as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on the Family Court Bill and the Divorce Amendment Bill, dated 26 February 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour.

This is, to my mind, a debate which should actually not really be taking place. As far as I am concerned this is a no-no debate. There is really no reason at all why this ministry should exist. [Interjections.] There is indeed no reason why we should be spending this money. Moreover, Sir, I am going to try to demonstrate that we could do better if this particular hon Minister and this particular function did not exist at all. [Interjections.] I must tell you, Sir, that when we look at Vote No 5—the Vote we are debating now—it appears that we are being asked to vote an amount of R24 336 000. We are being asked to deal with personnel expenditure of some R15,5 million. There is also administrative expenditure of some R4,25 million. We are going to deal with a programme which, in itself, provides a very interesting phenomenon in that this Vote has only one programme, whereas all the other Budgetary Votes concerned with similar services in the other two Houses have two programmes. This Vote has only one programme but simultaneously it has an establishment of some 647 people, of whom some 532 people are going to be employed.

What I am going to ask the hon the Minister to do is to spell out for us what these people are really doing. What are they in fact required for? Why cannot these functions be exercised by the Treasury? I ask this, Sir, because when one looks at the objects of this particular Budget Vote, at the functions of this particular hon Minister and at the tasks that are being performed, it is quite clear that there is no need for a Minister of the Budget, for all of these tasks can be carried out, in the main, by the Treasury, and without this expenditure being incurred.

There are some other important aspects which warrant looking at, and so I should like to ask the hon the Minister a number of other pertinent questions. Firstly, the budget cycle for the year 1986-87 has begun. I should like the hon the Minister to tell us on what base of expenditure it is beginning. As far as we know—and it will be so until the hon the Minister informs us to the contrary—negotiations are still being carried on in regard to the formula. We have been told only generalities relating to the formula. So we in fact do not know what next year’s Budget is going to be based on. We do not know what the relationship is going to be between general affairs and the three own affairs administrations, and also between the three own affairs administrations themselves. I think, therefore, that the hon the Minister owes it to us to tell us what in fact this budget cycle, which has already commenced and in respect of which work has already started, is based on. The departments surely cannot be expected to draw up their own budgets without knowing the basis upon which expenditure is going to be calculated in the year that has commenced.

The other question which I think the hon the Minister has to answer—and answer very clearly because he is the Minister responsible for the so-called policy in respect of the entire Minister’s Council—concerns the way in which the hon the Minister applies his priorities. In other words, what are the hon the Minister’s priorities in regard to the expenditure of own affairs departments of the House of Assembly? For instance, what does he regard as being the most important function? How does he decide on what he should concentrate the money and on how the resources should be allocated? I ask this because we had no statement of policy from him throughout his Second Reading introductory speech or his reply as to how he viewed the priorities in regard to own affairs. I must say that to my mind, and I think to the minds of the hon members who sit in these benches here with me, there is no logic in regard to the division of the services which has taken place; there is overlapping; there is not only duplication but also triplication in regard to costs; and the tragedy is that the hon the Minister knows, as we know, that this whole edifice is not going to last and it is going to be changed. We are in fact spending a fortune building an edifice which everyone in this House knows and everyone outside knows is not going to survive.

Nonsense.

An hon member says “nonsense”. I do not know who the hon member was who said that but I would like him to hold up his hand so that we can see who he is. [Interjections.] It is the hon member for Johannesburg West. [Interjections.] Can he tell me, seeing that he is so clever, cleverer than his own Minister, how this edifice is to survive—maybe the hon the Minister will deal with this in his reply—when they are dealing with a major population group under general affairs and with the other population groups under own affairs? When it comes to the apportionment of the cake the representatives of the major population group in South Africa are not there to participate in a negotiation as to how the cake is going to be cut up. Anybody who says in this House that this edifice is going to survive in this form is living in a dream world because there is no possibility that that can happen in these circumstances.

Let us actually look at what the powers of the hon the Minister are, because I want to come back to the issue of the whole structure of own and general affairs. When we look at Schedule 1 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act of 1983 we find— and I think it is necessary that we should go back to it—that we should keep a few things in mind when dealing with finance. I quote from paragraph 11 of the schedule:

—which is what we are now dealing with— means that we can have:

1. (1) estimates of revenue and expenditure, but excluding the form in which such estimates shall be prepared;

In other words, we cannot determine the form of the estimates; we can determine what is included only within the ambit of the money that is given to us in terms of section 84 and such own revenue as we may have. When one looks at the own revenue in relation to this particular Budget one finds that it is infinitesimal in comparison to the total allocation of funds.

Secondly, we can deal with the appropriation of money for the purpose of the estimates but excluding the appropriation of money for any purpose other than that for which it is under a general law made available for appropriation. In other words, if under the general law one is told to appropriate a particular matter to Education, one does not decide the priority as that has been decided under the general law. If one is told to appropriate it to Agriculture one does not decide as it is done under a general law.

A third issue is the question of levies which are authorised by or under any general law on services rendered over and above payment for such services. We cannot even decide in own affairs to have levies unless there is a general law which authorises the raising of such levies. The Act says that one is entitled to receive donations, to make donations and to collect revenue but excludes the levying of taxes and the raising of loans.

Having read those functions, I ask myself the question: What do all these people do?. What does the hon the Minister do? Why does that department exist at all? To my mind there is no logic for its existence; there is no reason why it should exist. When we keep in mind the fact that there are 532 people employed, it is fascinating to look at the estimates that are prepared. We now have four different kinds of directors—a Director-General, a Chief Executive Director, an Executive Director and a Director. The salaries vary from R60 790 up to R80 137 per year. All this is in respect of an own affairs administration which by any kind of logic should not exist insofar as this Ministry of the Budget is concerned.

There is, however, one important matter under this particular heading which lies within the hon the Minister’s field of responsibility. It is quite a fascinating matter which, in general terms, is becoming topical. To quote the programme description, the hon the Minister is responsible for “services to citizens in respect of electoral matters” among other things.

I want to ask the hon the Minister a question in this regard. If he is responsible for services to citizens in respect of electoral matters, and as he is the chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Assembly and also a member of the Cabinet, would he tell us, bearing all these circumstances in mind, how he sees the situation in regard to a general election in South Africa? What is the hon the Minister’s opinion as to when a general election should be held and whether it is correct that the life of a Parliament should exceed five years? It was previously understood that five years was the maximum life-span of a Parliament but that it could be shorter, previously at the discretion of the Prime Minister and now at the discretion of the State President. I would like to ask the hon the Minister how he sees the electoral process in South Africa. Does he think a general election should be held within a five-year period? If so, does he think that the five-year period should be calculated from the date of enactment of the new Constitution, or does he think there is a moral basis for reasoning that a general election should be held within five years of the date of our election to this House? I think this is an important question to which many people are seeking an answer.

If I may, I would like to deal with other matters pertaining to the hon the Minister’s policy. I have asked him whether he will tell us what his priorities of expenditure are and how he sees the policy of own affairs and its priorities. Secondly, I want to ask him whether the level of services rendered to the people to whom he is required to render these services is going to be increased in real terms in terms of his policy as we progress over the years, or whether the services of the House of Assembly are going to be pegged in real terms in order to allow those of other population groups to catch up with them. Does he, in other words, have a policy in regard to what the level of services in real terms, as opposed to inflationary or nominal terms, must be in regard to the House of Assembly own affairs? It is a pertinent question, because one has to ask whether the services of so-called privileged groups in South Africa are going to be kept at a standstill while those of other race groups catch up with them, whether they are going to be allowed to deteriorate because of inflationary conditions or whether they are in fact going to increase.

Let us take a simple example and look at the state of the health services. The state of the health services in South Africa leaves much to be desired in many respects, and those health services should be improved in real terms. What is going to happen to health services as such? If we are going to allocate resources in South Africa in accordance with needs, as opposed to allocating them in accordance with the race groups to which people belong, an apportionment will have to be made which is based solely upon the particular needs of the population groups. Let us take hospitals as an example. If the Groote Schuur Hospital—which is not far away from us here and which is in many respects multiracial—is run in that particular fashion and is served in accordance with needs, one then has a basis upon which one determines the appropriation of its funds. However, if one is going to allocate funds on a basis of race, one is going to have the kind of situation to which I referred earlier— when that rather foolish interjection was made—in which representatives of the White House, the Indian House and the Coloured House will negotiate for their own affairs share of the revenue cake that is available while one has to deal with the Black population under general affairs. There is no one in this negotiating process to speak for the Black people of South Africa. What has to happen now is that one has to approach that matter on the basis of what is fair, equitable, reasonable and possible. However, the truth is that every politician tries to do his best for his constituency. When I use the word constituency, I mean it in its broadest sense. In those circumstances those in power decide what is just and equitable and, if the power structure were to change, then the new people in power would decide what is equitable for those who are not in power and who are in the position of the minority. That is the position in regard to the structure created by this Constitution. That is also why this structure cannot survive in these circumstances or in this particular form.

I have another and more serious problem. When one examines the direction in which the constitutional structure of South Africa is developing, the whole basis upon which the own affairs and general affairs structure has been created makes one pose the question of whether we are not inevitably drifting towards the concept of a unitary state with majority rule, because of the structure this Government has created. [Interjections.] The reason is that I believe we are drifting away from enjoying the possible option of having a federation in South Africa, which to my mind is the only possible solution to the problem of safeguarding minority interests in South Africa and those of the individual. [Interjections.]

This structure which has, however, been created is one which is going to make us drift into a unitary state with majority rule. I will give my reasons for saying so as I progress with my speech.

Firstly, provincial government on an elected basis is ending this year. That geographic basis is therefore disappearing. There is going to be an executive provincial authority and in respect of Natal and kwaZulu there is going to be a joint executive authority. However, although negotiations are at present being conducted with a view to creating some form of joint legislative authority for kwaZulu and Natal, as I understand it, this does not yet form part of Government policy.

Furthermore, regional councils, which have no direct electoral basis, are also to be created. What we have, then, is a centralisation of power with delegated powers being accorded by way of appointment to specific bodies at the lower level.

Turning to general and own affairs, I want to say that there are many examples one may quote of this confused and illogical state in which, as I have said, the affairs of the major population group are regarded as general affairs in the determination of policy, and where executive action is also taken on the part of the general aspect without the group playing any part. Therefore, when the Government speaks of power-sharing, there has so far been no definition of what it means by “power”, and neither has there been any definition of what it means by “sharing”. Sharing, after all, is a very vague concept in that sense.

Therefore, what we are doing in creating the concepts of general and own affairs— which almost coincide with the old United Party’s race federation concept—with no territorial base, is drifting into a situation in which there will be two conflicting philosophies in South Africa, both of which will not work.

One of these concepts is the division of South Africa on a territorial basis. This is partition, which the CP is advocating.

That is the solution.

The second alternative is the unitary state with a majority rule concept, which is being advocated outside this Parliament. The tragedy is that the real concept—the concept of a federation on a territorial basis, with people living in a particular area, sharing autonomy at the local level—is dying out. What the tragedy in South Africa will be, is that at the very time when we are going to need a federation in order to safeguard minority rights and the rights of individuals, the policy of this Government in respect of general and own affairs will have made the implementation of such a policy an impossibility. That is the tragedy we are facing in regard to general and own affairs in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, before I refer in greater detail to the speech of the hon member for Yeoville which was about broader standpoints, I just want to return to the statement he made in respect of determining of the formula for own affairs.

From this side of the Committee I should also like to hear from the hon the Minister how much progress has been made with the implementation of section 84(a), viz the formula according to which the funding for own affairs can be done. I want to emphasise once again that own affairs funding cannot be detached from the central Treasury. I accept that a relative growth potential will be built into the formula in respect of determining such an allocation. I want to advocate that a great degree of mobility be built into the formula, so that it can adapt to the generally prevailing condition in the economy of the country in a given year. When there is general economic prosperity, own affairs will benefit too.

In addition I accept that the Ministers’ Council is considering the possibility of levies as an additional source of income. I want to repeat what I said in this connection on a previous occasion, viz that the principle of levies on services has my full support, and that the consumer of such services must be taxed by means of such a levy. This must take place with the proviso, however, that the income from the levy be used only for the extension and maintenance of such services. We shall not be able to use the levy for general funding.

I want to return to what the hon member for Yeoville said in his speech. The PFP is still making efforts to undo own affairs as a component of the Constitution. It is certainly their right to do so, but they will have to spell out their alternative very quickly and clearly. The hon member for Yeoville referred in passing to the concept of a federation on regional level and held it up as an example. I am afraid that that is no solution to South Africa’s problems, because in that way it will be detaching itself from the concept of groups that exists in South Africa. Criticism regarding own affairs is not a sufficient alternative.

The hon member for Yeoville cannot spell out to us what must come in the place of own affairs, apart from saying it must be dealt with on regional level. I know why he is so vague. He recognises the existence of groups. He does not want to move away from the concept that there are groups in South Africa. He recognises the various groups’ right to negotiation, but he may not propagate this or say it aloud.

If the PFP has an alternative, they must spell it out to the voter in simple language, by saying, for example, what they mean with a one-sided or singular free association of groups and the total doing away with group recognition. They will have to tell us what they mean by the negation of the need for an own identity that exists in the respective groups. When they tell us that that is what they advocate, they must necessarily also tell us that that concept of theirs will lead to a situation of one man, one vote in South Africa, in which everyone in South Africa will be able to operate on a common voters’ roll. This is the applicable deduction that has to be made. Why are they hesitant in spelling it out and telling the voters unequivocally where they are leading South Africa?

The reality in South Africa is that there is a variety of groups, and these groups are calling for a solution to the problems that arise precisely because of the variety of groups.

Are there separate peoples in South Africa?

Mr Chairman, the National Party is not trying to find the solution in the denial of the fact that there is a variety of groups in the country. That is what the PFP is trying to do. We admit the existence of such a variety of groups in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

The present…

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the hon member keeps on yapping.

Then define “group” to us.

Order!

The present anxious call for solutions …

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Kuruman truly does not even know what a group is, I do not know what to say. Does he not even know that he himself is part of a group in South Africa? If he does not, he must rather keep quiet. [Interjections.]

Order!

The present anxious call for solutions, the urge to move away from the status quo, arises precisely because each group has certain needs which have to be satisfied, followed up and eventually solved. Many of us in South Africa are still discovering that certain groups have certain definite needs. The time for adventurous voyages of discovery has passed. The identified needs of the groups must be addressed and dealt with.

The NP is in the process of doing so. We have broken away from the set of clichés and slogans, and at present are working with the realities of today’s politics. We are not fleeing from the realities brought to light by today’s politics. These needs must be met with a view to satisfying them. They must be dealt with. The NP is doing so at present, and the party will continue to do so in future.

A party that wants to flee from the recognition of other groups’ needs has no place in today’s politics. A group that wants to entrench itself against the identification of other groups’ needs, must get out of South African politics. A party of this kind merely contributes to creating a situation of friction which it is difficult to justify in today’s circumstances.

South Africa has a very important plus-point, viz that all groups are part of minority groupings in South Africa, and that each group wants to protect the interests and continued existence of its group. That plus-point must be exploited and developed. After all, no group can develop in isolation and without the necessary interaction.

At present there is still a hesitant effort towards interaction among the various groups. There is still an almost total inability to communicate with one another and influence one another in a beneficial way. We are still living isolated lives from one another.

That is why I am completely in favour of what took place in Pretoria the Sunday afternoon before last. If we can meet in that way and speak that language of reconciliation with one another, and if Christians are prepared once again to take a stand in public, everyone in South Africa will win. If we as South Africans are once again prepared to talk to one another without holding back and without reservation, and if Christians can worship and declare our Christianity, we are on the way to winning. [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member. Hon members must lower their voices. I cannot tolerate hon members’ conversing aloud in the Committee. The hon member for Gezina may proceed.

According to that standpoint, what took place in Brits and Nylstroom last Thursday and Friday is a cruel nightmare and I want to dissociate myself from it completely. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Gezina has just spent 10 minutes speaking about “groups”, and I cannot blame hon members for having started talking out loud, because he did not say one single word about the “peoples” of this country. I should like to know what a group is. I asked the hon the Minister personally to tell me what he understood by a “group”, also having written him a letter in this regard, but he has been sidestepping me at every turn and has not the courage or the nerve to tell me what a group is.

There are three groups in the NP.

The hon member is correct. There are so many groups in the NP that they can no longer tell us what a group is. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is responsible for own affairs. I just want to mention two figures to him. The first is the meagre sum of money that Whites get in comparison with what they pay in direct taxation. [Interjections.] Let me ask the hon the Minister whether he wants to trample Whites to death in this country. The Whites pay 95% of all the direct taxation paid in this country, whilst the Coloureds pay 2,6% and the Indians 2,5%. What happens, however? Of the direct expenditure of the three Houses, only 65,9% is for the Whites. The Coloureds get 24,3% and the Indians 9,8%. Is that a fair distribution on the part of the Government? The hon the Minister of the Budget is not redistributing income, but is actually redistributing possessions or property. In my opinion that is tantamount to stealing from our people. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon the Minister that he is not doing his duty, because he is not acting as the hon Minister of White own affairs.

Let me ask the hon the Minister: What did his father and what did our forefathers do to put this country on the right track? As a people, the Whites were the entrepreneurs, and with partition or separate development they created opportunities for all the Black peoples, the Coloureds and the Indians.

Who paid for that?

The Whites are the entrepreneurs, and if it had not been for partition, not one of the Black peoples, the Coloureds or the Indians would have had the possessions, job opportunities or education they have today. They would have had nothing.

If one compares South Africa’s Black people with those of the rest of Africa where Blacks have taken over, how do they make out? One could say that the Black people in South Africa live in a paradise in comparison with those in the rest of Africa.

We shall be taking this even further in the discussion of the Votes, but let me tell the hon the Minister that he must come up for the Whites of South Africa. He must not simply sit there on the strength of his little post.

I just want to say one thing to the hon member for Gezina who referred to last Sunday’s wonderful opportunity. There are denominations that come together, including the Anglicans.

All the Churches were there.

Yes, all the Churches were there. They are all saying they are Christian, but what is the criterion for being a Christian? [Interjections.] No wait, let me complete my sentence.

All the Churches, with totally divergent views, have come together. Is the religion practised by the Protestant and the Roman Catholic Churches exactly the same?

Are they not all Christians! [Interjections.]

No, I did not say they were not Christians, but if the head of the Roman Catholic Church …

What is your definition of a “Christian”? [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to permit a dialogue between the hon members for Sunnyside and Gezina. The hon member for Sunnyside must address the Chair, not the hon member for Gezina.

Mr Chairman, I just want to tell the hon member that when the head of the Roman Catholic Church advocates disinvestment and various other things, we must add a “but”. What does Bishop Tutu say?

He is the head of the Anglican Church.

Yes, he is the head of the Anglican Church.

From the hon the Minister we want the definition of a “group”. Are the Whites not a people? Are the Coloureds, Indians and all the Black people no longer peoples in his eyes? The hon the Minister must tell us.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sunnyside has again simply been strumming his one-stringed guitar to the tune of what is happening to the White taxpayer and what has been done in regard to the country. Surely the Whites are not the only ones who contributed towards building up this country into what it is today. Is that what the hon member for Sunnyside is trying to intimate? I think the question of the ratio of White taxation has received an adequate reply. In his argument the hon member omitted aspects concerning the other sources of revenue to which the Black communities of this country also contribute.

I actually want to address an aspect which the hon member for Sasolburg raised with the hon the Minister during the second reading debate of this Appropriation Bill, because I think it also ties up very closely with the standpoint adopted by the CP. The hon member for Sasolburg made a request to the hon the Minister. I quote from Hansard: House of Assembly, 25 March, 1986, col 2461:

This request made by the hon member for Sasolburg exposes, in my opinion, a deep-lying concern amongst HNP members. I want to ask the hon member for Sunnyside whether he agrees with the concern expressed by the hon member for Sasolburg. Are there any other hon members who agree? Does the hon member for Rissik agree with the concern expressed by the hon member for Sasolburg. [Interjections.]

That is the dilemma of these two right-wing parties. They are actually bedfellows, but when it is a question of principle, they want to … [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, let me tell you why the hon member for Sasolburg is so worried about the catastrophic decrease in the numbers of Whites. Does his party not advocate White supremacy—actually Afrikaner supremacy? I want to quote another passage from his speech of 25 March:

I should like to know from the CP whether its members agree with the hon member for Sasolburg.

What is wrong with you? Are you ill? Do you not know what an Afrikaner is?

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is putting questions to the CP. Are we entitled to answer those questions?

Order! The hon Chief Whip of the CP has been an hon member of this House for long enough to know that if an hon member who is speaking asks another hon member questions across the floor of the House, that hon member must wait until it is his turn to speak before replying to those questions. The hon member for Newcastle may proceed.

Mr Chairman, one can understand the CP’s embarrassment in this connection, because the CP actually joins with the HNP in advocating White supremacy and nothing less. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sasolburg made a request to the hon the Minister for an investigation into the decreasing figures amongst Whites. He is probably fairly well-acquainted with this booklet on the decreasing birth-rate published by the Johanna Zeervogel Fund, because he made use of these statistics in his speech. That is, amongst other things, why the hon member is getting worried, because if the numbers decrease, his White supremacy becomes a problem as far as he is concerned. I want to quote from the HNP’s constitution. I quote section 14B(2), which reads as follows:

That is the whole principle on which this hon member’s party wants to practise its politics. The Government has, after all, instituted an investigation into the population set-up in this country. Let me ask the hon member for Sasolburg whether he has not yet seen the President’s Council’s report dealing with the demographic trends in South Africa. Has the hon member seen it? [Interjections.] I can well understand why the hon member does not want to say “yes” or “no”.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: You have ruled that the hon member may ask us rhetorical questions, but if we do not answer them, it appears in Hansard as if we did not want to answer them, whilst your ruling also states that we are not allowed to speak about that. [Interjections.]

Order! The rules of the House make no provision for the answers to questions being furnished by other hon members while one hon member has the floor. Replies by way of interjections are nevertheless permissible at the discretion of the Chair. To my knowledge, however, no presiding officer has ever permitted an uninterrupted question and answer discussion in the House, and I do not intend to do so either. The hon member for Newcastle may proceed.

In 1904 the Whites constituted 21,6% of the total population; in 1946, 20,8%; in 1977, 17,3% and in 1980, 15,8%. I purposely mentioned the 1946 and the 1977 statistics because other NP governments were in power then and not the present one. At that time, compared with the position in the other population groups, there was a decrease in the White population.

What will the situation be like in the future? According to the population projection for the year 2100, on the strength of this report and depending upon the projection used in connection with the high or low population growth of the Black peoples, we find that the Whites will constitute between 4% and 9% of the total population.

That’s right! Scare us with figures.

We are not the ones who are scaring people with figures, because that is the reality of the situation. [Interjections.] That is why the hon members of the CP and the hon member of the HNP, the hon member for Sasolburg, do not like this report. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that we have to take reality into account, and that is the reality that the NP takes into account. [Interjections.]

The NP has committed itself to co-operative co-existence, in terms of which every individual and community in our country of manifold minorities can have equal opportunities and equal treatment in all spheres, without any group prejudicing or dominating any other.

That is a fairy tale!

The hon member who says it is a fairy tale would do well to make a speech in which he could explain to us what he envisages for his practical politics.

In order to bring such a dispensation into being, it is the NP’s overall constitutional aim to have all the inhabitants of the country participate in the decision-making that affects their interests, whilst the security, self-determination and stability of all the communities in the population are maintained by way of their own decision-making processes involving their own affairs in their own community life, which includes their own residential areas and their own schools.

How sweet! And who believes that?

The majority of the voters out there believe it, Mr Chairman.

The policy of co-operative co-existence is also given substance in the Constitution of the RSA. One of the fundamental objectives of the Constitution of the RSA is to entrench and ensure the full-fledged self-determination of the participating population groups. This must take place without one group dominating another. [Interjections.] The salvation of the Whites does not lie in anyone else being prejudiced. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in this Budget Vote the amount of approximately R24,5 million is made available, which is of course a relatively small amount compared to the whole of the own affairs Budget. When one takes into account the amount appropriated for the whole of the own affairs Budget, the distribution of which this hon Minister has to handle, one finds that the amount is something of the order of R5 billion, which is a great deal of money. When one adds to that the own affairs budgets of the other Houses, we are talking about own affairs as such amounting to something of the order of R7,5 billion, or 20% of the amount of the overall Budget. Of course, this must indicate the enormous value the Government attaches to own affairs. This seems apparent especially when one takes into account the fact that there are 12 Ministers dealing with own affairs, plus three chairmen of Ministers’ Councils who are also members of the main Cabinet. When one considers that there are all those Ministers involved in own affairs and “only” 20 Ministers to handle the other 80% of the Budget, one is again impressed with the importance that this Government has attached to own affairs. As far as we are concerned, we do consider this to be an important enough matter. However, we also consider it to be a very, very expensive affair, particularly as far as all the specialist Ministers are concerned.

When one considers that of all these Ministers—twelve of them, with the specific exclusion of the chairmen of these councils, because they are Cabinet Ministers after the normal fashion—a number of them are still not performing the functions for which they were appointed—even after bearing office for two years—I think it can generally be said that they are a pretty expensive investment. Of course, when I say that those Ministers are not performing their functions, I am referring to certain Ministers, such as those handling health matters and local affairs in particular, who are not handling their originally intended portfolios. As far as I know, both matters are still being dealt with by the provincial councils and no adequate systems have yet been made public in respect of how they are to be handed over and what system is to be adopted to operate them.

As a consequence, we appear to have two expensive operations dealing with very much the same affairs of State. They both deal largely with own affairs, and I believe the Government is spending far too much in this regard. I believe the general public are not getting value for their money. When all is said and done, the Government itself has no money at all; it is the public’s money that is being spent. As I say, there are two bodies which are ostensibly responsible for the same function.

I believe that one of those bodies—the provincial councils—is scheduled to go out of operation in June or thereabouts. At this stage, there is no indication as to how these functions are to be handed over and how they are to be operated. However, for two years running—if this Budget is approved— we will have appropriated money for this particular purpose. Frankly, as we see it, this Minister is budgeting for a very, very expensive system of dealing with own affairs which, as I said earlier, is certainly not operational and is poor value for money.

We believe that the system of own affairs will have to be drastically modified if it is to serve any real purpose at all. Therefore, if it is to accommodate the wishes of the public in having a measure of control over certain of its affairs then it has to become more operational and much more cost effective. We believe that the modifications that are required involve a new system of entrenching the rights of various minorities to choose for themselves whether they wish to apply these own affairs concepts. In other words, they will have the right to say: “We want to run this on our own”. However, if any community—we in this House are prone to thinking only about the wishes of the White community—wishes to consider a certain matter as an own affair entirely or to consider something else as an open affair, whereas it had previously been considered a closed affair by another community, then it should have the right to do so.

That is self-determination.

Quite right, that is self-determination. Moreover, as far as we are concerned, not only do we propose this self-determination but we also feel that it should not be mandatory throughout South Africa that a certain right—whatever it may be—has to be applied by everyone else in South Africa in exactly the same way. In one part of South Africa it may be considered desirable to do it one way, whereas it may be decided to do it differently in another part of the country.

Therefore, although there has been many a snigger about it in this House, we in this party, knowing the diversity of our peoples and the different views even of people of the same group in different parts of the country, believe that the expression of local option is a very important one to bear in mind. I know, for example, that the Indian community—in fact, I think everybody in this Committee knows that—has already indicated that they want their schools to be open to all. They have stated so in their own House. The Coloured community has stated the same sort of thing. If they wish that to be the case, why should they not do it? It may be that they want their schools open in Natal. Maybe in the Transvaal they do not want to have it that way at all. [Interjections.]

Another point to bear in mind is that insofar as this principle of local option is concerned, we always think in terms of Black, White, Coloured and Indian. It may well be that the Afrikaans community, for example, may want to have completely Afrikaans-medium schools. On the other hand, the English-speaking people may not want completely English-medium schools; they may want bilingual or dual-medium schools. That would be local option. I think the trouble is that we have been legislating far too much and for far too long on too broad a law basis. In South Africa we have such a diversity of thought and of people that we must give serious consideration to the right to protection of the various communities. We have to ensure, when a group of people hold something particularly dear which is part of their cultural heritage, that they have the right and ability to preserve it.

However, I believe that our big mistake has always been, and continues to be at the present moment, that we seem to want to find general legislation which will cover the whole spectrum so that everybody will be doing exactly the same thing. I do not believe that that can work. People must be given the rights to protect themselves but they themselves must be able to choose how, where and when they want to do it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umbilo has not really attacked the system or the concept of own affairs.

Just be patient. [Interjections.]

No, fine. I have been listening to the hon member. The only points which he really made were, firstly, that the present own affairs system would have to be modified and, secondly, that it was very expensive.

It is expensive and it does not work!

The hon member then said that the own affairs system would have to be modified and that one should allow for local option.

Surely, if one is prepared to allow for a concept of own affairs, it is inherent in that concept of own affairs that one could also allow for local option. [Interjections.] So, the hon member for Umbilo has not attacked the concept of own affairs, which is something, I believe, for which one should be grateful. After all, in the referendum in 1983 that hon member and his whole party supported the new constitutional dispensation. It was an accepted fact that the system of own affairs would form an important aspect of the constitutional dispensation. [Interjections.] I am somewhat surprised to hear the hon member for Umbilo say that the system is an expensive experiment. Surely, when one has various groups—as in South Africa—that is inevitable. If one wants to allow people self-determination, and group self-determination, then surely in the long run it will be an expensive system, make no mistake about that. However, one has to make a choice. Either one has this and devolves power to groups, people and areas and one allows people to run their own affairs, or one decides to go the other way and have majority rule and in its place one gets centralised power with the inevitability that a particular group will again be dominated by another. One has that choice.

*One therefore chooses either the kind of system where one grants power and authority to groups, with consequential self-determination, or one decides that one will have decentralised power and authority vested in the State, which will not necessarily be cheaper than the system of decentralised power and authority. [Interjections.]

I also want to come back to the hon members of the CP. They have now asked us what a group means, as if they were hearing the word for the first time. Why did we not refer to peoples, was the real implication of those hon members’ words, not so?

Yes.

Very well then.

In 1981 the hon member for Waterberg who was then the leader of the NP in the Transvaal, signed this NP election manifesto on behalf of his province. I have just counted the use of certain expressions in this manifesto, and had a look at the programme of action published at the time, which those hon members all supported.

I should like to quote from the manifesto. Under the heading: “Programme of principles and undertakings” one finds the following:

[Interjections.] Under programme of action one finds:

Population groups! [Interjections.]

Precisely.

The hon member for Sunnyside may as well listen again now. A little further on in the election manifesto it is stated:

[Interjections.] I can continue in this vein, and hon members will see that in this election manifesto, as it was supported by those hon members, groups and peoples are mentioned at least eight times. But those hon members are now rising to their feet and saying that they do not know what we mean by groups. [Interjections.] What has happened to those hon members?

Mr Chairman, is the hon member aware that in that same pamphlet the Coloureds are also described as a people?

You are talking nonsense!

Mr Chairman, I shall quote precisely what is stated about the Coloureds in the election manifesto:

And what follows after that. By the way, I have already quoted that section. [Interjections.] So that is the position. For a people one can …

Oh never mind, man, you will never be able to understand it in any case!

Mr Chairman, that is how I understand it when one talks about a people. A people or a nation can of course also be territorially bound. When one talks about a people, however, one really means a group which is attached to a specific, identifiable piece of land—a territory which can in fact be perceived. Surely we know that we cannot separate ourselves, the Coloureds and the Indians from one another in such a way that we will be able to bring absolutely independent states into existence for all three groups. But I do not want to allow myself to be distracted, Mr Chairman. I should really like to talk about the concept of own affairs. Therefore I want to draw the conclusion that it is of no avail whatsoever to the hon gentlemen on the opposite side—not even the hon member for Yeoville—to come forward with all kinds of allegations here. The hon member for Yeoville, for example, argued that we were drifting away from the idea of a federation.

That is correct.

The hon member said “we are drifting into a unitary state”.

That is right.

I do not know how the hon gentleman arrived at that conclusion, Mr Chairman. When one wants to give recognition to the concept of own affairs, one recognises at the same time that groups are granted power and authority on specific levels. So how can the hon member now allege that we are drifting away from the idea of federation, or anything else? Whether we have a federation or a confederation in the future …

Mr Chairman, could the hon member for De Kuilen tell the House—with the exception of cultural affairs and certain educational matters—what an own affairs ministry is allowed to do without the authority of a general affairs ministry?

Mr Chairman, I might as well reply to the hon member’s question by referring him to what happened at the time of Union in 1910. At that time certain powers were given to the provinces which could just as well have been given to the central Government. What was done, however, was done for very good reasons. It was done bearing in mind the differences we have in South Africa, for example, the differences among the various ethnic groups. Therefore, a devolution of power to groups and to nations—for example, the Xhosa nation …

That does not exist!

Of course, it exists. How can the hon member say it does not exist? These, Sir, are facts. These are realities—the realities we so often speak of. The hon member for Yeoville, however, tries to create the impression that we are moving away from the possibility of ever establishing a different constitutional dispensation from the one we have now. I want to submit the very strong argument that irrespective of what we do in future—and the agenda is an open one, as we all know— what is important is that own affairs, group affairs, is a very, very essential component of whatever dispensation is to be established in this country in the future. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for De Kuilen says that he feels it is very important that any system with which we continue in South Africa should take cognisance of group identity, and should in fact be based on groups. When one listens to the debate and the same point is mentioned by the hon member for Gezina, it appears that he suggests that the hon member for Yeoville has certain problems because he accepts the concept of groups. Groups, however, Mr Chairman, are a common sociological phenomenon. Groups do not only exist in South Africa. They exist in other countries too. They exist in countries such as the United States, for instance. Therefore, to suggest that the PFP does not acknowledge the fact that there are groups is nonsense.

In the United States those groups exist within the same cultural sphere!

It is, however, a sociological phenomenon. What the debate is actually about, Mr Chairman, is whether groups are the only basis on which one should organise a country’s constitution. We in this party believe very clearly that that is not the case. We believe that while groups are important, it is not the only basis for differentiation. It might in fact be a very inefficient way in which to organise a country’s constitution.

How do you accommodate it in your policy?

Mr Chairman, …

Tell us more!

I will do that because … [Interjections.] I will actually do that a little later. I will come back to this question of federalism a little later on because I want to show how it contrasts with what this Government believes in. We in this party believe that the way the Government is going about things now is a crazy way to run a country.

Let me cite a very simple example. One of the important items in own affairs is the provision of welfare benefits. Let us look at the present structure in South Africa. The way I see it South Africa is made up of a First World sector that is predominantly White and a Third World sector that is predominantly Black. The question the Government has to ask itself is, when it organises its constitution, should it organise it by interests, by segments, or by race? If it organises its constitution by race it would have to assume that all people of a particular group have the same interests. I can accept that different segments of the South African population will, on a segmental basis, have different needs with regard to things like welfare benefits, housing and so forth.

Let us, for example, consider the position of the Whites in respect of an issue like the provision for welfare. We know that the vast majority of Whites fall into that 11% of the population which earns an income in excess of R1 200 per month. Obviously, therefore, their welfare needs are different to the 56% of the population who earn something like R250 per month. [Interjections.] Their needs, I would accept, are different. I can also accept that if a person’s life expectancy is 67 that person has different needs to somebody whose life expectancy is 55. That I can accept because those are the life expectancies of the average White male and the average Black male respectively.

What I cannot accept, though, is that this Government enshrines into its Constitution and into its method of allocating money a system whereby it assumes that needs are based exclusively or predominantly on race.

Let us take a very good example, namely, the example of a White social old age pensioner with an income of R194 per month. Are her needs closer to those of a White executive who earns R60 000 per year, or are they closer to those of a Black person working in the manufacturing sector and earning R250 per month?

Need is not the only yardstick.

Is need not a relevant yardstick?

Yes, but not the only yardstick.

It is a very important one.

It is indeed a very important yardstick. The hon member for Randfontein would do well to remember that Brogan said that “politics is about who gets what, where, when and how”. In other words, politics is about the allocation of money. [Interjections.] I think, therefore, that we would be making a great mistake if we did not realise that one of the major debates that is going to take place in South Africa during the next 15 years between this Government and the Black, Coloured and Indian groups is how we actually allocate slices of the financial cake.

Any other government too.

Yes, indeed; any other government could have that problem, as the hon member says.

What we assume in terms of this Constitution and in regard to the concept of own affairs is that welfare needs and race go hand in hand. Therefore even an issue like the provision of welfare benefits becomes an instrument with which South Africa can become even more polarised.

The Government talks about a similarity of interests among the various groups in South Africa. I, too, think it is very important that there is a similarity of interests because if we cannot accept that, we will face tremendous problems in this country. After all, on what basis would we negotiate with each other if there was no similarity of interests? The Government says that is what it believes in. When, however, it comes to the actual implementation of the policy, the Government assumes exactly the opposite. No wonder there is so much conflict in our society. This system of government encourages it. Even if one accepted that all Whites and that all Blacks have the same needs— which I do not accept—the question still arises: How can one discuss the needs of one without considering the needs of the other?

In the own affairs for Whites we look after approximately 140 000 social old age pensioners, 13 000 military pensioners and about 30 000 disability pensioners. Obviously what we spend on those pensioners will be affected by what we are going to spend on Black social old age pensioners because there are 500 000 Black social old age pensioners. When one begins to polarise the needs and when one develops this on the grounds of race one in fact builds conflict into the system. We have seen that already in this House. We have seen the CP and the HNP argue that the more one does for Blacks the less one can do for Whites. So the very system of budgeting—because we have refused to accept the commonality of interests—in fact becomes a source of conflict which can be exploited and which is being exploited in South Africa.

Let us get one thing clear and that is that there is no such thing as White income tax, Coloured income tax and Indian income tax because if one took away the workers, if one took away the Blacks who work in the manufacturing sector and if one took away the Blacks who work on the mines, what income would Whites then earn and how much tax would they then have to pay? So what has happened is that own affairs has become a system for conflict generation instead of it being a system for conflict resolution. It is also a very expensive system of government. I know that the hon the Minister is going to say: “Ah! The PFP’s federal system is also going to be an expensive system of government”. One accepts that federalism is more expensive than a unitary system of government because there are not only economic objectives which have to be achieved but there are also political and social objectives. However, there is a fundamental difference between federalism and this concept of own affairs. Under a system of federalism power and administration are decentralised. However, in each area there is still only one authority which administers …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It appears as if the hon members of the PFP and specifically the hon member for Edenvale is digressing completely from the Vote. [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of the Budget did ask me to talk about federalism.

As I have said, the fundamental difference is that under a federal system one diversifies power on a geographical basis.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, the hon member deserves a minute of injury time.

Order! The rules do not provide for that.

Mr Chairman, since this may be one of the last occasions on which Mr Cornelissen, the Director-General of the Administration: House of Assembly will be present here, we on this side of the House should like to wish him everything of the best. It is a special privilege for me, as a former Free Stater, to wish a fellow Free Stater everything of the best on behalf of our group.

The PFP’s main attack, specifically in respect of the own affairs concept, has recently been aimed at their objection that in this dispensation, as it functions at present, recognition is given to race groups as such, and to the fact that like ethnic groups, race groups are a part of South Africa’s reality, and that their interests can only be accommodated if they are recognised in a constitution. The PFP has strong objections to that because, as I conclude, they want to suggest that this is necessarily a racist approach. I should like to hear from the PFP whether or not, if they were to establish their authoritative body within a federal system, such an authoritative body would provide for the group interests with regard to the respective race groups.

No!

The hon member says it would not. Very well, it would not provide for that. Is the hon member correct in saying that, however? Is that really the PFP’s approach?

Let us look at what the hon the leader of the PFP said about the recognition of race groups in a constitutional dispensation. On 5 September 1977 the hon leader summarised what such a constitutional dispensation under the PFP would look like. Under point “c” he said:

How do we achieve that? How do we achieve that in terms of what the PFP is proposing?

Through a minority veto!

The PFP is most strongly opposed to separate voters’ lists and race classification. If that must be the case, how on earth will the respective race groups, of whom the PFP themselves say the one must be protected against domination by the others …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member what he quoted from?

It is a PFP policy document with Dr Van Zyl Slabbert’s photograph on the cover. I believe it is one of the party’s official documents and it spells out their policy in the greatest detail. [Interjections.] I am not surprised that that hon member asked me the question, since I detect that the hon members of that party are not really aware of their party’s basic policies.

The PFP themselves say we must recognise race groups, but they want us to recognise them without permitting the race groups to elect their own leaders to negotiate for them, by means of their separate voters’ lists.

It is interesting to note what else this document says about the PFP’s policy. Subsequently there is reference to the committee which had to work out the whole dispensation as seen by the PFP. I quote:

The PFP says the individual has the full choice with regard to whom he or she wants to associate with.

The hon member for Edenvale is shaking his head, but I want to put a question to him. If one day he were to decide that regardless of his appearance, the languages he knows and the cultural group to which he belongs at present, he wants to exercise the choice of free association and he decides he would like to be a Zulu … [Interjections.] That is a ridiculous example, but in terms of the PFP’s policy that is exactly what they are advocating. [Interjections.]

According to the policy document, the PFP says there should be proportional representation on all levels of Government. There should be a consensus government with a minority veto on all the important levels of political decision-making. The policy document then refers to the self-governing states which the PFP wants to create within a federation. I want to know who is going to apply the minority veto. If the PFP did not allow other race or ethnic groups to vote for their leaders on separate voters’ lists to serve in these authoritative bodies, who will apply this minority veto? Just like the hon member for Greytown, I do not really understand the PFP’s policy. I can see the PFP has problems with its policy.

There is an explanatory paragraph a little further on:

Now I ask you: How does one give political meaning to cultural or ethnic diversity, because the PFP recognises that there are ethnic groups which have to be taken into account? They admit that there are race groups. I quoted their leader in that respect. How does one give political meaning to the existence of these groups, which is a South African reality, other than to permit them to elect their own leaders in a constitutional dispensation?

To me it seems this party is pursuing a theoretical dream which can find no expression in reality. If I had time, I should have liked to deal with how the PFP wants to try to apply this whole principle approach in a National Convention. They want to bring the various groups together in this National Convention by way of free association and get them to reach consensus. I now want to put a question to this party: If the National Convention is called, will the ANC be welcome there? Yes or no? Is it true? The hon member for Greytown is shaking his head. I say he is wrong. He must go and read this policy document of the PFP, according to which the PFP will not allow any political group which advocates or uses violence or subversion. That is why the ANC cannot be there. I should so like to agree with the hon member for Greytown, but according to the PFP’s policy as he presented it in this House, one would think that for argument’s sake the ANC and the AWB would be present at such a convention.

In addition the policy document reads that absolute consensus should be reached at such a convention before its decisions will deserve any attention. [Interjections.]

I continue to quote from the policy document:

How on earth can that ever be attained? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Fauresmith, like the hon members for De Kuilen and Gezina, seems to be obsessed with group identity. He has also suggested that the federation scheme of the PFP is purely an ideological dream. That is utter nonsense! This is made clear by Dr Lijphart’s theory on which the concept of federalism as contemplated by the PFP is founded. He says that the more deeply a country is divided on ethnic, religious, colour, race and other lines, the more likely it is that the theory of consociational democracy will work in practice. [Interjections.] That theory has, in fact, been put into practice in Belgium and Switzerland where such differences exist, and it was being implemented in Lebanon until violence took over.

The hon member for Fauresmith took certain aspects of what the previous leader of the PFP said regarding the policy, and then claimed that the previous leader had recognised the concept of group identity. Of course! We must be practical. There are different groups in South Africa and they happen to be of different colours. That is a practical and realistic perception. However, the difference is that we do not legislate for group identity. We recognise its existence, but in the concept of consociational democracy and in the concept of the federal scheme which we propose for the PFP, those identities will fall away, because of these states that will be established some will be predominantly Black, some will be predominantly White and some will be mixed—there will be no discrimination on the grounds of somebody’s race or colour. That is what the hon member is concerned about. Furthermore, all discriminatory laws will be removed.

This brings me to the question of the veto. This veto will be decided at a national convention and representatives of all the different groups, to begin with, will be present at the national convention. A figure will be determined in accordance with the ratio of people in the country in order to establish what the veto should be—whether it should be 10%, 12% or 30%—to see to it that one group does not dominate the other because we recognise the fact that there are groups.

However, in actual fact it will turn out that there is no reason why a member of the Black, the Coloured, the Indian or the White group should not belong to the NP, the CP, the PFP or even to the HNP. Those differences will disappear over a period of years, and those group identities will fall away. The colour of somebody’s skin may be recognised, but it does not mean that because somebody is Black he has to vote for the ANC or that because somebody is White he has to vote for the HNP. It does not mean that at all. These things will fall away.

A proportional representation will be given on the basis of votes allocated to various people. The principle of federalism is such that it can work. In the deeply divided South African society this is a way in which we can reconcile the differences that exist in South Africa, and it is a type of constitution in which everybody will have representation irrespective of race, colour or creed. There will be no discrimination. That is our ideal picture of the future of South Africa. I hope the hon the Minister will consider that.

I want to pose a very simple question to this Committee today. For how long can we afford the luxury of own affairs from an ideological point of view, a practical point of view and from an economic point of view? Hon members who have spoken have relied upon group identity. In actual fact, what are we left with as far as group identity is concerned? We give credit to a certain extent to the NP, for having removed discrimination in certain areas. We are also very encouraged by the White Paper. We are very encouraged by the speech made by the State President in Vereeniging the other night, and we are very encouraged by the advertisement which appeared in the various papers, particularly the Sunday papers, about influx control being abolished as well as the pass laws and about the prisons being emptied of the victims of this system. According to the State President’s advertisement “That is the reality … And it will come about. Not because I say so, but because my government and I have the power to make it happen.” So, it is up to them now to make it happen. Many discriminatory laws have been removed, but there seems to be one bastion that they are holding on to, and that is group areas.

What is so terrible about group areas? It involves two main aspects, namely separate residential areas and education. However, every city in South Africa is mixed. Every house has accommodation for Blacks, and in every block of flats there is accommodation for Blacks. Blacks and Whites have been living together in urban areas over all these years. The only difference is that Blacks do not own these properties, but they live there. They are there. It is a practical fact. So, why do we hang on to the Group Areas Act? Hillbrow and Mayfair, for example, are areas where mixed races are already living. These are residential areas and used to be White areas. There is no friction. The only complaint that one may have is in regard to disturbances but then they involve all groups. There are no complaints merely about the fact that there are people of various races living there. As long as people obey the law and as long as people behave themselves, colour makes no difference. They are not causing any difficulties. Why is this a sacred cow? The State President said that no law—and I think he included the Group Areas Act was a sacred cow any longer.

However, let me refer to the economics of the situation. We are asked to vote for a budget of R4,8 billion today. The House of Delegates is asked to vote for a budget of R697 million and the House of Representatives for a budget of R1,7 billion. Every expense has to be tripled. We have three Chambers of Parliament, three restaurants 366 members for whom seats are to be provided, and, at the moment, 308 members of Parliament. When one looks at Rule 69(1) one notices that we have to set aside seven hours for the Second Reading debate on own affairs and 30 hours for the Committee Stage. Think of the time we waste discussing own affairs when we could be discussing the affairs of the whole country without this added burden. One should look at the comparison of the economics of own affairs. Let us use the Budgetary and Auxiliary Services Vote as an example. We have to vote R24,33 million in the House of Assembly, R18,67 million in the House of Representatives and R8,78 million in the House of Delegates. That gives us a total of R51,8 million.

Surely all that expense is not necessary. The Budget Vote, Education and Culture, is another example of this. We have to vote R3 billion for Whites, R869 million in the House of Representatives and R365 million in the House of Delegates, which gives us a total of R4,3 billion. The De Lange Committee has made it clear that there should be one education system and one education policy for all. Look at the triplication of services and the resulting extra expense. We find the same situation exemplified in the Vote on Health Services and Welfare. The House of Assembly has to vote R760 million, the House of Representatives R442 million, and the House of Delegates, R112 million. How are we going to separate the health and welfare services into own affairs? What is the hon the Minister going to suggest should be done concerning teaching hospitals such as Groote Schuur and the General Hospital in Johannesburg? Will that be an own affair or an general affair? How does the hon the Minister intend to discriminate concerning hospitals, and how is he going to make the division?

The Vote on Local Government, Housing and Works is another example of the situation. The House of Assembly has to vote R271 million, the House of Representatives, R342 million, and the House of Delegates on R184 million, which gives us a total of R797,9 million.

Surely we have reached the stage where we have to get away from this. We cannot afford own affairs any longer. We have to get away from the perpendicular walls of discrimination in all affairs, including local government. There should be one local government system for all. When it comes to the question of regional services councils, for example—the PFP has made itself perfectly clear on its attitude towards regional services councils—what is the hon the Minister going to do as far as White own affairs is concerned in a city like Brits where such a disgraceful event took place just the other night? [Interjections.] I hope from the remarks that I hear that the members of the Conservative Party who are here were not part of the hooliganism that took place at that particular meeting. [Interjections.] If Brits, for example, decides not to send delegates to the regional services council and not to have anything to do with the regional services councils because it does not like the tricameral system, what is the hon the Minister going to do about it? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Hillbrow raised the question of how long we can afford the luxury of own affairs. If I have the time I will revert to the arguments advanced by the hon member in this regard.

*The hon member for Sunnyside, as well as the hon member for Kuruman by way of an interjection, asked the question: What is a group? In the South African society there is one grouping which is comprehensive and which includes all the people of South Africa. That is the grouping of nationhood. The South African nation, which is a constitutional concept, is the only comprehensive group of which I know. But within that comprehensive group there are quite a number of different groupings. There are, for example, race groups, ethnic groups, language groups, cultural groups, religious groups and national groups. [Interjections.]

There are also political groups.

Yes, that is correct; there are also political groups.

There are national groups which are cultural historic groups, with a specific content. As the hon member for Rissik rightly remarked by way of an interjection, there are also political groups, but there are also a variety of other interest groups.

What is interesting about these groups is that none of them exists in isolation or without a considerable degree of overlapping. [Interjections.] The White population group, for example, is not homogenous with regard to its cultural grouping, its language grouping, its religious grouping or even its national grouping, but in spite of that the White population group does constitute a very definite and identifiably separate population group. It is a population group with its own way of life, its own traditions, its own customs and its own interests.

Its own religion …

If the hon member had been listening he would have heard that I specifically said that it was not homogenous as regards its religious convictions. [Interjections.]

There is a White population group which is a separate identifiable group, although it cannot be included in the framework of any other single group.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, the hon member at the back there who made that stupid remark, is also included in that group. Unfortunately, he is also a member of the White group. [Interjections.]

*For that reason, owing to its own separateness, self-determination with regard to the own affairs of the White population group must be maintained and its maintenance is important.

In the same way there is a separate identifiable Coloured population group which is not a people, but which is nevertheless an identifiable population group. There is also a separate identifiable Indian population group which is not a people either.

Why are they not a people?

They are not a people for the simple reason that they do not have all the factors which normally identify a people.

Enumerate those factors.

I do not want to become involved in an argument about peoples and so on. I want to use these introductory remarks …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is there a quorum in the Committee?

Order! The secretary informs me that there are 50 members present. The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to use these remarks as an introduction to what I have to say about own affairs.

The constitutional structure of the Republic of South Africa rests on two pillars. On the one hand there is self-determination with regard to own affairs, and on the other there is a joint say with regard to general affairs. No building which rests on two pillars can remain standing if one of those pillars is removed. It is equally impossible for the constitutional structure of the RSA to remain standing if one of the said two pillars are removed. Consequently own affairs and general affairs are equally important to the maintenance of the constitutional structure of the RSA.

On the one hand hon members of the CP are alleging that the pillar of own affairs is not valued highly enough nor is it strong enough, whereas on the other hand hon members of the PFP are alleging that that pillar is absolutely unnecessary. But section 14 of the Constitution makes own affairs of primary importance.

And section 16?

This has as its point of departure that own affairs do exist. Section 15 provides that those affairs which are not the own affairs of a specific population group are general affairs. Consequently general affairs are not of primary importance; own affairs are, and general affairs are derived from them.

That is an incorrect interpretation! [Interjections.]

The hon members of the CP are now questioning the importance which is being attached to own affairs, with reference to the number of legislative measures in this connection being agreed to in this House. But the amount of legislation is no norm or criterion of the importance of a specific department or section!

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

No, the CP has already wasted too much of my time. I no longer have the time to reply to questions. [Interjections.]

The Department of Foreign Affairs is a very important Government Department, but introduces very little legislation in this House. [Interjections.] As far as own affairs is concerned, it is also a fact that over the years many aspects of the own affairs of the Whites in particular have been comprehensively, effectively and adequately incorporated into legislation. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for De Kuilen apologised for not being present now; he has to attend some other meeting. I just want to comment on the fact that he said that he was very pleased that we had supported the concept of own affairs and he more or less implied that it would have been silly if we had not done so because we had supported the referendum and had cast a “yes” vote. Well, I want to say for the umpteenth time that we supported the referendum to break the political log-jam and to get people of colour somehow involved in Parliament. [Interjections.] We did not support all the details. I can assure the hon member for De Kuilen, and any other hon members on that side of the Committee, that if they persist in assuming that because we supported the referendum on that occasion we support everything that goes with it, they may well find it difficult to find any supporters in future referendums. They seem to assume automatically that everything which goes with it is also being supported! That may, in fact, not be the case. [Interjections.] I just wanted to make that point for the hon member for De Kuilen’s benefit. As I said, he apologised for not being here.

I think some points should be raised again to attract people’s minds to the reality. That is a word one often finds in those large advertisements in the newspapers. There were two statements made recently by the State President, over the past few months, one to the effect that apartheid as a concept is outmoded. Apartheid, as we know, is statutory separate development. Therefore I would be inclined to suggest by the State President’s own statement that statutory, separate development and own affairs are also outmoded. This would seem to be a natural follow-on from statutory apartheid being outmoded.

The other is that the State President wants to create a Statutory Council which is composed of all race groups. This Statutory Council’s function will be to produce a new constitution which will be acceptable to all communities because they will participate in its framing. I think that is a fair interpretation of the meanings, as I or any reasonable person would accept, and I would like to think that I am reasonable.

Fairly recently, in fact, over the past month, it has been my good fortune to have to attend a number of meetings of the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba. Those meetings are being held in camera and, as a consequence, one is not permitted to speak publicly at this stage of what actually transpired, but I believe there are certain things that can mentioned. The one is that the indaba involves a very wide spectrum of the population of South Africa. We have not only Whites participating, but also Black and Brown people—both Coloured and Indian. There are also members of the commercial and industrial communities. There are, as far as we have been able to ascertain, members of different religious communities. If the State President is talking about getting a Statutory Council to frame a constitution, then I believe he is living in a fool’s paradise if he believes that his Statutory Council will agree to any constitution which is solely and wholly based on racial grounds. From what I have heard in those debates, I believe that that is going to be a fact. We keep on saying this is the reality; it is a fact. I believe that this is going to be a fact. [Interjections.]

However, at the same time those same people at those meetings have conceded that there may well be a need for the protection of the rights of minority groups. They have conceded that that may well be so. Such being the case, that is still on the agenda, namely the question of the protection of minority rights. They believe, and I believe also, that minority rights should not only be attached to the question of race. I believe that race can well be a part of the protection of minority rights, but it is not the only part. This, I believe, is one of our problems in South Africa—that the question of protection of rights is not merely a protection of unearned or undeserved privilege. This I could not support anyway, whether it be the protection of the unearned and undeserved privilege of Whites or any other group. However, I do believe that the people of this country, all of them, all groups, have the right to the protection of the privileges they have earned by the sweat of their brow, by the use of their brains and by the work of their hands. I believe they have a right to the protection of that which they have earned.

We do not live in a Marxist/socialist society and therefore we believe they have the right to that protection. We also believe they have the right to the protection of their culture, and I believe that there are very few who object to that. I believe that the Zulus, for example, would not like to have the rights of their tribal system or the rights and privileges of their royal family system abused. They would not like to have them taken away. According to the people themselves, they would like to have those rights. The Muslim community, I believe, have certain customs and habits of culture which are somewhat alien to Western cultures, but they want to retain their right to those customs. When it comes to this sort of thing, therefore, I do not believe that most members of the South African community are at variance on the concept of the protection of minority rights. However, they are at variance as regards the obsession of many people that this protection should be decided on only on the basis of whether one is White, Brown or Black. This is where the problem lies. So we have to broaden our perspective on this and accept the fact that rights are not confined to colour.

As a South African I want to be protected against abuse. That is what I want; I want to be protected against being abused by a majority group that may come into power. As a matter of fact, that majority group may well be a minority group itself. As one of the hon members indicated earlier, we are a country of minority groups. I believe that the root of our problem lies therein that we want to be protected against abuse. We want our earned privileges to be protected. We want our culture and our right to our culture to be protected. I believe these are all points one must bear in mind.

On the other hand, however, my wanting to protect my culture—I would say that this also applies to all the other hon members who want to protect their respective cultures—should not preclude other people from having the right to participate in and enjoy that culture should they so wish. This, of course, is where the problem lies as regards the statutory provisions we have at present. This is why I indicated earlier in this debate that to attempt to achieve our objectives with a straightforward, across-the-board set of regulations applicable to everybody in exactly the same way would not achieve the objectives we are striving to achieve. We must have a lot more flexibility and we must accept the fact that group interests transcend the colour question as such.

I therefore appeal to this hon Minister, whose business it is to handle this own affairs portfolio, and to his colleagues in the other two Houses, to give serious consideration to this concept. If I may slip in a little commercial while we are on the subject, we are running this Natal-kwaZulu debate on a shoestring. So if somebody could work out a way of having that declared some sort of own affair among all of us, and thus of having some funds allocated in respect of it, he would be helping us very much indeed.

Mr Chairman, a new Bill is shortly to be tabled in this House for the setting up of a national statutory council. I think the hon the Minister will concede that the establishment of this national statutory council creates the possibility of a change in our present tricameral system or, certainly, of major amendments to it. I ask the hon the Minister whether he concedes that. Obviously, the hon the Minister is not prepared to commit himself in this regard.

The point, however, is that with this new national statutory council and with the envisaged changes, it makes no sense to us in the Official Opposition that that council should be established while the Government at the same time proceeds with the implementation of the tricameral system in the way it is doing. For example, the Government is going ahead with the establishment of the regional services councils. It is looking at formulas to divide up the cake; it is looking at dividing up different departments and at applying different sections of Acts, and yet the likelihood exists that all of this could change again in the very near future. That is why we in this party should like to call upon the Government and upon the hon the Minister seriously to consider a moratorium as far as the execution of the new tricameral system is concerned. In addition I believe that the hon the Minister should allow the three different Houses to debate together, and perhaps by so doing hon members of this House would get a better idea of what other groups in our country say and think.

In support of our appeal for a moratorium I should like to make a few more points. The first one is that own affairs is going to be extremely costly to maintain because of all the duplication involved. The hon member for Edenvale pointed out the differences between our federal system and the own affairs system of the Government. There are indeed substantial differences. In terms of our system power and administration would be decentralised, and only one body would carry out the functions in a particular region, whereas, in terms of the own affairs system of the Government, one could have up to four different bodies exercising a given power in a given region. In our system, therefore, there will be decentralisation of authority and of power, which is a recognised and very effective management system throughout the world. We only have to look at what has happened in the United States of America if we want to see the success of this system. I challenge the hon the Minister to stand up and tell this House that duplication makes for an efficient form of management. Will he or will he not be prepared to tell this House this because this is exactly what he is doing at present, Mr Chairman.

A number of hon members have also raised the question of groups. Among them are the hon member for Gezina, the hon member for Fauresmith, and also the hon the Minister, who has asked us how we would structure our government in terms of the concept of groups. The policy of the hon the Minister and his Government is very simply one of each group exercising self-determination in relation to its own affairs, and then own affairs representing a mechanism for protecting the group. We argue, however, that if one is going to protect groups in this country, and if it is done on the basis racial groups, one is actually building potential conflict into the situation, which means that one is not going to move away from racial discrimination.

I put it to the hon the Minister that one can protect groups on the basis of other criteria. People associate with one another in groups because they have certain values in which they believe. Therefore, what one can do is protect the values they stand for. I think the hon the Minister will concede this. One can protect people’s language, their religion and certain other cultural aspects which is not protection on a basis of race.

Then, of course, there are other mechanisms one can also use to protect a group— again not based on race. One can protect the individual by way of a bill of rights. Thus one can protect the freedom of the individual to associate with a specific group. One can protect the group by ensuring that democracy is upheld, that that group can organise politically, can stand in elections and can get representatives into Parliament. One can indeed protect the group by making sure these things happen.

Then, of course, there are the constitutional mechanisms which tie in with these. One can protect the group, for example, by means of proportional representation and the minority veto.

Sir, I have said it before, and I say it again today—that one can protect groups. We do recognise groups but we say that people will themselves identify with whatever group they want to. To suggest that I might want to identify with a Zulu is ridiculous—just as the hon the Minister probably would not want to identify with the Jewish group. That is why we say groups identify themselves and groups can therefore be protected.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South tell the House, if his party’s policy were to be put into practice, would he be speaking here today on behalf of that constituency, or would a Black man be speaking on behalf of that constituency?

Mr Chairman, if I stand for a certain set of principles and a certain set of values, and somebody else stands for the same set of principles and the same set of values—whether he be a Black man or not—I am quite happy that he could represent those values here on my behalf. I do not mind at all, as long as we stand for the same thing. [Interjections.]

Helgard, you are a racist! [Interjections.]

I have no objection to that whatsoever. [Interjections.] The hon member obviously cannot understand that.

He is a racist.

With own affairs we are actually separating groups when in fact we should be trying to foster better contact and better understanding among groups in this country. We are one country, we are one economy and groups come into contact in many different facets during our daily lives. We have so many conflict situations in our country and widespread unrest. This tricameral Parliament probably gave birth to the one organisation that gives the hon the Minister more trouble than he ever believed he could have because without doubt it gave birth to the UDF. We in the PFP believe our job is to build bridges between groups and not to build walls between groups.

I do not want to build walls; I also want to build bridges, but I do not want to commit suicide.

The hon member for Mossel Bay agrees with me.

Last week my colleague the hon member for Greytown and myself were criticised for attending a funeral service. We do not attend these functions because we sympathise with or support the people involved. It is one way of getting out, listening to people on the other side, hearing what they say and knowing what is going on in this country of ours—that, and nothing more. If in the process we can help to defuse a potential conflict situation we consider that we are doing our job. All of us, the hon the Minister, the hon member for Mossel Bay and all the hon members who have spoken today, sit in the sovereign legislative body for the whole of South Africa. In the PFP we say it is our duty to go out and listen and hear for ourselves and see what is happening because then when we come to this House and talk we can at least talk with personal knowledge of what is going on outside this House.

That is why I would like to say to the hon members who criticised us last week for attending such functions that we will continue to do so. We do not support organisations because we happen to go there but it is our duty to be there and we think that the electorate, our voters, want us to be there. So in the interests of peaceful change in this country, I would suggest that all members, not only members of the PFP but also members from that side of the House, should make a point of getting out, going to these rallies, going to these funerals and listening and seeing for themselves. Perhaps that would serve the cause of peaceful change in this country much better than making petty political debating points against one another.

Mr Chairman, I listened to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South with great interest and I really hoped one would find a solution to South Africa’s enormous problems in what he said. I was merely convinced again this afternoon, however, that the PFP’s solutions really provide no solution for South Africa.

I should very much like to associate myself with what the hon member for Mossel Bay said. One thing has become very clear to me in this debate and in the whole session and that is that the best way to care for the Whites in this country is to care for everyone in this country. On the other hand, the surest way of endangering the Whites’ future in South Africa is to try to bedevil the relations in the country and to play the various population groups of against one another as, I fear, people in certain circles do. [Interjections.] As Whites we shall not sleep peacefully in this country if the non-Whites close to us are lying awake, cold, hungry and without hope. To me that is the crux of our whole situation. If the Government of our country is not going to take care of all groups—we have heard so often that South Africa is a country of groups and of minorities—South Africa will not be a safe country for any group in future.

The quickest and surest way of making South Africa unsafe for the Whites, is to deny the rightful demands of the other groups in this country. On the other hand, a peaceful, orderly and happy society is only possible if each community enjoys an acceptable standard of living and quality of life.

I cannot but say there is a great deal of goodwill among Blacks regarding Whites in South Africa. There is a great deal of goodwill in the country with regard to the person of the State President. We may never disregard that goodwill. What is the best way of retaining and developing that goodwill? I want to mention five ways and want to dwell on the fifth one in particular.

Investing a lot of money in this country in the upliftment of our Blacks and in making their lives more tolerable, must be a good investment in the interests of the future of all people in this country, but also especially in the interests of the Whites. Secondly, if we try to give each Black man in this country a house or something to possess, that is in the interests of everyone in the country, including the Whites. [Interjections.] In the third place we must provide all people in this country with work opportunities. In the fourth place, if we proceed towards better education opportunities for everyone, particularly for the Blacks, that is in the interests of the Whites in this country too. [Interjections.]

I want to come to the fifth point which is extremely important in my opinion regarding the relationship between Whites and non-Whites in this country. It concerns the image of the Whites in this country, particularly the image of the White Afrikaner. What perception do the Blacks have of the Whites in this country? In the light of certain recent events and statements, I am worried that the image of the Whites has been damaged.

I want to refer to three matters in particular. During the past year or more there has been a controversy about the Afrikaans language. I want to admit immediately that fortunately it has abated to a very great extent. Let us tell one another once again that Afrikaans is not only the language of the White Afrikaner; it is also the language of two million Coloureds who learnt it at their mothers’ knees, as well as the language of millions of Blacks. It is a language of South Africa, a language which may never be regarded as the language of the oppressor. [Interjections.]

I come to a second matter. The image of the Afrikaner that is publicised by the AWB and the Brandwag is a terrible one. The problem is that what is said by these people and especially by their leader, is regarded by many people in this country and abroad in particular, as being representative of the White Afrikaner. When Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche speaks of miscegenation (verbastering and verkaffering) and of “certain unmentionable elements in the Cabinet”, when their sympathising ministers say “the Gospel is impenetrable to Blacks”, when they say that homelands are “receiving a surfeit of aid at the expense of White children who are starving”, when they act the way they did in Brits last week, and in Nylstroom, many people forget that the radicals are the ones saying these things and they associate them with the White Afrikaners as a whole. [Interjections.] What image of the Whites and of the Afrikaners must be projected in this country? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Rissik must note that this is not a public political meeting. The hon member for Paarl may proceed.

South Africa and orderly co-existence will not survive this.

There is a third thing too, apart from the language question and what the AWB says, that bothers and upsets me most. The right-wing political parties, the CP and the HNP, do not dissociate themselves from these people, but seem to be as thick as thieves. [Interjections.]

Let us look at history. When I was four years old, I was a junior OB member myself.

Yes?

The hon member for Sasolburg must wait a moment. When the OB developed into an extremist organisation in the early 1940s, Dr Malan and the NP dissociated themselves from it immediately.

Nico Pretorius, you must listen. The Stormjaers must listen.

What is happening now? The CP and the HNP are revelling in the doubtful success their bedfellows had in Brits and Nylstroom.

That is PW’s history over and over again!

In their own eyes it was a short-term success, but in reality it is a great slur on the reputation of the Afrikaners of this country. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must contain himself!

What image of the Whites and of the Afrikaner would we like to project in this country? Is it this image of intolerance, self-righteousness and selfishness, or is it one of co-operative coexistence (saambestaan) …

Coexistence (naasbestaan)?

… selfishness and tolerance, linked to the right of existence and of self-determination? [Interjections.] Is that not exactly what this Government stands for? Is this debate not in reality the practical implementation precisely of that? It must never take place, however, at the expense of other people and other groups.

What style should we apply during this period of tension? I think it is obvious that the Whites and everyone in this country should model their conduct on the Christian principles, but that does not mean that everyone should agree on everything. It does mean that even if we differ radically from one another, it will never lead to hatred and alienation.

We may not continue to differ from one another in a totally irrelevant way in this House as far as the future of South Africa and decent norms are concerned. We should all co-operate in building up the correct image of the Afrikaner and of the Whites in this country. Naturally this applies not only in respect of the Whites, but also in respect of the Coloureds, the Indians and the respective Black groups. We must begin with ourselves, however, and that is the crux of the matter. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to react to the hon member for Paarl’s speech. I very gladly associate myself with his appeal and with the sentiments he expressed here. Firstly I agree that we cannot afford to have Whites live prosperously whilst Black people and others are dying of misery and are hungry, cold and so on. No one who lays any claim to a balanced outlook is saying that those people should be treated in that way.

When the hon member speaks of rightful claims, in my view we are at the very gist of what politics is all about. In the manifesto published in 1981 mention is made of the White, Coloured and Black peoples. The Coloureds are therefore designated as a people. If we speak of rightful claims, what this side of the House is saying is that every people—including the Coloured people— have a right to self-determination, but Black people, Coloureds and Indians do not have a rightful claim to govern jointly, with Whites, in a unitary dispensation. For the Blacks, with the numerical majority that they have, to have to bring a Black majority government into power in South Africa, is not a rightful claim.

I am just as concerned as the hon member about the White man’s image, the image of the White Afrikaner. Let me say at once that this side of the House, this party, will take that admonition to heart, but I think the hon member should also take it to heart—particularly as far as his own party is concerned. When, however, he raves about the events at Brits, let me say that Brits not only brought to light the fact that there are storms brewing; Brits also brought to light the hon the Deputy Minister’s inability to handle an audience. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister of Information got what he was looking for and what he deserved. A man who stands there screaming at an audience like that deserves to be rejected by that audience. [Interjections.] I myself have addressed difficult meetings. I myself have addressed meetings where AWB members were present—at Fochville, etc—but I as a speaker have never adopted an insulting attitude towards people. We simply outmanoeuvred them. We simply outmanoeuvred them, and we held the meeting. It is, of course, quite a different matter if one is so hopelessly in the minority, and then expect, in such a minority position, others to keep quiet or leave.

The hon member spoke about the Afrikaans language, asking who had the greatest love for the Afrikaans language. I do not think we have to assess one another’s love for our language here, but the people whom that hon member wants to join in a future partnership—his fellow South Africans, his fellow decision-makers in South Africa, those in his undivided State all having a franchise—are spoken for by Mr Pat Samuels, the chairman of Tasa, who emphasises that his body, which represents 10 000 people, are going to strive for the abolition of Afrikaans as an official language because, as he puts it, it is going to be “redundant” within ten years. It is that hon member’s partners who speak that way. We do not want their wonderful unity, and the partners they want to involve in the political set-up, dished up to us. Those partners are people who have no time for Afrikaans. In the long run, as far as they are concerned, there will not be any place for the Stem van Suid-Afrika as our national anthem either. [Interjections.]

The hon member also speaks about orderly co-existence. We also endorse orderly coexistence, but certainly not a mixed co-existence, with a Black majority government in South Africa. The hon the Minister would do well to indicate to us at a later stage—and he must please be more specific—how the NP is going to prevent a Black majority government from governing in South Africa. How would that be prevented? [Interjections.] The hon members of the PFP are also asking about that. I do not agree with them, because what they are proposing is simply another way of stating the problem. I could say more about that at a later stage, but now I should like to come to Brits.

Since it is of public interest, I should like to have it recorded that the CP is opposed to political meetings turning into brawls. As far as the Brits meeting is concerned, reliable reports indicate—and I have received many reports about it from various quarters; not only from my own supporters at Brits, but also from newspapers supporting the National Party—that before the meeting the MP for Brits challenged right-wing supporters. He issued a challenge and they were prepared to accept that challenge. Since I am now dealing with the hon member for Brits, let me say that on occasion—I regret that he is not here at the moment, because I want to say a few things to him—he has told a few untruths across the floor of this House and had them placed on record. The one untruth that he told was that I supposedly promised to buy a farm in the Waterberg mountains so as to be able to identify myself with my people. That is an untruth. The other untruth is that I have never acted in the interests of my farmers in this House. That is the second untruth, and there are several others. Let me tell the hon member for Brits that he should not swallow all the untruths he hears from members of the general public and then have them put on record here in Hansard. He said, for example, that two thirds of the CP members in Brits had left the CP. I think it was utterances such as that that persuaded the people of Brits to show him how strong they were and how many of them there were. I leave the challenge to the right-wing supporters there, because I should like to tell him that if one is going to hold a meeting and one is sure of one’s case, and of the goodwill of one’s people, one does not appear on the platform with a professional boxer.

A professional wrestler!

That is imprudent. It is absolutely imprudent. Imagine the hon the Minister arriving at a meeting at Vereeniging with a pair of professional boxers. There is talk of there having been five sharpshooters, but let us rather leave it at that. All kinds of things have been said, but I do not necessarily accept that. [Interjections.]

The chap you people silenced was quite an ordinary fellow who comes from good farming stock!

No. We can talk about Vereeniging, but let me tell the hon the Minister that at Vereeniging he fell flat. [Interjections.] As far as Brits is concerned, however, the meeting was a colossal failure as far as the NP is concerned. [Interjections.] Not only was it imprudent to have turned up there with a boxer. I call it provocative. It is like a red rag to a bull.

There are other statements the hon member for Brits makes about me. One is that the voters never see me in the Waterberg. If the hon member for Brits did not have a farm somewhere in the Waterberg, how frequently would they have seen him there? Now he comes along posing as a kind of guardian LP for Waterberg. He will now look after their interests! What does that signify? The hon member intimates that as an NP member of Parliament he has access to the Minister and will promote their case and get a Minister to say yes. I think hon members should take note that they are creating an impression that in politics favours are done for friends by MPs who have the ear of some or other Minister.

The NP’s own supporters were by far in the minority at that Brits meeting. A reporter from Rapport telephoned me and I told him that it was my impression that there were only a few Nationalists. He said he had asked Dr Grobler why there were so few Nationalists, upon which Dr Grobler told him that when the National Party supporters arrived at the hall and saw how many CP supporters there were, they left. [Interjections.] This reporter also told me—remember that Rapport is no friend of the CP—he did not know what they were talking about when they spoke of a brawl at the meeting. He went on to say that not only were his own supporters were in the minority, but there was also no violence committed by opponents of the NP either; the dissention came from the NP.

What is more, since the right-wing supporters were by far in the majority, based on common custom it was obvious that they would try to take control of the meeting.

I think the hon member Mr Van Staden is suffering from tremendous nostalgia. [Interjections.] I think he longs for the old days, those good old days, that he even harks back to that evening when Sir De Villiers Graaff told him he could call him “Sir”! [Interjections.] I think he even harks back to those days. Those were the days when they had such a good time breaking up meetings.

The hon the Deputy Minister lost the round in every respect. His supporters were in the minority at the meeting. His chairman beat a retreat, he could not control the audience and his reaction was an insulting overreaction. He created the climate and was the responsible person at that meeting.

In case the hon gentlemen think we are just talking, in an effort to justify that action, let me refer, for example, to a leading article in The Citizen. The Citizen is not a CP mouthpiece, but in this morning’s leading article the following is stated:

My word, how can the hon the Deputy Minister be guilty of such excesses! [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Waterberg has actually issued a challenge to me. I have never been afraid of a challenge, not his either. I have attended many rebellious meetings in my lifetime. That is the truth of it, but I am not ashamed of a single one of them. [Interjections.] As far as this instance is concerned, however, let me ask about the method adopted. The CP adopts the Torch Commando method. [Interjections.] In 1951 and 1952 the United Party adopted this method, conveying people from one constituency to another. [Interjections.]

Tell us about the Ossewabrandwag! [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to the hon member for Yeoville that this is not a public meeting. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville finds it terribly difficult to keep his mouth shut. Once he starts talking, he does not know where his mouth is.

Man, you were a member of the bloody Ossewabrandwag!

Order! The hon member for Yeoville must withdraw the word “bloody”.

I withdraw the word “bloody”. He was simply a member of the Ossewabrandwag. [Interjections.] May I put a question to the hon member? Was he a member of the Ossewabrandwag or the Stormjaers?

Yes.

Then you ought to be ashamed of yourself! [Interjections.]

No, I am not ashamed of myself. I was a member of the Ossewabrandwag until the clash with Dr Malan, and then I immediately left. Nor am I ashamed of the fact. I played an honourable role. The method I adopted was never one of transporting people from one town to another. I used the local people. [Interjections.] I made exclusive use of the local people, and I am informed …

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

The hon member is now wasting my time, but he may put his question.

I just want to ask the hon member how many policemen were transported from Pretoria to Brits. [Interjections.] Could the hon member please tell us how many policemen and how many students were transported from Pretoria to Brits?

But did I not read in the newspapers that there were no police there. The police did not turn up. That is the only report I have had. [Interjections.]

I repeat that I made use of local people. They are the ones who have to decide. The Torch Commando did this. They travelled all over the Boland and at the time the United Party had members of the Torch Commando come along and support them at meetings. [Interjections.] In my day I was never guilty of that sort of thing. I did not have people transported from one town to another. The relevant town’s people decided for themselves. Let me tell the hon member that he gains no advantage from the Brits episode, if what I hear is true, ie that only 20% of the rioters were local people. The hon member does not benefit from that at all. He is going to get what the United Party got with the Torch Commando, because the local inhabitants look down on them with contempt. [Interjections.] That is the kind of violence they do not like.

They only look on Jan Grobler with contempt.

If that hon member wants us to come to blows, let me tell him that he has displayed so much contempt for the State President in this House that I can have no sympathy for him. Let me tell him that his attitude to the State President in this House is scandalous. [Interjections.] The hon member for Mooi River is not here at the moment, but I want to thank him in his absence, because I think he taught that hon member a lesson here about how one should conduct oneself towards the State President, even though one disagrees with him, politically speaking.

I want to tell the hon member that I disagreed fundamentally with Genl Smuts when it came to politics, but I never made a personal attack on him. I never became personal. Let me tell the hon member today what my greatest moment in this House was. In 1950 I was sitting up there in the gallery when Genl Smuts occupied the Leader of the Opposition’s bench. It was the last session he attended. Dr Malan occupied the Prime Minister’s bench. There were NP members who launched personal attacks on Genl Smuts. They were both old men and the Prime Minister’s Vote was under discussion. Hon members should go and read about this in the Hansard of 1950.

What did you do with Dr Albert Hertzog? [Interjections.]

Then Dr Malan got up, took the guilty parties to task, giving him a jolly good hiding. With reference to the Leader of the Official Opposition who was sitting there, he said that in politics there was an unbridgeable chasm that separated them. He said that in private life they had remained life-long friends. Genl Smuts sat there and nodded. That was one of the greatest moments for me in this Parliament. And that is, in my opinion, how decent people conduct themselves! The value of a people is gauged by the way it treats its true leaders. [Interjections.]

Let me tell the CP that as a party it is going to get the thrashing it deserves as a result of its attitude towards the State President. It is a disgrace to South Africa!

It is a disgrace that has reverberations far beyond the confines of this House; it reverberates into the world at large! What must the world think of that party? It reveals ill-breeding. [Interjections.] One should respect one’s leaders. Even if one disagrees with a leader when it comes to politics, one should respect him for the position he holds. [Interjections.] The country’s people have appointed him to that position. [Interjections.]

Order!

There is now something I want to tell hon members. I have done a lot of fighting at meetings, but in 1951 or 1952 there was a court case—the UP went to court about that brawling. The court ruled in favour of the UP. [Interjections.] The court said that if one advertised one’s meeting, one should just do it in the name of one’s party. After that decision, we were never again involved in a fight about the election of a chairman. [Interjections.]

But in 1958 you wanted to elect the chairman at the UP meeting in Worcester. [Interjections.] That happened in 1958 during the Worcester election. Colin Eglin was also there.

That is not true! [Interjections.] Let me now tell the hon member for Durban Point that he is talking the biggest nonsense under the sun. Somewhere he has heard something, but he does not really know what is going on! There never was any fight that night about the election of a chairman. We stopped that kind of thing in 1952 after the court judgement, never again having a brawl about the question of a chairman being appointed. Let me inform the hon member about what happened that night in Worcester. [Interjections.] We had a fight about questions. The UP had the habit of restricting one to three questions, and that was what the palaver was all about. [Interjections.] Subsequently the UP relinquished the policy of restricting members to three questions at a meeting, allowing questions to be put freely. [Interjections.]

Let me just say that I saw these things happening. The CP must not close the gates behind them. All those who have as yet broken away to the NP’s right-wing—including the Ossewabrandwag—have later returned to the party. They have come back home. The CP must not, in heaven’s name, close the gates or block the road behind them! [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in his reply the hon member Mr van Staden dealt very thoroughly with the speech of the hon member for Waterberg. [Interjections.] At a later stage in my speech I shall be saying something about the question of own affairs and partition.

Because this is the first opportunity that presents itself, I should like to take this opportunity of rectifying a matter that took place here on 16 April. On 16 April the hon member for Sasolburg, after a squabble that he and the hon Minister of Finance had had about certain truths and untruths, accused the hon the Minister of Finance of supposedly having told untruths and to put us in the wrong, went on to refer to what he termed the average amount that each White family paid annually in personal income tax, and he did so in order to support his statement that this did not nearly cover the costs of educating their own children. He said that the hon the Minister had, however, neglected to take into account that 65% of White children in the country do not reach Std 8 or Matric. That is a blatantly untrue statement, because …

In other words, it is a lie. [Interjections.]

Yes. I have in my hand …

Order! The hon member Dr Vilonel must withdraw the word “lie”.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

By way of a telephone call the hon member for Sasolburg could have obtained the real figures. In 1955 only 40% of all the pupils who were in Std 6 to start off with succeeded in getting to matric. This position has steadily improved, and the figures—this is a few years later—are as follows: In 1972 there were 34 481 Std sixes, and that is only in the Transvaal, which I know, 20 663 of whom matriculated in 1976. So 53,7% matriculated. In 1975, 63,5% of the pupils matriculated. In 1979 64,1% matriculated, and in 1981, according to the latest available figure, 66,1% of the White pupils in the Transvaal matriculated. That is not the 65% of White pupils who do not reach Std 8 or matric because the cost of living has supposedly shot up too high, a state of affairs about which the hon the Minister of Finance has supposedly told them lies. Why does the hon member do that? Why does he do what modern rugby players do and break a man’s jaw by punching him from behind? Why does he do that? I shall tell hon members why the hon member does <u>this</u> sort of thing. On 10 March the hon member said that the Post Office staff was a hopeless, disloyal, incompetent and inept bunch of people, as bad a bunch as one could possibly get in the Western world. That is the same representative of that party who, in the election campaign of 1970, referred to police as the “Vorster pigs”. I cannot think …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Hercules where the HNP, in anything like an official or responsible capacity, referred to the police as “Vorster pigs”. Where?

The hon member need only consult the Press reports of 1970. I shall get them out for the hon member.

You are talking nonsense. There is not a single instance.

On 1 April of this year the Administration: House of Assembly took over the administration of the education of the four provinces. This represents the largest increase in the Appropriation of the Administration: House of Assembly and is more than R2 billion. The four separate educational administrations now fall under one department and are therefore under one central controlling body. We are inheriting a showpiece item. Just the figures I have quoted in regard to the percentages of our pupils who have matriculated serve as a feather in our cap and a wonderful testimonial to our educational community, the involvement of our parents, the complete loyalty and dedication of our corps of teachers and the discipline of our children. If our children were also to start throwing stones, breaking windows and organising strikes, 66% of them would not reach matric. That is specifically why it is such a serious matter.

In this morning’s issue of Die Burger there is a front-page report about Mr Arendse, the Director of Education of the Department of Education and Culture of the Administration: House of Representatives, who resigned his post as a result of politics in the education of Coloured children.

That is an own affair of the Coloureds!

It is their own affair! [Interjections.]

Yes, hon members can well say it is their own affair. On page 2 of the same newspaper we read a report about the students of the University of the Western Cape and about the Technikon which has decided to go on strike on 1 May in sympathy with the workers. When scholars and students go on strike and parents politicise education, we do not achieve a pass rate of 66% in matric. That is why I cannot but extend a heartfelt plea to the educational community of our other population groups to regard the education of their children as the most valuable treasure they have. The children they are now wreaking such havoc with are perhaps going to be the imperilled future of their own population groups. That is why, Mr Chairman, achievements of this kind do not allow any time for politics, strikes and stone-throwing in education—only time for studying.

The hon member for Waterberg—if I may refer to that—says the solution to our problem lies in partition. If that were, in fact, possible I would agree with him about it. Of course I would. [Interjections.] However, to realise his and his party’s wonderful ideal …

When are you holding another meeting in Hercules? [Interjections.]

… negotiations will have to be conducted with the respective population groups. With whom will negotiations have to be conducted? Negotiations will have to be conducted with the political leaders of the respective groups. That is easy. The political leaders of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians are gathered here in Cape Town. They are gathered here today. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a very unbecoming spectacle when the hon members of the National Party and the Conservative Party abuse the Vote of this hon the Minister to debate the question of which of the two parties is the most disgusting and the most uncivilised in its behaviour at public meetings.

They did the same thing on television too!

Mr Chairman, it is an absolutely unbecoming spectacle to watch the National Party and the Conservative Party vie with each other in indulging in unruly and disgusting behaviour at public meetings. When that happens, Mr Chairman, it is merely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. [Interjections.]

In any case, I believe that the National Party’s sensitivity to bad behaviour does not really impress anybody, because not so many years ago that was the example which the National Party set for South Africa—their example of democracy in practice. I can remember supporters of the National Party in the constituency of Rissik, when I stood against the present hon member for Rissik, who is smiling so broadly now, throwing 500 chairs at me during the course of five minutes.

Lukas van Vuuren was one of the chair throwers!

The fact that they missed me with all of those chairs, was indicative of the fact that their aim was not as good as their intentions were bad. [Interjections.]

Now I want to give a bit of credit where credit is due. I am impressed with the Government’s most recent announcements on reform. I believe that South Africa as a whole should be both encouraged by and appreciative of the reforms that have been announced. I wonder how many people could have predicted three years ago that the State President of South Africa would use this sort of language in an advertisement to the entire South African nation. I quote from the advertisement:

[Interjections.] No person, whether he be South African or foreign, can fail to be impressed by language and commitments of that nature. My only hope is that the Government will not be clumsy or cautious in their application of their intentions.

As far as this Budget Vote itself is concerned, it is unfortunate that we should have to be debating an own affairs Budget. It is unfortunate because the own affairs system has already proved itself to be costly, inefficient and, in fact, nothing less than a proliferation of bureaucracies.

That is just a statement. You are just making a statement.

That is not just my conclusion; it is also the conclusion of all the independant observers in South Africa.

Of course, we all understand why own affairs came about. It came about as an unfortunate compromise brought about by this Government because they found themselves caught up, on the one hand, between the pressure applied by the Black, Coloured and Indian communities in pursuit of their aspirations and, on the other hand, the fears— some of them real—of the White group. In an effort to devise a formula that would attempt to satisfy both sides, the Government came up with the concept of own affairs. It is our contention that that was an unfortunate formula. It is our contention that there are far more effective ways of achieving security for the White community on the one hand and of meeting the legitimate aspirations of the other communities on the other hand, while at the same time making real progress and avoiding the disadvantages of own affairs.

The fact of the matter, however, is that we are now saddled with own affairs, and will probably be saddled with it for quite some time—at least until the Government come to their senses and once again bring about reforms and publish an advertisement to boast to the world that they have got rid of this inefficient and unfair system of own affairs and that they have implemented a more effective system.

Having said that I want to make a few suggestions to the hon the Minister. Whilst we have own affairs let us attempt to use it to bring about positive and constructive advantages for the other communities in South Africa. Instead of talking about the maintenance of identity—which, I concede, is a valid requirement—let us rather talk about the real meaning of self-determination. When one talks about the White group’s right to self-determination, one should remember that there are communities within that group who would also want the right to self-determination and who would like to exercise that right in association with the other communities in South Africa. Cannot the Government, then, instead of concentrating on race and on ethnicity, give more attention to the community—to the nature of the community, to the real interests of the community and to what a community is all about? After all, when one looks at the real interests and the real nature of a community, one realises that that community can be composed of members of many race and ethnic groups. Cannot the Government now start giving attention—real attention—to the concepts of freedom of choice and freedom of association? If they do this, then despite the negative aspects of own affairs, they could in fact bring about certain positive and constructive results from the application of own affairs.

At the moment own affairs is a vivid demonstration of discrimination. Every own affairs budget, every own affairs service that is rendered and every own affairs amenity that is provided publicises the fact that the Government are discriminating on the grounds of race. It illustrates the fact that there is an unfair allocation of funds. It illustrates the fact that better services are provided for the White community compared to other communities. It illustrates the fact that there are more amenities for one community than for the other. Own affairs in that respect is in fact destroying its own credibility and adding to further race tension. However, own affairs can contribute to reform and better race relations.

Let us look at education. Cannot the Government understand that they can make a remarkable contribution to better race relations by using vacant space in White schools to accommodate Black, Coloured and Indian children? Particularly at the teacher training colleges there is a huge amount of vacant space, of accommodation and of facilities available which could be used to provide for the education of Black, Coloured and Indian teachers who do not at the moment have equivalent facilities available to them at their own colleges. As far as universities are concerned, if this Government would only, within the concept of own affairs, be prepared to open its tertiary educational institutions! They should open them to all races and use the facilities which they operate under own affairs in order to improve race relations and in order to render a service to other communities as well.

This also applies to the other services that fall under own affairs. In the field of health there is an enormous opportunity for the Government to use its health services, the clinics and the hospitals over which it has control under White own affairs to provide services also to the other race groups by utilising unoccupied beds and unoccupied accommodation, by providing training and by inviting members of the other race groups into these facilities in order to work there and in order to train there.

In the field of local government which we are now desperately attempting to extend to the other race groups there is a considerable opportunity once again for White local authorities to provide amenities for other race groups. There is an opportunity for them to open some of their residential areas to other race groups. There is an opportunity for them to train staff and personnel from other local authorities so that they can do a good job.

Lastly, if we look around ourselves, if every White local authority looks to its immediate non-White neighbour it will see examples of the consequence of years of uncaring insensitivity on the part of our White communities towards the development and the interests of the other communities. Here is a very real opportunity once again for us. The town of Sandton, the city of Johannesburg and the town of Randburg which is adjacent to the area of Alexandra can with ease and at minimum cost make a significant contribution to the upliftment of those areas to see to it that the people who work in our areas and with whom we have to co-operate on a day-to-day basis, live, play and relax in an area that they and we can be proud of.

I believe that White own affairs which is today looked upon with suspicion can become more acceptable by being applied in a positive and a constructive way to help the other race groups in our country as well. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to two arguments—the one raised by the hon member for Yeoville and the other raised by the hon member for Edenvale.

I should also like to say a few words with reference to what the hon member for Bryanston has just said. He again railed at the fact that Parliament is ostensibly so expensive the way it is functioning at present with the distinction between own affairs and general affairs. I think one must accept it as a fact that the application of any policy costs money but I want to tell the hon member for Bryanston that I think the costs involved in the functioning of this Parliament are far lower than the cost of the system envisaged by the PFP, which one could perhaps call “federative partition”. I need not elaborate on that further.

The hon member for Bryanston also said that own affairs were devised artificially. Own affairs are not devised artificially; they reflect the reality of South Africa. Own affairs are going to be like a shadow; they are close to one and if one tries to run away from them, they follow one. They are part of our political reality.

This brings me to the interesting argument raised here this afternoon by the hon member for Yeoville. He said that the functioning of this Parliament, the differentiation between own affairs and general affairs, the fact that many laws of own affairs are subject to a general law and the fact that the provincial councils have been abolished, will lead to centralisation and a unitary administration. Eventually nothing is going to remain of a federal option and then no instrument is going to remain to deal with domination. I think that was basically the argument of the hon member for Yeoville. I want to react very briefly to this.

The differentiation between own affairs and general affairs and the present functioning of Parliament in fact proceeds from a very important assumption, namely that we are moving away from the Westminster system which is still typical of a unitary state. Consequently it was realised beforehand that when one shared power with Coloureds and Indians in the same state, one could not do so on the basis of the Westminster system and that one could only do so on the basis of the devolution of power. It is true that the provincial councils are disappearing, but a great deal of power is going to be delegated downwards to third-tier authorities. The ideal is in fact that the Government must be the most effective where people feel it the most.

There is a second very important aspect which the hon member for Yeoville lost sight of. If one wants to talk about a move towards centralisation, I feel one must not only look at the functioning of this Parliament. This is connected to the eventual constitutional objective of South Africa. If this is the case, it does not really matter how this Parliament, which can be a component of that constitutional objective, is constituted.

The eventual constitutional objective of South Africa, which is going to determine whether one is heading for centralisation or a unitary dispensation, is determined by the realities of South Africa. Those realities are the following: The multi-cultural composition of the population of the RSA. It is also a difference in the development, way of life and attitude towards life of the different population groups.

That is not the reality!

It is a reality!

It was manufactured!

It is a reality; it is not a manufactured reality.

The third fact is that one is dealing here with an integrated economy. Another reality is that urbanisation also has political implications. A further reality is that training and improved education also have certain political implications. All these realities determine the eventual constitutional objective.

If one takes all these realities into consideration, then it would seem as if that eventual constitutional objective can be best described as “a confederal dispensation”, because in a confederal dispensation one gets the ideal form of inter-state co-operation in South Africa. When I use the term “confederal dispensation”, I am not speaking in classical terms, because I feel it has been mentioned repeatedly in South Africa that one cannot apply classical constitutional models to South Africa. I feel that this Parliament will form a part of a confederal dispensation, which is the ideal structure within which inter-state co-operation can take place. If this is the eventual constitutional objective, I cannot see how the set-up as it is functioning here at present, can be heading towards centralisation or a unitary context.

I want to deal briefly with the argument of the hon member for Edenvale. This was also touched on earlier by the hon member Prof Olivier. The argument is that the basis of own affairs is actually race. Then the hon member for Edenvale said that the basis should not only be race; it could also be the needs of people of different race groups which coincided. I want to advance the argument here that in my opinion it is not only race which forms the basis of own affairs.

Restrictions!

After all, one can allege that the Whites as such have also developed their own cultural pattern in South Africa, which is related to their attitude towards life and their way of life. In South Africa we have a unique Afrikaner culture which is peculiar to the Afrikaner people.

The White Afrikaner!

But there is also a more general cultural pattern which we can typify as a First World culture. Consequently I would not say that the system in South Africa as we have structured it is concerned exclusively with race.

Nothing but race!

I want to address my final remark to the CP. The hon the leader of the CP said that the meeting at Brits was a low point for the NP. But I hear that the meeting at Vereeniging was a high point for the NP. [Interjections.] I was not there. [Interjections.] I was not at the meeting at Brits either, but I hear that a leader of the CP asked questions, inter alia. After the questions had been answered very fully, it seems that he also admitted that only the NP was in fact following the right path for South Africa. [Interjections.]

Tell them they are lying!

If I am wrong, hon members must tell me so. [Interjections.]

I just want to say one more thing if I have the time at my disposal. The CP has distributed a pamphlet in the Vaal Triangle and the rest of the Transvaal. Under the small caption “Werkloosheid en Hongersnood” it is stated that 9 000 White school children are going hungry and that in the mean time the Government is wasting a great deal of money.

Yes, you are wasting too much money.

The only inference one can draw from this is that the Government is not looking after White children and people who have been hard hit by the economy. [Interjections.] But that is not true. [Interjections.] In one financial year the Government spent R3 297 648 on emergency assistance for White children and Whites who were hard hit by the economy. This includes 26 000 adults and 12 000 children. The point I want to make is that the insinuation being made in this pamphlet is not correct. [Interjections.] There has been general appreciation for what the Government did in these circumstances for the Whites of South Africa too.

Mr Chairman, I said at the beginning of this debate that there was no reason why this Vote should exist. If any proof is necessary to substantiate that contention, it is this debate itself. Up to now almost no one has said a word in connection with the finances of own affairs, but various other things were mentioned. I want to react to only three points.

Firstly I want to say something about the point which was made in respect of the meeting at Brits. It has nothing to do with us; it is a fight between the NP and the CP, but what bothers me, and to my mind the whole of South Africa, is the tendency towards violence in today’s politics. This tendency does not exist only among the Blacks, but it is now beginning to appear again among the Whites of South Africa.

That is what power-sharing does! [Interjections.]

To our way of thinking it is one of the greatest dangers, for if violence is also going to be committed in and form part of White politics then we are in fact obstructing our own future to such an extent that we will not have a future. [Interjections.] I think this is one of the most important things to remember in this regard.

I want to make it very clear. If one wants to look into the history of extra-parliamentary organisations in South Africa, one need only watch the television series “Heroes”, which is broadcast every Thursday evening. I think the hon member Mr Van Staden should go and watch it. Perhaps he will see himself in it.

Sergeant Van Staden!

These extra-parliamentary organisations are a danger to everyone in South Africa. Furthermore the hon member Mr Van Staden mentioned the Torch Commando. What does he know about the Torch Commando? Perhaps he could tell us that he was one of the people who attacked the Torch Commando. [Interjections.]

†Let us get a few facts right so that history does not get distorted. The Torch Commando in South Africa came into being because Coloured representation was taken out of this Parliament. That was the sole reason for the creation of the Torch Commando. I must tell you, Mr Chairman, that I was one of the founders of that Torch Commando, and I am not ashamed of it. [Interjections.] I walked down the streets of Johannesburg carrying a torch and protesting against the removal of the Coloureds from this Parliament. If hon members on that side of the House had any sense, they would be ashamed and they would not even mention how they had alienated the Coloured people of South Africa. [Interjections.] That is the reality.

They are in Parliament now.

In fact, in those days the hon the Minister was on my side on this issue.

I was not even here. I was studying overseas. [Interjections.]

He has an excuse for everything. Does this mean that he has always wanted the Coloureds out of Parliament? He wanted the Coloureds out of Parliament. Is that what he says? The hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism is such a confused individual that he does not know on what side he is, except that he likes to be on the side of the winners. That is his characteristic. [Interjections.]

However, that is the reality of the Torch Commando, and when the Torch Commando held meetings it was subject to attacks. We had bricks and stones thrown at us and we were physically attacked. Now that hon member Mr Van Staden has the audacity even to allow the name “Torch Commando” to pass his lips, when in fact it is the disgrace of this Parliament that he and others were a party to removing the Coloured people from this Parliament. They are paying the price for it today. This stupidity is typified by the removal of the Coloured people from the voters’ roll which led to our having alienated the Coloured people. Now, years later, they are trying to bring them back into the fold again. I want to tell hon members that the way they have done it is not the correct way either. The Coloured people themselves say that it is not the correct way. Those who are here in the other House cannot agree with the system which is being employed. That is the truth of it.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he will pass judgment on the UDF? What is his opinion on the UDF?

I will tell the hon the Minister my opinion on the UDF. I do not support the UDF. I am in political competition with the UDF.

And your compatriots there?

How many more questions does the hon the Minister want to ask? [Interjections.] I do not support the UDF. Does the hon the Minister support the UDF? The hon the Minister, I should like to point out with great respect, gets terribly confused. There really are some facilities for the treatment of people who suffer from his disease that he should use. [Interjections.]

If I may, I want to react briefly to the point made by the hon member for Randfontein because that is a more important one. I think it is a more important issue as to where we are actually going in South Africa. The issue in South Africa is the exercise of political power. That is the issue. How is political power going to be exercised? Are people going to be dependent on the goodwill of those who exercise power in order that they may not be suppressed or oppressed, or is there going to be a structure which will give people the protection that an ordinary South African needs, irrespective of his race? That is the real issue, and that is where I say own affairs is failing, because it is causing us to drift towards polarisation where we will have to choose between a complete partition system on the one hand, and a one man, one vote unitary system on the other. That is the tragedy of what own affairs is doing to South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to remind the hon member for Yeoville about something. I do not know how he voted in the referendum. It would be very interesting to ascertain—I hope he is listening now— whether he voted “yes”, for the Coloureds and the Asians to participate in a tricameral Parliament. It would be interesting at this juncture to ascertain whether he voted “yes” or “no” in the referendum.

I should also like to remind him that the Torch Commando disrupted more relations in South Africa during the war years than any other organisation. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member that Sailor Malan was the man who founded the movement and walked around with those torches. They were also the cause of attacks on Die Transvaler’s and Die Vaderland’s buildings. They walked around with torches that night. I remember that Dr D F Malan was in the Johannesburg city hall on a previous occasion, and that they tried to break down the city hall’s doors. They threw stones and bricks against it. He is therefore the last person who should try to defend the Torch Commando here this afternoon.

What I find particularly significant here this afternoon is that while one wants to protect what is one’s own—something which one is proud of, such as one’s own wife or girl-friend, one’s own car or house—those people say this afternoon that they do not want it. Is the situation not that they are losing? We are winning, and for that very reason we have the privilege we have here today. [Interjections.] I should like to tell the hon member that we do in fact have our own House of Assembly. What more does he want? Does he want another House of Assembly?

Yes!

After all, there are no non-Whites sitting here; only Whites. Who else do hon members want? Why do those hon members always want to say these things?

I want to tell the hon member that I was not at the meeting at Brits or Vereeniging, but the most wonderful thing is that we were able to have an orderly meeting in Vereeniging in the presence of the Transvaal leader. I also, too, dissociate myself from all mayhem, whatever the circumstances might be. I think there must be orderliness in our politics; it is very important. [Interjections.]

Today it became very clear again that there are people who cling to the erstwhile colonial era. When the State President says that it is something of the past, then those people drag in things from the colonial era! They forget the plural structure of our country, the ethnic, racial and colour groups.

They also forget that there are enormous differences in the educational and the economic spheres between the Blacks and the Whites and that there is a capitalistic system which has become completely obsolete. We are now coming forward with a completely new industrial system. [Interjections.]

We are working on labour relations in order to maintain peaceful labour relations. It is in fact personal relations which we have built up over the years with the Blacks, Coloureds and Asians that are producing results today. I am not referring to all the unrest.

I am of the opinion that the Whites can also lay claim to certain fundamental rights, but these rights go hand-in-hand with responsibility and obligations. If one is speaking of Biblical norms then we can refer to the love which we want to give—to our own people as well. We want to display our love for people; we want peace, justice and freedom. Who used the words “human dignity” more often than the late Mr John Vorster in his capacity as Prime Minister? Religion gives meaning to life and has an effect on relationships.

If I look at group differentiation and all the interest groups today I see that the Afrikaner would like to maintain his own language and culture. But 24 languages are spoken in this country of ours—not only Afrikaans! According to the 1980 census date Afrikaans is spoken by 2,5 million people as their mother tongue; English by 1,75 million; Dutch by more than 11 000 people; German by more than 40 000 people; Greek, by more than 16 000 people; Italian, also by more than 16 000; Portuguese by 57 000; and French by 6 340 people.

As far as languages are concerned, the hon member for Umbilo also emphasised that separate languages and cultures exist, which must be respected. If 24 000 of the Asians speak Tamil, 25 000 Hindi, 25 000 Gujarati, 13 000 Urdu and 2 700 Chinese, would hon members not say that they would also like to protect their own language and cultural groups?

Therefore I should like to make an appeal in this regard to hon members today because I think it is high time attention was paid to these facts as well. They are that 13% of the Whites in this country cannot speak Afrikaans, and that includes children. It is high time that we respect these facts in this country, as well as in the propagation of own affairs, so that Afrikaans can come into its own without merely indicating that 13% of our own people still cannot speak our language.

In the remaining few minutes available to me I should like to discuss urbanisation, which is not merely concerned with the Blacks coming to the cities, but the Whites as well, of whom 88% are already urbanised. In the four metropolitan areas we shall have to ensure that justice is done to the Afrikaners—the English-speaking as well as the White Afrikaners—by means of own affairs via our community councils, our own authorities and city councils. Today these areas are essential to us.

What I find very worrying, and I think this applies to all of us, is the fact that by now 52% of the White population is established throughout the Transvaal. The Transvaal and Natal are already in the process of enticing the Whites away at the expense of the Cape Province and the Orange Free State. The White population is already showing a decrease in the 196 magisterial districts, of which 89 are in the Cape and 38 are in the Orange Free State. The centre of gravity of the White population is moving in a north-easterly direction at an average of two kilometres per year.

There are various factors which give rise to this. We shall definitely have to apply our minds to this problem. One way in which we can do this is by decentralisation. We shall have to pay special attention to the position of the Whites.

It is also true that there is unemployment among some of the Whites. Yet the necessary communication is not there. It is also true that some of our White children go to school hungry. Our own affairs departments will eventually have to accept responsibility for this. On various occasions I have also asked how one can explain that at certain markets surplus products are buried instead of being used to feed the children. I was told that it was in fact the agricultural organisations and various boards that did not want to give permission for it to be done.

A different distribution will therefore have to be effected in this country as far as the Whites are concerned. A systematic relocation of the population to the north, the north-east and the north-west is going to take place. We shall have to ensure that these people are able to realise their full potential in those areas. We can do it if we counteract unemployment; provide people with social security and make welfare provisions. After all, it is a fact that the political balance of power—I know that the CP, the PFP and the NRP are studying this—is in the process of moving to the north and to other provinces. This transfer of the political balance of power is also going to have an effect on Parliament. South Africa has, in less than 100 years, changed from a traditionally self-reliant economy to a market economy and a dramatic shift in the distribution of the population is in progress. This has an effect upon the economic activities of our people and therefore we must also examine the various population categories in order to see how we can cause them to develop economically and in what way we can help them. How can the White man adapt to the changing circumstances? He must display entrepeneurial talent. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank all the hon members who participated in this debate. I should especially like to thank hon members on this side who all made constructive contributions and all who tried to get through to the essence of the debate. I agree with the hon member for Yeoville that in this debate the opposition side did not focus sufficiently on the real issues. In this way a golden opportunity was lost, foregone, especially by the hon members of the CP. It is they who maintain that they are the great advocates of White interests. Here we are speaking about what is exclusively defined as White interests in the Constitution, and what do they do?

It is a farce of course!

They say two things, and those are the entire theme of their contribution to this debate. Firstly they say that we are doing too much for people of colour, and secondly they defend their political thuggery. That is what we get from them and that is what they are ready to offer for White interests in a debate in which we are speaking about R4 500 million, to be spent on White interests. I shall come back to them in a moment.

Firstly I want to tell the hon member for Rosettenville, who has just resumed his seat, that I think he raised a very important facet. He can rest assured that it is the aim of the Ministers’ Council and the Administration: House of Assembly to scrutinise the specific problem to which he referred and to make a contribution to solving those particular problems. As for the financial straits in which our people find themselves in these difficult times, all possible structures have been created. He would do well to speak with my colleague, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly. Every hon member in this House must take cognisance of the fact that if there are people in their constituencies who are in dire straits, there are schemes for children for example, for adults and those in agriculture. The figures that the hon member for Randfontein provided are correct and we shall provide a helping hand in this time of need. We need not create any new structures because the plans are already there. The machinery is well-lubricated and hon members need only make use of the available channels.

The hon member referred to the matter of population shift or relocation. He can rest assured that from a White point of view such schemes are already available. I am thinking especially about the North Western Transvaal where there is relief for certain areas which have become depopulated. We are very concerned about the white depopulation of the rural areas and we are determined to counteract it in a rationalised and economically responsible manner. We shall study the hon member’s speech again and I should like to give him the assurance that we shall pay attention to the matter.

I should like to come back to the hon member for Waterberg’s defence of what happened at Brits.

Is it true?

This afternoon in this House the hon member of the CP condoned and defended what happened at Brits. [Interjections.] The hon member appointed himself as judge and said that because of certain assertions—I have been unable to verify this because my colleague is not here—made by the hon member for Brits, it was fair that a leading figure of the AWB turned up with a megaphone before a meeting that was advertised and held in a hall hired by a particular political party with the premeditated intent of breaking up that meeting. [Interjections.] The hon member condoned it. [Interjections.] For once the hon member was not careful enough, and his condonation is now in Hansard for everyone to read. [Interjections.]

By implication the hon member threatened every hon member in this House by saying that they should be careful what they said because they (the CP) were the judges. If they did not like a person, or if they were not completely satisfied with what that person said at any given moment, or if they took the slightest offence, then they considered it justifiable if they participated in their own way in the political and democratic process. [Interjections.] Then they would allow those wild elements in the AWB, from whom he as leader of the CP was not prepared to dissociate himself, to go and do those things at NP meetings. [Interjections.]

Do give him a handkerchief!

The hon member gave a second reason indicating why he thought something like that should simply be allowed to happen. He said that one should be good enough to control one’s own meeting if one had a rather difficult audience.

Don’t you think so as well? [Interjections.]

I should like to take the hon member back to 10 November 1977 when he himself held a meeting at Fochville, because he has boasted of his ability to control meetings.

Yes, but he did hold his meeting.

That was precisely what I was referring to!

Then the AWB’s Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche drove up with 40 men to disrupt his meeting.

Did you count them?

I challenge him! The hon member for Losberg said that I could call upon him as a witness, because he was there.

And so?

I challenge him! That night he held a speech, until the police had to remove them.

But that is precisely where we won! And we did so without any fighting or insults. [Interjections.]

That hon member did not control the meeting. [Interjections.] He was unable to speak before the police made the meeting orderly. [Interjections.]

But we held our meeting, without any violence!

Now I should like to ask him whether it is his standpoint that when a political party advertises a meeting and other elements arrive who do not want to allow the advertised speakers an opportunity to make a speech, the police should be used to bring such a meeting to order.

Go and ask PW!

Yes, if illegal behaviour is occurring.

Order! I should like to point out to the hon member who has just made an interjection, that in this House there will be no reference to PW. I ask the hon member to offer an apology for doing so.

Mr Chairman, I apologise for having spoken of PW.

Order! I am asking the hon member to apologise for the undignified manner in which he referred to the State President in this House. It was meant to be undignified.

I did apologise.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to ask for your ruling in respect of any other hon member of this House being addressed by his name. Does that apply to everyone?

Order! The hon member for Rissik is quite correct. In this Parliament other hon members are referred to by their constituencies, for example to the hon member for such and such a constituency. That is quite correct. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am glad that the hon member goes to such lengths, but the test of law is not always sufficient to determine what is morally correct. I could mention a few examples to him. Adultery is not a crime, but he and I agree that it is a sin.

It is an own affair! [Interjections.]

In this way I can mention quite a number of examples. That is why I should like to go further and ask him whether there was behaviour at his meeting that night that was not perhaps unlawful, but was in fact despicable, objectionable and repulsive.

No, those fellows were just being difficult. [Interjections.]

Oh, is that so! What we are witnessing in this House today is the hon member defending the AWB because they would not allow him to speak on 10 November 1979. That is the extent to which he has been taken in tow by Eugene Terre’Blanche and his people—this man who draws audiences twice the size of those he draws! That is how inextricably his political future is bound to the thuggery, the aggression and the violence of the AWB!

Are you not ashamed of yourself carrying on the way you are?

I am not ashamed. I challenged the hon member for Waterberg to dissociate himself from the tendency that we, in our politics …

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

No, not now. I first want to complete the theme of my speech.

I challenge the hon member to dissociate himself from the tendency in politics to participate in discussions in the democratic process while wearing uniforms and bearing arms. [Interjections.] I do not attend AWB meetings. I read in the newspaper, however, of people who attend such meetings in uniforms and who go armed and that the weapons are sometimes visible.

Was that Wimpie’s newspaper?

Whose newspaper was it?

Order!

Mr Chairman, I never, not for a moment, interrupted that hon member.

Why do you ask so many questions?

I am not only asking questions. I am making statements. I am challenging the hon member and I am stating that he does not dissociate himself unconditionally, firstly from a disorderly style which allows no scope for someone to state his case in politics in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Are you referring to the Deputy Minister?

I am referring to the hon member for Waterberg. At the moment he is the subject and the object of my discussion and I am not going to allow myself to be side-tracked. [Interjections.]

Secondly I should like to lay it at the door of the hon member that he too, when he held the meeting in Vereeniging on 13 March, did not spur the people on to violence—I am not accusing him of that—but he did encourage them in no uncertain terms to attend the meeting of the State President of 24 April. I do not have his precise words here. The transcription of what he said will be posted to me, but two independent witnesses say that what his words boiled down to was more or less that they should go and stir things up a bit. [Interjections.] I am going to get that transcription, and I want to tell the hon member that he repeatedly used the word “fight” in various contexts in his speech that same evening. [Interjections.] In the entire approach of the CP a …

You are a sissie.

If I were a sissie, I would not be standing here.

You are a political sissie.

I say again, if I were a sissie, I would not be standing here. I do not run away from the challenges of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must keep quiet!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May a person say that an hon member is a sissie? [Interjections.]

It has not yet been ruled unparliamentary.

To get back, I should like to say that there is a tendency in the CP to display a militancy, and an unwillingness to condemn militancy in White politics but, on the contrary, to make sympathetic noises in that direction.

We will fight you!

There we hear it! The hon member has every right to fight us. My question is, however, whether they will fight us with any means whatsoever. That is still my complaint. I shall gladly fight the hon member with lawful means, with decent means—with means which are in accordance with our Christian-national philosophy and world-view. [Interjections.] I therefore ask the hon member whether he says: “with any means whatsoever”.

Not with the kind of means you used with the little blue book. [Interjections.]

The hon member is not answering me, because he is prepared, even in this House, to defend means which will not pass the test of his Christian philosophy and world-view. [Interjections.]

I want to come to the second facet which was dealt with by hon members this afternoon. The hon member for Sunnyside said that we were taking White taxpayers’ money and were spending too much on the upliftment of Black people. I think that is a fair summary of what he said. [Interjections.] The hon member for Waterberg said that no one was saying that such people should have a hard time and that they should not be helped. He is saying by implication that they also grant those people an equitable existence and want to help them. The simple question that the CP must answer, if they want to stir up feelings by implying that we are spending too much money on the situation of other people who have lagged behind in this country, is whether they intend to spend less on it. [Interjections.] Is it their standpoint that it is a good thing that the teacher-pupil ratio in Black education is more than double in comparison with the ratio in White schools, or would they also spend money in order to improve the ratio?

We shall let them go to school! [Interjections.]

I could continue in this vein by confronting them with one point after another. If one is being honest when one says one wants to solve the problem, there is no other way in which it can be done. The only way is to take money from the total available source of finance and to spend some of it for the sake of the improvement of the quality of life of those people who, according to the hon member for Waterberg, have to be helped on the grounds of Christian philosophy and worldview. Hon members of the CP cannot get away with these two messages.

You sit between two stools.

The one message is that they want to do just as much as we do in order to help others, that, in fact they want to do more than we do. [Interjections.] Ostensibly we are merely bringing people of colour into Parliament, but the CP is going to give them a country of their own! In the second breath the CP says that they are going to do so for less money than we are doing in our limited way.

After all, you have got power-sharing as well as integration! [Interjections.]

Order!

There is a dualism in their message which people will find out about. We shall keep on exposing that dualism. [Interjections.] With the one hand they write a message which says that we want to sell out the Whites, but with the other hand they write exactly the opposite message. That is why we say to those hon members today that their interest in what we are doing in respect of the own, particular interests of the Whites, is limited to the disparagement of all population groups, as the hon member for Sunnyside did, and to the eulogising of militant and semi-militant behaviour at political meetings. With this I am concluding for the moment, and I shall reply in full to the hon members of the PFP and the hon member for Umbilo tomorrow.

Reply to my question about the group. You are running away again. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sunnyside advanced the old taxation argument again, and now he is asking me to reply to him on it.

No, the group. What is it? Define it!

I shall deal with the group tomorrow.

You are running away. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Sunnyside advanced the taxation story again, but the hon the Minister of Finance proved to him in no uncertain terms that each group receives far more than its own contribution to direct taxation, if that has to be the norm for what the State has to pay to the advantage of a particular individual or a particular group. The real income comes from other sources and the large sums of money will increasingly, according to our taxation policy, derive from indirect sources rather than from direct taxation.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.