate loans with a view to combating accommodation problems.

Thirdly, since 1950 two commissions and two committees have been appointed to make recommendations in connection with our museums. From the recommendations of these commissions and committees, the last having been the Niemand Commission in 1975, very little was forthcoming. Not a single White Paper was ever issued on the strength of this investigation.

If it is not already too late, I want to ask that recommendations of the Niemand Commission be taken down from the shelf and that a White Paper on that report be published. If that is going too far back into the past, let me advocate that a new commission be appointed to investigate all aspects of our museums.

I conclude by expressing my utmost appreciation to all officials in our museum service who furnish excellent service, at times under the most difficult of circumstances. I include those in the furthest reaches of our country where the local museums are built up with love and dedication.

Mr Chairman, it is not my intention to follow the hon member for Kimberley North in his discussion of museums, except to note that we are extremely thankful that Dr Verwoerd’s apartheid education policy is now consigned to a museum and, hopefully in the very near future, the apartheid education system of separate or own affairs will also be in a museum. [Interjections.]

On a more serious note, last Tuesday, on 8 April, a group of children were fired on by the police as they protested against the unequal education they were receiving. They were short of books and stationery that they had been promised. [Interjections.] One was killed and seven were injured. The girl who died was 11 …

Order! I do not think that aspect falls under this Vote.

Mr Chairman, I submit with respect that it does. [Interjections.] What the hon member is saying is certainly connected with education.

The hon member for Pinetown may proceed.

Those who were injured were between seven and twelve years old and were mostly girls. They were Black. I do not believe that this hon Minister, his department or any other department of this Government wants those things to continue.

The point I want to make is that the memory of the dead and of those who were injured will be long. Very often in this House and elsewhere we hear of the concentration camp children. I have a deep sympathy with those who died in the Second War of Independence. I have an ancestor who was deeply involved with Emily Hobhouse’s organisation of the efforts in that war. However, it takes no prophet to say that the killing of that little girl last week, and of others, will be the history that will be taught in the schools of South Africa in years to come. [Interjections.] Furthermore, it will be the damning of apartheid education. I want to say to this hon Minister that he does not have ten years to implement his 10 year plan. He does not have it at all!

I wish to offer my best wishes to the departmental officials on their hard work this past year. To Dr Roe Venter in particular I should like to express a personal word of thanks for all the assistance he has given me in sorting out various matters, particularly in relation to the standing committee. My best wishes also go beyond head office to include all the officials and employees of the many cultural, sporting and other bodies financially linked to this department which carry out educational, cultural and other activities in South Africa.

The Government—and this hon Minister in particular—has been extraordinarily slow in coming forward with a funding formula for education. In February last year I asked the hon the Minister about this and was told:

In September last year the hon the Minister announced that the draft norms had already been designed but that they still had to go before the South African Council of Education. From the Minister’s own report which we received only on Monday—as has been pointed out—I note the following:

The reason why I have quoted this is because I wish to point out the disparity in existing funding in areas outside teachers’ salaries which, as the hon the Minister well knows, is caused mainly by qualification disparity. In 1984-85 the four White provincial education departments spent some R40 million on school furniture, school equipment and office machinery—R40 million! In that same year the Department of Education and Training spent just under R4 million on those same areas!

The point I want to make—there are other points as well—is that these are the areas where parity can be reached very, very soon if not immediately. There is no reason not to have parity. In 1984-85 the Department of Education and Training spent R10 million on school textbooks. In the Cape Province alone, which is not the largest province, some R5 million was spent on textbooks. [Interjections.] The figures are correct, by the way.

There are fewer Whites than Blacks. How is this disparity still occurring? There has to be equal spending. The small children of Lamontville do not have to be killed because they do not have books, stationery or enough teachers. We simply have more money to get that parity as soon as possible.

Lamontville is a Black area between an Indian and a White area. Do those school-children know what is happening in the other schools? Of course they do. This Government has agreed to move to pursue equal educational opportunities, including equal education standards for every inhabitant in the Republic of South Africa, irrespective of race, colour, creed or sex, and every year we are going to repeat that, because we are going to hold them to it. The Government, we believe, must move as rapidly as possible to put that into practice.

I would now like to say a word or two about the hon the Minister’s announcement. We are obviously pleased to hear that the Government has at last accepted the concept of an educational timetable. We heard this concept of a timetable in another area mentioned earlier this year, and by 1 July, we understand, influx control and passes will be gone. We shall hold the State President to that. Now we hear of a ten year plan, but with a warning contained in the last paragraph—that even then the object of equal educational opportunities will at that stage not have been fully achieved. That is in 1996. All I want to say is that I hope that the “substantial and spectacular progress” that the hon the Minister refers to will occur. I hope it will occur. However, ten years is far too long, far too long.

Let us sell the truth, if truth it be, and I join here with the hon member for Johannesburg West who is the chairman of the standing committee. I cannot condemn too strongly—and I wish to say this to the CP who were shouting at me just now—the senseless burning of books and stationery. However, what does it actually tell us? It says: “You, the Government, we do not believe you. Your general policy is simply not seen to be true.” That is the perception. I have already suggested to the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Development Aid and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture that they appear on television together with a pile of stationery before them, and demonstrate that the stationery received by the White child and the stationery received by the Black child is the same. Appear on television and show South Africa. I hope they can do it. I hope it is the same. Then at least one will physically demonstrate the absolute equality of what is received. Shame our disbelieving critics. Shame them outside. [Interjections.] That has to happen.

I would also like to say to the hon the Minister that the 4,1% growth rate in education spending is further to be noted. Here again, however, I trust that the hon the Minister will not link it too closely to growth in the economy, because educational economists know that education spending per se has a generative effect on the South African economy. For every rand spent on education more rand will be generated in the economy in years to come. The spending on education needs to be made in spite of the economy. It must not just be linked to it.

Earlier this year the South West Africa interim Government accepted the major recommendations contained in the report of the education committee. In terms of these South West Africa/Namibia should have a single ministry of education to exercise centralised control over all education in South West Africa/Namibia, with non-racial subregions and no entry to schools restricted on the basis of race or colour. At least there, Mr Chairman, this year they have recognised that the concept of racial own affairs in education is as dead as a dodo, and that it has here to be as dead as a dodo in the immediate future. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinetown referred to the disparity existing in education. We on this side of the House are as concerned about the disparity in education. That is why we welcome this very important statement the hon the Minister made here today with a view to resolving the situation. We also look forward to the full implementation of the ten-year plan, as the hon the Minister presented it to us in his statement.

Frequently we have had to listen to the argument from the CP, amongst others, about the existence of the Department of National Education causing education as an own affairs to become irrelevant and no longer having a right to exist. The hon member for Koedoespoort referred to that again a short while ago, saying he did not find the Department of National Education acceptable.

Because the Department of National Education addressed more general affairs relating to education, it would adversely effect the own affairs character of White education to such an extent that it would no longer be acceptable to the CP.

What is this department’s task? What does this department strive to achieve? The Department of National Education strives to promote education, science and sport in general. The aims of the department, as set out in the Estimate of Expenditure, are as follows, and I quote:

It was therefore necessary for the department to be structured in such a way that it could meet this aim—the aim set out in the Estimate of Expenditure. Firstly there is— and I just want to refer to the respective facets—the Directorate: Administration which is responsible for general administration. Secondly there is the National Education Policy Branch which must, broadly speaking, support the Minister in the determination of a national education policy by conducting investigations and research and making submissions about the norms and standards for the financing of the current and capital costs of education for all population groups. I emphasise the fact that this relates to education for all population groups. Would there be anyone in this House today, Sir, who would want to argue that norms and standards should, for example, only be determined for the Whites? Because a department aims at laying down norms and standards for financing for all groups in South Africa, it is argued that the Whites are being left in the lurch.

What is more, the relevant section has to handle the norms and standards for staff salaries and conditions of service, for the professional registration of teachers and for syllabuses and the certification of qualifications. In this branch there are three chief directorates. The first is the Chief Directorate: Educational Programmes. In the educational set-up there are separate levels or systems of education. I am only referring to a few, amongst others the preprimary level, the primary level, the secondary level and the postsecondary level.

It surely goes without saying that there is an interaction between the various educational systems of the RSA and those of other countries. Out education surely cannot be presented in complete isolation. A sound interaction between the educational systems of the RSA and those of countries abroad remains a necessity, and this directorate is responsible for that.

The second is the Chief Directorate: Educational Resources. This directorate investigates the policy applicable to salaries and conditions of service, not only for the Whites, but for all educationists in South Africa. I am referring, for example, to the policy pertaining to subsidy formulas, which is something that is not meant for only one group in South Africa, but for all groups. This directorate also investigates norms and standards for the establishment of fixed assets, particularly buildings.

Again I ask whether it is wrong for such investigations to be carried out, by specific sections of the Department of National Educations, into education in its entirety in South Africa. Is it wrong for education in its entirety in South Africa to be subjected to these investigations?

The third directorate is responsible for administrative auxiliary services, carrying out as it does the secretarial work for the investigatory bodies.

Another leg or section of the department is that of sport and recreation promotion. So the department is not merely engaged in education, but also in sport and recreation. This section of the department is responsible for working out policy proposals on matters pertaining to sport and recreation for the hon the Minister. The department also renders assistance to bodies responsible for sport and recreation in the RSA.

The truth of the matter is that sport and recreation constitute a need felt by all the inhabitants of South Africa. So a general department is necessary to deal with that. International liaison—the hon member Mr S J Schoeman referred to this a short while ago in his speech—remains a very important consideration. Then I should also like to take this opportunity of congratulating the organisers of the SA Games on the presentation of those games and on the success they achieved in attracting foreign participants to South Africa. In this connection there are eleven regional offices and an overseas office to assist in furnishing this service at regional level.

The fourth section is the Chief Directorate: Culture and Professional Auxiliary Services which consists of six branches. The first is the Subdirectorate: Culture, which is responsible for the preservation, development and promotion of culture. It is assisted by its eight foreign offices. This subdirectorate also acts as a department liaising with the museums, the library and the National Zoological Gardens in Pretoria. This section is also the link with the National Monuments Council, the HSRC, the Council for Scientific Publications and the Africa Institute of South Africa.

Also under this section we have the Directorate: Government Archives and Heraldic Service and the Directorate: Government Language Service I cannot refer to each of these services now; I am merely mentioning them—and there is also the National Technical-Terminology Service, the Public Service Library Service and the Computer Service.

The fifth directorate is the Directorate: Science Planning which acts in a co-ordinating capacity for all bodies responsible for research.

That is briefly the task of the Department of National Education. I could not do justice to the respective chief directorates. May I just take this opportunity of expressing my thanks and appreciations to each of these directorates for such an efficient and excellent service to South Africa.

What I am trying to indicate is how necessary it is to have a department that has to determine overall policy in regard to what is valuable to the existence of all peoples and countries, ie its education and culture. Our best wishes therefore go to this department, and also to the hon the Minister, for the very important task they have to perform.

Mr Chairman, in thanking the hon the Minister of National Education for the wonderful work he has done during the past year, and in particular in 1986 in connection with the co-ordination of the various education departments, acting as he does as Chairman of the Education Ministries, I should like to associate myself with the constructive speech made by the hon member for Gezina. I also thank the hon the Minister for the way in which he negotiated for the better remuneration package that teachers finally received in the course of this difficult year.

I also specifically thank the Director-General of National Education, whom we came to know in the standing committee as someone who is making a very sturdy contribution to education in South Africa, giving it his very special attention. The Director-General also deals with the question of White teachers in a responsible and endearing fashion and I want to apologise to him for the distorted accusation levelled at him by the hon member for Koedoespoort, charging him with supposedly neglecting or trampling the Whites underfoot in an effort to help people of colour. [Interjections.]

It is very interesting that throughout the world the question of examinations and the drawing up with curriculums is receiving attention. It is interesting, in the West German educational system, to see that a new standpoint has been adopted, that of the “paadagogische Freiraum”. They realise that if we do not take a very serious look at this matter, we could very easily fall prey to intellectual monstrosities. They say we should take a serious look at the question of education and that when doing our education planning, we should keep the feelings of the child in mind. They point out that all children—this links up with the sublimity of the story of Creation—have received the same abilities from their Creator. So provision should also be made for the differentiated provision of education, and this applies also to the intellectual level at which it is presented.

Then they also point out in their “Freiraum” concept—I cannot see why South Africa alone is singled out for their condemnation as far as that is concerned—that the power of education lies specifically in its differentiated presentation and that various bodies in the same country can advocate various methods of presentation with differing content. Checking up on levels of comprehension, as prescribed by this department, should be done somewhere in the curriculum and also by the various bodies presenting the relevant subject.

It is interesting to note that these people also point out that 15% of an educational curriculum should be set aside for so-called “non-formal educational activities”. As far as the non-formal educational activities are concerned, they distinguish between extramural activities such as participation in sport, debates, choir work and youth movements, and intramural activities which in our country include religious instruction, physical education, classroom music, art, youth preparedness and vocational guidance.

Looking at this 15% we see that we are on the right track. In looking at the diverse population groups in South Africa, we also see that we are on the right track. As far as this 15% is concerned, teachers play a role in conveying the values of the communities they serve. As far as that is concerned, various communities bring various values into the school context. As a result of this 15% of non-formal education, the non-examination subjects, we can radically disagree with each other without feeling that we have an inferior type of education. As far as this 15% is concerned, there could indeed be far-reaching disagreement. We can nevertheless responsibly pursue the absolute ideal of the educational material of the parental home.

We could also approach this question from a different angle. The overall majority of the inhabitants of our country stood before a pulpit where a certain formulary was read out. We had to answer the question: “Do you promise that you will instruct this little one in this doctrine and have him instructed in this doctrine?” A parent’s little treasure is then entrusted to a teacher for six hours a day for the post-primary education given to him in an educational institution. It is very important for the milieu of the parental home to be perpetuated in the classroom so that the community for which the child is being groomed does not, in the long run, have to contend with an individual who is confused in his own mind.

From this point of view, the teacher is a substitute for the parents when it comes to conveying a set of specific values. This set of values, entrenched in the emotional life of the child, is eventually the source from which the child will be shaped intellectually. If one does not entrench in the child obedience, loyalty and the other values essential to his intellectual education, he cannot eventually reach the academic standards necessary to successful living.

I should like to come back to my first argument. If these two aspects do not develop jointly in the child we could distort his personality and give birth to an intellectual monstrosity in this rapidly developing technological world of ours. In this way we could kill the child’s spirit. On the other hand, if we place too much emphasis on these sentimental aspects, without honing the child’s intellect and without drawing a distinction between the diversity of capabilities in the classroom, we could reach the point where education was neglected and the child was not being prepared for the developing world into which he will eventually be sent.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister, who has been faced with the choice, at this time, of the direction in which education should develop in South Africa, for his decision to retain the 1910 model. On this basis our provincial educational administrations and our provincially-based executive system of education are being retained, with educational matters decentralised on a regional basis. We want to improve the education of all the various peoples and I thank the hon the Minister for his announcement.

In White education in the late sixties we had a major problem in obtaining sufficient teachers for specific subjects in regard to which there were shortages. We quickly had to train teachers for subjects for which they had not had a satisfactory standard of training.

Today in the education of Coloureds we have fallen prey to large backlogs in subjects in which there are shortfalls. I think we should make use of the services of the South African Teachers’ Council and other bodies to help the other population groups. We must see how we can assist with professional guidance in interpreting a curriculum, in the classification of classroom units and the classification of content packages for various subjects. We could thereby help them to overcome these backlogs more quickly. I think it is essential for us to make our expertise and experience available in a really meaningful manner, when it is required at a professional level, so that these backlogs can be eliminated.

I want to thank this department for what has been done in our education and wish the department everything of the best for the future.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to speak on those aspects to which the hon member for Brentwood referred. I wish to concentrate on some of the matters raised by the hon the Minister in his statement this afternoon.

I would like to say at the outset that one of the problems the Government has had in this regard is that it has moved at the pace of a snail. It has taken too long to get as far as the announcement the hon Minister made this afternoon, and the ten-year plan that is being talked about is just not going to be good enough. The very first sentence of the announcement is not, in fact, entirely factually correct in a broader sense. He says:

In isolation that is factually correct. However, the hon the Minister will know that it was actually in October 1981, in the Interim Memorandum published by the Government, that it committed itself to equal educational opportunities. It is not merely one and a half or two years since the Government made that commitment, but rather nearly five years.

After mentioning the objective of equal educational opportunities, the hon the Minister continues as follows:

I would like to take up the question of norms. The 1984 Act to which the hon the Minister referred, empowered him to determine general policy in respect of “norms and standards for the financing of running and capital costs of education for all population groups”. Particularly in respect of capital costs, I would like to ask the hon the Minister if he has done so. Has he as yet set norms and standards in that respect? I hope he will tell us because, if not, I would like to know why not.

In the 1983 White Paper on the Provision of Education in the RSA, the following is stated:

The White Paper then gives the relevant provisions of the Constitution. The White Paper continues as follows:

They had been accepted at that stage:

I would like to stress the last sentence. It was said in November 1983 that significant progress had been made. However, what is the situation in 1986? Let us look at Black teacher training colleges. New buildings for six colleges are planned to be completed over the next three years. The total cost will be R42 million and the number of students that can be accommodated will be 3 960. The average capital cost per student place will therefore be R10 606.

New buildings for only one White teacher training college are planned for the next three years, namely the Pretoria College of Education, or Normaalkollege. The total cost is R85 million, the total number of students is 2 200 and the average capital cost per student place is R38 636.

Once again, there is every indication that the Government is only paying lip service to its professed policies of equal education opportunities. How can the hon the Minister justify nearly four times as much being spent per student on White teacher training college facilities as compared with colleges for Black students? I accept that the cost of land will vary considerably in different places, but I would be most surprised if that alone accounted for the massive differences. In this regard I do not think that sports fields should be considered as essential in expensive areas.

The hon the Minister owes this House a detailed explanation of what is happening with regard to these norms and standards. Is he enforcing the policy set out in the White Paper and the Act, or are the Government treating these as public relations documents drawn up to impress the international community and to be ignored in practice?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens must excuse me if I do not react to his speech, because I want to touch upon another subject in the short time at my disposal. I should like to raise a few matters relating to the Department of National Education’s responsibility in regard to science planning.

Speakers on this subject normally begin by saying that in South Africa—expressed as a percentage of the GDP—too little money is set aside for research and development and that this is too little in comparison with the expenditure in the foremost industrial countries. That statement is debatable, because we are not a fully industrialised First-World country. Moreover, we must take decisions in the light of our specific circumstances, our specific priorities and our country’s capabilities.

I want to begin by referring to the initial strides taken, after the First World War, in formulating a scientific policy. General Smuts was a member of the British War Cabinet and developed a great admiration for German technological capability. This capability was the result of an interesting interaction between the State, the universities, industry and the then Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft in Germany. General Smuts then had Dr van der Bijl recalled from the USA, instructing him in 1919, amongst other things, to devise a research set-up for South Africa with a view to increasing the country’s technological potential.

In 1921 Dr van der Bijl published a report recommending, amongst other things, that State funds be employed for the promotion of industrial development and that a State research institute be established. Dr van der Bijl’s views on research and industrial development can be summed up in a few words, ie that this country’s products be mined and processed before being exported.

We are now in 1986, 65 years later. Many of Dr Hendrik van der Bijl’s ideals have been realised. He played a major role in the establishment of Escom, the IDC and later the establishment of Iscor, etc. But today the situation in South Africa is such that 80% of our export goods consist of raw materials, whilst 70% of our imported goods are manufactured products.

We find that under these circumstances there is a lively debate amongst members of the scientific and engineering communities in South Africa about our research and development policy.

I should like to highlight certain aspects of the debate and ask the hon the Minister and his department to give these aspects their attention. The first issue or subject of debate involves the emphasis given to basic as opposed to development-orientated research in South Africa.

As far as basic research is concerned, the results or output are normally measurable on the basis of articles appearing in international professional journals. On the other hand the results of applied or development-orientated research are successful in practice—a new process, increased throughout, increased production, higher returns, an efficient system, etc. Basic research normally develops around a strong individual. Applied research is normally conducted by a team of people as part of a larger project.

The question is whether we in South Africa do not place too much emphasis on basic research; in other words, whether we do not try to produce Nobel Prize Winners, whilst in reality we should place our emphasis on refining our raw materials, the development of our industries and job creation.

The second point of debate I want to touch upon concerns whether the CSIR is not pre-eminently a suitable scientific research organisation, but with great shortcomings when it comes to industrial research. One could mention successful industrial research laboratories in our country. There is, for example, the very successful and famous laboratory of the Chamber of Mines, Mintek in Johannesburg, Onderstepoort and the Laboratory for Advanced Engineering at the University of Pretoria. They all have one thing in common, and that is that they work in very close co-operation with the bodies that have to implement their research results.

According to the CSIR’s 1984 annual report the parliamentary allocation to the CSIR constituted 70,1% of its total revenue. To this still has to be added transfer payments from other departments. It therefore appears as if the CSIR must have very meagre ties with industry.

The question that is now being put in the debate is whether the CSIR should not be placed in a position in which the State’s contribution—whatever its nature, whether from Parliament or from other State departments—is a steadily decreasing percentage of its total revenue. That would hopefully put the CSIR in the position of having to do more industrially orientated research.

A third point of debate is concerned with whether we in this country can afford to have the State vote money for research not directly related to matters such as the mining and refining of minerals, the establishment of industries and job creation.

Fourthly I want to ask whether the CSIR, which itself absorbs a large portion of the State’s research and development funds, and competes directly for funds with many university laboratories, is a suitable or competent body when it comes to evaluating the research output and funding the research of university staff. After all, the CSIR is in direct competition with them for these funds.

I want to conclude by making two remarks.

The first is that we in South Africa should be very discerning in our assessment of research output. There are very successful researchers in this country who, in the course of their careers, did not have much interest in publishing in international professional journals. Their monuments in this country are those relating to our independence in the sphere of armaments, our uranium enrichment process and our world leadership in many mining fields. Those are the monuments of people who preferred to do something concrete rather than wanting to publish.

The second remark related to the fact that we have reached the point where we shall have to reflect on the role of universities in South Africa; on whether universities should not play a much greater role in research.

Mr Chairman, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to all hon members who have taken part in this debate. With a few exceptions we succeeded in maintaining the standard of the debate at a high level. Occasionally we had a somewhat bumpy ride and departed from the golden rule that during discussions of the debate we confine ourselves to the essence of the specific subject. That is no reflection on the Chair, but now and then some of us wanted to deviate somewhat to hard, practical party politics. I do not intend allowing myself to be tempted in this way this afternoon since I have a great deal to say about national education and about what is happening within this department. In the time at my disposal I shall try to reply to all arguments advanced by hon members in this regard.

To begin with I also wish to convey my sincere thanks to the chairman and members of the standing committee for the hard work they have done in regard to legislation thus far. It is still the firm intention—this is my hope and expectation—that rapid progress will now be made in disposing of the legislation which is still before the standing committee so that we can finalise this crucially important legislation during this session so as to proceed with and ensure those important, essential institutions which are necessary for the implementation of a coordinated education policy.

To begin with I should like to react to hon members on this side of the Committee, each of whom made a constructive contribution with regard to the activities of this department. I want to thank the hon member for Johannesburg West for his treatment of the issue of the legislation and the implementation of the White Paper.

Listening to the hon members of the opposition one would say that nothing has happened in this department over the past number of years. However there is such a long list of what has already been achieved in a relatively short period by a newly established department with a brand new mandate. There are only a very few facets of the Government’s White Paper which have not already been implemented, or concerning which full planning for implementation has not already been carried out, disposed of and been put before hon members of this House in one form or another.

A massive amount of work has been done and I should like to thank the Director-General and his entire department for the absolute zeal and hard work put into this, specifically to ensure that a new mandate of a new department could get under way with so little delay so that we can already say today that we are moving towards the moment when we shall be able to say that not only have we dealt with each of those specific recommendations, but we are also implementing each of the important provisions contained in the Government’s White Paper in this connection.

The hon member said that he thought that what we had already done should be marketed better. I am inclined to agree with him. Of course, we have the problem that efforts to draw attention to the constructive work done by this department are unfortunately wrecked time and again when it comes to the opposition Press.

They are not interested in publishing good news about good work done by the Government. Hon members need only read the reports on debates in this House to see how often significant and important statements on the implementation of Government policy that are made here are not even reported. Only the stream of negative criticism emanating from hon members of the opposition is fully reported. Therefore the poor readers of those opposition newspapers gain a onesided image of what is going on in this country. However we shall have to find other ways and means to achieve the effective marketing of what the hon member referred to. I thank him for having raised this matter.

The hon member for Standerton, with the expertise that we all respect, made an important contribution by discussing the fundamental basis of what education is really about. I wish to convey my sincere thanks to him for doing so.

The hon member for Primrose appealed for greater involvement of the private sector in the activities of the HSRC. I should like to associate myself with that and tell him that his contribution with regard to the work, activities and investigations of the HSRC will be brought directly to the attention of the HSRC for consideration. I shall also take the matter further in my regular discussions with them.

The hon member Mr S J Schoeman used his analytic knife to cut deep and incisively, and exposed the CP. I tend to agree with him that South Africa sets the rest of the world an example as regards how governments should not interfere in sport. If governments had complied with that rule then an official All Blacks tour to South Africa would have taken place in a way that would not have shaken international rugby to its roots. Then everyone in this country would have had the privilege of participating in international sport. All the other sportsmen and women are surely entitled to that, however much the Whites of South Africa are hated. However, the rest of the world refrains from doing so, not because they can advance a single point of criticism in regard to sport in South Africa, but for the reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with sport.

The hon members who sometimes create the impression that they take pleasure in South Africa’s sport isolation should ask themselves whether the time has not come from them, too, to express their outrage at the fact that what has been achieved in South Africa in the field of sport receives no international recognition from governments abroad, while innumerable international sporting bodies are eager to strengthen their sporting ties with South Africa and resume normal relations. However, they are prevented from doing so by forces that do not give twopence for sport or for education but want only one thing in South Africa, and that is a take-over of power. They are not interested in a peaceful solution that will do full justice to every group in South Africa— the Whites, but also all other groups. They are interested in a solution that will establish a dictatorship of some kind in South Africa and which will cause us to take the path of Africa.

Something we miss—and this goes in particular for the Official Opposition—is that hon members do not show any sensitivity in this regard, and that in their criticism of the Government they do not guard against simply joining the chorus without taking the realities of South Africa fully into account in what they say.

The hon member for Kimberley North argued that museums should also enjoy the benefit of tax concessions. Submissions received in this regard have been referred to the Margo Commission. At this stage, therefore, I cannot make any statement in that regard. The hon member also referred to the issue of important art and cultural treasures which have been entrusted to universities by way of bequests, donations, etc. I am pleased he said that the universities are recognised as worthy receivers. However, he pointed out that museums were particularly well-equipped to look after these things.

I think that in this regard there is room for wholehearted and sound co-operation between the museums and universities. One would want to see, for example, that exhibitions of art treasures of this very kind which are preserved at the universities and elsewhere take place on a more regular basis in museums so as to improve the accessibility facet to which the hon member referred. I want to tell the hon member for Kimberley North that I have already taken certain decisions in principle concerning the issue of the authorisation to museums to have a say over their own buildings and to negotiate loans in that regard, viz to extend their autonomy. However this will mean amending the law, and we intend submitting such an amendment.

The hon member for Gezina gave a clear exposition of what really goes on within this department. What is still more important is that the need for us to take all population groups into account, specifically in a department like this one, as regards what we are doing, has been scientifically proven. I want to convey my sincere thanks to him for this; he has greatly facilitated my task of replying to the venom that the CP tried to sow.

The hon member for Brentwood advanced a strong argument to indicate the necessity for differentiated education. I found it striking that the main critics of the differentiation we have in education in South Africa, on the basis of population groups as well, were not present in the House when they could have listened to a scientific contribution on this important subject. I therefore take pleasure in thanking the hon member.

Finally, I want to refer to the penetrating analysis by the hon member for Pretoria East in regard to facets of an area concerning which he is able to speak with authority, viz research and research planning. I want to thank him for that; we listened to him with care. I agree with the essence of his argument, viz that we must create all possible opportunities for the limited pool of high level manpower in the country but that we should also channel their creative talents in the interests of the country.

We have only just established scientific planning under the wing of the Department of National Education. We are orienting ourselves in this regard at present and he may rest assured that his input will definitely be given very earnest consideration. I intend discussing this matter with hon Cabinet colleagues within the foreseeable future and also to stimulate a discussion on facets of the hon member’s speech in scientific circles. We may come back to this next year, to good effect.

I should like to answer the hon member for Bryanston at the end of my reply, although it may be that I will have touched on some of the facets he mentioned at an earlier stage.

This afternoon the hon member for Rissik carried on harping on the same string and saying that the Government was introducing integration into education; that there was no self-determination and that own affairs meant nothing. [Interjections.] The hon member would do well to ask the hon member who is temporarily sitting next to him, who is a fairly good lawyer, with all respect for analytical capacity, to advise him on what in fact appears in the Constitution.

There is one sitting in front of me here, too.

The one in front of the hon member is equally competent. He should ask them to advise him.

As regards the issue of integration, I want to point out to the hon member, in the first place, that item 14 of schedule 1 of the Constitution reads as follows:

This is part of schedule 1 which specifies which subjects are own affairs.

What does that say? It says, without anyone being able to prescribe anything, that it may be decided at own affairs level to what extent a specific department—in our case that of Education—is prepared to render services to members of other population groups. The Cabinet cannot compel any own affairs department to do anything in this regard. Now, does this sound like non-self-determination? Does this sound like a kind of subordinate role that has to be played? [Interjections.]

They must inform the hon member further and say to him that if one reads item 2 of schedule 1 it makes it very clear that the Department of National Education, while it is one central department, in which all the important functions have been vested, is only vested with those functions. The hon member for Koedoespoort also referred to this. Everything beyond that is fully subject to the autonomy of the various Ministers for own education, their departments and the Ministers’ Councils. That is the significance of this.

They must also inform the hon member further as to the significance of the distinction between the provisions of section 19(1)(a) and those of section 19(1)(b). Section 19(1)(a) stipulates that the authority, in regard to matters which are own affairs of any population group, is vested in the State President acting on the advice of the Ministers’ Councils in question. Section 19(1)(b) stipulates that the State President deals with general affairs in consultation with the Ministers who are members of the Cabinet. There is a significant difference between the two, and that also constitutes constitutional entrenchment of the real autonomy of Ministers’ Council and individual Ministers with regard to own affairs.

Constitutional entrenchment of apartheid.

The hon member tried to suck venom from the issue of a group of Standard 9 pupils who went to Germany under a aegis of the cultural agreement and said that this constituted an infringement of own affairs because our department had provided financial guarantees. Surely the cultural agreement has to do with inter-state relations. That is why it is dealt with in such a way. Those children were not sent by schools; they are individuals. They went under an inter-state cultural agreement. Really, to try to make something out of that is absolutely equivalent to talking nonsense.

The hon member asks whether we will give money to the Volkswag, as we give it to the FAK. If I must reply to that then I must first ask whether the Volkswag is a political or a cultural organisation. That is of cardinal importance. [Interjections.] If it is a bona fide cultural organisation, if it were to prove itself to be such and if it were to approach the department for a project, for example such as those proposed by the FAK, then such an application would be considered on merit and weighed against other projects for which applications had been received.

However, the hon member for Rissik made a violent attack on the FAK in this regard. I now want to ask him something. Say for argument’s sake his party were to win the next general election—and I take it that he would then be Minister of National Education …. [Interjections.] … would he then consider an application from the FAK? I ask this in view of the attack that he launched here on the FAK earlier on.

On merit, yes.

Oh, on merit? [Interjections.] Very well, Sir, then the hon member for Rissik and I have reached consensus on one point at least. [Interjections.] The tragedy behind that question and behind the attack made by the hon member for Rissik is that we have had the political differences between Afrikaner and Afrikaner, dragged into the sphere of culture.

And who did that?

I believe this is tragic, Sir, and I accuse the hon members of the Conservative Party of being at present engaged in undermining every Afrikaner cultural organisation by trying to found a counter-organisation for every last one.

And the National Party has hijacked all the Afrikaans cultural organisations! [Interjections.]

They are not doing Afrikaans culture a favour by way of that style of conduct.

Look, I spoke to you today on a friendly level. Just keep it that way!

The hon member for King William’s Town covered more or less the same ground as the hon member for Bryanston and accordingly I shall come back to the essence of the speech in the course of my reply to the hon member for Bryanston.

†The hon member for King William’s Town propounded, inter alia, the full local option philosophy of his party, and added that communities had to choose. I want to ask the hon member a question. I want to put to him two extreme alternatives in terms of his philosophy. In terms of his philosophy a particular community would have a choice. It would be able to choose from three alternatives. Firstly, it could say it preferred its school to remain closed. Secondly, it could say it would accept all newcomers on a first come, first served basis, irrespective of race or colour, and it that should result in an existing school for White pupils, for instance, suddenly changing into a school in which two thirds of its pupils belonged to another population group, they were prepared to accept that result. The third alternative is that preference will be given to the own community and, if a few vacancies exist, members of other population groups will be accepted. Those are, I believe, more or less the three basic alternatives that would be available in terms of the philosophy of the hon member for King William’s Town. What guidance would he give his community?

Schools serve a community.

In other words, Sir, he would guide them to remain community schools. Then why is he complaining, Mr Chairman? I will tell you, Sir, what he really wants to do. He wants to apply tokenism. He says the school serves the community and if the community is basically White he would prefer the school basically to cater for Whites. In order, however, to salve his conscience—an effort which will be a vain one— and also to silence his critics, he will resort to applying tokenism by allowing two or three pupils belonging to other race groups to enrol at the school catering for the White community. That is what certain private schools have done. They have not been prevented from accepting more and they are not doing so. No, Sir, we have too much lip service in this regard.

*All I want to say about this, Mr Chairman, is the following. If this were to be implemented on the basis—and this would of course be the logical basis—of giving real preference to the really correct approach of the hon member—and he is quite correct— that schools serve communities—then such a decision would do very little to change the lot of, I believe, 99% of the members of the other population groups. It would afford no real relief. Such a step would not resolve the shortage of thoroughly trained teachers in the Black community. Of course not. Such a step would not suddenly make sportsfields and better facilities available at Black schools. Such a situation would not increase the revenue of this country so that we would suddenly have large sums of money available. Such a step would not be capable of dealing effectively with the real backlog of hundreds of thousands of teachers or even making a significant contribution to it. The real solution for these problems must be found in the upgrading of all education systems with a backlog and not in the “tokenism” that the hon members is guilty of. [Interjections.]

Order! There is too much running commentary in the Committee.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South touched on three matters. The first was the issue of the All Black tour. He said that he hoped the Government was not pumping money into it. Why does he ask that? He asks such a question without any grounds for doing so. [Interjections.]

There are other priorities, that is why.

What reason has the hon member to think that we will pump money into that? He has no reason whatsoever.

You have done it before.

I want to say here today that he is doing South African sport a disservice because purely by asking this question he wants to create a suspicion. [Interjections.] What I want to state here categorically today is that this whole matter of the All Black tour to South Africa has been arranged on a totally non-Government basis. The Government is not involved. [Interjections.] What we do is that when international teams come here we provide specific services to all types of sport. The most important action on the part of the Government is perhaps—and this applies to all sporting occasions, and not only international sporting occasions—that it looks after security. The police are present on these occasions. In that way we ensure the security of both the participants and the spectators. Such services will be rendered, yes; but not because the occasion is in All-Black tour or a rebel tour. The Government is not a party to the organisation of such a tour and the Government unambiguously maintains and implements its policy of recognising the autonomy of sport.

The hon member also asked questions about tax. The tax laws are there fore everyone to utilise. In so far as sponsors of anything in terms of the existing legislation can be granted tax exemption with regard to a portion of their sponsorships or whatever, this is of course available—including sponsorships of sport—in terms of existing legislation that apples to everyone in the same way. There is no special legislation for special types of sport in this connection.

†Thirdly, the hon member referred to the proposed umbrella body. He said that if that body is established we must ensure that it does not get all the funds. He actually quoted from an information document which we issued.

Yes, that is right.

Well then, the answer is in the document.

Not necessarily.

No, we said specifically, and I quote:

*If the hon member can obtain the answer in that information document, why is he trying to score petty political capital out of it here? But we are accustomed to that and that is why I am nevertheless providing him with the answer.

†Fourthly, he referred to school sport. I am not in control of school sport. The hon member must read Item 2.3 of Schedule 1 to the Constitution in that regard. However, contrary to what the hon member suggested, my hon colleague informs me that local option is available in regard to school sport. This local option also applies in respect of prospective opponents.

*The hon member for Koedoespoort discussed the ten-year plan to which I referred this afternoon. To that hon member and to other hon members who have already begun to speak about what they think the facets and details of the plan must be, I want to say that I am not going to be tempted into debating this. I have specifically emphasised the fact that this plan will now be finalised in consultation with my educational colleagues, that it will be negotiated with all interested parties and that they, too, will subsequently be fully briefed in this regard. Therefore, to try to argue at this juncture and in anticipation, concerning the odd point in this regard, without having the over-all picture at one’s disposal, would undermine the feasibility and the success of such a plan in advance.

You are still feeling your way in the dark.

No, we are not feeling our way in the dark. The hon member should just switch on the light and then he will see what is going on in South Africa.

The State President said so.

It is unwise to rush into this. We must obtain the maximum possible consensus in this regard. I want to appeal to all hon members to make a real effort to depoliticise the handling of this ten-year plan. Our country’s future is dependent on our not making petty political capital out of this. Our country’s future depends on our making that plan work within the framework of the realities of South Africa. One of those realities is that even if we were to receive R10 billion tomorrow that we could spend immediately, it would still not solve the crucial problems of the backlogs in a real and significant way. [Interjections.] It must be a phased solution because the solution is intimately bound up with steps which cannot bear fruit immediately. We can expedite the process, but it must be an evolutionary plan. The intention to expedite this to the maximum extent, within the limits of the country’s resources, is expressed in the statement I have made. I want to appeal to hon members to build up understanding outside this House—I see that the hon member for Pine-town is nodding his head in assent. I want to appeal to him to assist in building up understanding of the truth and the sense of what I have just said.

Just be quick!

The hon member for Koedoespoort also tried to suck venom from the activities of the Minister of National Education and, together with the hon member for Rissik, tried to undermine the concept of self-determination and the autonomy of own affairs.

Very successfully!

He maintains that the policy for own affairs is prescribed in terms of these three main points. I have already replied in that regard but I wish to single out one facet. He contends that the general affairs level will be prescriptive as regards education and the issue of the determining of syllabuses and examinations. That is not true. There are committees on which the teaching profession itself is represented such as the Committee on Education Structures. There is a research committee that provides that committee with advice on a regular basis and which consults with them on an ongoing basis. It is not even the case that a department takes decisions on its own. If there is one profession in this country that has by far the most opportunities to sit around a table with the decision-makers and at all times plan together, make inputs and become part of the solutions and the decisions that are taken, then it is the teaching profession. It is the one sector in the public service in regard to which there is a minimum of prescriptiveness and in regard to which there is the broadest basis of co-operation.

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

No, Sir, my time is too limited. Perhaps there will be time towards the end.

Secondly, the hon member must take a careful look at the legislation at present before the standing committees, and he must also take a careful look at the composition of those certification boards. Those certification boards are also appointed on the widest possible basis in order to contribute knowhow from all quarters and so that scientific rather than political decisions are taken with regard to education. It is even more important that a great many committees be established under institutions such as this certification board in terms of which education departments and all interested parties will make their inputs and will also be able to form part of the planning. I must make haste because my time has almost expired.

†The hon member for Pinetown referred to an incident in which, so he related, protesting children were shot. I do not have full particulars available to evaluate the correctness of the hon member’s interpretation of what happened.

I took it up with the department.

Naturally one regrets this, and naturally no one wants it. The hon member conceded that. Why he raised it in a debate on education, I do not know; that is a matter between him and his conscience.

It is the central issue in South Africa today! [Interjections.]

After all, he knows what is being done specifically in order to resolve the problems in education. [Interjections.] Why does he not focus attention on that, because that might lead to there being fewer children led astray by the agitators to demonstrate about a matter which is already receiving our earnest attention. If we were to have more positive contributions from those hon members then the agitators who are inciting the children might have less credibility. [Interjections.]

Let me use an example to substantiate my charge against the hon member’s approach. He made a considerable fuss about the difference between the expenditure by the White education department on books and stationery and similar expenditure by the other education departments. Surely the hon member knows that there has been a change in the policy of the Department of Education and Development Aid. The hon member quoted last year’s statistics but he omits to mention that a new situation has arisen which has brought about a significant improvement.

There has not been a change!

Order! The hon member for Pinetown must contain himself.

My charge against hon members is that in the handling of education affairs they do not help in breaking down the distorted ideas and slanted propagandas; on the contrary, by way of their contributions they stimulate these distorted ideas and this slanted propaganda.

Tell the truth! [Interjections.]

The hon member states that a period of ten years is too long. Surely he knows that 80% of the per capita expenditure on pupils goes on education salaries.

I said that?

Surely the hon member knows that even if we had the money tomorrow, by next year there would not be a change in educational qualifications sufficient to allow us to do so more quickly. [Interjections.]

Today the hon member for Pinetown stooped below his own level of debating in the sense that as an expert on education affairs—I accept him as such—he did not make a positive and constructive contribution.

†The hon member for Cape Town Gardens referred to a time lag between the commitment to equal provision in education and today’s announcement. He criticised this. I myself would prefer that time lag to be shorter but the hon member referred to it as though nothing had been done since the first announcement. He should ask my colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid what has been done in that period to take practical steps leading to meaningful progress towards that goal. That is notwithstanding the absence of formulae being announced and the announcement which I made today.

The gap is growing!

Since the first announcement was made much has been done and the foundations have been laid during that time lag to enable the ten-year plan to succeed.

Everything else to which the hon member referred in his speech is part of the fabric of the ten-year plan. When that plan as a whole is announced the meaning of formulae upon which we have decided will become clear. As has been said, it will be explained in greater detail at the time.

What about the example I gave you?

Before coming to the final part of my speech I just wish to say something about private schools, because they have been referred to a great deal. Here, too, we have unfortunately been the prey of reporting that has really created a distorted impression. I should like to quote to the House a few facts which are by no means general knowledge as yet.

According to the old subsidy system, only pupils of the specific population group for which the school had been registered could obtain a subsidy. The new policy is that every pupil in the school, whatever the population group to which he belongs, receives the subsidy. This represents a broadening of the basis of subsidisation, but the whole matter is presented as if there has been a narrowing.

Let me mention a second example. Except in the case of Natal, which is already paying very good subsidies, the new subsidy system is a major improvement on the subsidies that were paid in the past. This has not received the necessary attention either.

Thirdly, I want to point out a significant change. The policy as formulated and announced, specifies that the way a school composes its population should not be prescribed in detail. Discretion is permitted. There is no instruction that “This may only be done by exception”, because in some provinces it seems to be the policy that a private school could only admit a member of another population group by way of exception. It had to obtain permission for the admission of every such individual student. Surely that is true, but that has been changed. Now that school can decide for itself and there is no ministerial interference at all with regard to individual admissions or the basic policy. What is indeed true is that certain criteria have been developed as regards registration and subsidisation. Those criteria are not as rigorous as they are presented. They do make provision for the consideration of the composition of the pupil community as one of the criteria to be considered.

That is an absolute disgrace! An absolute disgrace!

That applies to all education in South Africa.

That is an absolute disgrace!

This brings us back to the basic argument: Must there be differentiation in education or not?

It does not matter what the description is, it is an absolute disgrace!

Order! The hon member for Bryanston has shouted: “It is an absolute disgrace.” across the floor of the House four times. I cannot see how that contributes in any way to the debate. The hon member has made his point. He must now please accord the hon the Minister the opportunity to make his speech. The hon the Minister may proceed.

That did not upset me because I though it was a confession that the hon member was making. [Interjections.] I do not wish to infringe on the territory of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly but there are a few things that I must clarify. There are no rigorous prescriptions with regard to this facet of the criteria. In each individual case the way it is to be dealt with is open to negotiation with the Department of Education and Culture. The decision-making in which I was also involved in a different capacity left room from the outset—from the first moment when a decision was taken—for deviation from specific possibilities, subject to specific procedural prescriptions. Therefore this a really, in effect, an extension which should be seen as something positive. I appeal to people to approach my hon colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture for direct information rather than to rely on newspaper reports in this regard.

He is too “verkramp”.

The hon member of Bryanston complained that we had too little time for this debate. Then, in the time he had at his disposal, he talked politics half the time. He wasted the time. He wanted to talk about education but all he did was to carry on about political issues.

Politics bedevils education.

He said that my portfolio creates an opportunity to introduce reform.

It is politics that has ruined education. That is the problem.

He says that I act in a reactionary way. Does the legislation at present before the standing committee introduce educational reform or not?

No, it does not.

Of course it does.

It is bedevilled by apartheid!

Does the White Paper of the Government that we are implementing step by step, as my hon colleague indicated, not constitute significant reform in the educational sphere? The hon member is fully entitled to disagree on how we reform, but to disparage it as reactionary is to undermine the cause of education in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The purpose of education is not to serve politics but to serve youth. America learnt at heavy cost that the purpose of education is not to resolve a debate on race. It is to equip the youth of a country in their own best interests and in that country’s interests. [Interjections.] As we see it we are, specifically by the way we are doing this, trying to serve the best interests of all the young people of South Africa.

In this connection he came forward again with—to summarise it briefly—an appeal for an additional open department. I wish to discuss this briefly. Does a concealed racism not underlie that argument? Underlying that argument is the assumption that ultimately, the school at Bryanston is the best, and ultimately, other people who are not White can only really be happy and can only really make progress if they can utilise the same facility that his children are enjoying at present. I indicated a moment ago why this does not really address the crux of the problem.

When we achieve our goal of equal provision of education and when we can say that no scholar is being prejudiced by way of the provision of resources by the State, then I want to argue that there will be no further discrimination among groups. As far as educational principles are concerned there will still be differentiation, however much he tries to disparage that. I shall deal with that in a moment. The question is whether we shall be discriminating against people when we accord them the opportunity to maintain their own culture in their own schools.

We in this country cannot only protect the rights of individuals, we must also protect the rights of groups and counterbalance that with the rights of individuals. Our educational structures are based on this balance.

Let us briefly consider the principles underlying the administrative structures of education. The basic education of our youth is, in principle, the function and task of the parent and the church. Education and teaching is therefore, in principle, a private matter.

Throughout the world the large-scale involvement of the State in education is a recent phenomenon. Since the existence of an educated population entails specific advantages for a State, tax funds are utilised for the provision of education. This has to do with the manpower needs of the State, and I need not argue that it is in the interests of the State. However, the State provides education with the authority and the sanction of the parents. Therefore society is in many ways intimately involved in the provision of education via advisory bodies, school control bodies, parents’ associations, professional bodies, elected political decision-makers, researchers and many interest groups. The State does not provide education on its own authority, but as trustee for the population, and must be accountable to them in this regard.

A further principle that underlies our view of education is that there must be a continuity as regards education in the parental home. This is an educational principle. [Interjections.] As soon as there is a discontinuity between education in a parental home and education at school, education becomes irrelevant and loses its force. Therefore teaching and education at school must link up with the norms and values that apply in the parental home and in the community or, more specifically, in the neighbourhood. This principle implies that education must be culture bound and community orientated. If it comes into conflict with the norms and values of the parental home and the environment, there is a break, and education will be to the detriment of the child because it is then alien to him. [Interjections.]

These arguments are not artificial, politically inspired or fabricated. They arise out of the demands made by the reality of education, and the real negative perception of our system was born of the fact that some of our educational systems have a leeway to make up—that the one school does have better teachers than the other school and the one school does have better facilities than the other school. That is the reason. We must also consider in a scientific way that fundamental question: If we achieve our aim and bring it up to an equal level, will it still, educationally speaking, be wisest to continue to differentiate, or would it be as well to comply with the hon member’s request and incorporate cultural links and continuance in the parental home of the normal environmental norms, standards and values in the educational system?

No-one will deny that there are several distinguishable communities in South Africa. Individual people may define the communities differently and interpret their significance differently but the fact is that they exist. Each of them, to a greater or lesser extent, has a characteristic culture. This is also true and it must be taken into account and incorporated in our educational system. [Interjections.]

Finally, I wish to point out that there are some communities in our country for which the cultural links are not so important because they experienced them as negative. I refer in particular to the problem of the Coloureds in this regard and I understand that. [Interjections.] Hon members must ask the Indians, the Whites and the Black peoples whether those cultural links are of real importance to them or not. [Interjections.] Hon members know that that is the case. Because that is the case, this must be taken into account, incorporated and reflected in our education policy.

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

Mr Chairman, the Whips tell me that my time has expired.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 8—“Administration: House of Assembly”, agreed to.

Vote No 21—“Finance” and Vote No 22—“Audit”:

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

We on this side of the House would like to have a theme for this debate with the hon the Minister and hon members of the other parties in this House. Right at the outset I would like to make it clear that the theme is: What should in fact be the priorities for South Africa and how should they be determined?

We are going to concentrate on four particular things: Firstly, the necessity to create confidence in our country, and the methods of achieving that confidence; secondly, the question of aiming for the greatest degree of employment which we can achieve for our people; thirdly, the quality of life of the underprivileged people in South Africa; and fourthly, ensuring stability in South Africa. That is the theme we wish to debate. Before I get to that, however, I specifically welcome the presence of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. I respect the courtesy because I asked him to be here. I want to deal with a number of things which concern him in particular.

The first of these is the question he answered yesterday on behalf of the State President concerning what I would call the “Metropolitan Handicap” in which he is one of the runners! I found the answers which he gave, not on behalf of the State President but himself, quite remarkable, he was asked “… whether he applied as an ordinary member of the public in competition with ordinary members of the public for shares in this venture” and his reply was as follows:

to which my colleague the hon member for Hillbrow said “Hallo”. The hon the Minister went on to say the following:

I have taken the trouble to get the prospectus of this company. I have also taken the trouble to acquire the advertisements that this company published. In order that there should be no misunderstanding I should like to read to hon members from the prospectus the following:

Now there are two very important points. The first is that the application forms are not transferable and the second is that they may only be completed by the persons to whom they are addressed.

What did the hon the Minister say? When I asked him a further question, he said:

That is so.

The hon the Minister could not have applied for these shares. He could not have obtained the preferential allocation because it could not be transferred away unless the application form had been signed. Furthermore, it was only those persons to whom the application forms were addressed, who could apply. Therefore, there is no question of this being something that one can do through a stockbroker. This is something one has to do oneself and I want to ask the hon the Minister across the floor whether he signed the application form or not.

Of course!

He signed it? All right, Sir. The application form states that he is aware of the contents of the prospectus.

Now the hon the Minister is not the hon Mr Horwood. [Interjections.] He is not. Far from it. The difficulty which I have, however, is that some hon members were asked whether they wanted the shares. They, as the selected persons referred to in the prospectus, were offered this preferential allocation. Some accepted and others refused. It is to the credit of the hon the Minister of Finance that he was offered shares but he refused. [Interjections.] I am happy to say that the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence and of Law and Order was offered shares and he refused.

Were you offered shares, Harry?

No, I was not offered any. Moreover, I must tell that hon member that as far as I am aware, neither was any ordinary MP in his party offered any. If they were offered any, they should stand up and say so. I shall tell hon members why I was not offered any; and this is the key. This is also why the hon the Minister has to answer one simple question from me.

An advertisement was published by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and that advertisement says the following:

I dispute the phrase “normal practice” because I do not consider it to be normal practice. I dispute it but I shall go on with the quotation:

[Interjections.] What happened was that the opinion-formers were offered these shares. That is why I prompted an answer from the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. I was not picking on him. He was simply the unfortunate person who had to answer the question and he is no different to any of the others. I want him to understand that.

The question which the hon the Minister of Finance must answer for me, however, is: Would the people concerned have been offered the shares if they had not held office in this country? That is the test. In other words, it is the test which the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs himself stated when he said: “If somebody says ‘Hallo’ to me, does he say ‘hallo’, does he say ‘hallo’ to me because I am a farmer or because I am a Minister?”

I ask the question: Why were the shares offered to opinion formers? Why did the Company choose Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers? [Interjections.] Why did they choose them? Why did they decide to do that? That is the question which has to be answered by the hon the Minister of Finance in this House.

Why me?

It has to be the hon the Minister because he is responsible for the finances of this country. He has under his jurisdiction the insurance companies of this country, and I am saying to him that this whole concept of dishing out preferential allocations is one that he as Minister of Finance should be looking at. He should also ask the Registrar to look at it.

I want to say that there should be a code of conduct in respect of the taking and allocation of shares not only for Cabinet Ministers but for every member of Parliament and, in fact, for everyone who exercises influence in public office. I have no objection to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, the hon the Minister of Finance or anyboy else competing for shares with the public. Where there are no portfolios involved, I have no objection to their applying for shares in the ordinary course. That is legitimate! However, when the advertisement reads: “Offer to opinion-formers”, then South Africa requires an answer. [Interjections.]

There is another matter in which the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs is involved, and that worries me even more because I cannot see that South Africa can tolerate a situation where one hon Minister’s department employs a merchant bank in order to devise a tax avoidance scheme whereby the taxpayers of South Africa lose millions of rand, where millions are paid for the services by way of interest and fees in order to have the tax avoidance scheme, and where clearance is obtained from the Receiver of Revenue in order to do it. What kind of example is that being set to South Africa in regard to tax avoidance?

The hon the Minister of Finance spoke about the whole question of how one deals with tax evasion and tax avoidance, and the grey line between the two, even before he became the Minister of Finance, and he has spoken about it since he has occupied that post. In the meantime, in his own Cabinet there is a Minister and a department that indulges in tax avoidance schemes which involve millions of rand. [Interjections.] The question has to be asked—the hon the Minister himself has given the answer to it before: Who has to pay the tax? If somebody does not pay tax, somebody else has to pay it. That is the problem.

Unfortunately, the ordinary man who goes into the supermarket, the corner shop or a clothing shop to buy his goods does not have the ability or the millions to pay for the skills of those who will work out a tax avoidance scheme for him. Mr Chairman, you also do not have the resources to get involved in tax avoidances schemes because you are like the ordinary guy in South Africa who has to pay his GST.

I want to tell the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs that the two of them had better get together and the Department of Transport Affairs had better pay that money over. [Interjections.] It is morally obliged to pay it to the fiscus.

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

With pleasure; the hon the Minister is my friend.

Mr Chairman, I undertake here that if we have done anything immoral or illegal, we shall pay back every cent. I give the hon member for Yeoville my word on that.

Order! That is not a question. The hon the member for Yeoville may proceed. [Interjections.]

Sir, he is my friend; I do not mind, despite all the things he does. He is a naughty boy but he is a nice boy! [Interjections.]

I did not say that what the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has done is illegal because it has to do with the avoidance of taxes …

Or immoral. [Interjections.]

Immoral it is, yes. I want to tell the hon the Minister that he must give that money back to the hon the Minister of Finance or, at least, he should see that it is given back and he should not do these naughty things again! [Interjections.]

However, let us come back to the theme. There is a Priorities Committee in existence but it does not have, as we want, people from the private sector as members. We have not been told what that Priorities Committee has decided. In fact, we have not been told what it has set as priorities. We do not even know how many times it has met. [Interjections.] Seeing that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has gone over to the hon the Minister of Finance, I want to give him the opportunity to hand over the cheque! [Interjections.]

We have not been told what that committee has decided or how it is going about its work. We also do not know, as I have said, how it determines its priorities. However, we are not just criticising in this debate; we also offer our alternative in every case. We believe the Priorities Committee of South Africa should consist of people of the public and the private sectors. We believe that there should be a proper liaison with businessmen, with workers and academics in order to formulate an economic policy for South Africa which is the people’s policy, because it is our country that is at stake; it is not just a politician’s country that is at stake; it is every person who is involved in it.

The second point I should like to raise with the hon the Minister—I will be very brief on these—is that one cannot solve the economic problems of South Africa unless one also deals with the political problems. There are to my mind four things which I should like to repeat here. Firstly, there must not only be reform in South Africa but it must also be meaningful reform which is perceived both internally and externally to be meaningful reform. It has to be seen as such.

Secondly, I believe that we have to get the people who are in the centre of South African politics to co-operate—not necessarily in the same political party; far from it. However, one has to co-operate, and if one does not, one will find oneself squeezed between the radicals on the left and the radicals on the right. If we do not get the moderate people of South Africa together we shall find ourselves in that unenviable vice in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, an atmosphere is to be created in which negotiation becomes a real possibility in South Africa.

Fourthly, one has—as I have said repeatedly in this House during this session—now to set about systematically going through every law and removing the provisions which are of a racially discriminatory nature. If we do those things, we will create an atmosphere of confidence. If the hon the Minister has an alternative to those four points I want him to state it today.

The next thing I want to tell the hon the Minister deals with economic action. I was referred to almost in a demeaning fashion when I talked about savings and what could be done in regard to savings. I want to give a simple example to the hon the Minister as to what can be done, a very simple example which will not only create capital formation in South Africa but which will also help towards stability and which will give the worker a stake in the factories and the businesses in which he works, and that is a meaningful employee share scheme. If the hon the Minister wants a classic example of that, it has just been introduced in the budget of the United Kingdom.

“Mitbestimmung”.

“Mitbestimmungsrecht”, if you want it “Mitbestimmung” is a different thing as you know, Sir. “Mitbestimmung” is something that relates to Germany which has not been accepted in Britain. I am referring to what has just been introduced in the budget in England. When one looks at that, one will see that in the United Kingdom a working man is entitled to get £2 500 worth of shares, and to reinvest the dividends tax-free in order to give him a stake in the business. If we give the workers of South Africa an opportunity of having a stake in the business in which they work, they will not be so quick to strike for reasons which are not warranted. They are not going to be so quick with petrol bombs when it is their own factory that they are involved in. I make this appeal to the hon the Minister: If he wants capital formation and wants to combine it with stability, he must apply his mind to giving the workers of South Africa a stake in the businesses in which they are working and take an example from what a Conservative Government is doing in the United Kingdom, not a socialist government, but what a Conservative Government is doing in the United Kingdom. [Interjections.]

Is the hon member suggesting that for the mines as well?

I must tell the hon member I have no problem with that at all. I think there is every reason why the mine-workers should have a share incentive scheme to become shareholders in the mines. There is no reason why they should not.

Those share incentive schemes will save free enterprise in South Africa. They will save free enterprise, because what we do not appreciate in South Africa is the conflict that is going on between free enterprise and socialism—real socialism, not the sort of across-the-floor kind of thing that the hon the Minister talks about. I am talking about the real socialism which his party believed in 1947 and 1948 when they wanted to nationalise the gold mines. When the State President was in the NP he wanted to nationalise the gold mines. That he must remember. If he wants to avoid the nationalisation of the gold mines and give people an answer, this is the sort of way to do it.

There is a further concept which I have put to the hon the Minister before and I will do again and again until he listens. The reality is that in South Africa we need employment in order to improve the quality of life of our people. I must tell you, Sir, the hon the Minister and I have a fundamental difference. He says, and I quote his words:

These were the words he used. I have quoted his exact words, Sir. To my mind, Mr Chairman, the Government should be the locomotive in order to get the growth going, so that private enterprise can then take it further, and the way in which to do it, Sir, is by employing people in a manner in which they are enabled to create the things which they themselves need in South Africa. That is why I talk about them being employed in building roads, parks, houses and so forth and in creating the kind of life which we need in South Africa.

I want to put it to the hon the Minister that there was another man who took the view that he did. His name was Agrippa. The hon the Minister might remember him from history. The Emperor Agrippa—and it is an interesting story—at the time the temple was being rebuilt in Jerusalem, found that on completion of the work on the temple there were 18 000 people unemployed in Jerusalem. The people came to Agrippa and said he had to find work for those 18 000 unemployed people. The result was that the concept was developed of rebuilding the Eastern Cloisters. The Emperor Agrippa refused to allow them to do it. Ultimately somebody found work for those people by having them lay paving stones in Jerusalem. Unemployment at that time in Jerusalem, however—at a very interesting time in the history of all of our forebears in our own religions—was in fact a major factor, and if the hon the Minister does not want to be called the Agrippa of South Africa he should see to it that he does not follow the false example of the Emperor Agrippa in those biblical times. [Interjections.] Therefore, Sir, I appeal to the hon the Minister to take note of the fact that if we need anything in South Africa we need to get the people to work. I have said this before, and I am going to say it in every speech of mine throughout this session, and I would expect the hon the Minister of Law and Order to support me too. I want to tell you, Sir, the hon the Minister of Law and Order should be the seconder of what I am saying here, because if the people were back at work his Police Force would have an easier task.

That is quite correct!

That is what I want done, Sir. If a price has to be paid for this in that some of us have to make sacrifices, it still has to be done. The haves of South Africa are going to have to make sacrifices if they want a future in South Africa. If we want stability in South Africa we will have to make those sacrifices. What we need in South Africa is leadership coming from the Government of this country, which says to the people: “This is the real problem which we have to face. These are the real priorities which we have to face. This is what we ask you to do”. We had the situation in the 1940s—during the Second World War— when people talked about the need to make sacrifices in order to win a battle. We have a battle to fight, which is every bit as difficult as the battle in which Britain was involved in 1940—if not more difficult. Therefore we have to be prepared to make the sacrifices.

In the same way I have appealed again and again that we should have this “Buy South African” campaign. I believe that every South African, when he buys South African products, is helping to keep somebody in a job—is helping to preserve stability; and despite one’s saying this again and again we cannot get this Government to move on a “Buy South African” campaign. We cannot get them to accept it. I would have imagined that that would appeal to the hon the Minister. No, Sir, it does not help at all.

You had better go and see your new Archbishop.

Now, do not come along with funny jokes! You know, Sir, that hon Minister is really out of his depth. He does not know what the blazes he is talking about. [Interjections.] I believe, Sir, that we have to go one further on this. By the way, he is not my Archbishop. He is that hon Minister’s.

Not mine! [Interjections.]

He is that hon Minister’s Archbishop, not mine. [Interjections.] Let us just get that right. I do not have an Archbishop.

That is what is known as “Et Tutu, Brute!” [Interjections.]

Sir, another thing we have to get quite clear in South Africa is the following. There is an issue which is facing us, and that is what I referred to earlier. It is the conflict in ideologies. The only way in which what I call the free world economic philosphies can survive in South Africa is if people can in fact taste the fruits of that free world philosphy. I want to tell the hon the Minister—somebody asked me about this earlier—that I have been in politics since 1948. I have become old in politics. Since 1948 I have been against apartheid. I want to make one thing clear, however: I do not want a substitute that is as bad as or perhaps even worse than apartheid. So unless the concepts of the free world are actually sold to the people of South Africa, and unless the people are allowed to taste those fruits, the Government is going to find itself in a situation where it is busy dismantling apartheid in its own way—as, in fact, it is doing now— but is not offering a real substitute for it.

I want the concepts of a free world economy to operate in South Africa; I want the free world political concepts for South Africa; and we can only have them if we allow people to taste the fruits of these concepts. For this to be done the haves of South Africa have to make some sacrifices.

I say here and now that if the hon the Minister will put his house in order and will get up here and call for sacrifices on the part of White South Africa, he will have our backing. What is more important to us than sacrifices is our survival and our future here in South Africa.

We need a completely different basis for the budgets of South Africa. We need to start, as the hon the Minister himself says, with zero-based budgeting—to which he has not yet got! We need to have every penny justified to see whether in the South Africa of 1986 and 1987 and the years beyond that money is justified, in order to see whether that money is necessary and warranted. In that way we can ensure that we live in a country that from both a political and an economic point of view is part of a free world and a country which offers safety and security to every single South African citizen in it. That situation can only prevail if sacrifices are made by all of us, both inside and outside of this House.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Yeoville made an unfair attack on the hon the Leader of the House. [Interjections.] It was very clear to me—I am sure it was clear to other members, too—that the hon member simply felt offended because he was not singled out as an opinion-maker. Furthermore, there will still be plenty of opportunity for the Standing Committee on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services to go into the matter, and I therefore think it was premature of the hon member to raise it at this stage as far as the so-called “avoidance of GST” is concerned. [Interjections.]

Most of the other points made here by the hon member had already been answered by the hon the Minister when he delivered his reply to the Budget debate on Monday. The hon member for Yeoville unfortunately has the unpleasant habit of carrying on a continuous debate with the hon the Minister across the floor while the hon the Minister is replying to the debate. He never listens and therefore does not know what is going on. He then comes back every time with the old stories. I hope that when the hon the Minister answers him this time, the hon member will sit still and listen. He could then learn something. [Interjections.]

Oh no, Charlie, man. Please, Charlie.

Order!

The hon member for Langlaagte should also learn.

Yes, the hon member for Langlaagte would learn even more if only he would listen.

People are telling me that they will now be able to drive around more over the weekends as a result of the reduction in the fuel price. They could have meant it as a joke but I should nevertheless like to look at this approach a little more closely and analyse it. In the sixties, when the inflation rate was approximately 3%, our people were justifiably proud of their thrift. Debt was something one preferred not to mention. Since those days, however, things have changed in South Africa. South Africans have stopped saving. There are still people that save but they are far and away in the minority.

Why, Charlie?

If the hon member would just open his ears and keep his mouth closed, he would hear everything I say.

Very well, then. We should like to hear.

It is only those people in whom the principle is still deeply rooted. Inflation makes a mockery of the interest rates offered by the financial institutions. After inflation has finished with one’s interest, the Receiver of Revenue is waiting to slice away further at the already battered rand. [Interjections.] We therefore welcome the fact that the exemption limit for interest earnings has been doubled to R500 per year. However this is not enough. The combination of inflation and the Receiver of Revenue means that everyone who is still saving, is in fact losing at least 10% of his capital every year. It is therefore not surprising that South Africans have started to live with credit-financed buying. The truth is that if one does not buy something today, one will simply not be able to afford it tomorrow because it will cost so much more.

High consumer spending in the late seventies and early eighties, stimulated by the high gold price, indeed ensured a continued economic boom, but as with all good things, particularly if things are going too well, a price had eventually to be paid. This credit-financed buying eventually reached the stage at which the consumer was simply no longer able to obtain credit or even pay what was owed. We are seeing and experiencing the consequences of this today.

The aim of the Budget is to encourage investment and consumer spending so that the new upswing can gain enough momentum to bring about a growth rate of approximately 3% or even more in the real gross domestic product in 1986. The hon the Minister has therefore granted a 6% tax relief for individuals, significant tax relief for working married women and estate duty relief, and this is widely welcomed. Although saving is one of many factors that have an effect on the economic growth rate, it is certainly one of the most important and I should like to look at it more closely.

Every country, but particularly a developing country like South Africa, must save to ensure economic growth in the long term. The economic miracle of postwar Japan is a good example of this. A large part of the economic boom that country has experienced and is still experiencing, stemmed from the thrift of the Japanese. To put it more simply, a country has to build up a large cash reserve before it is capable of financing a boom period. It is like when one saves money before going on holiday, as happened in the days before credit cards.

The hon the Minister will remember my views on credit cards last year, even though he was not very happy with them. The hon member for Paarl pointed out once again last week the indiscriminate fashion in which credit cards are issued and the irresponsible way they are used.

A credit balance can be built up by a continued surplus in respect of the country’s trade with the rest of the world. When a country exports more goods than it imports from the rest of the world, as was the case with South Africa in 1980 and last year, too, credit is built up in the form of increases in the country’s reserves. It does not help, however, if only increases in the country’s reserves are built up and the ordinary man finds himself up to his ears in debt. The authorities can encourage him until they are blue in the face, but it will be to no avail. The kind of consumer expenditure necessary to make the economic upswing possible is simply not there. Consequently, healthy personal savings are necessary before a sustained economic upswing can occur.

Because of the withdrawal of loan facilities by overseas banks, domestic capital formation will have to play a much larger role in the foreseeable future. For a country like South Africa, which cannot rely on sources outside the country for finance, a sound savings level is of the utmost importance. Without this we shall never succeed in maintaining the economic growth that would ensure employment to all new entrants to the labour market.

In the early seventies personal savings amounted to more than 7% of the gross domestic product. By 1984 this percentage had dwindled to 1,4. In 1984 personal savings amounted to R1 500 million, but this included the total premiums of R5 400 million in life assurance. This means there was a net negative savings of almost R4 000 million, if the contribution of the life assurance companies is not taken into account.

Unfortunately, the South African taxation system together with the present high inflation rate is very negative for saving, as I have already said. I feel, therefore, that it is of fundamental importance that progress be made in regard to the creation of a milieu that would stimulate personal and even company savings. I also sincerely hope that in the interests of our economic prosperity the Margo Commission will give very serious attention to this matter. A more practical way of significantly relieving the position within the existing tax structure would be to tax investment income only to the extent that, on a pragmatic basis, it exceeds the inflation rate.

Having said all this, it does appear as though the message has in fact got through to some of our people since last year. It actually appears that some people now want to start getting their personal financial affairs in order and that they are now starting to save more than in any year since 1980. Last year was also the first time in five years that savings exceeded 6%. This obliges employees to invest in contractual savings plans.

If the country as a whole does not start saving again on a large scale, we shall simply not be able to attain the economic growth essential to stave off large-scale unemployment. This will be disastrous.

This brings me to the issue of the unemployment problem, to which the hon member for Yeoville also referred. I should like to pause here briefly. A higher economic growth rate could well, in the nature of the matter, contribute towards combating unemployment, but a higher growth rate alone will not be sufficient to lay the unemployment problem at rest. If labour costs do not relate to the value of the physical production of labour, everything is in vain. The facts of this matter must be stated plainly. Higher wages lead to greater unemployment unless labour productivity can be sufficiently increased. The time could come …

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has come. His time has expired.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Finance launched an all-out attack on me here on Monday. [Interjections.] I ask myself: Why is the hon the Minister trying so diligently to make me out to be a liar? The only conclusion I can draw is that a government that has no credibility, like this Government, is tempted to bring the members of its most important opponent down to the level of its own credibility. [Interjections.]

I just want to mention two well-known examples in the sphere of finance to show how the Government has undermined its own credibility. I again mention to the hon the Minister the first example, which concerns the rescheduling of foreign debt. The second example—it is also well known—is that the predecessor of the hon the Minister of Finance said, at their party congress in 1983, that he did not intend to increase GST, but before we convened again in this House, he had done so more than once.

I am not taking into account now things like all the other promises of peace and prosperity that the Government has made, who they said would be serving in the Cabinet without it ever being realised, and all the other shocks they have given South Africa. All these things have led to their total lack of credibility. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister has said on various occasions that I had told untruths and that we should get to the facts. He then mentioned the facts. With reference to one of my statements, namely that in the previous financial year the hon the Minister had made use of bank credit to finance his deficit, and that he did so to an increasing extent, the hon the Minister said that I was wrong; the opposite was true. The hon the Minister said that this was a quantity that could be controlled. It could be specified. It could be determined. He went further and said that I had concerned myself with a nine-month figure and treated it as though it had been a year figure. The hon the Minister then said that I had mentioned the figure of R1 182 million.

I want to tell the hon the Minister this: I have been through my speech and given it to two of my hon colleagues to go through. Nowhere in this speech did I mention the figure of R1 182 million, but the hon the Minister, who has come to establish the facts and says that I told lies, is putting figures into my mouth.

I am telling the hon the Minister now that he can go through my speech and if he can bring me proof that I said this, I am prepared to resign from Parliament, because I did not mention the figure.

On the basis of the figure or of the facts you mentioned?

The hon the Minister said I mentioned the figure of R1 182 million; I say I did not mention such a figure.

Which one did you use?

In connection with what I am now discussing, I did not refer to a figure. The hon the Minister said I did and I am now telling him that it is an absolute untruth, and I am prepared to resign if he can prove that I used that figure.

Let him resign, too!

The hon the Minister says this quantity should not be interpreted; it should be specified.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether it is true that on page 2P.2 of the unrevised copy of his Hansard the following appears (Assembly, 7 April, col 2786):

[Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is now talking about current expenditure. I am dealing with the financing of his deficit. I am still coming to his current expenditure. This is the second mistake the hon the Minister has made. It seems that he was completely confused, just as he is now. [Interjections.]

Explain that statement!

I am saying that the hon the Minister financed his deficit using bank credit, but in his Budget Speech he said he had not made use of bank credit.

I shall answer you in a moment.

The hon the Minister said that I had spoken of a nine-month period, but I am now asking what his banker says. On page 29 of the South African Reserve Bank’s quarterly bulletin of March 1986, under the heading “Bank credit”, his banker states:

“Net credit to the government sector!” [Interjections.] The hon the Minister said in his Budget Speech that he had not made use of bank credit.

I shall answer you in a moment.

The South African Reserve Bank’s review goes on to say:

“Decelerated continuously!” The hon the Minister said I used a nine-month figure. I quoted his banker, which referred to “The rate of increase over a twelve-month period”! Twelve months! I am asking the hon the Minister what the facts look like. The hon the Minister’s banker said he had made use of bank credit, but I now refer to the worst of all. The hon the Minister then mentioned the figure of R1 182 million and said that he had indeed used bank credit. In his Budget Speech he said he had not used bank credit, but he then said here that he had indeed used R1 182 million, but it had decreased. At one stage, it was approximately R500 million.

The final figures are not available.

Even if the final figure is nought, am I entitled to say if after the harvest I owe the bank less than I owed them before the harvest, that I did not make use of bank credit? The hon the Minister made use of bank credit, and in his Budget Speech he said he had not done so. He contradicted himself, but then he did a very ugly thing. He came along and threatened and intimidated, and said that he suspected I had an adviser who was employed by a bank, and he was going to go and speak to the managing director of that bank and tell him that that adviser should not have such untruths uttered in the House. [Interjections.] I now want to ask whose figures these are that I have just mentioned. Where do they come from? These are the hon the Minister’s figures and the hon the Minister’s statements. Firstly he said, first of all, that he had not made use of bank credit. Secondly, his banker’s figures show that he had in fact made use of it. Thirdly, it is his own figure again where he now says he indeed made use of it. The hon the Minister has confused his facts completely and now he is making threats.

As far as this question of advisers is concerned, I now want to tell the hon the Minister bluntly that I regard what he has done as reprehensible. A man and a democrate does not do such things. Firstly, I want to ask whether it is the exclusive right of the Government—it has a whole panel of advisers— to have advisers. Does an opposition party not have the right to have advisers? Secondly, I want to ask whether a bank, an employee of a bank or any institution does not have the right to pass on information to any party in this House.

Of course they have the right. [Interjections.]

Why, then, is the hon the Minister making threats?

In the third place I want to ask the hon the Minister whether Assocom, the Agricultural Union and the Consumer Council do not also have the right to come and talk to opposition parties. Must they come and talk to the hon the Minister’s party only?

Ferdie, Einstein is better than you.

Yes, that is possible.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that what he has done brings no credit to South Africa and it casts this Government in a poor light, because it indicates that it is not capable, that it is not prepared and that it cannot take criticism. When he has to refute criticism, he uses completely incorrect facts.

I shall answer the hon member in a moment.

This brings me to the second point the hon the Minister discussed, namely the deficit of R1 327 million in his current expenditure. I referred to page S98 of the Reserve Bank’s report. The following appears there:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is interesting to speak after the hon member for Lydenburg this evening because he was very excited …

He is the hon member for Lichtenburg!

Yes, I mean the hon member for Lichtenburg. If hon members are prepared to argue, we can talk to one another. I just want to say at this stage that I do not want to go into the argument he advanced regarding the accuracy of his figures and those of the hon the Minister. That is something he and the hon the Minister will clear up, and I want to leave that argument to those two.

Regarding the counter-accusation he made against the hon the Minister, I want to say that I wonder whether he should not resign his seat in Lichtenburg anyway, and perhaps stand again. After all, it would be an interesting situation. He could then, in any case, use these arguments. I tried the other evening to ask the hon member for Rissik whether he should not do this, since he was so serious but he ran away. I do not think this hon member ought to run away, because he is a leading figure and he ought to address and deal with this matter.

Let us have a look at what he told the hon the Minister about this ugly thing, this intimidation, of which he is accusing the hon the Minister. He says it is unforgiveable, and he then quotes the hon the Minister as saying that he would go to this bank, to the institution where this person works, and tell him—what is he going to tell him?—that this person should not have such untruths uttered in the House. What does this mean? What is the hon member’s problem with this? The hon the Minister did not say that he would tell the institution that employed this person that he may not do this. He did not say he had to stop doing this. He did not say that he could not give it to the opposition or to anyone else. Nor did he say that he was not permitted to have any political convictions. [Interjections.] That is right, after all; now we are talking to one another. All the hon the Minister said was that he was going to tell this institution that their official, who is supposed to be a competent economically and financially well-versed person, should not try to have untruths uttered in this House. What is wrong with that? [Interjections.]

I did not tell the hon member that he used incorrect words here. I did not say that he mentioned incorrect facts. [Interjections.] All I am telling the hon member is that if he quotes incorrectly and if he, on his own responsibility, levels accusations on behalf of his party at the hon the Minister, he should carefully consider the consequences of his accusations, as he expects the hon the Minister to do. If he himself quotes the hon the Minister, I must make it clear to him that I see nothing wrong with that; in fact, I want to agree with him 100% that the opposition should have people to advise them. They should, however, have good advisers and not people that give them bad advice. When I look at the hon member’s contributions, I think he should seek more advisers and not depend on only one person. [Interjections.] I therefore want to recommend to him that he seek other advisers.

I want to return to the Vote under discussion. Firstly, I should like to put a question to the hon the Minister this evening. It has recently come to my notice that over the past few years the Reserve Bank has set the fine example of purchasing paintings by young South African artists. I want to congratulate the Reserve Bank on what it has done over the years. This is something that is not generally known and I therefore want to request that the hon the Minister make more information on this available. Could we not hold an exhibition of these paintings? Could we not obtain more facts about this: For example, how many paintings there are and how they have appreciated in value? Perhaps we ought to give this some publicity as an example to other departments and institutions. [Interjections.]

As far as the Vote itself is concerned, I want to say a few words about the Auditor-General. I speak tonight with appreciation of the great men that have headed this deparment in the past. People have, without fear of intimidation, upheld their standpoints, carried out their auditing in the past, without fear of intimidation and without fear of the consequences, issued their reports year after year. These people were not so quick to run away as the hon member for Lichtenburg. They were not so quick to think in terms of intimidation. We recently had the information debacle, which hurt certain people. I therefore want to address a request to the hon the Minister.

Bearing in mind the historical background of his department, I believe there are three things of which we should not lose sight. We must have a look at what happened in 1985. Firstly, as a result of the decision by the standing committee, as well as the request by the Auditor-General himself, I believe that we should reconsider, in three respects, the composition and the right to exist of the entire department. I think that we should give attention in the first place, to the number of people involved in this, and, secondly, to their competence. According to the information at my disposal there is no qualified accountant in the department. I do not want to make this a requirement, but I believe it would help a great deal if there were people with this qualification in the department. A third factor that demands our attention is confidence in the department.

As far as the first two factors are concerned, I believe that we are not using this department to its full potential, in the sense that we could get far more out of the department than is at present the case. I can mention an example in this connection.

The hon the Minister recently announced in his Budget speech that he is going to appoint a task group. I should be grateful if the hon the Minister would provide us with the names of those involved. The task group will be charged with investigating the utilisation of manpower in the various State departments to ensure that the officials are being used to their full capacity. On the other hand there is the Department of Public Administration, which is investigating something similar. I want to maintain this evening that if we combine those two groups with the department of the Auditor-General and we try to evaluate the full potential of the competence of the personnel in all their activities, we could utilise their full potential, provided that competent people were involved. I therefore want to recommend such a step.

Lastly, as far as confidence is concerned, I want to say that I think we should try to vest greater authority in the Auditor-General in respect of the question of defence and other secret auditing schedules. He is one of the highest-paid officials, if not the highest paid, in the Public Service. He deserves that trust which should be placed in him. To be able to remove that factor from the political arena, we should in my opinion consider creating greater trust as far as the Auditor-General is concerned.

The last thing I want to say in this connection is that there is one expression in the Auditor-General’s reports that I wish we could remove completely. It is the general expression we have of “a fruitless expenditure”. I think this is one of the worst misnomers one could find. The expression in itself does not actually mean anything wrong, but the wider connotations that are attached to it have already given rise to so many terrible ulterior motives that if we could only say: “The programme has been stopped because it is no longer effective”, one would not have so many Directors-General trying to run away from it. I therefore think we should try to find another expression.

Mr Chairman, I very much like to follow the hon member for Vasco, and I am very grateful that he has outlined for us the activities of the Auditor-General. I should also like to say, with reference to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, that it really is a privilege to see the Auditor-General and his staff there every Wednesday. In fact it is astonishing how they and the Treasury and the other people that assist us are acquainted with every State Department.

I should like to focus the spotlight on foreign investments in South Africa for a while. I should like to do so with reference to the fact that during the Budget debate last week I said that the only way we could persuade foreign bankers and foreign investors to invest in South Africa again was—this is the important point—if we could convince them that we did not in fact need them. I am placing the words “not need” in quotation marks. To be able to do this we shall, in the nature of the matter, have to impose strict financial discipline in South Africa. We shall have to apply it to our expenditure programmes. We shall have to encourage our domestic saving—the hon member for Smithfield referred to this—so that it will be sufficient to finance our own development projects. This, too was one of the major objectives of the recently introduced Budget.

I see two questions arising from this, and I want to deal with them briefly. The first question is: Has South Africa over the past few years borrowed too much overseas? The second question—this is a significant question—is: Can we really manage without foreign investments in South Africa?

As far as the first question is concerned, whether we have borrowed too much overseas, the hon the Minister of Finance, during the reply to the Second Reading of the Budget on Monday, had good news for us in connection with our foreign debt position and on the progress as regards the payment of our foreign debt.

The hon member for Lichtenburg has just held up the whole situation of our foreign debt and its rescheduling as an example of how the Government cannot be trusted. I should like to come to that.

It is quite clear at this point that in terms of the debt agreement in respect of the total foreign debt of $24 billion, 5% of the debt within the net of $14 billion ought to have been paid yesterday, that is on 15 April. If we read today’s newspaper we see the very interesting and good news that it was necessary to pay back only about half of that 5% of the $14 billion; the balance has been rolled over.

What is even more important is that there are clear indications of a possibility of new sources of credit, particularly from certain Swiss and Italian banks. What better proof could there be of renewed confidence in South Africa?

The question then arises of what really happened in August 1985. What was the reason for that problem? Why did financiers suddenly lose confidence in South Africa? Did they lose confidence in our economy as such, or were there other reasons, such as concern about their security in South Africa, which caused them to start calling in their loans?

At the same time the question should be asked regarding whether or not we really did borrow too much overseas. Experts are agreed that South Africa has never borrowed too much abroad. The country’s total foreign debt is less than 170% of our annual exports of goods and services. The average in the developed Western World is 270%. The interest on this foreign debt amounts to 7,5% of the exports of goods and services, and together with dividends it amounts to 11%. That figure of 11% has remained constant over the past 40 years. That is the best proof that we have in no way over-borrowed. We have no problem with interest payments; our trade surplus is more than enough to cover them and make capital repayments.

Just as any individual in this Chamber— were he in debt—or a company, would struggle to repay a debt overnight, so would any country in the world struggle, whichever country it may be, however much it might want to do so. I think the hon member for Lichtenburg knows full well that South Africa rescheduled the repayment of its debts under special circumstances.

I want to come to the second question I want to ask in the House tonight. It deals with the importance of foreign investments. We did not over-borrow, and foreign investors should realise that we want no favours from them. Nevertheless, there can, however, be no doubt about the importance of foreign investments in South Africa. We have always been dependent on foreign investments and capital to supplement our domestic savings in order to maintain a high rate of real economic growth in the country. I want to agree with the hon member for Yeoville that this is essential for the provision of employment to an ever-increasing population.

American companies employ 150 000 people in South Africa today. Of those, 20 000 are White. There are, however, 700 000 other people dependent on these companies. In the year 2000 there will be, at a population growth rate of 2,3%, 45 million people in the country. Our labour corps will increase from 11 million to 18 million. If we do not want to see a drastic increase in unemployment in this country, we shall have to go out of our way to create new opportunities. We shall have to increase our economic growth rate. I doubt whether we shall even reach a figure of 4,6%.

We are unfortunately a country that is poor in capital owing to insufficient domestic sources of savings. We are a First and Third World country; we are a developing and an underdeveloped country, and it is a fact that we are simply unable to generate enough money to fulfil South Africa’s needs.

Foreign investments also have other advantages. They bring us new technology and expertise. They can supplement the periodic deficits in our current account. Most important, I think, they can help us in the evolutionary developmental process of the South African economy. Foreign companies in South Africa exert an important influence on labour relations, the education and the training of workers, and—let us admit it—in breaking down discrimination.

The lessons we learn from this are that on the one hand, South Africa should accelerate and complete its reform process. On the other hand, however, it should do this against a background of peace and order. I want to say that foreign companies, who for decades have not minded investing in South Africa and making money out of the system of apartheid, will have to be convinced that their investment can in fact be safer and more productive in a new system, in a new South Africa that has to come, than they were in the South Africa of yesteryear, and that those investments will be of greater importance to a new South Africa.

Although South Africa is still today regarded as the second safest investment country in Africa, I am afraid the country is today approximately 45th in the order of world risks. This we cannot afford and it is task of politicians—we in this House—to correct that situation. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the absence of the hon member for Lichtenburg, I shall nevertheless proceed to reply to him because time is limited.

I should like to start by referring to the reprehensible statement that I ostensibly used a banker and his economist…

You did!

Mr Chairman, I said that I did not know how the hon member for Lichtenburg came by his facts, but that he should either acquire another advisor or ensure that he understood these things better. I said that we had an idea who it was that was giving him those figures, and that we would talk to the managing director of the bank concerned about the quality of the advice he conveyed to this House. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I should like to ask you please to protect me from this group of hon members.

Order!

Sit down if you wish!

You may as well resign too!

Order!

You can do what you wish; you do not want others to point it out!

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must listen when he is spoken to.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask if each one of us is entitled to ask for protection when other people …

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte, having disregarded the authority of the Chair, must withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

Mr Chairman, I never for a moment contested the right of anyone to seek advice, or …

You spoke in a threatening tone of voice.

Mr Chairman, I did not in the least contest the rights of that particular economist—I know who he is—there are two of them—to give anyone advice, but I do have profound misgivings about bank economists who, so help me, are not even capable of understanding the Reserve Bank’s report properly. That is the point I am trying to make.

Who is he?

I shall keep that to myself. Mr Chairman, I do not want to spend my time on those hon members.

Let us come back to the facts. The hon member for Lichtenburg did not give us the advantage of knowing the page of the quarterly bulletin on which the financing of the Treasury deficit was dealt with. In the quarterly bulletin certain bank credit figures are given for the first nine months of the fiscal year, namely R1 182 million in credit which was allocated to the Government. That is a seasonal figure, which fluctuates from season to season. We are now in that time of the year when we have to use a tremendous amount of financing in order to finance that expenditure, until such time as we begin to receive tax from provisional taxpayers, company tax, etc. The position for 11 months, in the reply which I furnished, indicated that it was only R509 million, and that it appeared as a credit. The truth about these figures— and something which an economist should understand if he wants to advise someone— is that that figure does not reflect the true picture. We paid back R655 million to the Reserve Bank on the strength of the standstill still fund. If the two figures are taken into consideration in relation to each other then we had in fact repaid debt. That, Mr Chairman, is the truth about these figures.

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

Yes, but please do not waste my time.

I shall not. [Interjections.]

There is not much time left for this debate!

Could the hon the Minister tell us whether or not he contests the quotation from the Reserve Bank bulletin which I quoted to him—it appears on page 29? The Reserve Bank maintains there that the hon the Minister did make use of bank credit. Is he questioning that? That is what I was referring to …

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Lichtenburg must please formulate his question better. I shall reply more extensively on this matter in due course. Does he mean that we should under no circumstances make use of credit or does he mean that we at the end of the … [Interjections.] Please give me a chance! Sir, the hon member for Rissik is one of those people who understands absolutely nothing about these matters. Nevertheless he is always the one who carries on most vociferously of all. [Interjections.]

He hasn’t even spoken yet! [Interjections.]

Order!

You should really open your ears, Barend!

Order!

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon member for Lichtenburg if he would please send me a note so that I can present it to the people who work with these figures every day. [Interjections.] Does he mean that I …

Now there is a Minister of Finance for you!

I am not an employee of the Reserve Bank, Mr Chairman.

You are just a useless Minister!

Does he mean that we have made use of bank credit during the course of the financial year or does he mean that we have closed the financial year and had to make use of bank credit in the net position in order to finance our expenditure? Is he referring to the latter?

May I explain what I means by means of a question to the hon the Minister. Is it true that the hon the Minister in his Budget speech, in connection with financing requirements said …

It has nothing to do with that!

Sir, that is precisely what it is all about. It is concerned with the financing deficit of the hon the Minister.

Now I understand, Sir. The hon member is wasting my time. I understand what the hon member wants to say. He means that we closed the financial year by making a net use of bank financing. That is not true, however. I shall ask my advisers to give me the relevant particulars.

Mr Chairman, I should now like to come to the second matter which the hon member for Lichtenburg touched upon just before his time expired. I shall now provide him with a full reply, as it was given to me by my advisers. Where is that document concerned now? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, a moment ago the hon member for Lichtenburg started to quote from a reply which I gave him concerning the following. He said that I had told the House that I had not financed my current expenditure by means of loans. I have the unedited version of his Hansard in front of me. According to the hon member the SA Reserve Bank says, on page 98 of its bulletin, that I had in fact used R1,327 billion in order to finance my current expenditure. Furthermore, the hon member says, it is apparent from page 34 of the SA Reserve Bank’s bulletin that my deficit figure of R2,300 billion was not correct. According to the SA Reserve Bank, the hon member says, this figure is in fact R3,452 billion. Now I should like to give my reply to this.

Just read the following paragraph as well.

I should just like to give the following reply to the hon member.

No, read the following paragraphs as well!

Good Lord, just give me a chance, please. Here the hon member for Lichtenburg is clearly confusing the expenditure of the general authorities with that of the Central Government. Included with general authorities are the provincial administrations and local authorities as well. As far as the Central Government is concerned, total capital expenditure in the 1985-86 financial year came to R3,201 billion. Against this the deficit before borrowing, as indicated in the Budget speech, amounted to R3,247 billion which is therefore almost the same as the amount for capital expenditure. Furthermore, as stated in the Budget speech, a case can also be made out for certain defence and education expenditure being in fact regarded as capital expenditure, which would then mean that capital expenditure for the 1985-86 financial year was in reality considerably higher than the amount financed by means of loans. Where the deficit figure of R2,300 billion, to which the hon member referred, comes from is unknown. If he is referring to the budgeted deficit as it was estimated last year, then his attention can be drawn to the fact that in last year’s Budget speech there was a deficit before borrowing of R2,970 billion for the 1985-86 financial year, which has since been adjusted upwards slightly to R3,247 billion.

Now, Sir, a few very important things must be added to this. What is more, the hon member is comparing apples to pears. The figure of R3,452 billion to which he referred as being the correct figure, is the Treasury deficit for ten months only, as published on page 34 of the SA Reserve Bank’s latest quarterly bulletin. In addition the SA Reserve Bank includes in the calculation of its Treasury deficit, the discount in the sales of State expenditure as an expenditure item. As already explained in the 1984 Budget speech, this does not represent a real expense, and the discount for budget purposes has, for the past two years already, been excluded from both State expenditure and loan receipts. Furthermore the excess payment of R655 million to the Gold and Foreign Currency Contingency Reserve Account is included in the SA Reserve Bank’s figures as an expense item, while it appears in the State’s books as a an application of the 1984-85 surplus. By way of information it can be mentioned that the SA Reserve Bank’s Treasury deficit amounted to R3,525 billion for the full financial year, after adjustment for the above-mentioned factors, which is approximately the same as the revised deficit figure of R3,247 billion, which was mentioned in the Budget speech.

The figure on page 34 of the SA Reserve Bank’s quarterly bulletin with regard to the deficit before borrowing refers to ten months and not to the full year. In the second place, it is not calculated on the same basis as the official estimate. That, Mr Chairman, is my complete reply to the hon member for Lichtenburg.

Business suspended at 18h45 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, we are dealing here with a situation which can be handled in two ways. In the first place the State just like any other enterprise or business undertaking, has expenses during the course of the year. In the second place the State has its Main Budget, which is presented here in this Parliament. By means of this Budget the State then declares that its expenses are going to total a certain amount, that its income from taxes is going to total a certain amount, and that the remainder of its expenses are going to be financed in a particular way. The State then finances these items by means of various financing instruments and does so in the long term.

On page 38 of my Budget speech for 1986, to which the hon member for Lichtenburg referred, I used these words—the hon member should merely indicate whether I am quoting the same passage to which he was referring:

Now I ask the hon member for Lichtenburg whether that is the correct quotation or not? The hon member confirms that it is the correct quotation. I dealt with this figure extensively when I replied to a question just before business was suspended for supper.

In the course of a private conversation this hon member commented on that part of the Budget speech. I have already asked him whether I have understood him correctly, and I should like my following observations to be placed on record. The hon member took that sentence which was concerned with the entire construction of the Budget, in other words, a sentence indicating the manner in which the Budget was closed at the end of the previous financial year, and he then tried to make the sentence technically applicable to the State’s current expenditure for the course of the year. [Interjections.] That is what the hon member tried to do.

I have made enquiries with the officials. It has never been the case that day-to-day financing is referred to in the Budget speech. That is, after all, not the reason why a budget speech is delivered. In fact that is not why a budget is prepared. The day-to-day or quarter-to-quarter expenditure of the State is subject to seasonal fluctuation. That is why I told this hon member, when I replied to him on Monday, that he had taken a figure which was applicable only to nine months of the year, had applied it to 12 months and then alleged that it was a conclusive fact. That is why I gave him another figure on Monday, ie a figure reflecting the position for a period of 11 months. [Interjections.] Unless one plans to make provision for this in one’s budget from the start or unless it inevitably happens this way during the course of the year, then that figure which one finances in that way during the course of the financial year is going to diminish and end on a zero. That is the ideal situation. Sometimes the figure works out to slightly above the zero figure because it is difficult to synchronise these vast amounts absolutely correctly, down to the last rand.

What I find completely flabbergasting, however, is that this hon member, in the light of the factually incorrect figures which he dished up to us here, is now trying to catch out me on a technical point, while I was referring to the construction of the Budget in its entirety as it finalised over a year. [Interjections.] Now that hon member is trying to make it applicable to the Government’s bank position from day to day. [Interjections.] If it is not absurd, it was extremely carefully planned to mislead people.

Mr Chairman, I should now like to ask the hon the Minister if he would not like to bring this whole matter to finality by simply producing evidence—I have already asked him for it—to prove that that figure which he imputed to me, had in fact been used by me in that way. If the hon the Minister could only produce that evidence then the CP would be satisfied. We can end the game now. If the hon the Minister could just produce that evidence then everything will be over and we shall then know that the CP has lost. If the hon the Minister does not, however, produce that proof then we know that he has lost. [Interjections.]

I have nothing to apologise for. If I had told an untruth in this House by using incorrect figures, I would have stood up and apologised. [Interjections.] The figures which the hon member for Lichtenburg dished up to us are absolutely untrue. He then has the temerity to come to this House and make technical points to try to extricate himself from his dilemma. [Interjections.]

How did you arrive at that R1 182?

I shall tell those hon members, if they would just stop shouting. I shall explain the background of this matter to the hon members.

The people who work with these matters every day—they include people from the South African Reserve Bank—took the allegation made by the hon member in his speech, and tried to ascertain where it occurred in the quarterly bulletin of the SA Reserve Bank. They found the place in question and then they gave me the figures in the draft reply which they prepared for me.

Now it is their fault! [Interjections.]

Order! If hon members expect the hon the Minister to provide information, they should at least show him the courtesy of giving him an opportunity to comply. [Interjections.] Order! If the Chairman is giving a ruling, the hon member for Kuruman must keep quiet! The hon the Minister may proceed.

In the preparation of the reply the department in particular did, after consultation, with the Reserve Bank as well, and after examining the quarterly bulletin, identify the probable place where this member, or the person who gave him the advice, acquired the information. In that paragraph they found an analysis, and it is a long and complicated arithmetical calculation, the particulars of which I have here before me. That is where they found the argument. The hon member was correct in this one regard, ie that he did not furnish any figures.

That is all what we wanted to know. Thank you very much!

We have identified it. [Interjections.] It changes nothing at all as regards the fact that the hon member erred. All that the department did, was to look at the calculation and to quantify the hon member’s error.

The CP still has its full complement.

Because the department was clever enough—far cleverer than the hon members of the CP—to quantify their error, they think they have won the argument. [Interjections.] All one can say about that is: “Shame!”. [Interjections.] The truth is—and I want to say it one last time so that hon members all understand it correctly—these budget figures which I furnished in my replies to the member for Lichtenburg, are correct.

Barend, I am sitting here.

Secondly, all the figures which the hon member for Lichtenburg furnished were incorrect.

That is not true! I am sitting here, and you cannot get me out! [Interjections.]

All that I can say about it is that the day the CP’s chief spokesmen on finance can understand these things better than the specialists in my department or their advisors, then they can enter this kind of debate again. The fabrications which the hon member for Lichtenburg dished up are simply not true. Anyone who uses those figures outside this House, is lying. He is lying like a trooper if he uses those arguments. [Interjections.] The hon member for Lichtenburg has therefore demonstrated here that he has no conception of the construction of the budget according to its financing in the longer term. [Interjections.]

Did the hon member for Kuruman say that the hon the Minister had lied.

Yes, Mr Chairman, …

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I am in the process of withdrawing it.

Order! I did not ask the hon member to address me but simply to withdraw the remark.

Mr Chairman, I was not addressing you. I was merely withdrawing it.

Order! The hon Minister may proceed.

He is telling untruths, like a trooper.

I did not tell an untruth. [Interjections.] The information which I gave is verifiable. [Interjections.] The hon members of the CP can say that the truth is not the truth a thousand times, and it will not change the truth! [Interjections.] Why does one of them not stand up and prove that the figures are incorrect?

I should like to summarise it as follows: The hon member, for Lichtenburg, together with all the hon members who support him, has in the first place demonstrated to this House that he furnished incorrect figures; secondly he does not understand how State finances work and how a budget in its entirety is prepared over the period of a year according to the financing of the deficit; and thirdly that he also cannot understand that the State, in the course of a year, from time to time makes use of financing in a way that is different to …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister why he has not availed himself of the offer I made him—in view of all the mistakes which he alleged I had made—to get rid of me? I am still sitting here, because the hon the Minister could not get rid of me. Why could he not manage it? [Interjections.]

I shall answer the hon member’s question for him. He based his little argument on the fact that we mentioned a figure in our reply, whereas he was the one who did not do it.

Is that right or wrong?

I am merely mentioning it. [Interjections.] In the process of identifying the source of the hon member’s misconceptions, the department managed to acquire the correct figures. In order to give this House a proper reply I mentioned a figure in my reply. But that does not change the argument in any way.

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

No, I am not going to reply to any further questions from the hon member now. [Interjections.]

It is my final question!

No, I am not going to reply to it. [Interjections.] The hon member can come and discuss it with me. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister is not prepared to reply to any further questions. The hon Minister may proceed.

For the second time now the hon member for Lichtenburg has made a remark here about the position of South Africa as far as its international debt is concerned. How often have we not, since the tragic day when South Africa had to announce its debt, standstill, stated this matter in its correct perspective in public? How many times this year already have we not put this matter in its correct perspective? But the hon member refuses to understand the truth. [Interjections.]

The debt standstill in South Africa was caused by a single fact. For reasons which had fundamentally nothing to do with the economy, foreign banks withdrew their credit sources from South Africa on a scale which was very extensive in relation to our debt position—it was not an unhealthy debt position.

There is a certain example which I have already used many times and which I am going to repeat in order to conclude this part of my reply. When one has a mortgage bond because one intends to pay off one’s house during the course of one’s life, and the outstanding amount of debt owed is suddenly demanded—either all of it or most of it— there are very few ordinary householders, if any, who would be able to settle that debt immediately. That is what happened in South Africa’s case.

That is a shortterm debt!

The hon member for Lichtenburg is talking about short-term debt. There was in fact an accumulation of short-term debt, but short-term debt is not merely debt which is concerned with something other than trade. A large part of this debt bore a direct relation to South Africa’s trade. We are an open country with an open economy and a very large part of our GDP—that is approximately 60%—is generated by imports and exports. [Interjections.] That is how an accumulation of foreign debt occurs.

There is another very important matter which we must bear in mind and which illustrates the absurdity of the accusation made by the hon member for Lichtenburg. Dr Leutwiler correctly summarised the situation when he said that we did not have a debt problem but a temporary liquidity problem. [Interjections.] That is the truth concerning South Africa’s international debt. [Interjections.]

I should like to put forward a last point for those hon members who are prepared to listen and understand. I should like to mention that according to our information a significant proportion of the $504 million which was repayable yesterday, remained behind in South Africa. If South Africa were such a bad debtor as the hon members would like to imply, why did this happen? [Interjections.] Furthermore, those of us who work with this every day are in a better position to know what the sentiments of foreign bankers are and we are not pessimistic about the situation.

That is all that is important to us. It is not important what the hon member for Lichtenburg and his party think of the situation.

Mr Chairman, I would like to say to the hon the Minister that we in the PFP want to debate with him tonight the question of South Africa’s economic priorities. We wish to discuss how we can solve the economic problems that are facing South Africa. We believe that the present economic and political climate in South Africa is serious. The argument which has just taken place here about where and when who said what is irrelevant. [Interjections.] It is like Nero’s fiddling while Rome burned. I ask myself if hon members realise that we are living in a situation where we are Whites are fighting for the very existence of the free world economic system that we say we believe in.

What have we had in recent debates? We have heard the CP on one theme, namely that Whites are poor because the Government is spending too much money on Blacks. All that interests them is how their White supporters feel. However, the economy affects all of us who live in South Africa, not only those who are represented here. We must remember this and ask ourselves how those people who are not represented here see the current economic situation. How they feel is very important to us. Because of the history of economic inequality in South Africa, Blacks and Whites have a totally different perception of economic systems.

Some years ago a study was done by the University of Cape Town’s Graduate School of Business, Bates Wells and BP Southern Africa on how young Blacks perceive economic systems. Their findings are as relevant today as they were five years ago. The study showed that Blacks associated capitalism— what we call the free enterprise system— with greed, selfishness and exploitation rather than with the power definition of a capitalist, namely someone who goes into business for himself. Those who were prepared to support capitalism said they would only do so if it applied to both Black and White equally. They actually believed that it was a White man’s plaything.

We should take note of the fact that communism seemed pretty attractive to them because they saw it as a system in which all would be equal and would share equally in the country’s wealth. They did not accept that a communist was someone who did not believe in private or individual ownership but in the state’s owning everything.

As Whites we must realise that we have a long way to go if we are to convince Blacks of the value of the traditional Western economic system. I believe that it is vital that we do so.

The key question is this: How can we go about doing so? The first thing that we need to avoid is the resuscitation of a variant of the old, outdated and discredited concept of the iron law of wages, as put forward by hon members of the CP and HNP. I can understand that Whites want to maintain their wealth and that they might feel threatened by the prospect of Blacks competing on an equal footing with them. [Interjections.] However, if we argue that the only way Whites can maintain their economic position is at the expense of Blacks, we are heading for disaster. We will find ourselves in a situation like that of Northern Ireland or Lebanon, in which all we can decide is how poor we are going to be.

Every time Whites talk about maintaining their economic position at the expense of Blacks, they help to destroy, bit by bit, the chance of creating a successful Western-style economy in South Africa. We cannot prosper at the expense of one another; we need one another. There is no such thing as a White business or a Black business. More than half of those employed in the manufacturing sector are Blacks. Fewer than 10% of those employed in the gold-mining industry are White.

There is one inescapable fact about the South African economy, namely that we are all in it together. We will either progress together or regress together. I believe that this is the first thing we have to do. We have to to prove to Blacks that they can participate in this economy and benefit from it.

The second thing we need to do is to show them that the best way that a man can share in the wealth of the country is by having a job. I accept that the question of job creation is highly complex. We know that economic growth plays an important part, but it is not the only part. One needs to look at what happened in the USA between 1974 and 1984. They created 14 million jobs with a real GNP growths of 2%. The European Economic Community countries had the same growth rate, but they destroyed 1,8 million jobs. So, it is not only a question of economic growth. I would have liked to debate that in greater depth, but unfortunately I do not have time.

I should like to make a few points, and I am glad that the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is here. If we want to create jobs, we must look at those areas where we enjoy some competitive advantage over other countries. I can remember, when I worked as an economist in a bank about 20 years ago, I had to do a study on the goldmining industry and the impact of the decline of that industry, because at that stage inflation went above 2%. It was reaching 4%, and we thought that there was a crisis, because with the fixed gold price we felt that the gold-mining industry was going to decline. What struck me then, was the poor use to which we put this incredible resource. I can remember then that the Italian jewellery industry was doing much better out of gold than we were. Today the position has not changed. When we have a look at it, we see that Italy used 250 tons of gold in its jewellery industry in 1984. We used 1,1 tons.

The same thing applies to another tremendous resource of ours—diamonds. Israel exports R4,1 billion of polished diamonds and Belgium R5,4 billion. In South Africa we export R155 million of polished diamonds. However, what is more interesting, is that I am told that in India they employ 500 000 registered diamond polishers and an estimated 600 000 unregistered diamond polishers in cottage industries. In South Africa we employ 1 200 diamond polishers. If we could actually use our resources and turn our gold into gold chains-because the polishing of those gold chains requires semi-skilled labour—think what we could do to create employment opportunities in South Africa. I should like the hon the Minister to look very carefully at the question of the jewellery industry. They did give evidence to the Standing Committee on Finance. I am sure that these two important resources could be put to even better use if we created a suitable environment for the jewellery industry in South Africa.

As important as it is to create jobs, it is equally important to maintain jobs. I note that the system of assistance to marginal mines is to be reviewed and that assistance will be provided on an ad hoc basis. However, I do not like ad hoc assistance. I think it creates uncertainty. The point I want to make is that whatever steps the hon the Minister takes, he must take them very carefully. Our assistance to those marginal mines and those that need assistance for dewatering comes to approximately R55 million per annum. The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs can correct me if I am wrong, but I am using the figures given in reply to a question put to him. From those mines we earned R996 million in gold sales and R39,2 million in rent and direct taxes. As important, is the fact that they provide employment for 76 000 people. I would ask that the tax position of these mines is treated with sympathy. It is, after all—I am sure the hon the Minister of Finance will agree—much cheaper to maintain jobs than it is to create them.

We have spoken about the need to create a free enterprise economic system in South Africa. I believe that it is possible to meet the legitimate economic aspirations of all South Africans by an economy that believes in individual ownership of property and which rewards personal initiative while still showing care and concern for the less fortunate. Indeed, I believe that it is the only way in which we can meet the aspirations of the people of South Africa. However, we must not lose the argument by default. We must make this economy grow, and we must ensure that all the peoples of South Africa share in its wealth, not because they are Black or White, but because they are South Africans.

Mr Chairman, I believe the hon member for Edenvale always makes a positive and constructive contribution to our debates. I must agree with him that we must not argue that Whites can only maintain their economic position at the expense of Blacks. I agree with him entirely. I believe that any person or any party in South Africa that believes in such things is doing South Africa tremendous harm. I want to state it here very loudly and clearly that I speak for myself as well as for my party when I say that we believe that we cannot have economic growth, and we as Whites cannot enjoy a higher standard of living in South Africa unless the Blacks enjoy a similar upliftment in their standard of living.

The hon member mentioned that according to a study made some years ago Blacks equated capitalism with greed, selfishness and exploitation. I agree that certainly in the minds of many Blacks this is the case. However, I want to remind the hon member that about 80 or 100 years ago in Britain—and in fact, even to this day—some Whites equated capitalism with exactly those things. I believe that we have to learn from the history of Britain and the history of the USA. If our economy is really to grow, we have to inculcate in the minds of our Black workers the work ethic and the fact that there will be a reasonable return on that work effort that they put in, as the Americans have done. I speak from experience. I spent ten years there and I learnt to work—not in the USA but in Canada. I found that the workers in Canada are people who believe in the work ethic. They not only wanted to work but they also wanted their bonuses which resulted from the incentive bonus system employed in that country. I regret to say that the opposite is true in Britain where there is a constant conflict between the working class and the moneyed class. In this country we must create a system where Blacks know that the system will enable them to rise right to the top. They must know that a man can start as a lowly worker and in time, if he has the brains, the intelligence, the initiative and fire in his belly he will be able to become a millionaire in South Africa too.

And State President! [Interjections.]

We are talking economics and economic growth for all our people, and that hon member has to get down to petty politics! Why does he not stick to the real issues of this debate? [Interjections.]

I also want to refer to the speech of the hon member for Yeoville. He started the debate by saying that he wanted to present a theme to be debated. I had a speech prepared and I decided to scrap it and to try to follow up what the hon member for Yeoville had said. He said the theme of our debate should be: “What should the priorities of South Africa be?”And the hon member listed four priorities. One of those priorities was the necessity to create confidence. He went on to say that in order to do this, there should be a correct listing of priorities. Unfortunately, I see the hon member for Yeoville is not here. I agree with him that the subject of priorities is of the utmost importance to us today. I know the hon the Minister is working on this. The State President has his Priorities Committee. We have seen in the Budget that there has been a shift of priorities in the sense that more emphasis is being put on education and training and the upliftment of Blacks, and that less emphasis is being put on the traditional areas of expenditure such as agriculture, as I mentioned in the Budget Debate.

The Government is working on the subject of priorities. However, I want to put it to the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Edenvale that it is not only the Government that has to look at its priorities. The Private sector must look at its priorities, as the individual South African must do. If we want to know why we are in this financial state today, let us look at the statistics for the past 7 or 10 years. During the past seven years, from 1977 to 1984, the GDP, the wealth of the country in real terms grew by only 20,4%. Yet private consumption expenditure on durable goods increase by 37,5%. On motor-cars it increased by the fantastic amount of 60% in real term money. How can the country afford to spend 60% more on motor-cars over this period when the real wealth of the country has only increased at the rate of 20 %? Spending on food rose by 25,5%. This was some 5% higher than the real growth in the wealth of South Africa. What does this mean? It means that in the mind of the average South African, he has set priorities way above what he can really afford. The hon the Minister has tried to bring him back into line.

Turning to the private sector and business, when we look at their expenditure on capital, we know that over the past 15 years there has been overcapitalisation of a lot of our industries and commercial concerns. This can be seen from the fact that the productivity increase we should have gained from the usage of our capital, has actually decreased. It has decreased by an average rate of 2,7% per annum. This means that private sector industry is not utilising what, in view of the debt freeze, is probably South Africa’s most valuable asset today, namely our capital. We have not been using our capital correctly. I therefore agree with the hon member for Yeoville when he says that the factor of priorities is an important one.

However, he then went on to say that it is important that we instil confidence in South Africa. He then listed four points. In saying: “In order to have confidence in South Africa, you cannot solve the economic problems without a political solution.”, he enumerated four objectives.

He said that the first one was that reform had to be seen to be meaningful reform. I ask in all honesty, by what standard does the PFP measure reform in South Africa? [Interjections.] I say that this Government has effected more reform over the past five years than has possibly been effected in the past forty years in South Africa. [Interjections.] Under State President Botha, South Africa has begun a major reform process. However, the PFP say: “No, this is not meaningful”. I now want to ask them what mandate? There was a general election in 1981. The people decided that it should be the NP that would decide what goes on in South Africa. [Interjections.]

More recently, in 1983, we had a referendum on political reform in this country. The people have spoken. There was a two thirds majority behind this Government in its reforms. I therefore ask the PFP: By what standard do they judge reform? Do they judge it against the reform that the UDF wants? This is a question they must answer. After all, is not the former leader of that party now standing on UDF platforms with the communist flag behind him? [Interjections.] Exactly what is it that the PFP wants for South Africa? Another of their leaders resigned because he does not believe in the political system in South Africa. He does not believe in the parliamentary system in South Africa. He is now backing the United Democratic Front. [Interjections.]

I ask the PFP and those people who have supported them in the past: What is it that the PFP wants as far as an economic system in South Africa is concerned? Do they want a total capitulation to ANC Marxist socialism, which they say they want for South Africa? [Interjections.] I believe that the PFP have got to come clean with the public of South Africa and that they must ask themselves exactly what it is that they want for South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville then went on to say that we must get the people of the centre in South African politics to co-operate. I agree. I certainly know that the NRP, which is a centrist party in South African politics, is prepared to look at things objectively. What about the PFP, however? Have the hon members in that party—especially the hon member for Yeoville who is not here at the moment—listened to some of the radical speeches made by some hon members of that party, and seen some of the articles which they write? Does the PFP actively pursue this goal of promoting centrist politics in South Africa?

The hon member then went on to say as a third item that we must create an atmosphere in which negotiation becomes a real possibility. I agree with him. What is the PFP’s record in this regard, however? They are a party of boycotters. [Interjections.] They boycotted the first President’s Council. The PFP cannot by any means be considered to be actively trying to build up confidence in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, earlier this afternoon I listened very attentively to the hon member for Yeoville. He is the man who frequently writes articles about our economic situation in many newspapers. [Interjections.] But once he has finished speaking here in the House, we usually do not see him here again. [Interjections.]

The hon member—in the sphere of economics he is the leader in the ranks of the Official Opposition—devoted half of his speech to the matter of shares which certain hon Ministers had purchased … [Interjections.]

Are you feeling ashamed about that?

I shall still get around to that hon member; make no mistake!

He devoted the second half of his speech to the discussion of a transaction which the SATS had entered into. The PFP received R2 million from Tony Bloom for their own affairs—as a matter of fact I think R3 million was involved—and now they are selling “bread” for dear life here in South Africa. But I do not think that Tony Bloom is influencing them; they are influencing Tony Bloom. That is why he went to Lusaka.

If a Minister receives an offer to buy shares, I think that he, like anyone else in this country, surely still has the right to buy them! I can think of no reason why he is not entitled to do so! This is the first time that I have heard that when an offer is made to a man he is not allowed to buy. [Interjections.] What has happened now? That party always champions the rights of the individual, but now something like this may not take place any longer either!

Let us now take a look at the interesting situation in connection with the SATS transaction. According to the hon member for Yeoville—he does not want to say so directly, but that is what he suggested—tax evasion took place. In my time I have been a member of the Schumann Committee which investigated the position in the Railways, and I was affiliated to Escom for many years.

I have as it were listened to the PFP overtime. Time and again one is told that State corporations must be run according to business principles. Am I correct? Is that the standpoint of that party? What does the hon member for Bezuidenhout have to say about this? [Interjections.] Am I correct in saying that the policy of that party is that State corporations must be run according to business principles?

Yes! [Interjections.]

Is it also correct if one company takes over another company with a big loss on its books for a reason, in order to pay less tax? [Interjections.] Is that wrong? Why are hon members so quiet now? Do they agree that there is nothing wrong with that? [Interjections.]

What do those hon members expect of SATS which must be run according to business principles? Let us assume that there was an announcement that an increase in sales tax would only come into effect on 1 July. Then I would concede that hon members could criticise the fact that some time would elapse before the tax was to come into operation. But in the meanwhile the evening before the petrol price went up, they went and filled up the tanks of their motor vehicles. According to the way in which they are arguing now, that was unfair to the State.

Refrigerators were also bought.

Yes, refrigerators, the whole lot, were also bought.

Now that party has the audacity to say that SATS may not consult experts on how to deal with the financing of their purchases in the best possible way! They must not be so two-faced. They must decide what they want. They said that they believed that State corporations should be run according to business principles. Then they must not argue here in a sensation-seeking way.

Unfortunately they are now following the example of Rapport. They enjoy stories—if it is not an old story about a thesis on Escom which was written years ago, they come up with stories like this one. [Interjections.] What I find so interesting is that whereas in the old days they reached for the Sunday Express, now they reach for Rapport. Do they not have a few ideas of their own? [Interjections.]

In any case, I want to get to the problem we have today. We have a problem in this country in connection with capital expenditure which at the moment is negative in the private sector. I think it dropped by 6,5% in 1985. Our total dropped by 2%. But there was an increase in investments through our State corporations and postal services.

There is also a great deal of criticism we constantly hear from that side of the Committee: “The State must cut down on its consumer spending. The criticism is levelled that the State’s share in our gross domestic product is too large, but there is no increase in capital forming because at the moment the private sector is afraid. They are sitting with cash and are speculating on the Stock Exchange and are pushing up the prices in the process. They have surplus funds, and we are experiencing the same conditions as those which prevailed after Sharpeville when nobody wanted to invest because a revolution was going to break out.

I remember that we had the same problem after Sharpeville when we did not get our investments from South African companies. It just so happens that the first big investment we got was in an oil refinery in Durban because people from abroad again showed confidence in South Africa. We have that problem now.

We must now ask the same question which the hon the Minister asked in his Appropriation: If the private sector does not become involved, must the State sit still? We are asking this because if we do not get an increase in fixed capital investment we do not have growth in employment or general economic growth either, and we cannot carry on in this country without growth. That is why I honestly do not think that the State can sit still for too long.

I am going to mention three possibilities to promote capital formation. The first of these is that we now have a committee to investigate the promotion of exports. Must we not at the same time ascertain how our capital investment can be promoted in those undertakings as well?

My second point involves the criticism levelled at the Post Office, Escom and the SATS as regards capital investment. But it is those people who are keeping our engineering industry going. I think the fact that the Post Office and others are being criticised, has exactly the opposite effect to what most people want to achieve. We must continue to develop our infrastructure.

In the third place I am thinking of our small business undertakings, I have a particularly soft spot for them. I realise that one must not discriminate in tax, but I think that we must try to tax our small business undertakings at a lower rate. In this regard I must agree with the hon member for Yeoville.

In the British budget the opportunity is created every month to purchase shares for R200. If he keeps the shares for a year, the investor may keep the dividends and the increase in the value of the shares for himself and need not pay tax on them. I think we must give consideration to such methods.

There is also another system. If a person invests for five years in a company which is not quoted on the Stock Exchange, as a result of marginal tax, one derives the greatest benefit, because one can conduct the investment from one’s taxable income. I think we must consider such ways of helping our small businessmen.

To sum up I want to say that if we encourage our exports, develop our infrastructure, and help our small business undertakings, we can get capital investment in South Africa going again. What is most important is that we must have confidence in the future of South Africa. Then we will not have a problem acquiring investments.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Waterkloof will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. My time is very limited.

Earlier in this session the hon the Minister of Finance referred to the lies which the HNP were supposed to have published in a pamphlet which was distributed in Sasolburg, and in his speech earlier this week he referred to this matter again. On the last occasion he put the matter a little more mildly, but it amounted to the same thing. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that hon Minister never questioned the figures in the HNP’s pamphlet. Nor did he question our calculation— the way in which we worked out the average amount which was being taken from each taxpayer to pay for the education of people of colour. How can it be a lie then, Mr Chairman?

A lie remains a lie!

How can it be a he, when one’s figures are not wrong; when one’s calculation is not wrong? How on earth can it be a he? A lie is a deliberate untruth.

Precisely!

We obtained this information from excellent economists. They differ somewhat. Some will say that the figure is R1 150; others in their turn will say that it has dropped to R900. But essentially it amounts to the same thing. Consequently the hon the Minister told an atrocious untruth when he said that we were lying. Then, in order to put us in the wrong—he went so far as to refer to what he called the average amount which every White family spent annually on personal income tax in order to support his statement that this amount nowhere near covered the cost of educating their own children. But the hon the Minister did not take into consideration that 65% of the White children in the country do not reach standard eight or matric.

What are you saying?

A very large percentage drop out before that. [Interjections.]

You are talking absolute nonsense! [Interjections.]

As they study further, they are frequently—perhaps even mostly—the children of parents who fall into a higher income tax category. Consequently the hon the Minister could not have worked with an average amount in this case. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister created the wrong impression in this House. [Interjections.] He should have pointed out that we were wrong on the strength of our own figures; that our calculations were incorrect. He did not do that because of course he could not. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is far worse than that. The Government is impoverishing the Whites because of its deliberate policy of inflation, as well as the policy it is applying in the Budget. [Interjections.] Yes, Mr Chairman, hon members must be very careful when they laugh like that. As a matter of fact none other than Finansies en Tegniek wrote a completely objective and balanced review on a book in which this policy is analysed within the space of 45 pages. I am referring to a book written by Mr Jaap Marais. [Interjections.]

Finansies en Tegniek, which is after all a publication of Nasionale Pers, wrote a very balanced, factual review on this book. [Interjections.] Oh well, Mr Chairman, that bunch can go ahead and laugh. But the fact remains that a day or two after the HNP had won Sasolburg, Finansies en Tegniek realised the importance of giving attention to the economic policy of the HNP.

What are the HNP’s economic analysis? What does the HNP say about this Government? These are the questions which interested Finansies en Tegniek. I have only referred briefly to this, Mr Chairman. Finansies en Tegniek would not have done this without a reason. Finansies en Tegniek would not simply have written a balanced review several columns long on a work about which this group of the hon members who know absolutely nothing about the economy are laughing now. [Interjections.]

No, Mr Chairman, the HNP’s statement that this Government, with its deliberate policy of inflation—inflation of the money supply—as well as its policy of allowing the wealth of the Whites to fall into the hands of people of colour by means of the Budget, is a completely correct statement. This is clear from Rapport, for example, which as long ago as 1977 said that the Whites were becoming increasingly poor. In 1978 The Star reported as follows, and I am quoting:

In 1984 Rapport again wrote about this, as follows:

In 1985 Volkskas stated that the Whites were becoming increasingly poor.

Mr Chairman, there is not a single newspaper or magazine which says that the Coloureds, the Indians or the Blacks are becoming poorer. The only group which is becoming increasingly poor under this Government, is the Whites. This Government cannot refute this at all, Mr Chairman. I challenge them to try to do so. I challenge the hon the Minister of Finance to show me a proper and reliable analysis, which indicates that the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks are becoming poorer. He cannot do so. [Interjections.] The Government cannot do so either. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I also stated that the money was falling into the hands of those people who were already rich. The only Whites who are becoming richer, are the big businessmen. I advise hon members to consult McGregor’s Who owns whom? In this book he says the following, inter alia:

The basic statements of the HNP’s analysis of this Government’s economic policy have been proved by the facts, the evidence, the reports and the analysis in the public Press— who do not support the HNP!

Of course there was also that report the other day:

Who has this “deluge of rands” available? The report says:

Big businessmen are becoming richer. The non-Whites are becoming richer. As a matter of fact the only population group which is becoming impoverished is the White group—the bulk of it at least. [Interjections.]

Then the hon the Minister came here and did a terrible thing. He told the Afrikaners that they should not complain because they had to pay for the education of the Blacks, because in the past the English paid for the education of the Afrikaners. Mr Chairman, I know that what I actually want to say is not parliamentary, for that reason I cannot say it. After the Second War of Independence in 1902 when our farms had been burnt down and we were impoverished, the Transvaal Land Owners’ Association and the Transvaal Consolidated Land Exploration Company already owned 6 352 210 morgen of the Transvaal. During the war they robbed us of more than one fifth of the province! Then that hon Minister says we became impoverished! [Interjections.] We became impoverished because we were robbed, and the hon the Minister must not think that we are going to be grateful for one cent which we received from anybody else! That will be the day. [Interjections.]

That hon Minister has now declared war, and we are going to fight him. We reject with contempt the appeal which he made. As a matter of fact we are going to throw everything into the struggle! We will continue to expose everything because, as a result of this Government’s policy, the Afrikaner is subjected to a new economic enslavement today. That hon Minister must remember that enslavement includes economic enslavement. And after all, N P van Wyk Louw said:

[Interjections.] We are going to avail ourselves of that right! We are going to avail ourselves of it if this Government does not cease pushing the Afrikaner and the White masses ever deeper into this economic servitude. [Interjections.] As far as this is concerned, this Government is public enemy number one!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sasolburg made a very interesting speech here this evening. But I just want to tell him that what he said about this Government this evening, every White in South Africa can also say against the Blacks. We must guard against this. [Interjections.]

The hon member is trying to cause a polarisation in South Africa which South Africa cannot afford. [Interjections.]

I am not afraid of your polarisation! [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.]

I just want to tell the hon member for Sasolburg this …

We are not afraid of you. [Interjections.]

Let us assume this evening … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon members for Overvaal and Sasolburg must contain themselves. [Interjections.] Order! If the hon members for Overvaal and Sasolburg have a disagreement they want to settle they must do so elsewhere. A debate is being conducted in this House, and what is more it is being done in a way befitting hon members of this House. The hon member for Overvaal may proceed.

Mr Chairman, this evening I want to make the following point in this House: May South Africa never experience the day when the HNP comes into power. Within six months there will no longer be a South Africa. [Interjections.] In all earnestness I want to ask one favour of the hon member for Sasolburg. [Interjections.] The day the HNP comes into power, they must just give me seven days to leave South Africa. [Interjections.] I will not run away. I will simply take my wife and children and go. [Interjections.] The hon member can take the assets I leave behind.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Surely the hon member for Overvaal must address you and not the hon member for Sasolburg?

Order! The hon member for Overvaal may proceed. [Interjections.]

No decent person will be able to survive in South Africa. Let us place this on record in this House this evening. [Interjections.] I am not running away, but I am really not going to allow my wife and children to be murdered by irresponsible people who are trying … [Interjections.]

Let us support this with evidence. In consequence of a dispute between himself and the hon the Minister in connection with a pamphlet, the hon member for Sasolburg referred to a certain book review. But let us look at the contents of that book and forget about the review. [Interjections.] The book, Waarheid en Werklikheid, was written by Jaap Marais. Let us just read a few paragraphs from the book. Let us have a few paragraphs from that book placed on record here this evening. [Interjections.] Let us read what the writer has to say on page 32:

Do we want to try to govern a country with economic objectives of this kind and prospects of this kind? [Interjections.]

Look, even Louis Stofberg is laughing. [Interjections.]

Let us just read a few relevant paragraphs on page 48.

Just read the review by Finansies en Tegniek!

I am reading the contents of the book. Let us forget about the review. Which is more important, the contents of the book or the review?

Finansies en Tegniek knows more about economy than you and that whole crowd put together! [Interjections.]

I am quoting:

The Government is blamed for everything by the leader of the HNP. [Interjections.] I shall now read from page 50:

What are these people doing? [Interjections.]

Carry on reading; this is the best thing that can happen to this House. [Interjections.]

We now come to “Middels teen Inflasie”, on page 61:

What are these people advocating? [Interjections.] I am now reading on page 62:

I think we are involved in a very important debate.

Have you only realised that now?

It is a good thing to point out to these people what danger there will be in future for such a South Africa.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member cannot refer to other hon members as “these people”.

Order! The hon member for Jeppe can leave the rulings to the Chair. The hon member for Overvaal must refer to hon members as “hon members”.

I am glad to see that the hon member for Jeppe is now a intercessor for the hon member for Sasolburg. I suggest that he go and read this book …

I already have such a book.

… and then he must get up and tell us whether he agrees with everything that is said in the book. He must ask himself that. [Interjections.]

We are wrestling here with inflation, unemployment, the restriction of our money supply, the pressure from outside and South Africa’s position abroad. We cannot afford to suppress the economy; we must build it up and allow it to grow. Now I want to ask: How? As the hon member for Yeoville said, this must be done by means of confidence, job assurance, better standards of living for everyone and stability in South Africa. Do hon members think for a single moment that any foreign investor will invest in South Africa if there is no political stability and financial discipline with good prospects?

This evening we must reassure each other of one thing: South Africa has a strong economy. It can be made powerful, but not by us alone. We do not have the resources to achieve everything here in this country. We need each other in this country, no matter what race or colour we are. But we also need the outside world to help to build South Africa in order to ensure that we as Whites will have a future in South Africa so that we can serve not only South Africa but the entire Africa continent.

We cannot afford simply to criticise each other, to denigrate each other personally and to exchange personal insults here. That is not going to save South Africa. These quarrels and disagreements are not going to promote the economy or the financial set-up in South Africa; on the contrary, we are going to get more criticism than we deserve.

The outside world is sitting and watching us. Communication has made the world small and we really cannot afford to denigrate each other here. The time has come for those of us in this House to ask each other a few things. In the first place, do we love South Africa? In the second place, do we have a common right of existence in South Africa? Do we want to survive, irrespective of what colour we are? We must ask each other this, we must be positive, we must take each other by the hand and build South Africa together.

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon member for Overvaal on the very good speech he made here this evening. I think it is high time we looked at the realities of the South African economy and politics instead of the old, out-dated and yellowing newspaper cuttings from which the hon member for Sasolburg quotes to us in all his speeches.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to discuss indirect taxation and more specifically sales tax. The merits of sales tax are likely to be debated for a long time to come. It can be argued that GST bleeds the poor man dry. It can be argued that GST has an inflationary effect on prices. But the reality is that sales tax constitutes 27% of the total revenue budgeted for. Put another way, GST constitutes R9,45 billion of the total revenue estimate of R34,43 billion. This is a significant amount which cannot simply be removed from the books.

Consequently I want to argue that sales tax is a sound source of State revenue. This, or a similar sort of indirect taxation, has come to stay. But the responsibility of the people dealing with GST remains of real importance.

In the first place we have the payer of GST. This is the buyer who has the tax added to the price of what he is buying or the service he is receiving. There are probably few ways in which the buyer of a commodity can avoid paying GST. In the ordinary course of events it almost goes without saying that GST will be levied and will have to be paid by the final consumer. The few exceptions are isolated and do not occur on a big scale.

But I now want to refer specifically to goods purchased in the TBVC countries. Sometimes these goods are brought into South Africa without tax being paid on them. On the surface, this is obviously an offence, because GST must be paid on imported commodities the moment they enter the country.

I would argue that the actual loss in tax on the bringing in of such purchases is not really that great. But the unfortunate part is rather that this does not take place, and rightly too. A person who purchases a motor car in one of the independent states, registers it there at an address other than his actual address and brings that motor car into the country for use here in South Africa, is not only avoiding tax in a dishonest way, but is also doing so deliberately.

I really have no quarrel with a person who has a business in one of those countries and purchases a motor car through his company or business to use it there for purposes of his business. There is nothing wrong with that. But I just have the feeling that people are misusing this opportunity and are registering motor cars at foreign addresses simply to avoid paying GST.

I know that the hon the Minister and his department can do very little to control and combat such dishonesty properly. But it would be a great comfort to the willing and honest taxpayer if the assurance could be given that such irregularities are watched and dealt with when they are discovered.

I also want to refer briefly to the investigation teams used by the department to investigate and rectify the evasion of income tax. This also includes the inspectors who investigate the evasion and payment of GST. In this way approximately R100 million in GST alone has been regained and collected. It seems to me as if the inspection staff could be fruitfully expanded.

I know that the department has problems with the accommodation and training of such inspection staff. But they are staff who pay for themselves. The optimum point where it is going to cost more to appoint the staff compared with the tax regained has not yet been reached. [Interjections.] Up to that point inspectors can still be appointed very fruitfully.

One frequently hears complaints that GST is not being paid. This deduction is mainly made by the man in the street because he is exposed to the careless use and handling of the cash register. The dealer who receives the buyer’s money, which includes GST, and handles it in such a way that it exposes him to mistrust and criticism, is doing the business sector in general and himself in particular a disservice. This leads to unnecessary concern by the consumer as to whether his sales tax is reaching its destination—the Treasury.

I maintain that the dealer with the money drawer under the counter or the open cash register which does not ring is doing the business sectors a tremendous disservice. This is where the greatest amount of antagonism builds up in the buyer. For that reason I am appealing to the business sector to handle their cash transactions in such a way that they inspire certainty and confidence in the buyer and consumer.

In this connection it is important to remember that the department still establishes specific margins at which the turnover of each retail class is measured. If the returns indicate that the dealer’s turnover is lower than the specific margin for that kind of dealer, he can be exposed to investigation and inspection. In such cases these inspectors and investigation teams can be used very fruitfully. That is why I am appealing for this staff to be expanded.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Gezina made a few interesting points about GST, but I should like to take the opportunity of complimenting the hon member for Overvaal on the spirit of his speech this evening. [Interjections.] I can identify with many of his sentiments, and we can now definitely place him among the ranks of the so-called new Nats. [Interjections.]

The PFP’s theme in this debate is that the Government’s economic priorities are wrong. In this connection I want to emphasise the Government’s total incapability to give proper priority to the battle against inflation. Shortly after this hon Minister took office, he promised that combating inflation would be one of the highest priorities during his term of office. At the same time he asked the public to be patient because the rate of inflation would first rise slightly before it started to decrease. What happened in actual fact? Nearly two years have elapsed since the hon Minister took office, but during that term of office the inflation rate has moved in one direction only. Generally speaking it only became worse. In fact, the inflation rate passed the 20% mark a while ago. It is still in the vicinity of 20%.

†This figure of 20% is a significant figure in inflation terms, and the alarm bells should be ringing in Pretoria on a massive scale. Some economic commentators have said that at this level of inflation—once it reaches that 20% figure—it acquires an inbuilt momentum that can make it break out and send it spiralling into the stratosphere with inflation rates of 100% or 1 000% just a few years down the road.

This happened in Israel in the early 70s when they lost control of their inflation rate. It broke out of the sort of level which South Africa is experiencing right now, and rose above 20%. It then soared to 50%, then 100% then to an annual rate of nearly 1 000% in October 1983. The natural inclination is to assume that it cannot happen here in South Africa, and that we are sufficiently well managed to prevent that kind of a disaster hitting us. However, I regret to say that economic rules are economic rules, and they apply anywhere in the world. Therefore it can happen here.

We cannot afford to underestimate the importance of the task of reducing inflation. I accuse this hon the Minister of neglecting that task. Economic mismanagement is ultimately the gravest threat to the security of the State. Economic collapses are the seedbeds of such traumatic events as revolutions and coups. Ever-rising prices of township rentals, bus fares, basic foodstuffs etc are the very essence of what has been fanning the embers of Black unrest in this country. Obviously there are big issues such as the right to vote, but the sparks which set these fires alight are economic sparks. I am sure it is common cause in this House that we in South Africa have a vital interest in maintaining successful economic management because of the political sensitivity of our situation.

I should like to focus a little bit more on the question of controlling inflation because of one major excuse Government apologists in general keep offering. Their excuse for the Government’s failure to bring down the rate of inflation is to the effect that they are thereby contributing to a reasonable rate of employment. According to this line of argument there is a trade off between the level of inflation and the level of unemployment. It is important for hon members of this House to note that that is an early Keynesian view which has become discredited. Respected economists around the world and empirical evidence show that in the medium to long term there is no such direct connection between the rate of inflation and the rate of unemployment.

I am sure the hon the Minister is familiar with Phillips Curve Theory which shows that although there is a trade-off in the short term between inflation and unemployment, in the long run no such trade-off applies. In the long run the unemployment rate is basically independent of the long-run inflation rate. In other words, it is now accepted by economists that for all practical purposes the long-run Phillips Curve is vertical, and that expansionary aggregate demand policy cannot be used to reduce long-run unemployment. [Interjections.]

You explain it to us, please, Mr Finance Minister!

Both of them! [Interjections.]

An interesting fact is that the opposite of this trade-off concept is actually the truth. At highest levels of inflation a country runs the danger of unemployment rising in due course, and this leads to a situation of stagflation. That is the danger facing us. During the 1970s many countries experienced stagflation, a period of high and rising inflation coupled with high and rising unemployment.

Come with a concrete example!

I will give you a concrete example. The United States is a concrete example. In the late 1970s inflation in the United States rose to its highest level, as did unemployment. Since then policy in the United States has succeeded in bringing down the inflation level to just over 4%, and unemployment has fallen to one of its lowest levels of just over 7%. The hon the Minister simply must take the task of fighting inflation far more seriously than he appears to have done at this stage. He has hardly made mention of it in recent times. He has certainly not given the impression of taking the bull by the horns in this matter. [Interjections.] The inflation rate is astounding! What is the hon the Minister’s track record in this regard?

Inflation lies at the heart of a significant number of our most serious economic problems. For example, inflation lies at the heart of the falling rate of exchange of the rand. If there is a depreciation in the rand it implies a rise in the inflation rate, and vice versa. The mere expectation on the part of investors that inflation will continue to rise, as is the case at the moment, is sufficient to prompt investors into believing that the expected real return on their rand will decline. This has its effect on the inflation rate, and the depreciation of the rand follows in its wake.

On the other hand, if the market can be convinced that inflation in South Africa is about to decrease, this will result in an appreciation of the rand. In this way inflation is at the heart of the problem of repaying our foreign debt. Simplistically if the value of the rand were to double, our foreign debt burden would halve, and so would our interest bill. [Interjections.]

Economic progress would be more effective in countering unrest than any number of Casspirs sent by the hon the Minister of Law and Order into the townships. The inflation rate is the one factor which is directly under the Government’s control. It is the one factor which is under every government’s control. This Government must carry the complete blame for our inflation rate. This hon Minister of Finance has been in office for two years and he must share that blame for an inflation rate which has reached such unprecedented levels. The difference between this Government and other governments in the Western World among our main trading partners is that while they have beaten their inflation down to acceptable levels, this Government has neglected to do so. This Government has had a failure of willpower in that regard.

After a lot of research and a lot of discussion on the subject, I believe that it is possible to set a target of 5% for the inflation rate of this country. We cannot do it overnight; obviously not. No one would suggest that. However, unless the Government sets a target and some staggered objectives in order to reach that or a similar target, it is never going to get on top of the inflation rate. [Interjections.] The Government has created a situation in which the market simply believes that it will never get on top of it. People believe that inflation is slipping out of control. They see the figures which the Government puts out every year and the result is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Mr Chairman, I listened closely to the hon member for Constantia who devoted his speech to inflation. When he could find no solution to the great problem of inflation, he said it was the Government’s fault.

We have conducted a very important debate on finance this afternoon and tonight. In the few minutes at my disposal, I want to speak about money.

When I earned my first salary in January 1958, it was as an official of the Auditor-General. That salary was £28 6s 4d which I received in an envelope in notes and coins and which I had to sign for. Those pound notes—there were two £10 notes, a £5 note and so forth—were printed in England. There were shillings and pence too. Fortunately since 1961, after the decimalisation of our monetary unit, our bank notes have been printed in Pretoria by the South African Banknote Company. They are now being printed in rands. I think that company should be congratulated since I think our bank notes are of the most beautiful—if not the most beautiful—bank notes in the whole world. [Interjections.] The hon member for Innesdal says we print too few. [Interjections.] Other people say we print too many. Nevertheless we have beautiful bank notes.

Since 1961 we have seen Jan van Riebeeck’s effigy on our bank notes. The researchers now say it is not even the correct effigy. I want to ask, therefore, if it is not the correct image and we have been looking at the wrong one for 25 years whether the time has not come for us at least to change our bank notes without sacrificing any of their beauty?

I really want to speak about the Mint. Our Mint in Pretoria is a very modern mint. It is one of four in Africa, and has a production capacity of 600 million coins per annum. The demand for coins fluctuates from year to year, however. In 1983 there was a demand for 250 million coins. In 1984 the demand was for 600 million and in 1985 it was for 250 million coins.

Our Mint strikes coins, medals, medallions, metal badges, metal stamps, etc, of copper alloys, gold, silver, aluminium alloys, stainless steel and low percentage nickel alloy. I want to say something more about nickel later.

As a result of this fluctuation in the demand for coins, the Mint has turned to the private sector, to which it renders services as a subcontractor and also as a main contractor in respect of the production of medals, badges and so forth. It also acts as a training body, as a quality inspector and as a research and development agent for the private sector. The SA Mint is an active industry which tries to use the technology and the staff at its disposal to the greatest possible benefit of South Africa.

I want to point out a few interesting points in respect of the SA Mint. This year is the Year of the Handicapped, and the SA Mint has set itself the objective of training 50 handicapped people this year to earn a fair income in permanent jobs at the SA Mint. Another interesting point is that half of the coins minted annually by the SA Mint are used in the city of Johannesburg.

Our Mint Museum will be opened by the hon the Minister of Finance soon, on 25 April 1986, at Golden Reef City. On the same occasion the Protea commemorative coin, the first gold commemorative coin in the history of our country, will be struck by the hon the Minister in commemoration of Johannesburg’s 100th birthday. These Protea commemorative coins will be sold in denominations of one ounce and a tenth ounce.

I said earlier I wanted to return to the matter in respect of nickel. Nickel is mined in the area of the hon member for Brits and in the vicinity of Rustenburg, where I grew up. It is a by-product of platinum. All the nickel we mine in this country is exported to Canada and Germany to be refined. We then import the refined nickel again, to have half of it processed into coins here in the SA Mint while the other half is used elsewhere in the industry. I now appeal to the hon the Minister to inspire, to assist and to encourage the SA Mint and other bodies that are capable of doing so, to do the necessary research so that our nickel can be refined locally. It is senseless to export our capital goods, to have them refined overseas, and then to import them again at very great expense. In a period in which unemployment is the order of the day, I request that this will be one of the matters to receive our urgent attention.

I mentioned earlier that there are four mints in Africa. They are in Nigeria, the Sudan, Egypt and in South Africa. Only one of the four mints works and that is the one in Pretoria. The work of the other three mints is done in England. I now want to make a further appeal. The SA Mint has highly advanced technology at its disposal. We have proof of the quality of the products we supply. Much higher production is possible, because at present the production of the SA Mint is only 30% of the capacity. The necessary minerals and metals are available to us. My appeal is that some of the SA Mint’s people must please go along when we sent trade missions to Africa. In that way we can sell the possibilities of our Mint and the work it can do in Africa. This will be to the great benefit of our country.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Hercules who made a very interesting speech. Because of the limited time at my disposal, I shall not elaborate on it, however.

I should like to make use of the opportunity to thank the hon the Minister of Finance in the first place, and to congratulate him on the way in which he replied to hon members on their second reading speeches. In addition, I am very grateful that the hon the Minister showed up a number of the untruths expressed during these speeches. I hope hon members will be able to use that information in their constituencies to refute the stories there too.

The hon the Minister said on that occasion that this Budget is a careful one. I want to agree with him wholeheartedly, but I want to go even further and add that in the present political and economic conditions this Budget was a particularly favourable one which helped to create confidence in our people. Not only did the hon the Minister succeed in restricting State expenditure to an increase of only 13,9%, but he also succeeded in making tax concessions, inter alia the lifting of the 7% surcharge as well as a further 5% reduction in the nett tax. With regard to the earnings of married women, he could also make a further concession—a matter which has been a thorny problem for a very long time.

It must also be mentioned that when considerable increases did occur, it was in the spheres where they were most necessary. I should like to mention a few of these. Education shows an increase of 19,3%; housing, 25,4%; social expenses including area development, health, promotion of culture, sport and recreation, as well as promotion of welfare, 15,7%; and Defence, the Police and other forms of ensuring our safety, 18%. I think we must take cognisance of this.

It is clear that if the State can succeed in keeping the expenditure within the set objectives, not only can inflation be controlled, but I am convinced it will also drop—something that naturally is not only very difficult, but also very unpredictable. The hon the Minister of Finance has referred to this already, prompted by accusations from the opposition side. He pointed out how difficult it is to make these forecasts. It is also true that the hon the Minister cannot turn to Credo Mutwa, the witch-doctor, as the hon leader of the CP can. He has to depend on information he gets from his officials, and he has to read the signs of the future himself.

The combating of inflation is not simply the duty of the State. I think it is high time the private sector—even more, for every individual—contributed to combating inflation. The hon member for Amanzimtoti referred to that tonight. Everyone is talking about the economy that has to recover. Which economy has to recover? Is it not true that we must rather adjust to the present economy? The hon members of the CP and the hon member for Sasolburg made the accusation again tonight that the Whites in this country are becoming impoverished.

Of course!

But the State has taken nothing away from these people.

Heavens above!

On the contrary, the State’s contribution to social services and the combating of unemployment is still growing and more and more money is made available for that. It is true that there are people who are poor, but we have always had the poor with us. [Interjections.] The poor have always been with us. Therefore we must not generalise when we speak about these matters. The hon member must go and see what our department stores look like daily. He must go and see how those trolleys are overloaded. Then he can decide for himself whether our people are really becoming impoverished as these hon members want to contend.

The greatest problem of inflation is precisely that there are too many people who want to use inflation to make greater profits, and our own consumers play along gaily. The hon member for Rosettenville has already referred to the great differences that exist in respect of commodities. Our people must learn not only to buy more economically, but also to buy only what is necessary. It is time we made sacrifices. Our people will have to learn to save, as the hon member for Smithfield pointed out very clearly.

People must be more specific when they say State expenditure must be curtailed. They must also tell us how it must be done. Must the State dismiss more people for example, and create more unemployment in that way? Must the State reduce its staffs salaries? Last year there was great dissatisfaction when only 33% of people’s bonuses was withheld. The opposition made wonderful politics out of that.

There is also a great deal of talk of privatisation. Have hon members thought of what would happen to the private sector if the State stopped all development or did not establish any infrastructure? The State does make the funds available, that is true; but the money is used by the private sector. The State does not have building contractors who build roads and bridges. The State does not have building contractors who erect great State buildings. The State does not have architects and quantity surveyors and engineers who plan these constructions and have them completed.

I therefore think we should be grateful that the hon the Minister has not tried to bring about economic growth by greater State expenditure, but rather by putting more money in the taxpayers’ pockets, as wel as by creating the correct climate for greater confidence in the economy so that outside investments will be attracted to stimulate our country’s growth.

I should like to conclude with the following thought: In the first place I want to thank the relevant hon Ministers on behalf of the farmers in my constituency for the assistance they have received from the State during the past two years, especially in the form of interest subsidies. There has been a great deal of talk about the farmers’ input costs recently, but I want to maintain that interest is the greatest single factor over which the farmer has no control, and also the item that gives farmers the greatest financial problems. We are very grateful that interests rates have dropped considerably recently. I see inter alia under the Finance Vote that an amount of more than R5 000 million has been provided as a statutory amount for interest on State loans. This is an immense burden for the State. We know the problems experienced by the State in connection with this whole matter, also in recent times. The hon the Minister had to give an explanation about this matter once again tonight.

Yet I want to plead with the hon the Minister to create further schemes in co-operation with the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics as well as the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply to assist in bearing the farmers’ interest burden by means of subsidies. [Interjections.] If the hon the Minster does so, he will definitely assist those farmers for whom night has fallen, so that they can see the sun rise on their farms again. I am not asking the hon the Minister to create a general scheme. What I want to ask is that he will judge every case according to its merits and render assistance on that basis.

In addition, I ask for the interest on loans from private financing bodies to be included in this if possible.

Mr Chairman, I would like to say that I was very impressed by the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs’s attitude when he was challenged by the hon member for Yeoville today. I believe his was a generous response but I was not so impressed by the hon member for Waterkloof s defence of his Minister. He used the instance of somebody buying a company with an assessed loss. He should know that trafficking in assessed losses is not permitted. In fact if one buys such a company with an assessed loss and that is disallowed, the Receiver will only allow that assessed loss to be used if he can be satisfied that one did not purchase that company because of its assessed loss.

The Kleu study group was appointed about eight years ago and its reference was to formulate an industrial strategy for South Africa. It sat for six years and it took another two years for the hon the Minister to reconstitute the Industries Advisory Committee. It is interesting to consider some of the main recommendations made by the Kleu study group and to see how many of these the Government has done something about implementing.

The study group stated that industrial strategy must create employment and growth. That is the main purpose. Let us look at the performance of manufacture from these two aspects bearing in mind that it is the largest employer as a sector of the economy and accounts for 20% of our gross domestic product. Over the past five years manufacture’s contribution to gross domestic product has declined from R13,5 billion to R11,8 billion at 1980 prices—that is approximately 12%.

Manufacturing offers the best scope for employment creation. What sort of contribution has it made in this field? In 1979 it employed 1,325 million people and in 1981 the figure was nearly 1,5 million. However, in 1985 it was right back at the level of 1979. We are therefore, notwithstanding the enormous growth in our population—almost 250 000 people enter the job market every year—now using 10% fewer people in manufacturing than we did five years ago. That is the dimension of our problem.

Secondly, Kleu repeated that capital was the factor of production most likely to inhibit growth. He made two points in this connection. He said that foreign capital was unpredictable and subject to political perceptions. Our careless disregard for this warning can be seen in the State President’s disastrous Rubicon speech which sent the rand crashing and for which he should in fact have resigned. The second point Kleu made was that the public sector should reduce the proportion of investment capital which it used and release capital to the private sector which was more productive.

What has happened? Gross investment in public authorities has moved up every year for eight years. Investment in public corporation has followed a similar pattern whereas gross investment in private business enterprise—R11,5 billion—last year dropped below Government and parastatal investment for the first time in eight years.

Thirdly, Kleu called for control on Government spending. As we know, in the 1978 financial year the Government spent R9 billion. Only eight years later, in the 1985-86 financial year, the Government spent R33 billion. This eight year period typically was punctuated with protestations of conservative accounting till we were sick of them. Nobody believes a thing the Government says any more.

Fourthly, Kleu advocated increased privatisation. When challenged to give examples of this in the recent debate the hon the Minister mentioned the taking over of houses on a massive scale by the occupants from the State. We approve of that but that is not what most people have in mind by privatisation. By privatisation we mean the taking over of State enterprises by private enterprise and subjecting those enterprises to the disciplines of the private sector. If therefore they do not show a return on their investment they go the way of all unsuccessful companies.

Kleu made it clear that capital-short South Africa had no option but to build up the export of manufactured goods. It is the only way in which we can create jobs and acquire foreign capital in a non-inflationary manner. South Africa’s performance as an exporter of manufactured goods has been appalling. In fact, the other day the Federated Chamber of Industries referred to it as a “lost opportunity”. Exports of merchandise by volume in 1985 were just 5% above the average for the three years 1978, 1979 and 1980.

Kleu again pointed to the dangers of inflation. As we know, inflation is 50% higher than it was when he pointed out those dangers. What we are doing at the moment is to stimulate our economy from that platform. This is a terribly dangerous and inflationary thing to do. We are not doing this because our deflationary strategy has been successful; on the contrary, it has not only failed to prevent a soaring inflation rate but has also precipitated an economic crisis where the political risks of continuing to deflate appear less threatening than the inflation rate itself.

Job creation remains our main task. It must be evident to anybody with half an eye that the Government by its actions and inactions has inhibited the growth of our economy. Gross domestic product per capita has declined since 1981 by approximately 9%. Unemployment in South Africa is now probably of the order of 1½ million. It is in this area where we see the consequences of the Government’s real failure.

Although Kleu touches on the importance of Black participation he never really addresses the political problems that affect our economy to the degree that they should have been addressed.

If there is any one thing that has been driven home to the business community recently, it is the interdependence of politics and economics. The humiliating debt standstill agreement, the declining value of the rand and the emigration of some of our most valuable and talented young people are all indications of a political problem. We have now reached the stage where there is no economic recipe for our problems. The solution to our economic problems now lies primarily in the political field.

Assocom is aware of this and asked Prof Lombard to produce alternative constitutional proposals which were quite valuable. The Federated Chamber of Industries has produced its charter which is also a very useful contribution to the constitutional debate. While these are not matters that would normally be tackled by organisations like these, they are now aware that our economic problem has to be addressed from a political angle. The businessmen, newspapermen, clerics and students who beat a path to Lusaka are also aware that we have a political problem more than an economic one, but is the Government aware of this?

In most democracies the task of the opposition is to explain to Government how it could have managed better. For us it is difficult to see how they could have managed worse. This Government is so fearful of committing itself to clear objectives, so fraught with tension and so terrified of fragmentation that it is without initiative, purpose or hope. It is nonsense to think that it will create a just new dispensation for our country. It is an assembly without integrity of composition. It has overstayed its time and it must now clear out.

Mr Chairman, I should like to tell the previous speaker we are all aware that the economic problems in our country are of a political nature and the hon the Minister has said so a number of times tonight.

The hon member also said the Rubicon speech had caused the rand to drop. That was a political problem, but not as the hon member sees it. It was people who exerted pressure on us to change in a way we knew we could not change.

I want to use the time at my disposal to discuss the way in which people are ranting and raving about the policy of the Government as if we on this side of the House are trying in every conceivable and inconceivable way to improverish the Whites in proportion to the other population groups. That was shouted out everywhere. The hon member who shouted it out tonight is not here now.

Stoffie said it too.

The hon member for Sasolburg said it too, as did the hon member for Lichtenburg who is not here tonight either. I am terribly sorry, he was here; then he walked past and unfortunately I could not stop him. It was said that the Government is impoverishing the Whites relative to the other population groups in the country in an unprecedented way by means of the Budget. [Interjections.] The hon member over there put it beautifully.

I want to ask whether those hon CP members were aware of the position of this situation at the time the hon member for Sasolburg’s party split from the NP. What was the situation with regard to the relative impoverishment or enrichment of the population groups during the 1970-75 period? It is surprising to hear that during that period the Whites were impoverished by 6,5% relative to the other population groups in the country. All the hon members of the CP were still in this party then.

I tried to check. I do not want to offend them, but nowhere did I find a reference to their having been dissatisfied at that stage about the Whites’ becoming impoverished by 6,5% relative to the Blacks.

I was not here yet at that stage.

That is a racist approach.

If one of them made such a speech, in which he lamented this fact and expressed his aversion to it, I would be grateful if he would present it to me. Then I can apologise to him. This talk is all about only one matter, however, viz political gain.

It is interesting to ask where the figures mentioned a moment ago came from. They come from a book quoted in this House to point out to the Government that its reform initiatives will not achieve the objective of peace, but will fuel disorder and revolution in this country.

That is correct!

The hon member for Lichtenburg says that is correct. He quoted from this book, titled South Africa after Vorster, by Professor Arnheim.

Yes, that is a good book!

Indeed, it is an excellent book. I admit the hon member is correct there. The hon members who quoted from it have one of two problems, the first of which is that they have not read it.

No, we have!

All indications are that they have not read it, since the last time it was taken out of Parliament’s library was in 1981.

It has no pictures, that’s why.

Do you think that is the only copy in the country?

The hon member must show me his.

Come to my office. [Interjections.] You talk so much nonsense!

In that case I must conclude that the hon member for Rissik cannot read English. [Interjections.] They quote from that book to prove that the NP policy is fueling revolution, but what is the real content of the book? It says this unrest is rooted in the actions and policies of Dr Verwoerd.

Quote him!

That is one opinion.

Exactly!

I am merely referring to the opinion of people quoted by us by these hon members. That book says our problems began with Dr Verwoerd’s actions and policy.

Do you say that too?

Where is the Tomlinson Report?

The hon member for Waterberg, the leader of the CP, said partition is the only guarantee for peaceful co-existence. What does Professor Arnheim’s book say about that?

It looks as though you really did read a book!

He dismisses it in one page—page 173—as nonsense. [Interjections.] I shall give the book to the hon member over there who is talking along with me, then he will learn something too. [Interjections.] When one attacks someone, it is imperative to make very sure of one’s facts—for one’s own sake, not that of one’s opposing party—otherwise one causes one’s image great damage.

Tell that to the hon the Minister!

The hon the Minister discovered that tonight.

If hon members read the reply of the hon the Minister to the accusation of the hon member for Lichtenburg the other night, hon members would see that the hon member for Lichtenburg had misinterpreted certain figures. It is not the first time he has done so.

Were you in the House today?

Yes, I was here.

Do you understand Afrikaans?

Yes, do you?

Were you awake?

Listen to who is asking whether I was awake! I think they have only to look at the hon member diagonally in front of me if they want to ask that question. [Interjections.] I do not believe that question is applicable to me.

The problem these hon members have with facts issues either from their superficial knowledge or else they depend on people who are supposed to know, but do not. [Interjections.] Of the two the latter danger is the worse one. I think the one who advised these hon members damaged the CP’s credibility. Their credibility has suffered a grievous blow. It is probably not up to me to debate today whether the CP has any credibility, and that is why I want to appeal to the hon the Minister and tell him that we have a real problem in the rural areas today.

The rural areas are on the brink of an immensely chaotic situation today.

Thanks to the NP!

Yes, of course the hon member whom I have to telephone if I want to speak to him, thinks we make the rain. Our problem arose as a result of the greatest drought in living memory. It left us with almost unredeemable debts. [Interjections.] At the same time we have to contend with the problem that the agricultural input costs are 50% higher than the inflation rate. As a result of the great problem of the escalation of the costs of agricultural inputs, I think the agricultural problem will have to be dealt with in four ways. Our first point of attack will have to be aimed at the price maintenance on input costs by the manufacturers of agricultural implements. In the second place I calculate very modestly that this year’s interest subsidies on the farmers’ carry-over debt will have to be considerably higher than was provided for in the Budget. I maintain that we should not begin to reduce this subsidy too quickly at this stage. We cannot destroy the wonderful work done by the Government during the past three years while we were experiencing a drought. The whole rural population was assisted by this—not only the farmers, but also the small businessmen, the Black workers and the Black buying power. Nearly all of them were kept in the rural areas and on their farms. [Interjections.] Is it not wonderful that while one is speaking about the urgent requirements of one’s own people in the farming community, someone can make flippant remarks and reveal total apathy towards the farmers—the people whose vote he hopes to win. [Interjections.]

He hates the farmers! He is a “boerehater”! [Interjections.]

I think he is a blatant “boerehater”. His benchmate has told us before that they hate us.

Do you hate the Indians?

I do not hate the Indians, I cannot think of anyone I hate. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville asked to be excused as he had to make a speech somewhere. He said he would return so I shall not reply to hon members in chronological order. I shall keep my comments on his speech and give them to him later.

The hon member for Smithfield touched upon a very important matter in the debate here today in speaking of the great problem of inflationary expectations and in citing very clear examples of people’s conduct in the economy when expectations of inflation run high. In one’s fight against inflation one of the great difficulties is how the market reacts as regards its sentiments and view on what the inflation rate will be a few months ahead and even in the longer term. There is no doubt that, if there is a high inflationary expectation in an economy—this has already reared its head very seriously here from time to time—people resort to credit to a very great degree. When in addition one finds oneself in a situation such as that which prevailed here in 1984, in which one had a high degree of demand-motivated inflation which causes people to turn to credit and buy goods they would otherwise have done without, they actually aggravate the problem and the entire matter becomes a self-fulfilling prediction indeed. Consequently it is very important that people be very clearly and continuously informed of the entire concept of inflation and how it arises.

The hon member also referred to the importance of domestic capital formation. One can go only so far in encouraging thrift and we sacrificed a very large amount this year. I wish to emphasise the point I made in my reply to the hon member for Umbilo during the Second Reading when I pointed out to him that a tax rebate was the equivalent of Government expenditure. We certainly incurred enormous Government expenditure by returning five times the amount applicable at the beginning of last year tax-free to the retired today. I do not wish to contend for a single moment that it is adequate to the person living chiefly on an income from interest; neither do I wish to argue that it is sufficient for the one who merely wants to save nor in any way allege that it is enough for capital formation. I do wish to put forward that it was the best we could do in these extremely difficult circumstances although we should have liked to do more. Nevertheless we should like to review this case in the light of the total perspective of the Margo Commission’s recommendations which we hope to receive by the middle of the year.

The hon member further raised a very important matter in expanding his argument that we should save more. This also dealt with other hon members’ statements in this regard. The question is how we are to apply it as a country. This is a very important question because, whichever way one applies it, it constantly makes a vast difference— whether in an overconcentration in too few financial institutions or as prescribed investments; whether in an overconcentration in high-yield investment but at low risk in the First-World portion of one’s country instead of higher-risk investments with a low-yield potential in the Third-World sector of one’s economy. The question is whether it is worthwhile for a country to provide great incentives for saving.

More than a year ago I directed a request of this nature to the insurance industry and recently followed it up when we had a discussion with them again. This is an enormously important matter which we have to discuss with the insurance industry at the highest level in the near future. We have to give a decision on the application of that money. We cannot permit it to become overconcentrated in our city centres; neither can we permit it to raise imaginary assets on the Stock Exchange and ultimately create a totally artificial world there.

Members of the insurance industry—especially those concentrating on long-term insurance—obviously bear the responsibility of operating trust funds. They cannot operate such funds speculatively or adventurously. A definite agreement will have to be reached with authority on the extent to which they should undertake risk investments to ensure that the saver’s interests are protected. There is no doubt—and this is the point I put to them once early last year—that it does not help to encourage a person to save by buying a long-term policy for instance which matures in 20 or 25 years’ time, whereas that money is applied in such a way that one even finds economic growth but without employment creation—as the hon member for Edenvale so aptly indicated. By the time that policy matures, there will no longer be a South Africa in which the proceeds can be paid out because the future of this country depends on our ability to apply the limited resources at our disposal in creating employment opportunities for people entering the labour market in South Africa.

It is simply a fact that impossible demands will be made of this country in consequence of our population growth at this stage. Demands will be made as regards educational standards and employment creation opportunities to accommodate this mass of people. In many sectors of our economy we still have Third-World fertility linked to First-World medical care which is a formula for a population explosion such as one has not yet seen in one’s life. Nevertheless this is not a matter one should necessarily regard as a problem because one may be proud that it is a reflection of the standard of services and civilisation in the country. It is a matter which also has to be dealt with in the economic sphere, however, otherwise one will run into problems. Consequently I appreciate the hon member’s and other hon members’ illustrating this specific problem to some extent in this particular debate.

The hon member also made the telling point that productivity had to be increased in South Africa as well—there is no doubt about that. We have already debated this point in the House a number of times and used the statement towards one another that, when there is an imbalance between the value of labour and the value of the money one can put in one’s pocket in exchange, it basically causes cost-push inflation in the economy which one cannot break. One will only succeed in this when the labour is worth the money or when the money drops in value to the extent that it equals one’s inferior labour. These are essentials which ultimately have to play their part in the economy. Consequently we have to increase people’s productivity in South Africa with continuous training and sustained inducement. That is why an investment in training—whether it is of children or adults—is an investment in the future of South Africa not only as regards the general level of development but also for a sounder South African economy.

Barend, you are making a good speech. [Interjections.]

I am very grateful to the hon member for Jeppe for that compliment. It just shows how one can improve if the CP does not worry one all the time. It also shows what opportunities one has in life if one is not perpetually thwarted politically. [Interjections.] My thanks to the hon member for Jeppe once again. In spite of the problems often caused by that hon member in this House, I am personally appreciative of the hon member for Jeppe in many respects.

That is enough now. [Interjections.]

*The MINISTER; Yes, perhaps it is enough but it is far more than I can say of other hon members. [Interjections.]

I now wish to allude to the hon member for Vasco who referred inter alia to the role of the Auditor-General. We are very eager to see him functioning in a totally different light in the near future. We should like the Auditor-General to be known publicly as the watchdog of the public’s money and be regarded as such. He has always had this role but I think the time has come for us to do something pertinent about that specific function.

What I have just said holds extensive implications. In other words, it involves not only the professionalising of that department as such but also audit guidelines. Our present Auditor-General has exciting ideas on this matter. He is very eager inter alia to incorporate the principle of the so-called “value-for-money audit” in the ordinary auditing function. There will then be an increasing type of what I feel like calling “value appraisal” of the nature of certain expenses. This is obviously a very sensitive matter with many political implications with which one cannot deal lightly.

I am unsure whether a term other than “fruitless expenditure” would turn it into something else but we shall take note of the hon member’s argument on this.

I should like to thank the hon member for his reference to the task group. All my hon colleagues, people from the Auditor-General’s office and I expect a great deal of this group. The use and value of the Auditor-General’s office may be greatly enhanced in that entire exercise.

The hon member made a point on the level of confidentiality. I know he has definite reservations on this but it is unfortunately a fact that there are certain activities in our State as well which really have to take place on a “need-to-know” basis. In consultation with the hon the Minister of Defence and the State President I have come to an arrangement with the Auditor-General which I believe satisfactory for checking certain expenses. Consequently I wish to request the hon member to mark time a little with his present idea regarding knowledge of certain matters because this also relates to the nature of a person’s post—whether one is an official or actually a political functionary. I shall leave the case at that but I am closely involved with it at the moment and am satisfied with the current arrangement. If there is any way in which we may improve on this, I should be very pleased to consider it.

The hon member for Paarl spoke on our foreign debt standstill. I think he expressed positive ideas on the necessity for foreign investments. I want to tell him we recently sent the Deputy Director-General of Finance overseas to start upon improving our relations with our old business partners again. He did not go to request money and he returned with valuable information and is again building up valuable contacts. It is very interesting that many of the people involved in the rescheduling of our foreign debt situation with experience of what occurred in other countries said they had never carried out such an easy rescheduling and arrived so rapidly at an agreement acceptable to international creditors.

Many important events are afoot in the international debt position. The declining oil price is not only getting countries into difficulties which were helped by oil-producing lands when oil was riding high but it is also bringing trouble to a number of oil-producing countries which did not have problems before—I am not referring to Venezuela now and especially not to Mexico which did have problems as oil producers. Some oil-producing countries embarked on extensive projects and can no longer finance them. There is no doubt that the international debt position at the moment is much worse than it was a few months ago precisely in consequence of the decline in the price of oil.

The falling oil price has another very important result. The Soviet Union is the leading world exporter of oil and it is its greatest currency earner. It exports oil to Comecon countries so the currency position of the Soviet Union also comes under pressure. If it has to pay for its large imports, especially food, it will have to sell more gold in international markets. There are so many variables to this formula but our possible gains through the oil crisis and the international position of the dollar may become losses again as the Soviet Union has to sell very much more gold than usual. Only a very clever computer could calculate this for us.

Emotions have to be taken into account as well. Direct relationships have been severed. If someone fired a few rockets on the international scene in the past, the gold price rose but that does not even happen anymore. Various one-to-one relationships have been broken over the past few years and one can no longer forecast. Consequently it becomes increasingly difficult for us as a country to budget with absolute accuracy. On best opinion and information we have to adopt a view on the predicted conduct of the various parameters which influence our Budget.

†I would like to thank the hon member for Edenvale very much indeed for reintroducing a note of seriousness into this debate. I think he made a very valuable contribution. As an economist, he certainly prepared himself well to make a serious contribution towards seeking the solutions to the problems we experience in our economy.

The hon member was absolutely right in saying that we in South Africa are not only fighting to make our books balance. We are indeed fighting for the survival of the free enterprise system. Whatever certain people might say, it remains the system that allocates scarce resources best.

Another important point the hon member made was that if we in this country do not succeed in allowing people of colour to share tangibly in the benefits of that system, then any alternative will do. That is the fact which stares us in the face today. We must run this country’s economy in such a way that the distribution of income—distribution of growth, to use the correct, formal terminology—and the availability of opportunities are such that people can in the shortest possible period of time experience tangibly the benefits of a free enterprise system. It is therefore the serious endeavour of the Government to couple the implementation of this Budget directly with a process of dramatic deregulation because, as I argued in the Budget Speech, there should be no impediment in the way of anybody wanting to employ himself. No silly regulations should stand in the way of a person who is trying to make a living, even if he has to do so according to the rules of the Third World. After all, by and large, South Africa is in many ways a Third World country.

The other important point the hon member made was that there was only one way to solve South Africa’s problems in the long term, economically speaking, and that was to increase the overall availability of resources to redistribute. There is no way in which we can escape serious tension in this country unless we can maintain a high growth rate, coupled with a high rate of creating employment opportunities.

The hon member referred to the jewellery industry. It has a history, and there are certain other factors which play a role, but it is quite remarkable that South Africa, the world’s largest producer of gold and diamonds—the hon member quoted many figures—is not the world Mecca for the acquisition and purchase of jewellery. Why not? We so desperately need tourism in this part of the world. If in the process it were possible for a wealthy foreigner to come to this country, and combine a tour of South Africa with a profitable acquisition of jewellery—expertly and artistically manufactured here—I am pretty sure that we could overcome many of the problems which we are experiencing with tourism.

I can give the hon member the assurance that for a considerable time now my colleague, the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, and I have been looking very seriously at this issue. We have various experts working on it, and we shall gladly come to light with some suggestions as soon as possible.

I want to give the hon member further reassurance that my hon colleague and I do not handle the whole issue of marginal gold mines on an ad hoc basis which can place in jeopardy the number of jobs which the hon member referred to, as well as the very substantial earnings in foreign exchange that accrue to South Africa by way of these mines. The reason why we wanted to change the system was to enable us to make an evaluation of a particular mine, instead of the mine doing a little arithmetical exercise and sending us the account. It was open ended, and that was wrong. Furthermore, it was just a sterile or neutral formula with no regard whatsoever to the idiosyncrasies of a particular mine or to the state of the business cycle in the country at a particular stage. I think it makes good sense to evaluate each case individually on the basis of its own merits.

I thank the hon member for Amanzimtoti for replying to many of the debating points that had been made by the time he started making his speech. I would particularly like to thank him for his reference to the work ethic. There is no question that we can learn a lot from North America, and that includes Canada and the USA, as far as the work ethic is concerned. That ethic prevails in many circles today still. That ethic helped that country to develop into the economic giant which it is today. To my mind the Americans have a very important principle: Although they pay one a pound of gold, they take a pound of flesh for it. That is for sure. They also do not pay for hard work. They pay for results. If that ethic could be incorporated into more of our enterprises in South Africa, it would be a jolly good thing.

And into politics!

Of course, yes. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Amanzimtoti referred to a very important statistic, and the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central should take good note of it. I do not mean to sound derogatory when I say that there was an out of proportion growth in the motor industry, as quoted by the hon member for Amanzimtoti, in relation to the growth in the GDP over the past seven years, as the hon member said, if I remember correctly. That indicates that the motor industry did in fact experience many good years. That does not mean that we should not try to help them out of the dire straits in which they find themselves now.

He only went to 1984. Since 1984 the market has dropped enormously. 1981 to 1986 is the critical period.

Sir, I think we can debate that on another occasion. [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Waterkloof raised the important point that investments in the Transport Services and the Post Office certainly saved many engineering firms from going under. I accept the truth of this and we should recognise it. The hon member’s appeal that we should devote attention to small business undertakings is right on target. Is it not true that in a country like the United States of America—if my memory serves me—more than 65% of all employment opportunities come from the small business sector? A small undertaking is defined as one with a staff of approximately 10 people. The development of the small business undertaking is therefore certainly the answer for South Africa.

I take great pleasure in supporting the idea—that hon member also mentioned it and it links up with what the hon member for Yeoville said—that shareholding should be promoted among workers. I do not know whether those ideas were submitted to the Margo Commission but I think it necessary for us to acquire a formal document on this matter from experts in order to be able to consider the matter inter alia during the coming recess.

Try the English system …

Yes, the hon member for Waterkloof also referred to the English system and I think we should consider that matter urgently.

I take pleasure in thanking the hon member for Overvaal who really made an inspired speech tonight. [Interjections.] Hon members on this side of the House enjoyed it and he surprised us. We enjoyed it thoroughly. [Interjections.]

As regards the hon member for Gezina I do not want to go into detail but I want to tell him that the entire taxation question concerning the TBVC countries is a difficult one and we maintain the closest contact with those countries, which are independent. We are in close contact with them. I do not want to imply that I am satisfied with the progress we have made in many respects but I hope we shall be able to dispose of this matter. An imbalance is creating a distortion in the viability of people living near the border. We restore the balance on an interstate basis but the people on the border get hurt. I also took note of the hon member’s argument on GST inspectors; it is a positive thought.

The hon member for Hercules made a few very interesting comments on the Mint. Permit me to say that we shall shortly be minting the first Protea coin along the lines of the old Kruger coin. We are very proud of the work done by this Mint. It manufactures for Commonwealth countries and hon members would be surprised at those for which work is done. The hon member certainly expressed a good thought in that we should do more in Africa.

I shall furnish him later with a well-considered reply to his story about nickel. I think this may be a matter which should in preference be directed to my colleague the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. Perhaps we should request the Minerals Bureau to attend to this.

†I just want to refer quickly to a few points that the hon member for Yeoville raised. With regard to the issue concerning the shares, I want to say that I regard it as a very sensitive and personal issue. I think one must make use of a yardstick and reason along the lines that the hon member suggested. Every person should ask himself this question: “Would I have received this offer of so many shares at that particular price at all if I had not held my present position? [Interjections.] That will not always be an easy question to answer. There are some of my hon colleagues in the Cabinet who had the best reason on earth to believe that they would have received such an offer anyway.

As far as the possibility of preferential treatment is concerned, I shall heed the hon member for Yeoville’s suggestion and look into the matter. However, I am also acutely aware of the fact that many companies would have had problems if a particular broker did not have a thousand friends whom he could approach and ask to take out some shares in that specific issue.

This is such a difficult question that it is not possible to deal with it by applying a rigid yardstick. Therefore, I should like to say at this stage that I think every person in public office must personalise such an issue and look at it within his own area of influence. If one is a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, one must be extremely aware of the possibility that one can get oneself into an invidious and compromised position if one accepts this kind of thing because one can directly influence a particular financial institution. In another set of circumstances quite the opposite may be possible. Therefore, I feel that we must develop this whole idea of applying yardsticks to our personal circumstances as public office-holders because, in the end, it is not worthwhile accepting a small profit just for the sake of accepting it at that moment in time, considering the fact that there may be other people who will take it amiss if one does that—sometimes regardless of the merits of the case.

Therefore my plea is that we should personalise it and evaluate it in our own minds. However, it is also imperative that people in public office should be adequately remunerated. They should be adequately remunerated so that those chances become less attractive.

This cannot be a compensation.

No, it can never be a compensation, but I do believe …

Now you only make it worse!

Mr Chairman, I am not even prepared to argue with that hon member if he adopts that attitude. [Interjections.]

*Mr Chairman, the hon member does not know what he is talking about.

I know what I am talking about.

Mr Chairman, I wish to offer a brief comment arising from the problem mentioned by the hon member for Yeoville on the question of GST. I merely want to say my hon colleague and I are examining the matter.

The factor which distinguishes the SA Transport Services from other institutions is obviously that Treasury appropriations are allocated to the SA Transport Services. That is the difference between SATS and every other business organisation. My hon colleague and I shall therefore discuss the matter on the basis of that principle but I wish to add immediately that there is no trace of violation of law or anything of that nature. It is purely a case to be considered on different merits.

†As far as the Priorities Committee is concerned I would like the hon member for Yeoville to take that up with the State President himself. The Priorities Committee, as far as I personally am concerned, is getting on to a track where it will play a role of tremendous importance in South Africa. A lot of preparatory and research work was done in order to equip it properly for the work that it is supposed to do, and that is exactly what is happening now. [Interjections.]

*Mr Chairman, I shall let that suffice but I wish to add to the hon member for Yeoville that I do not blindly believe that the State should merely stand here as a signalman. If the hon member read it like that, he was wrong because I introduced the Budget here on behalf of the Government which particularly takes certain sources and places them where the market would neither reach nor be able to benefit them to the same extent as in moving those sources right out to another part of the economy. Consequently there comes a time for the Government to set something in motion but there is also a time and a place for it to stand back and leave this to the private sector. I shall revert to the hon member for Sasolburg at a later occasion.

Order! I put the Votes.

[Inaudible.]

Order! When the Chairman is putting the Votes the hon member for Yeoville will be silent.

Mr Chairman, may I just point out that I was just trying to tell the hon the Minister …

Order! I am not interested in what the hon member was saying; he should not have been saying anything. [Interjections.]

Votes agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.