Mr Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. To substitute the amounts indicated below for the corresponding amounts in column 1 of the Schedule:

This amendment entails the appropriation of funds to the amount of R400 million for the restructuring of agriculture under the programme: Agricultural Financing of the Agriculture and Water Supply Vote. As the hon the Minister of Finance said earlier this year during his Budget Speech, this auxiliary programme forms part of the overall programme relating to the structural changes to farming systems and the restructuring of agriculture.

My colleague, the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, and his two Deputy Ministers are ready to reply to colleagues’ questions or to enter the debate.

Mr Chairman, we shall keep the debate brief.

The greater proportion of the debates held so far this year which have focused on agriculture, have reflected the absolute crisis situation in which the South African agricultural industry, and agriculture in the summer grain areas in particular, finds itself; that is why it is a pleasure for us to support the amendment. We want to add, however, that we sounded a warning more than three years ago that time was running out and that the agricultural industry was entering a critical phase. We urged the Government at that early stage to adopt certain crisis measures in order to avoid an ultimate catastrophe.

We have now reached the stage in which agriculture, and the summer grain industry in particular, are facing financial disaster. Although we support the additional appropriation of R400 million and the manner in which the money is to be utilised, as well as the measures governing its utilisation and the latest amendments to these, we are nevertheless of the opinion that these measures have come too late for many of our farmers, and that they will ultimately prove to be inadequate. Having said that, however, I want to add that they enjoy our full support and that we shall try to be of service to agriculture on a day-to-day basis, as far as this is in our power, by making recommendations as to how these measures may be implemented in practice wherever necessary.

I want to point out that we are satisfied with the latest decision by the Cabinet to use some of this money to support the prices of agricultural land and, by so doing, to ensure that the bottom does not fall out of the market altogether. To tell the truth, we have been advocating this for more than three years now. We are therefore pleased that the Government has complied with our request in this regard.

With those few words we support the measure.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House, I should also like to support the supplementary amount of R400 million which has been appropriated. We do so for more or less the same reasons as those which the hon member for Barberton advanced. This money is being appropriated in order to support the prices of agricultural land and to enable us to prevent a large-scale depopulation of certain parts of our country in so far as White farmers are concerned, in the manner in which the hon the Deputy Minister explained to us on a previous occasion.

In reaction to the hon member for Barberton, I want to say that we would most certainly have liked to have appropriated more money for agriculture, but that we have to accept that the State always has to act within its means, and consequently we note with a great deal of gratitude that the State has been able to appropriate such a large amount for this purpose at this stage.

Mr Chairman, of course the PFP also supports this supplementary appropriation. It represents a redistribution of income in order to ward off a crisis and accordingly, one might say that since, in the final analysis, the consumer will also be protected if the agricultural sector is saved from ruin, this money will benefit everyone.

I want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the fact that I said during the discussion of the Agriculture Vote that on previous occasions the redistribution of income had actually been aimed at distorting production factors a little, and that this had not always been to everyone’s advantage. We see here, for example, that we are giving the farmers R400 million, but at the same time Eskom is bleeding the farmers to the tune of R700 million because it wants to install farm lines in uneconomic locations. We nevertheless support the appropriation because it is aimed at warding off a crisis.

Mr Chairman, I join the hon member for Fauresmith in supporting this measure. Unfortunately it is true that the measure is inadequate and that, as the hon member for Barberton has quite rightly said, it has come too late, just as the rains often come too late. We must also accept, however, that it is not within the country’s means to implement adequate relief measures, and we should therefore be grateful and accept that what has been done was the best the country could afford. I am pleased to support the measure.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make only a few comments. I am grateful that the amount of R400 million which was made available for agriculture is being hailed with so much enthusiasm. I think this is essential for agriculture, and I am grateful for the wide support it is receiving.

I want to make a remark concerning the support given to this step by the hon member for Barberton. It is the case in agriculture that when one wants to grant assistance, one actually grants that assistance at a stage at which one has to react to a consequence. It is not always easy to react in advance where agriculture is concerned, because there are so many variables that one cannot always determine the magnitude of problems in advance; if the drought had been broken three years ago, we would not have had this problem today. We always have to react on a consequential basis, therefore, and cannot react remedially in advance. This is one of the reasons why it sometimes seems as though we are too late with our assistance. This assistance is not deliberately made available too late, thereby making it a kind of piecemeal assistance. There is a process of liaison with the SA Agricultural Union and with all the different organisations which are involved in agriculture. Inputs are also made by political means. This auxiliary measure, which is being implemented in the end, is something that has worked its way through the entire industry up to a final point. The problem we had in the past was that if one wanted to implement an aid measure, which had not been carefully considered, too quickly, one often encountered so many problems that in the end, as the hon member for Greytown indicated, one distorted the whole thing and did not obtain the desired results. There a number of examples of this.

At present the situation is that we have received an amount of money which was appropriated on the basis of a well-considered action. The Economic Advisory Council determined the need for this. The Jacobs Committee and the reconstruction committee laid down certain guidelines in terms of which we can utilise these funds. The money is in the process of being used, and I am grateful for the support in this connection.

There is a final point I can mention here. In utilising the money, we still have the problem that 80%of the revenue in agriculture is controlled by only 20%of the farmers. This means that 80%of the farmers have only 20%of the agricultural revenue. This does not mean they are inefficient; it simply means that the extent to which these farmers can be assisted, with sensible agricultural value as a norm, makes it extremely difficult to bring about a satisfactory and an equal distribution of funds for assistance. This is another reason why it sometimes seems that action takes place too late.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses and Title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Chairman, I move, subject to Standing Order No 52:

Mr Chairman, almost five months of the present financial year have passed. It is possible, therefore, to take a brief look at how the country’s economy is progressing in comparison with what was envisaged by the hon the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech.

When we look at a few important figures, we find that the Government’s real expenditure increased by 19,5%during the first four months of the present financial year, whereas the hon the Minister had estimated an increase of only 16,2%. In contrast we find that the Government’s actual revenue increased by 9,4%, whereas the hon the Minister budgeted for an increase of 14,7%. During the first four months of the present financial year the deficit before borrowing has grown to the enormous amount of R5,389 million, that is 40%more than in the corresponding period last year. It appears that although the hon the Minister of Finance budgeted for a deficit before borrowing of R8,5 billion for the whole financial year, that amount will probably be exceeded by more than R2 000 billion. Once again we find that as usual, the hon the Minister of Finance was way off the mark in his estimates for the present financial year in both the Budget and his Budget speech.

When we look at the financial conditions in the country and the latest presidential address by the President of the SA Reserve Bank, we find that Dr Gerhard de Kock painted a rather favourable picture of the South Africa economy as a whole. He referred to the sluggishness in the economy and the fact that the expected upswing was not taking place as had been envisaged, and he asked:

He then added a more favourable note—

He then again asked why the economy was not getting off the ground, and gave the answer himself:

The lack of confidence is attributable to the uncertainty about the political reform that is in progress, according to the Reserve Bank.

That is CP gossip.

I hear it is CP gossip, but I remember how before, during and after the referendum, the Government blazoned abroad that if the voters would accept their reform plan, we would be entering the golden era of economic prosperity in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

The hon member is shouting “hear, hear”, but where is that economic prosperity and confidence? Why do the people who have sufficient capital for investment and expansion, not have the confidence to use that capital for the broadening and further development in the economy, taking refuge instead in the stock market and buying shares in existing, successful enterprises? [Interjections.]

There is only one reason for this, viz that the business sector has lost confidence in the present control of South Africa by the NP and in the party’s so-called reform movement which is not really reform, but to a great extent is a deformation of South African society as we knew it.

The important question remains where the NP is going and where they can be going. Before the Constitution was passed, we warned the NP in debates in this House—I am referring in particular to the entrenched clauses in the Constitution—that in passing that Constitution, they had taken an irrevocable step towards chaining the White people to the other two groups. We warned them that they were enchaining the White House of Assembly with those measures, so that the House of Assembly would no longer be the sovereign authority in this country. Although they said they were going to protect minority rights, in reality the NP Government was giving the minority groups a right of veto over the Whites.

In this legislation we find that the truth is also dawning on the NP.

You are conjuring up spectres. [Interjections.]

The NP now finds that it can no longer enforce its will in the Parliament of South Africa, because it is subject to a veto by Mr Alan Hendrickse and his party. As far as legislation is concerned, the once powerful NP Government can no longer do what it wants to in South Africa, because it has to go on its knees to Mr Alan Hendrickse and the Labour Party in the House of Representatives. Demands are being made by Mr Alan Hendrickse, and we know the demands of the NP’s former partner until last week. He demands that all discriminatory measures be removed from the Statute Book and that the Group Areas Act be abolished.

Say “hear, hear” again.

I do not hear a “hear, hear” now.

Is the NP going to comply with that request? Is the NP, as apparently has already been decided, going to repeal the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act in its entirety? Is the NP going to yield to the pressure of the other House?

No!

The hon member says no. They are not going to yield, therefore. [Interjections.] The hon member says no, but we shall see who is going to yield in this process: The NP Government or the Labour Party, the tail that is wagging the dog.

We are simply going to do what is right.

Who is giving in to the AWB? [Interjections.]

We shall see what happens.

It was interesting to listen to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in the other House, and to see how he literally had to go down on his knees and plead.

One of two things will be true; either the Coloured leaders will have to comply with the demands of the hon the Minister State President, and yield, or the hon the State President will have to comply with the demands of the Coloured leaders, and then he will be yielding. [Interjections.]

That is what so-called consensus government means, but it is not consensus, because the NP has allowed the sovereign right it had to govern the Whites to slip from its hands. The result is that true power no is longer vested in the NP Government today. [Interjections.] The true power to decide about the Whites, also in the final instance, is no longer vested in the Whites. In the final instance that real power depends upon the whims and desires of the other two groups which are minority groups.

If we have reached that situation in South Africa already, to what extent is the situation going to deteriorate if the NP gets its way in also including the Blacks, up to the highest level, as they say? [Interjections.] What protection will there be for the White people of South Africa then?

No, Sir, the NP has taken a course from which it cannot turn back. Of necessity it will ultimately have to make one concession after another, until eventually it gives in to all the demands of the other groups.

Yet there is a turnaround. That turnaround is taking place among the White voters of South Africa. [Interjections.] The White voters are realising to an increasing extent that this fatal course on which the NP has allowed itself to be led, will eventually lead to the complete destruction of its political authority.

I want to conclude. The NP Government and the hon the State President thought they could share political power with the others and retain that political power at the same time. That was the idea. As we warned, however, practical experience is demonstrating that if one shares political power, one will ultimately lose that political power. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, there is one message in South African politics which has not yet been brought home to the hon member for Barberton, and that is that there is only one form of political force in this country which has the final answer, namely the revolutionaries. [Interjections.] They have the final answer. None* of the others, ie the responsible people, have a final answer today as far as the next 10 to 20 years are concerned, because we are dealing with changing circumstances. That is the hon member for Barberton’s problem. He uses certain words and says that we are distorting the society we used to know. It is typical of hon members of the Official Opposition to want to cling to things as they used to be …

Which work!

Those hon members do not take cognisance of the changing circumstances that are in fact being created by the development policy of this Government. When a development policy is applied, nothing remains as it was before.

The hon member went on to make another interesting remark. He said the NP was no longer able to impose its will. I find it interesting that the hon member should have made that remark, because it reflects an approach and viewpoint that is based on domination. The era of political domination in South Africa has passed. The hon member for Barberton is still living in the era of domination, and the sad thing about it is that the realities of South Africa are unfortunately being engulfed by the verbosity of the CP. They are not succeeding in encouraging the voter to face the facts; they are whipping up people’s emotions.

Another problem we experience with those hon members, is that they act both in this House and outside it as if they were the only mouthpiece for Afrikanerdom in South Africa. I want to tell the hon member right now that the Afrikaners on this side of the House, of whom I am one, dissociate themselves from the approach, the viewpoint and the political activities of the hon members on that side of the House. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, may I ask the hon member a question?

Sir, I do not have the time to reply to the hon member.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

He is afraid to answer a question.

Mr Chairman, the hon members proceed on the assumption that we can solve our problems through force and violence, but bravado has always been a sign of weakness. [Interjections.]

It is obvious that unfortunately we have to make use of emergency measures in the meantime.

They are whistling in the dark!

Emergency measures are an unacceptable and an unpopular expedient in any democracy. They are not an expedient which a Government uses gladly of its own free will because it wants to oppress people and order them about. When one’s enemies adopt certain strategies which compel one to apply emergency measures, one has to do so, but those emergency measures can never represent the final answer in the search for political solutions for a country. Both in the country as a whole and here in this House, the CP represents certain Afrikaners who are opposed to progress in South Africa, and they represent the resistance to a collective responsibility on the part of all the people in this country. [Interjections.]

The hon members’ approach represents a retreat into isolation, into the politics of self-glorification, Afrikaner apartheid and racism. The hon members’ policy is a typical pursuance of rejection politics, of confrontation politics, of isolation politics and of the paternalistic domination of a previous era.

In saying this, we are not implying that we shall not, in the interim, occasionally encounter various forms of confrontation in our politics. When we are confronted with it, we shall not run away from it. The majority of Afrikaners still have the ability to lead and, unlike hon members on the other side of the House, they do not flee from the realities they should be facing. [Interjections.]

Quite plainly, the extent of the geographical integration of people and groups in South Africa makes the CP/AWB alliance’s model of separation impracticable. The fact is that the Afrikaner is undergoing a change in his own thought patterns and in his approach to South African politics, and is translating those altered thought patterns into practice. For the most part, this new approach of the Afrikaner is lost on these hon members. [Interjections.]

Let us take a brief look at what the elements of this new approach are. The first is the ideal of promoting the self-realisation of groups and peoples in South Africa, and not confrontation between groups or their subordination to one another. [Interjections.] Secondly, the self-realisation of these groups cannot be achieved through the concept of a unitary state such as the one which the PFP proposes, or by means of a separate national state concept such as the one which the AWB/CP alliance advocates. [Interjections.]

The self-realisation of groups in South Africa can only be achieved through a dispensation which contains elements of both a unitary state and separate national states, such as the one we already have. Every group will have to achieve a reasonable degree—I repeat, a “reasonable degree”—of acceptance of this new approach of compromise politics instead of the confrontation politics of the CP. [Interjections.]

This compromise formula entails control over own affairs but, at the same time, shared responsibility in respect of general affairs. The point of departure remains that population groups and communities are the building blocks of South African politics and of South African community life.

We all have to concede that the AWB/CP alliance, which is sitting on the other side of the House, represents a not insignificant force of resistance to this innovative thought process. It is indeed a force to be reckoned with, but the inescapable realities of this country will develop such an opposite power of attraction that the present AWB/CP alliance will in due course be phased out of the South African political arena. They will be reduced to nothing more than a regional phenomenon which, in the national context, will probably not represent more than a third of the Afrikaners.

What we are witnessing from the CP here in this House, is the destructive, negative influence on South African society of people who are exercising authority without responsibility. [Interjections.] People are being incited through the use of emotional half-truths to lend their support to a spate of fine-sounding words. They are being incited to lend their support to labels for complex concepts which people do not readily understand, because the complexities are difficult to grasp. It is very easy to speak in the idiom of those people in South Africa who want to run away. It is less easy to face the realities of the day. [Interjections.] It is very easy to sit in South Africa and in this House and to think only in terms of the Whites, forgetting that what one thinks and says also has an effect on the other people in the country.

We in South Africa must govern as if the CP did not exist. [Interjections.] We must govern in South Africa as if the CP did not exist, and we must face the realities of South Africa. [Interjections.] We must regard them as a geographical phenomenon.

Very well said.

The economic and demographic realities of South Africa will result in the Official Opposition gradually disappearing from the South African political arena, and I look forward to the day when that happens. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I actually came here believing that this was the Third Reading of the own affairs Budget. I still intend to deal with that at some stage. However, the debate has got off to such an interesting start on a political basis that one really cannot resist coming into it.

I must say to the hon member for Caledon that he is actually to my mind a very good example of a frustrated Nationalist whose heart is in the right place. I want to emphasize that his heart is in the right place, but unfortunately his mind is so politically confused that he cannot let his heart express his real sentiments. [Interjections.] The hon member rejects the CP idea of a “volkstaat”. I also reject the idea, but I actually understand what they stand for. I may not like it—and I certainly do not like it—but the reality is that I understand it. He also rejects the federation that the PFP stands for, which anybody with reasonable intellect can understand. However, then he says that he is going to have a mixture of CP policy of the “volkstaat” and of a unitary state. I find that fascinating, because the unitary state is rejected by us because a unitary state with majority rule offers no solution for South Africa. Indeed, I thought, until now, that that had been rejected by the NP. [Interjections.]

With regard to separation and having a partition of South Africa I do not think there can be any argument that partition is a solution for multi-ethnic societies in ordinary circumstances. Be that as it may, unfortunately in South Africa the time for that has passed. I regret having to say this because I think it would have been a possible solution. What is happening now is that the really honest-thinking member for Caledon finds himself trying to bring about a hybrid between two unacceptable and unworkable processes in South Africa. If that is NP policy then heaven preserve us, because then we really are in trouble!

What is important is that the hon member for Barberton has correctly referred to the statement by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. It is an important statement, because it comes from a non-political person who is highly qualified in the economy and in charge of the monetary policy of this country. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves: What does what he say really mean? He says:

I do not want to seek to interpret what I think the Governor of the Reserve Bank said, in a way that would bring him into the political arena. I would rather like to say what I believe the business men and consumers in South Africa, and in addition to that, the people outside South Africa think. The reason why there is uncertainty about the political situation in South Africa is firstly because there are people who believe that the revolution in South Africa can succeed. They need to be assured that a revolution in South Africa cannot succeed, that a Marxist rule in South Africa is not a practical possibility, and that their investments in South Africa are safe for the future. One of the uncertainties about South Africa is the doubt whether there is a solution. That is the problem concerning the radical left: There is a fear that the radical left could succeed.

Equally, I must put it to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that he and his party are also part of the problem. There is a fear on the part of investors, consumers and people from abroad who are sympathetically inclined towards South Africa, that the CP’s policies could gain greater ground among the White electorate and that that could have a reaction in South Africa. One of the results of the last general election was that that fear has become more meaningful than before the election. We therefore also have to put the idea at rest that there is a possibility that the CP may come into power in South Africa insofar as this House is concerned. [Interjections.] That needs to be done. Therefore the CP is not part of the solution; it is part of the problem in South Africa. [Interjections.] They are partly to blame for the lack of confidence in South Africa. They need to be convinced of this reality.

Harry, you are the problem!

I am not the problem but I am a problem to the hon member for Overvaal and he knows it!

We have to assure people that there is no possibility that revolution and reaction will succeed, but that the moderates of South Africa can mobilise themselves to find an acceptable solution. I issue this challenge to the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council when he replies to this debate: The people of South Africa want a solution on the table. The hon member for Caledon demonstrated that however much he had goodwill in his heart he had no solution. The Government has no plan to put on the table. It is from the Government that the plan is wanted.

Where is yours?

If the hon member has not read our federal policy and our constitutional policy, which is in writing, I will give him a copy. I will also give him a copy of our economic policy. [Interjections.] What the hon member who interjected does not understand is that the NP is the Government. It is the Government that is capable of implementing its policies and it is to them that the people are looking now to see what is on the table. They know we have a policy but we are not in power and we cannot implement our policy. Therefore the responsibility for restoring confidence in South Africa rests foursquare on the Government to put on the table a plan which will ensure that reaction and revolution will not succeed. [Interjections.]

The other responsibility is that not only must there be a political solution in South Africa but also a social solution as the Governor of the Reserve Bank points out. One of the reasons why people are afraid at this moment in time is that there is no proper economic plan to deal with the wave of unemployed, the potential that can be exploited from that, the population increase that we are facing, and the demands and expectations that have been aroused so that by the year 2 000 we may find ourselves in a far worse social and economic position than we do now. Again there is no adequate plan to deal with that and that is a cause of the lack of confidence in South Africa.

People will accept that at the moment things may not be perfect but what they are asking for is that somebody should assure them that those who are in power in South Africa actually have a solution to the problems that confront us. Then the situation will be different. Then one will find that there is greater encouragement for and activity in investing in means of production that will create jobs, instead of investment on the Stock Exchange.

Then there will be a turnaround in what is happening in South Africa, where the banks are awash with money and nobody wants to borrow it. Then we will have a completely different picture because people will believe that there is a solution to the problems of South Africa.

We believe there is a solution. We believe that moderates in South Africa can get together. We believe that one does not have to take sides on the radical left or the radical right. There are solutions, but at the moment we have not yet heard them from the NP.

I should like, if I may, to return to the question of this particular own affairs situation. In particular, I want to draw attention to the issue of taxes and the powers which the administration has. The own administration does not have the power to impose levies or taxes or to raise loans. They do, however, have the power to raise levies authorised by or under any general law on services rendered, over and above payment for such services.

What is significant about this provision in the Constitution is that levies may be raised over and above the actual payment for services. In other words, one has a payment for services and one has levies. This particular provision in the Constitution has to be considered with two other matters, firstly, the Government’s White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation, particularly insofar as it relates to user charges; and secondly, the Margo Commission Report, again insofar as it relates to user charges. The Margo Commission Report supports the so-called benefit principle and supports both local indirect taxes for specific local services and user charges.

I want to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council whether he will tell us whether he accepts those recommendations insofar as they relate to own affairs and insofar as they relate to the power to raise levies over and above the provision of services, because that is an important issue.

The White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation states, and I quote:

Again in dealing with Government spending, a little further on the White Paper states:

That is Government policy. The issue to which the Government has committed itself, is therefore, to my mind, a fundamental one, which I invite the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to debate here. To my mind and in my submission when it is examined it will demonstrate that the Government has embarked upon an economic policy which has extremely serious implications for the community as a whole.

May I state in basic terms that there are some fundamental reasons for the existence of a State, namely protection of the country and the individual against the aggressors; the protection of the person and the property of the individual; and the creation of machinery for justice. These are fundamental reasons why a State exists.

However, as nations have developed, there have been services which the State has deemed necessary to provide. In respect of some of those activities it can be disputed as to whether that should be private or public sector activities. I concede that. However, the care of the aged, the sick, the orphaned and the needy and education historically fall into the category of services which the State in fact has provided for the community as such, in addition to the basic services.

Partly or entirely?

Well, Sir, I will come to that in a moment. That is the real issue. When it comes to partly or entirely—and I want to tell the hon the Minister this at once—the fundamental difference between the hon the Minister and us is that as far as we are concerned, we believe that all people in South Africa are entitled to a basic service. There is no question about that.

The questions which are posed are therefore the following: In a modern and caring society which is committed to equality of opportunity, should the ability to obtain certain fundamental services be related to an ability to pay? Can South Africa with its propensity for instability, its major wealth and income gaps, allow a situation to develop where it cuts back on free or subsidised services which could assist in maintaining stability and solution-finding, by providing for services which are only available at a reasonable quality dependent on ability to pay?

Will the removal of discrimination in South Africa, based on race or colour, be followed by a new form of discrimination in respect of essential social services based on wealth or income? The issue which needs to be clearly stated is that the offer by the radical politicians to deprived people is that given political power the deprivation will be removed. Communism promises services to the people, but experience shows that once in power such a system cannot fulfil the promises. Free enterprise, however, can, because the wealth it generates provides the services which communism promises but cannot deliver. If free enterprise misuses the wealth it generates, however, and decides not to provide the services, it is no longer a marketable commodity to the economically deprived. That is the real test which we have to face.

Let me provide an example, namely hospital services. To my mind the fundamental issue must be that irrespective of one’s financial resources one must be able to get the most skilled surgeon and the best nurse. If one is rich enough one can stay in a private ward as opposed to a general ward, but the best surgeon must be available, irrespective of one’s financial resources. That is the true test. That is what a caring society is all about and that is what we ask should in fact take place to ensure stability in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, like the hon member for Yeoville I did not intend joining the political fray. He has rather forced me into it, however.

I have forced you before, too, you know that.

Yes, I know. He also forced himself into the wrong direction. That was the trouble with the hon member for Yeoville.

First of all, let me say the following about the economic situation in South Africa today. In that specific report to which the hon member referred, the Governor of the Reserve Bank notes certain very adverse conditions under which the economy of this country has had to function. The hon member knows what those adverse conditions are. He knows all about the pressures from outside. He knows all about sanctions and disinvestment. He also knows all about the unrest and the decline in the price of gold. He knows all about these adverse factors, but he also knows—and I think he has read the report in this regard—that Assocom’s latest survey shows that there is an upswing in business confidence.

What is it when one analyses it? People are buying more motor-cars.

Well, that is one of the signs of an upswing. That is one of the barometers of an upswing. As soon as people start buying more motorcars and more durable goods, there is an upswing in consumer spending. Surely this is one of the barometers.

Tell us how much is being spent on fixed investment.

Well, Sir, we have a large reserve capacity as far as fixed investment is concerned, and I can tell the hon member that fixed investment will follow as soon as this upswing in the economy gains more momentum. However, then we as political parties will have to adopt a more positive view of our own economy. Taking everything into consideration, I think a growth rate of even 2,5%for this present fiscal year is an achievement.

Seen against the background of all this adversity, I think the Government of the day should be complimented upon having managed affairs in such a way as to attain this growth rate. I think that in today’s world this is an international achievement.

I want to come back now to the accusation levelled by the hon member at the NP to the effect that we have come forward with a hybrid form of constitution which falls between two unacceptable concepts.

He was being polite.

The one, I suppose, is the federal concept and the other is the unitary system.

No, he said “unitary” and “volkstaat”.

Oh, “unitary” and “volkstaat”? I did not hear him say that; I think the hon member for Yeoville is under a grave misapprehension in that regard.

No, no.

May I ask the hon member—he mentioned PFP policy just in passing, without expounding on it or explaining it in any way…

We have done that so often! [Interjections.]

Oh, they have done it so often—I suppose that was the policy before 1978, or the one of 1978.

I shall give you a copy of it.

Yes, the hon member will give me a copy, but the hon leader of the PFP is going to give us another copy in a few months’ time when their new commission has worked out their reactions to the constitutional development since 1978. [Interjections.] Now the hon member says that our policy is useless and will not bring peace to this country. He says it will get us nowhere, but he cannot tell us what his policy is going to be because it still has to be worked out; that is the fact of the matter. [Interjections.] Yes, like Sir De Villiers Graaff—I shall come to Sir De Villiers Graaff. This hon member was a member of the old United Party.

Who else?

There are even members of the CP who were members of the old United Party. [Interjections.] I am glad he mentioned Sir De Villiers Graaff, because I think that both of the opposition parties can learn something from Sir De Villiers Graaff. I refer to the fact that after the referendum of 1960, he accepted the verdict of the people and said: “Now we shall all work together for the good of the republic that is going to come about as a result of the referendum.” However, what happened after the referendum of 1983, and what happened after the subsequent general election? These hon members have not accepted the verdict of the people; that is the kind of democrats that they have proved themselves to be. [Interjections.]

*The trouble with the two opposition parties … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members should calm down while the hon member is speaking. The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

The CP does not accept the new Constitution, because they want everything to be own affairs; there must not be any general affairs that are shared by all population groups. [Interjections.] The PFP, on the other hand, wants all matters to be general affairs; they reject the idea of own affairs for each group.

You have no case.

My case is recorded in the 1983 Constitution. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member for Yeoville what contribution his party made on the Schlebusch Commission, which formulated the principles on which this Constitution is based. What was his party’s contribution to that? [Interjections.] This is the kind of negative attitude that has caused the voters to reject the PFP by increasing majorities in each election. It is also the reason why they are sitting in the benches of a minority party today and are no longer the Official Opposition.

Harry voted “yes”, though.

I want to say, however, that when one sees all the confusion in the ranks of the PFP one can understand and have sympathy with their two hon members of Parliament who undertook the trip to Dakar.

We do not need your sympathy. [Interjections.]

I think it was a form of escapism to get away from the aftermath of an election which they lot so badly. I am afraid, however, that there is a new kind of fear developing among PFP supporters. Psychologists tell me that they have a name for it; it is called “cronjetal gastrowphobia”!

*Let us come back to the CP. What have they contributed to this Constitution which we have today? They have co-operated at every stage, including the 1977 election, in which a mandate was requested for the tricameral system. [Interjections.]

You are talking nonsense.

Of course a mandate was requested for a tricameral system in the 1977 election. [Interjections.] Hon members should look up …

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must make fewer interjections. The hon member may proceed.

Whenever I hear the plaintive voice of the hon member for Overvaal, I think it is a great pity that the writer Alan Paton did not meet him many years ago, for then his best-selling novel might have been called “Cry the Beloved Kosie”! [Interjections.]

The CP co-operated fully and even defended this tricameral system during the 1981 elections.

You do not know what you are talking about.

In 1982 they found that their leaders who had supported this tricameral system had behaved like the man in one of Aesop’s fables who, while walking along the beach, heard a cry coming from a bottle: “Let me out, let me out!” When he opened the bottle, he found that he had let out the devil and did not know how to get him back in again. [Interjections.]

Nonsense!

Of course. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition even signed the 1981 manifesto, after all.

Rubbish!

I do not care whether the hon member who has just said “rubbish” thinks that the plans designed at that time were rubbish, but they all contributed to the tricameral system. [Interjections.] However, they did not have the courage to go on with it. [Interjections.] Now they want to run away, and do you know where, Sir? To Morgenzon, to Southland. But we in the NP do not care. We have the leaders and the people to meet the challenges that await us in the future, and we shall find the solutions.

Mr Chairman, listening to the hon member for Kuruman, it becomes very clear to one that the NP believes in the politics of surrender and not in the politics of power sharing. They want to hand over everything we have in this country.

If one listens to the PFP, it is very clear that they have finally thrown in the towel and want to give everything away to the Blacks and members of other race groups. They do not realise that it is the Whites here in White South Africa who have built this country up and made it what it is today. They believe in power sharing and in simply giving everything away.

The CP believes in separate development, in partition. If the NP also believed in partition, they would not be in the dilemma they are in this morning. [Interjections.]

What is the situation today? One of the Houses does not want to cooperate with the NP. That House is making certain demands, not only on the NP but also on the Whites of South Africa. They say we must do away with the Group Areas Act; we must do away with all discriminatory laws. We as Whites have no say.

One of two things is going to happen. Either the hon the State President will have to go on his bended knees to Mr Hendrickse and beg and implore him to allow the Constitution to be amended, or he will have to hold his head high and call an election for 1989 …

He is too scared to do that!

… and the result of 1989 will be that the demise of the NP will be brought forward three years. [Interjections.]

Listening to the hon member for Kuruman…

When he is awake.

… I heard him ask what the CP’s contribution had been to the amending of the Constitution.

Order! I notice that there are certain hon members who become very personal, but when other hon members do it to them, they are very touchy about it. I wish to request hon members not to be so personal. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, CP policy is very, very clear. We are opposed to the Constitution as it stands. We do not accept it. We are not afraid to say what we want. We believe in separate development.

How?

I hear shouts of “How? How?” [Interjections.] Those are people who cannot think for themselves. [Interjections.]

It has also been said that so many millions of rands have been spent on separate development, and we are going to need so much more. If we analyse the situation, we see that the billions which have been spent have not been wasted. We are going to turn those billions into a profit for South Africa. We are still prepared to spend more on separate development so that those people can carry on on their own, and so that we as Whites here in White South Africa can also carry on on our own, and will not need to grovel before another House.

The hon member for Kuruman also said that if there was a growth rate of 2,5%in the economy of South Africa, it would be progress. I agree with him, but a growth rate of 1%would also be an improvement on last year’s. It has been propagated, however, that we will have a growth rate of at least 2%in the South African economy this year.

Just as in the referendum, just as during the election campaign, it has been promised that South Africa is going to experience economic prosperity. Simply vote National, and simply vote “yes”. The opposite has been proved, and nothing has come of their promises; on the contrary, the country is still being governed under emergency measures today. The economy of the country is deteriorating daily. We read what is said by economists, not people who laugh at themselves. Economists say that we will not come anywhere near a growth rate of 3%. Why not? Because there is no faith in the NP. Where are the days when the NP were trusted and we had a 6%or 7%growth rate? Those days are behind us. [Interjections.]

You supported the HNP then!

People do not invest money in a country in which there is no stability. [Interjections.] They do not have confidence any longer. That is why I say today that we shall not have economic prosperity before the NP is defeated. The confidence of the world will then return. [Interjections.]

What will the world then do with your policy?

Part of the backbone of the country’s economy is the mining industry. If there are problems in the mining industry and the gold price drops, the economy of South Africa suffers. The outside world and everyone else want to destroy the economy of this country, and they are now using this mining strike. What has the Government done up till now in any way to act as a mediator or do anything to settle this strike? So far they have done nothing.

In terms of what measures should they take action?

We know that the Chamber of Mines has tried to settle this matter. They made improved offers to the Black trade union. The Black trade union rejected them. It does not intend to reach an agreement; why not? It receives support and funds from overseas; what do we do to stop this? Nothing!

We read in the newspapers that the hon the Minister of Manpower said he would introduce new legislation to keep these Blacks in check. Oh well; in 1979 my friend, the then Minister of Manpower Utilization, Mr S P Botha, said he would do certain things to the trade unions, and we should not worry. Up till now these reassurances have remained nothing more than promises, and nothing has came of them.

It will not help if legislation is enacted and not carried out. At the present moment there are enough Acts in the Statute Book, as far as labour relations are concerned, to deal with the situation. It was also said by the other side of the House that legislation would be introduced in terms of which action could be taken against anyone who went on strike illegally. I then said: “Just read the Labour Relations Act”. I want to say again that all they need to do is read section 79 of that act. I am not going to waste my time by quoting it, but it states clearly that people are protected when a legal strike takes place. When an illegal strike takes place, however, punitive measures can be applied or civil claims instituted against the relevant employers’ or employees’ organisation which has not complied with this provision. It is not going to help us at all to enact legislation which is not going to be applied by the department in future.

At present we have many illegal strikes in South Africa. There is the Post Office strike which has been in progress for quite some time. There was the strike by SATS employees, people who are not allowed to go on strike, but no prosecutions were instituted. When I asked the hon the Minister of Manpower why there had been no prosecutions, he made the ridiculous statement that they made the legislation but did not administer it. It is the duty of the Department of Manpower at least to ensure that the Act is applied when contraventions take place. What good is it going to do him if he introduces further legislation to keep the trade unions in check, and sits back again and says he made the Act, and he does not care how it is administered?

I ask the other side of the House to wake up. They do not know what is going on in the country. They are groping around in the dark, and they do not know what they are going to bump into next.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Carletonville basically devoted the substantive part of his speech to a manpower debate. I do not intend to react to this, except to tell him that he need not be concerned that this Government will sit back and allow circumstances to develop which have the potential to destroy the economy of South Africa. [Interjections.] He can be equally assured that we will not sit back and allow the stability of South Africa to be undermined with money coming in from abroad. He must just be patient and then he will discover that, where necessary, this Government is taking and will take effective steps in a sensible and thorough way, after proper consultation.

Today I basically want to join issue with the CP, but before I react, I want to say something about the hon member for Yeoville. It is a pity that he is not here.

†He gave a marvellous self-description while trying to be witty with regard to the hon member for Caledon. It is the hon member for Yeoville who has his heart in many different places. Economically and socially he is to the left of his own party. With regard to security, sanctions and disinvestment his heart is with the NP. With regard to constitutional reform his heart is with Denis Worrall. As a matter of fact, the only part of his anatomy which is within his own party, is that part of his anatomy on which he sits. [Interjections.]

*The hon members for Barberton and Carletonville harped on the same theme when they said that the NP would have to go down on its knees. This party is not down on its knees to anyone. Their “yield” argument is typical of the CP’s way of thinking.

I want to apply the hon member for Barberton’s argument that either we or the Labour Party must yield to the CP’s policy. [Interjections.] The CP tells the Coloureds that they are offering them a sovereign independent state. They must decide that they want to be a people and accept independence in the group areas belonging to them at the moment. If they do not want this, they must yield and remain second-class citizens in their own country which they have shared with the Whites since the settlement of this country as we know it today. [Interjections.] The CP is therefore saying that if the Coloured wants rights, he must yield and accept their pattern. This is, after all, the politics of “yielding”.

What is the NP’s policy? The NP does not want anyone to yield, because by yielding and dominating we will never solve this country’s problems. With a yield and domination approach with one yielding and the other dominating, we are not creating a secure future for our descendants here, but a period of strife which will be perpetual and which will eventually lead the destruction of everything we believe in and everything that is dear to us. We say that yielding should not be the choice. What we must do is to find common ground.

If people do not find common ground as regards a specific matter, effective mechanisms must be built into the Constitution, as we have in fact done, to ensure that good government will continue. There must also be mechanisms for effective negotiation, because then one has the assurance that when people cannot find common ground regarding a change, prevailing conditions will continue to exist, because this has been written into a stable system.

Then the White man remains the master.

If one therefore cannot reach consensus on how to change something, what is in existence continues to exist. What exists, ensures adequate protection for our outlook on life and everything that is dear to us.

The entire debate on the Budget of the Administration: House of Assembly, this debate and all those which preceded it, unlike many other debates, basically centres around White interests, White problems and White politics. Within this framework I want to place two particular matters under the spot-light. In the first place I want to discuss where the White voters really stand as regards the Official Opposition and in the second place I want to say a few words about power-sharing and division of power.

Let us start with the Official Opposition. As a result of the collapse of the PFP, after 6 May they suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves in the role of the Official Opposition. They soon found out that this made specific demands of a party. We have noticed with a touch of amusement but also with a touch of appreciation that they are trying to act in a more dignified manner than they did prior to 6 May, at least while they are in this House. [Interjections.] They are trying to project an image of a party to which the voters can look up. [Interjections.] Gone are the days when mere gossip and suspicion-mongering were sufficient; this allowed them to gain a certain degree of substantial support through the fears they engendered in the hearts of the Whites with their half-truths and distortions. Now they are the Official Opposition and now they realise that they must also offer something if they want to present themselves as the alternative government. That is why this is a vital question: What does the CP offer the White voter? I want to investigate two aspects in this connection.

The first question I want to ask is where the CP really stands as regards right-wing radical organisations, and more specifically the AWB. [Interjections.] Why am I mentioning the AWB? The AWB cannot be ignored in White politics either. Large numbers of people attend their meetings. They claim—the hon members of the CP are in a better position to tell us about this than we ourselves are able to ascertain—that they have a tremendously large membership. That is why they have become an element in politics and the CP can no longer resort to fancy footwork to avoid saying precisely where it stands with regard to this organisation.

Let us sketch a profile of the AWB. The AWB’s constitution and programme of principles, together with statements by spokesmen, but particularly by its leader, Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche, clearly indicate the following:

In the first place they are very much in favour of an authoritarian and dictatorial government. This appears in their constitution. [Interjections.] I am quoting from their programme of principles and manifesto in which it is stated:

They go on to say:

In the economic sphere the AWB is in favour of nationalisation, the confiscation of land and national socialism. [Interjections.] The AWB is violently anti-Semitic, and the AWB’s insignia and symbols prove that it is basically a Nazi-based organisation. [Interjections.] The AWB’s statements have a continuous undertone of violence and militarism, and its methods and behaviour are ill-mannered, inflammatory, threatening and sometimes violent.

Every objective observer will agree with me that what I have now said, is a fair summary of what the AWB is and how it projects itself. Now the question is precisely where the CP stands as regards the AWB and its cronies.

The NP’s standpoint on this is clear and unequivocal. It is clearly reflected in the statement which our State President and chief leader read out in this House this week. We reject National Socialism. We reject Facism. We reject all these characteristics which the AWB exhibits. We say that the AWB is a dangerous organisation which must be combated. [Interjections.]

There has not been a clear reply to this from the CP. Here and there, when they really behave badly, there is qualified criticism—slight criticism—from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, but he is prepared to share the same platform with Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche. He did so at the Voortrekker Monument, and I want to tell him that the time has come for him to make a clear and unequivocal statement on this matter.

When he was still in the NP, he was fairly outspoken about this. I am quoting from Beeldof 3 April 1981:

That is how he spoke when he was the leader of a party which was not ashamed to express its convictions, but now their statements are vague and confusing.

What did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say about the official participation of two representatives of the AWB in this Hess demonstration? He dissociated himself somewhat by referring back to a synod decision taken 40 years ago, which justifiably led Beeldand the Nasionale Pers to say:

This I concede, but he then immediately covered himself as regards the AWB because he was reported as saying:

The organisation with whose leader he is prepared to share a platform, the organisation whose leader claims that some of his senior members are sitting here in his caucus, the organisation which says that at least three of the CP seats are AWB gains—those statements are documented—sent two official representatives there, but the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that this could simply be ignored.

I shall say it again. [Interjections.]

This fact alone, plus all the other facts I have mentioned regarding the AWB, leaves him with a choice—he must either expressly reject the AWB or through his silence or lenient treatment of them he must prove that he either agrees with them or that he is so badly in need of their support that he does not hate the courage to dissociate himself from them. [Interjections.]

He is dependent on their support.

The CP is trying to ride on the back of respected leaders of the NP like Dr Malan, Mr Strijdom and Dr Verwoerd. Who adopted clearer and more unequivocal standpoints against what the AWB wants to revive in South Africa than these leaders? Irrespective of whether or not it cost them votes, of whether or not it weakened the NP, of whether or not it plunged the NP into a crisis, they had the courage of their convictions to resist and to fight these dangerous trends. [Interjections.]

Thus far the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has not yet shown that courage, and he is a fundamentalist in his thinking, he is a well-known theologian, and we require of him to adopt a clear and unequivocal standpoint on this. [Interjections.] He will do the Afrikaners, in particular, a favour if he unequivocally associates himself with the NP’s rejection of the AWB and everything the AWB stands for. [Interjections.] As an Afrikaner who loves his people, because that is what he is, he is called upon to adopt a clear standpoint on this, because the AWB is misleading many Afrikaners. The AWB is inciting many Afrikaners and this is giving rise to a dangerous situation and he, as the Leader of the Official Opposition, has a task in this regard. [Interjections.] If he does not do so, as is the case thus far, he stands accused of being sympathetic towards the AWB, because then he is proving that he is not confident that he can make progress without them.

A second facet in respect of the CP which I want to place under the spotlight, is what the CP is really offering the White voter as an alternative to the NP.

Self-determination.

Stability.

They say they are offering full-fledged self-determination to a White state in which only Whites will have political rights. [Interjections.]

Did you not have the same standpoint for 30 years?

I am asking those hon members whether this is a fair summary of their policy, that they are promising the White voter full-fledged self-determination in a White state in which only Whites will have political rights, and that their method of achieving this is partition.

That was NP policy for 30 years!

The hon member must not try to shout me down. I am having a serious debate with them. I shall get to the NP’s policy in a moment. [Interjections.]

The CP also says that there will always be non-Whites living and working in this White state of theirs, that Black people will continue to be born in that state, and that from generation to generation there will be Blacks and Coloureds and Indians in that White state, not temporarily and not temporarily permanent, but permanently. They concede this, because they know that even the voter with the lowest possible intelligence quotient will not believe that they can establish a pure White state in South Africa.

This leaves them facing one simple question; this leaves them facing the same foregone conclusion we have faced throughout our history, namely how one can rectify one’s policy so as to allow others living within the same constitutional borders what one demands for oneself—because this is also their policy. How can you tell those Black people who are going to live permanently with you in the same state that as regards political rights and participation in decision-taking they have what you demand for yourself?

It is simple.

The hon member says it is simple. Then they must tell us how, because they are running away from this question. [Interjections.] I want to tell him that there are only two alternatives, namely that one either retains all real power—which is what they actually want to do, and in this regard the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke said “correct”—and then one remains the master and one has no defence against the complaint that one is dominating others, and one is not making good one’s promise that one allows others what one demands for oneself, or one creates a new dispensation in which everyone has equal rights, without exposing oneself to domination, because one must maintain the freedom of one’s own people. [Interjections.]

The NP has chosen. It has chosen to create a new dispensation in which everyone will acquire equal rights without exposing the White to domination. [Interjections.] Where does the CP stand when they admit that they choose continued domination in the White state, because it seems to me that is what they have chosen? Tell us that we can accept that point. We want the CP to tell us this because we do not want to carry on squabbling about this. If this is the CP’s policy, they must tell us that they stand for continued White domination in a White state. We can then start a meaningful debate on whose policy has the best chance of success, whose policy is fundamentally justifiable and whose policy holds most security for the Whites if we look at the future.

However, the CP is not prepared to admit this because they then negate their own statement that they grant others what they demand for themselves. If the CP were to admit this, they would prove that they do not really want to be fair. [interjections.] If they maintain this is not the case, and they want to give everyone the right to full-fledged participation, they must tell us how they want to do this in their White South Africa which is not really going to be White.

I say the NP has already chosen. We have chosen division of power and power-sharing. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon the Minister please resume his seat. It is not the task of a member of Parliament to keep up a running commentary while another speaker is making his speech. If a meaningful interjection is made, it is part of the debate. If an hon member wants to put a question, that is also part of the debate. I am not, however, going to allow this kind of debating in the House. Hon members are passing meaningless remarks which are not making any contribution to the debate. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The NP has chosen division of power and power-sharing. We chose power-sharing for matters which cannot be divided between the various population groups living in the same country, power-sharing in a way which will eliminate domination.

How?

Today I want to state categorically that the NP will not place the Whites in a position in which we will be dominated.

Tell us how.

Everyone is asking us what our “bottom-line” is. The NP’s “bottom-line” is that no dispensation which does not have adequate assurance against domination of the Whites by others built in and ensured, will be acceptable to the NP.

How?

By the sound of things a tribe of Red Indians is sitting over there. All I can hear is “how, how”. [Interjections.]

That is also my reply to Prof Boshoff who said that we would become like the Basques. I am quoting from Die Patriot, in which he was probably reported correctly:

He went on to say:

[Interjections.] The NP says the Whites have already moved in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question?

No, I am not prepared to reply to any questions.

We have already moved and we have what is unique to us. We are completely free, and we will not become strangers in our own country. We say that like the Voortrekkers we will find a way to work together with others who have also found what is unique to them in the same area as us.

Like Andries Pretorius?

Every former leader had the courage to ensure the survival of his own people in interaction with other population groups. Those hon members must go and read the history of Paul Kruger. The NP says we have already moved. We also say that we will not become strangers in our own country and we will not expose the freedom the Whites acquired here to unacceptable risks. Knowing full well that reality tells us that there are also others who have found what is unique to them here in the same territory as us, we accept the challenge that what is unique to those people must also develop fully. We shall have to find a way to do this through negotiation.

You do not have it yet.

We shall have to find a way to do this, and we have already gone a long way towards ensuring that everyone can come into his own without being dominated by others. I shall deal with this now.

The NP is in favour of ensuring division of power for as many matters as possible, and maximum self-determination for every population group. The Administration: House of Assembly and its Ministers’ Council are visible proof of the implementation of this policy.

The CP says this is inadequate and is detracting from own affairs, but let us take a closer look at this matter. Section 14 of the Constitution and Schedule I thereto only arrange the mutual relations between Whites, Coloureds and Indians as regards own affairs, and as regards what is and what is not own affairs.

When we look at the Black population, we see an entirely different picture has developed regarding the concept of own affairs. The self-governing territories have many functions regarding which they are absolutely autonomous. My colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has announced that those functions regarding which they alone have full-fledged self-determination are going to be expanded.

In its manifesto the NP says we also want to create own structures for the urban Blacks within which they will have maximum autonomy over as many matters as possible. Through negotiation we must now start planning those structures. This is what we are dealing with when we say a forum for negotiation must be created in the form of the National Statutory Council, or whatever it will be called. In that forum for negotiation we must start giving content and structure to what such own political power bases for the Blacks outside the self-governing territories may look like, what their powers must be and how we can give them the greatest possible degree of autonomy.

Today I want to state as the main point of my argument that the own affairs concept is still a system in the making. The final word has not been said regarding Schedule I of the Constitution either. As regards some disciplines our preparation has been preceded for a longer period by thorough analysis. As regards education, it is therefore clear that there can only be general legislation in respect of four topics. As regards all other matters there is full autonomy for the respective administrations, and the final right of those administrations to take decisions on their own in so far as education is concerned.

This is not being done in respect of all the other disciplines mentioned in Schedule I, but we are sorting this out. We are gradually reaching agreement in interaction with the general Government, and stating precisely what general legislation will deal with. There will be total autonomy as regards the remaining topic. The day will come when we will amend Schedule I to define it more exactly and to give more explicit and clearer content to precisely where the dividing line between own and general affairs lies. When this has been done—we have virtually reached the stage where we can say that there is a clearer delineation in terms of agreements and binding decisions—this little argument of the CP that everything is subject to general legislation will fall away.

But surely that is the case!

It will be so effective that there will be a delineation in respect of every matter and that there will be clarity as to precisely what general affairs are—also as regards welfare, health, and so on—and what are own affairs. [Interjections.] While hon members of the CP are gossiping about a concept which they themselves should embrace, we in the Ministers’ Council are in the process of giving meaningful content to that concept in a practical way which fits in with the realities of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The conclusion I want to arrive at is that the NP is committed to developing self-determination on a group and ethnic basis. We are not prepared to narrow down that self-determination. The opposite is true. In itself own affairs, as a developing concept and as a concept in the making, is the key to the granting of security to every group. The effective development of own affairs will ensure that there will be effective co-operation between everyone, particularly regarding matters which are intrinsically of general interest.

If they ever came into power, the CP would very quickly arrive at precisely the same conclusion we have arrived at, namely that partition can make a contribution to the solving of the problems of South Africa—this also remains our policy—but that partition alone is not the key to a final breakthrough to the solutions we are seeking.

It is the entire solution.

Mr Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council in the hope that he would reply to the questions the hon member for Yeoville put to him regarding what South Africa is looking for. What is forthcoming from the Government that will generate confidence in the future of this country? The Governor of the Reserve Bank finds this confidence in the field of further political reform. While we have had many words and a spirited attack on his soulmates on the other side of the House from the hon the Minister we have had nothing which is going to generate confidence.

I listened to the hon the Minister attentively, and I hope he will take my comments seriously. While there is a difference between himself and the members of the CP on the practicality of their policy—and it certainly is easy to shoot down the practicality of their policy!—in spirit and in direction the NP and the CP are one. [Interjections.] It is only a question of the practicalities. The hon the Minister spoke about “die maksimum selfbe-skikking vir groepe en volkere op ’n groeps-en volkerebasis”.

*That is the NP’s objective—maximum self-determination on a basis of different groups and peoples.

†I should say that is also the objective of the CP. That was the objective of Dr Verwoerd. [Interjections.] What the CP is saying is that they are going to make this work. The NP is saying that the reality is that they realise that their goal of maximum self-determination will not be achievable in practice. The philosophy is the same. I was distressed. I would have thought that the philosophy of the NP was to take South Africa to a shared future. [Interjections.] No, it is not that. The hon the Minister actually ended his speech in a spirited fashion by stating that the one non-negotiable aspect was “maksimum selfbeskikking in Suid-Afrika op ’n groeps-en volkerebasis.”

Also the recognition that you cannot divide the two.

That is the recognition that where it is not possible the NP is ineluctably forced to do something else. [Interjections.] We do not believe in maximum self-determination. We believe this is one South Africa. We believe that it has an integrated economy. We believe that it has a shared future. When I listened to the hon the Minister I must say I was distressed because I had hoped there would be a shift away. I see him as the heir apparent to the throne or whatever the emperor’s title is called—the state presidency. We now realise that in philosophy, in direction, if the National Party could make it work in practice they would like to do what the CP is trying to do. There is, therefore, no fundamental, ideological difference. The difference is the practicality of making apartheid or “selfbeskikking” work in South Africa. It is a very sorry day for South Africa when the hon the Minister comes to this House and admits this.

The second point which was depressing in his speech was his attitude towards negotiation. Negotiation is not what he suggested it is. He says that they want to negotiate and are doing so to give content to the apartheid or separate structures that they have in mind. That is not negotiation. That is simply trying to make apartheid work. The very essence of negotiation is not to predetermine the structures and then bring people in and tell them to help one make them work, but to negotiate new structures and systems. But what kind of negotiation is it to say that one is going to succeed in negotiation because one is going to get people to give content to the apartheid or separate structures that one has already predetermined? No wonder the Governor of the Reserve Bank asked for something to engender confidence in the economy of this country? [Interjections.]

There is one area in which I find myself in agreement with the hon the Minister, namely his attitude and the comments that he made in respect of what I call the rise of rightwing racism in South Africa. I want to make this very clear. It is no consolation for me to say that the AWB are the children of apartheid, which they in fact are. It is no consolation for the hon member for Houghton to say that we warned Dr Verwoerd in the 1960’s that this kind of thing was going to happen. That is no consolation to me. The fact is it is an ugly, evil phenomenon in the political life of South Africa today. In a highly polarized intergroup situation in South Africa, I believe that the rise of this right-wing extremism in South Africa could one day just put the spark to the tinder-box of intergroup relationships in South Africa. It is highly dangerous.

It is manifesting itself in a number of ways. The hon the Minister mentioned the AWB. The AWB is one of the prime examples because of its high profile. It has an offensive “stormjaer” style, which I do not think South Africa needs. We got rid of that some 40 years ago. The AWB behaves provocatively, both in terms of race relations and in terms of the Government institutions in South Africa. It has a highly offensive racial connotation; it is out-and-out racist. I do not believe that South Africa needs it. It does not need other organizations like the Blanke Bevrydings-beweging, and it does not need people to go and pay tribute to former Nazi leader Rudolph Hess.

Or to ANC leaders?

Nobody pays tribute to the ANC leaders. The hon member is now defending. I suppose he is sorry that he was not there on that occasion. [Interjections.] I believe that in paying tribute to Rudolph Hess those people were guilty, not only of an affront to humanity, but also of an affront to the tens of thousands of South Africans who gave their lives to try to rid the world of the scourge of Nazism. They did not do so because they were conscripted; they volunteered to do it at that particular time.

I do not believe that South Africa—I am not talking party politics now—can afford to be perceived as a place which provides a haven for Nazis, ex-Nazis or neo-Nazis. We cannot afford to be identified in that way. There is no room within South Africa, given the tense situation that there is, for racist or “stormjaer” organizations to exist.

I concur with the hon the Minister—and I am not involved in the dispute between the Government and the CP on this issue, playing short-term party politics—that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does have an obligation. It is not just a question of “jy vat hulle vas kragtens die wet”. I believe that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in this Parliament has a very clear responsibility because the CP has a relationship with the AWB—some of its members are members of the AWB—and because there is a visible association between the two organizations to repudiate the AWB, not because of its political views as such but because of its neo-Nazi style and because it represents the worst of organized racism in South Africa. If he wants to do a service to South Africa, in spite of the harm it might cause his own party, I believe he has an obligation to repudiate that kind of evil in our South African society. If he does not do so, he is going to be swallowed by the AWB one day in any case.

Gobbled up!

He should do that sooner rather than later. But I am not talking about the interests of the CP. I am talking about the interests of this country which, in spite of all the defects still aspires towards a democratic future. I believe that the people who sit in this House have an obligation to make their point of view quite clear, and I believe that viewpoint should be outright repudiation.

While we have been talking about “own affairs” for some time now, things have been happening in another House—the House of Representatives. We should take very serious notice of what is taking place there. I refer to the hon the State President’s attack on hon members of the House of Representatives last Wednesday and the response of the Rev Alan Hendrickse the next day. These events, although they took place in a separate, racial House, affect all hon members of all Houses of Parliament and I believe all South Africans.

Those events just demonstrate how ridiculous it is that while we are sitting in this House talking about own and general affairs, in another House matters are unfolding that are going to have a dramatic impact on the future of us all.

I wish to say to the hon members opposite, particularly the hon the Minister, that I believe that the speech made by the Rev Hendrickse in the House of Representatives last Thursday should be made compulsory reading for every member of the NP, and in particular it should be made compulsory reading in Tuynhuys. I say this because it focuses attention on a very important issue, the issue of political perceptions. In the end, much of political action follows political perception. The speech also focuses on the inability of the Government to appreciate or understand, or even try to understand, the political perceptions of anybody other than themselves. That is the major defect in the makeup of the Government.

This speech deals with the question of the totally different perception which Coloured South Africans have of the Group Areas Act from that which Nationalists have of it; they live in two different worlds with totally different focuses. The Rev Hendrickse deals with matters such as the demolition of District Six as well as the demolition of South End and the other townships in and around Port Elizabeth. He points out that to the Government, an area such as District Six was just an area to be proclaimed White in terms of the Group Areas Act, while to the people who lived there, it was a place where they lived, played, courted and married. The Government does not seem to understand this. To the Government, it was a question of slum houses to be demolished; to the Coloured people they were homes in which people lived and raised their families. These are vastly different perceptions.

The speech also points to the extent to which apartheid has dehumanised those very people sitting there on the other side of the House who believe in it and have practised it over the years. Nobody could be so insensitive to the feelings of the Coloured South Africans if they themselves had not in fact been the agents of apartheid all these years. If the perceptions of the Rev Alan Hendrickse and the State President are so far apart—think of how close together their backgrounds are culturally, religiously and in many other ways—what a yawning chasm there must be between the perceptions of the Government on the one hand and on the other, those of the millions of Black people who form the majority of the population of this country. Can you imagine, Mr Chairman, the difference in perception there must be between the hon the Minister and a new, incoming migrant squatter in Khayelitsha? Can you imagine the difference in perception between the hon the Minister of Manpower and the jobless Black youngster sitting in KwaNobuhle? Can you imagine the difference in perception between the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and that of the father and mother from Magopa who have been deprived of their land and their home and sent to live in distant places, with the prospect of being deprived of their citizenship and forced to live under an alien government? [Interjections.]

Unless this Government is prepared to learn that they have to acknowledge and try to understand the perceptions of the majority of the people of South Africa, there is absolutely no way they are going to be able to get us through the difficult and dangerous days ahead. The tricameral system of which we are now a part is a living example of the Government’s inability to face up to the different perceptions that other people have of the South African situation. This tricameral system to which the Coloured and the Indians have been invited is founded on the concept of race classification, something which is anathema to those people—and yet it was forced on them by the White Parliament before 1983.

One of the key portfolios falling under the hon the Minister’s Budget is the one dealing with group areas although he does not administer it. Group areas form the cornerstone of the constitutional concept of own affairs—they are fundamental to own affairs. Racially separate local authorities are the natural corollary of own affairs, and yet these things are rejected. They were rejected before 1983 and they have been rejected again by the Coloured people, both those outside the system and the Coloured representatives under the Rev Alan Hendrickse in the House of Representatives itself; yet this Government ignores that. What is more, this hon Minister now says that they are going to “adjust” Schedule 1. I suspect that he is going to extend and increase it. He is going to try to coerce people instead of negotiating with them.

We say that South Africa cannot carry on like this. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sea Point began his speech by stating that the NP was philosophically akin to the CP, an utterance to which hon members of the CP reacted very strongly, of course. If ever the hon member for Sea Point made a very unfair comment in relation to the NP, I believe it was that very remark of his when he stated that in philosophy there was no difference between the NP and the CP. [Interjections.] The fact is that hon members of the CP left the NP as a result of a very basic difference in principle—the principle of power-sharing. That proved to be a line of political division in White politics in South Africa. That division was caused by people who stated that they were not prepared to share power with the other groups in South Africa. On the other hand there was the NP Government, which said it was going to share power and that it was beginning to create the structures necessary for the sharing of power. At no stage did the hon the State President, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this House or any other hon member of the NP ever say that the process of power-sharing was a complete and finalised process in relation to the instruments and other practical aspects involved. We all know it is an ongoing process. When we first started with this system of a tricameral Parliament, the NP stated explicitly it was only a starting point from which a structure was to grow within which power could be shared at the highest level.

Furthermore, Sir, the hon the State President has come forward with his Statutory Council in respect of Black people. Even the Statutory Council will, in itself, not comprise a final political structure. The very first clause in the relevant Bill states that the aim and purpose of that council will be to formulate a constitution for South Africa.

Who is going to sit on that council?

Mr Chairman, I know exactly what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is the Transvaal leader of my party, has said about this council. I know, too, exactly the way he thinks. We in the NP all think alike in relation to the question of reform. Where we differ philosophically with the PFP is also clear to me. I want to ask the hon member for Sea Point one simple question regarding this basic issue. I am not intending to play dirty politics when I ask this. Does his party believe that South Africa will ultimately end up with a Black majority government?

We envisage a dispensation in South Africa in which everybody will be participating on an equal basis.

Mr Speaker, I am going to repeat my question to the hon member for Sea Point. I stress, Sir, that I do not want to play politics. It is a very basic question. It has to do with the debate on the constitutional future of South Africa. Does the hon member’s party accept the inevitability of Black majority rule in South Africa?

No, we accept the inevitability of the situation in which one day there will be more Black than White people on the voters’ roll.

Mr Speaker, I want to put it to the hon member that we on this side of the House accept that in the future constitutional development of South Africa, irrespective of the structures with which we end up, there will be more Black voters than White voters. That is the first point. Furthermore, there will be more representatives. Irrespective of the type of structure proposed there will numerically be more Black representatives than White representatives. Why, Sir, do I ask this question about Black majority rule?

*Mr Speaker, I am putting this question specifically to the hon Leader of the PFP. I want to tell him that the NP rejects the concept of Black majority rule. We say that concept is as racist as the concept of White minority rule—this concept which maintains that because one is White and is a member of a white-skinned group, one has the right to govern for all time over other groups and other people. The concept of Black majority rule on the other hand maintains that because one is Black one has the right to govern for all time over Whites and other people, and to govern solely over them regardless of the historic role those people may have played.

We as the NP say the Whites’ political rights in South Africa are the outcome of an historic process. We participated historically in the political process in South Africa. Never in the history of this country did the Whites ever usurp the political rights of anyone else. Never have the Whites in this country violently deprived anyone else of their political rights. We as the NP say that we shall not allow any revolutionary organization, any far-right organization or anyone else for that matter to take away our rights as Whites to be an inherent part of any future government dispensation in South Africa. To us that is a non-negotiable standpoint.

On the other hand we say that we talk about power-sharing. By that we mean a dispensation in which we govern jointly with the Blacks. I think that if we say that today, we must also ask the CP whether they believe in joint government for Blacks in South Africa.

No.

Very well. Therefore the hon member for Sea Point cannot in any way say that we agree philosophically with the CP on this most cardinal aspect. [Interjections.] We differ entirely. They advocate a standpoint of White domination in the country which they define as White South Africa. We say there is no such country White South Africa.

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

No, Sir, I do not want to answer any questions at all. We say there is no place in South Africa one could call White South Africa. Previously, in terms of our policy, we spoke of White South Africa as if there were a part of South Africa in which we could in due course allow the Blacks, the Coloureds and Indians to exercise their political rights elsewhere. We abandoned that standpoint and that is why we speak of one South Africa in which everyone will have political rights.

The PFP is attacking us now because that policy rests to a certain extent on racial divisions. I merely want to say that it is a reality with which we shall probably have to live for quite a few decades to come. We as a party have not said that that reality of racial divisions is never going to change and that the system will always rest absolutely on race. We have never said it. In our urban areas, zones have developed in which one would not, for the life of one, be able to grant political rights in terms of an absolute racial pattern. Let met put it in practical terms. Today a place such as Hillbrow is almost multiracial. It is not our policy, but a reality that developed in such a way. One cannot say that the Coloureds who live there will continue to vote for the House of Representatives ad infinitum, the Indians for the House of Delegates and the Whites for this House. Changes are going to take place.

What about Wood-stock.

We accept that on the road to constitutional development there are geographic realities with which we shall have to live.

The TBVC countries as well, I hope, will one day form part of a greater constitutional structure of South Africa. [Interjections.] I see the hon member for Sea Point does not believe me. He must remember that at the time when we proposed the tricameral system, it was Pres Matanzima and a representative from Venda—in other words the independent states who protested against it. The only leader of an independent state, who was not present at the protest meeting was Pres Mangope. I am therefore merely presenting the fact that whatever greater constitutional dispensation we are going to create for South Africa, the independent states will also have to be involved. I also think that they will want to be involved.

We are not talking about absolute racial and ethnic divisions because absolute ethnic divisions are not present within the Black states either. In KwaZulu there are thousands of Sothos and in Gazankulu, thousands of Swazis. Therefore it is not simply a question of ethnicity. In each of the independent and self-governing states there are people from other groups as well. One will not be able to let those people vote for a central government in South Africa on an apartheid basis. They all will have to be represented on a geographic basis.

I want to tell the hon member for Sea Point that I agree with him on his standpoints about rightwing politics. I am glad that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council adopted such a strong standpoint on that. We have reached a point in South African politics at which we have to express an unequivocal standpoint on rightwing politics and racist standpoints. During the last election I was shocked as I have never been shocked in my life before by the statements which were made by the rightwing political parties in my constituency. In my part of the world there are high school children who openly express racist views, who openly show contempt for the leaders of the country and who openly reject the existing structures. Never in our history has it been that bad.

I am saying that the rightwing activities in South African politics have led to the authority of the President, the authority of the government of the day, being undermined in a way which is shameful to us as Whites in this country. It has caused the Afrikaner to degenerate. I say to the hon members of the CP that I am mortally ashamed of people who call themselves Afrikaners and who stir up racism and emotions in South Africa with that kind of racist far-rightwing politics. They cannot outbid us as far as Afrikanerdom is concerned. [Interjections.] They cannot outbid us as far as our pride in our church is concerned. They cannot outbid us as far as respect for what is our own is concerned. But what they must stop doing—and that is what we ask of them—is to stir up those emotions among children and openly identify themselves with an organisation which is anti-Semitic and which says so and displays it on its armbands and which presents an image to South Africa and to the world which has a revulsion for Nazism, of a gang of Nazis and which depicts my people—the Afrikaners—as a bunch of racists, a gang of Nazis. I reject that with absolute contempt.

Mr Speaker, in his usual tirade, the hon member for Innesdal let rip at everything that is right-wing in politics. Let me say this to him: If he is ashamed of rightists in politics in South Africa, I am doubly ashamed of leftist Afrikaners who are selling out the country. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the hon the leader of the NP in the Transvaal, the hon the Minister of National Education. He tried to disparage the policy of CP. He said here that we should govern together in a unitary state. In other words, what he came to tell us about the present policy of the NP, is that every people that lives in Southern Africa or South Africa, has an equal claim to every square inch of South Africa.

Do not put words in my mouth!

That is what it amounts to.

It was sad to hear a leader of the NP disparaging and trying to present as ridiculous the NP policy of more than 30 years in this House today. [Interjections.]

Disparaging his own past!

The hon the Minister of National Education then said he would show us how the joint government of the country without domination of one group by another would have to work. We listened attentively, but we did not get a single answer to that all-important question.

He is unable to answer.

It is coming. Negotiations are taking place. He could not tell us today.

The hon the Minister made a great fuss about the importance of own affairs. This is own self-determination now. I want to ask, if this is so important, where are the hon members of the NP over on that side? Is this the kind of interest they show in their so-called own affairs, in the self-determination of the White people? [Interjections.] They are conspicuous by their absence, because it is no longer important. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon member for Walvis Bay how many countless times he did not tell us, at that time when we were all in the same party with him, to look at what was happening in South West Africa. They also had so-called own affairs and general affairs. What happened, however? The hon member told me that own affairs had become increasingly less important, and general affairs increasingly more important. What remains of own affairs in South West Africa today?

During the past two weeks in particular, two events have taken place in Southern Africa which specifically emphasise two matters. The first matter that was clearly emphasised, was that power sharing is irrevocably doomed to failure. It cannot work. It has not worked anywhere, nor can it succeed in South Africa. Consensus decision-making is quite often not even possible in a homogeneous community. One need only look at both sides of this House this morning. Here we sit, Afrikaners with the same language, the same religion, even members of the same church, like the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and myself, with the same cultural background, and in the case of some over on that side, perhaps even the same volksnasionalisme …

Only perhaps!

The minority!

… love of one’s own and the ideal of continuing to exist as a people in one’s own fatherland. We even sympathise with the hon the State President when he says in the House of Representatives that we cannot allow ourselves to be insulted in our own fatherland. We agree with him, but we differ radically with him when it comes to the method of maintaining the right of self-determination of our people in their own fatherland, if we are going to be reduced, or are already being reduced, to a minority group whose rights have to be protected by a legal commission which still wants to suggest the method in future.

This policy of groping around in the dark, as the hon member for Carletonville put it, is completely unacceptable to this side of the House, and we shall never be able to reach consensus with the Government in that regard. If this is the case, how much more likely are we not to end up in total conflict with a power-sharing situation between disparate entities in a heterogeneous community?

This truth is illustrated by the events this week regarding the resignation of Rev Hendrickse from the Cabinet. I think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition summed it up brilliantly when he said the following in his statement:

Eerw Hendrickse is korrek waar hy sê mnr Botha wil mag deel sonder om dit te gee. En mnr Botha moes besef het dat as hy werklik mag deel, hy dit nie meer in sy hande sou hê nie. Dit is wat die KP al die tyd gesê het, en nog sê …

As eerw Hendrickse nie sy steun in die huidige Parlement aan die NP gee nie, kan die Grondwet nie gewysig word nie en is mnr Botha skaakmaat.

In other words, the hon the State President and the Government are not in a position to govern as they have already said they intend leading this country in respect of the next election for this House, for example. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went on to say the following:

In conclusion, I want to refer to another event which deserves attention, and which also took place during the past week, viz the events in Zimbabwe, our neighbours in the north, where the final remains of the entrenchment of White self-determination have been removed.

I have read about the events and about the manner in which the debate took place there. There were even jeers from remaining White members in that parliament in support of the removal of the entrenchment. Sometimes when I listen to hon members opposite, who laugh when one speaks of a White people and an own fatherland, or mock the efforts of this side of the House to protect the White worker from being crowded out of his workplace or living space, I cannot help but say that the same attitude of mind described in this newspaper before me with regard to Zimbabwe’s parliament is developing in this House.

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

In conclusion I just want to say that just like the Whites in Zimbabwe’s parliament, those hon members would refer laughingly to any talk of protection, and simply laughingly sign away the protection and self-determination of the Whites in South Africa.

There has never been effective protection …

Mr Speaker, we are still going to disagree with one another on own affairs in this debate in the distant future. The hon member for Pietersburg has just referred to this in his speech.

I went and had another look at the debates of the past few years and read through them. It is very clear that the various parties each have their own perception of the concept of own affairs. As I have already said, it is also clear that this debate will continue well into the future. As long as we have a heterogeneous community here in South Africa, we will certainly discuss this and have to give it our attention. After all, we all acknowledge the existence of particular groups in South Africa.

It could be that the definition of groups and the description of what groups are, have not yet been finally formulated. The oversimplified definition is probably the so-called colour definition, in which one simply speaks of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. Even in the White group there are various groups, based on other considerations. Amongst the Whites there are, inter alia, groups of different origin, language groups and religious groups. These groups each have particular preferences and needs which will have to be recognised. [Interjections.] Similarly, the Indians can be identified in different groups, and the same applies to the Blacks. After all, they cannot all be classified into one Black group.

This simple assumption is an insult to the composition of the Black peoples and groups here in South Africa. After all—I think we all accept this—there are different Black peoples in South Africa. When we speak of the Zulus, surely we are not speaking of all the Blacks in South Africa. The same in fact applies to the Sothos, the Xhosas and the other groups.

The NP has therefore accepted the principle of recognising the ethnic diversity that exists in South Africa, and in the Black community in particular. It has been, and still is, the standpoint of this side of the House to recognise this ethnic diversity.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he sees groups and peoples as being the same thing?

I am in fact in the process of trying to explain that groups cannot be identified as consisting of ethnic groupings only. There are certainly other stipulations that can identify a group. As long as there is a diversity of groups, and more specifically, population groups, in South Africa, there will be the need to have a greater say in own affairs. Surely it is true that every group has such needs and that those needs will have to be fulfilled.

Therefore, if KwaNdebele wants to become independent, we are not going to stand in the way of this desire. If Soweto wants greater autonomy over its own affairs, we are going to encourage the achievement of this. White decision-making about street lights in Soweto, the tarring of roads, and even about the improvement of housing and education, is simply no longer feasible. When we therefore put the concept of own affairs first, it is not just to entrench the White man, so to speak. The real aim of the NP is to give all the various groups in South Africa as much autonomy as possible. It is true that these bona fides of the NP are still called into question and are not accepted in certain circles. The hand of goodwill wanting to grant recognition to sufficient self-determination or autonomy to particular groups, is still being thrust away repeatedly. Suspicion “is still being” cast on the real desire of the NP to extend this autonomy. In this House, too, there have been contributions aimed at trying to destroy the concept of own affairs. The approach of the CP of labelling this concept of own affairs as a second-hand or short-pants mentality, cannot and will not serve this cause in future.

They are crumbs!

The hon member for Overvaal says they are crumbs. It is a complete insult to what is unique to groupings of groups here in South Africa if they simply come and dismiss that concept as being crumbs.

Crumbs!

We are in the process of establishing for ourselves what we should like to regard as being unique to every group in South Africa. To come and dismiss it as crumbs, means that there is no understanding on the part of the CP of how to deal with it. [Interjections.]

It is also true that the CP sees own affairs in a situation of isolation. To them own affairs means full autonomy in respect of all facets of State administration.

That is right!

They are not merely concerned with the division of land, or demarcating boundaries, or moving groups to particular compartments. It is even more important to take note that each group will have to separate itself from the central Treasury and will eventually have to generate its own State revenue. Each group will have to protect its own borders, and create and maintain its own infrastructure for transport, for example. There will have to be separate citizenship, and so on.

We say for every people, not for every group.

Order! I notice that many speeches are still going to be delivered. Does the hon member for Overvaal not think he will be able to put his party’s standpoint then, without making interjections? The hon member for Gezina may proceed.

That is a very interesting remark the hon member for Overvaal has just made there, where he spoke of own peoples, in respect of the policy of partition they want to introduce.

Own affairs and their development therefore does not mean moving into a position of isolation; on the contrary, own affairs can only come into their own if there is healthy interaction between the various groups, and if this interaction is extended even further.

Isolation is not the solution to political problems in South Africa. Ostrich politics is not going to solve South Africa’s problems.

On the other hand, there is the standpoint of the PFP, which has no place for own affairs. The existence of groups is ignored completely, thereby creating a completely open society. They are dreaming, and are under the illusion that a group in itself has the ability to exist as a group. Therefore, according to them, there must be no statutory right to protection. That is a dream.

The NP on the other hand, continues to display the will, on the basis of recognising the existence of groups, to protect those groups and to grant each individual the right to decide his own affairs. If every possible group feels safe and established in South Africa, we can look forward to a South Africa where a constitutional peace can be established, where there can be a greater degree of security and peace, where the economy will once again lift its head through the will and at the insistence of all—I should like to emphasise all—the inhabitants of South Africa.

We must move away from a situation in which we are ashamed of South Africa. South Africa is a beautiful and wealthy country, and has the potential to accommodate everyone in South Africa happily. We must stop being afraid of this South Africa, and we must rather accept the challenges and face up to and tackle the problems on the road ahead. We must stop arguing and breaking away and creating a locked-door situation for ourselves. We must accept the challenges of the future, and, even more important, we must face up to them. Only then will we survive in this South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to commence by saying a few words that I am sure no one will disagree with. I would like to extend my best wishes and those from the ranks of my party to Dr Jooste on his coming retirement. I am certain that his commitment to South Africa and to the service of this country has been well appreciated by all the citizens of this country, and we extend our best wishes for a happy and successful retirement to him.

For some time we have heard own affairs debated at great length in this House. We have heard of own schools, own hospitals, own libraries, own agriculture and own water supply. At the same time this has been interspersed with debates and discussions on the Votes of general affairs and so we have heard of mixed universities and mixed schools, of mixed hospitals and mixed wards, and we have heard of libraries that have non-racial admissions. In fact, for every argument that has been advanced in defence of own affairs today, every NP member is able to rise and say that we have a general affairs function in fact carrying out those very same things.

Thus in the defence of own schools the NP can stand up and say that there are 50 000 children at mixed schools. Where they say that we have to have own hospitals, they say we also have mixed wards and mixed hospitals.

A smörgåsbord policy!

So we in fact have no philosophical grounding for the concept of own affairs.

We hear the hon member for Innesdal stand up and say that we have to face the realities of South Africa, the realities which include Hillbrow, and that we cannot for ever continue thinking that the tricameral system is going to satisfy the people of Hillbrow. I want to say that if the NP is accepting the realities of Hillbrow and if the Group Areas Act and its corollaries are being examined, then the whole concept of own schooling has to be re-examined by the NP. They have to come to grips with the distinction between the view taken by the hon member for Innesdal with his “realities of the acceptance of the Hillbrow situation” and the position adopted by, for example, the hon member for Durban Point who during the election campaign promoted the vicious and strong enforcement of the Group Areas Act in the area where he was campaigning. That is the reality for the NP; they are divided on those very issues.

They also have to come to grips with the concept of the duplication of facilities.

They themselves are aware that there are—and I just take education as an example—150 000 empty school places and that there are 25 000 empty hostel places in the system administered by own affairs. The cost of duplicating those facilities, the cost of providing those facilities for other race groups in this country is enormous but that is the kind of bill that has to be paid in order to defend the apartheid own affairs structure.

Lastly, we want to end this debate by posing the same question that we did at the beginning and that concerns formulae and funding. We ask the hon Minister what his department is doing about the question of the own affairs House of Assembly services levy? I understand that it is being brought to an immediate halt and we want to know whether in fact the whole question of funding is being examined by this department and whether in fact own affairs is going to have its own separate taxation base.

Mr Chairman, to date the debate we have had in this House on the subject before us has been largely confined, I think, to Nat nobbling, Prog bashing and “KP-kapping”.

The hon member for Pinetown has something of an obsession with own and general affairs. What he conveniently overlooks in talking about duplication of facilities is that we would have to have them in those areas no matter who lived there; one cannot pile everyone into one institution. [Interjections.]

My subject is going to be sport and recreation in South Africa. It is a subject to which I believe serious attention should be given. The reasons are manifold. The Director of Sport and Recreation Advancement in the Department of National Education ought to be congratulated for the outstanding work that has been done in the promotion of sport and recreational activities among all our population groups. The department was established in July 1966. I should like to give hon members a brief outline of its objectives. The first is to advise and encourage activities calculated to develop a strong and healthy nation. I believe we are doing that. The second is to assist sports bodies and recreational associations to seek to build up character as well as physical fitness through specific sports activities. I think we are doing that as well. One sees a rash of joggers on the road today; everyone is very fitness-conscious. The third is to encourage programmes for the training of coaches and participants. I believe we are doing that. We see a continued high standard in our international sports teams. The fourth objective is to support competitive sport and ensure that individual performances are maintained at a high level; and to maintain our country’s high standing in international sport, in spite of our isolation. I believe we do that too. We have seen some world-class performances by many athletes and world-class performances by teams which manage to get international competition.

Let us make an in-depth examination of this whole subject to see how well the directorate and the sports bodies have succeeded. While I am no expert on sport generally, my experience in international sport as a player and a coach stretches over a period of 25 years, and my exposure to world sport has been fairly extensive. I have been fortunate enough to attend three Olympic Games—in Munich, Montreal and Los Angeles—and I have made numerous trips abroad on behalf of sport. There is no doubt that our standard in most of our major sports ranks very high in international terms. In three or four of our major sports we are at present capable of being ranked as world champions. Our sportsmen and sportswomen should be more than grateful for the support they get from their generous sponsors and also from the grants-in-aid made available under this Budget.

The Budget tabled for 1987-88 provides for expenditure in respect of training, coaching and participation, administration, fitness schemes, recreational facilities and apparatus, conferences and projects to a total amount of R100 million as opposed to the R41 million provided during 1986-87. In addition, under the general affairs Vote a total of R32,213 million is provided for the promotion of sport and recreation. Those are quite substantial sums, I believe.

That the funds are being well spent, I am prepared to vouch for, because I am involved in the spending of some of the funds. Perhaps, however, a small change in emphasis could be made. Some consideration should be given to that. I shall deal with that later.

Proceedings suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Order! Before I call upon the next speaker, there is some unfinished business I want to dispose of.

Further to my statements on 20 and 21 August on the premature publication, by the Financial Mail and Finansies en Tegniek respectively, of the findings contained in the report of the Margo Commission, I want to announce that the editors of those magazines have tendered their written apologies to me and explained the circumstances surrounding these transgressions. I want to emphasise that the Press gallery representatives of these periodicals are in no way to blame for the premature publication of the articles. Apparently these were transgressions by the editor and/or management.

Owing to the seriousness of the transgressions, I have decided to suspend the Press gallery facilities of the Financial Mail and of Finansies en Tegniek for 14 days, with effect from today.

Mr Speaker, when we took the adjournment of the debate I was dealing with funds voted for sport and recreation. To ensure the continued success and high-level attainment in all sport, it has become necessary to do a great deal of research. I believe South Africa has kept pace with most countries. Some outstanding work has been done and papers have been presented by researchers and research teams at the Universities of Potchefstroom, Pretoria and Rhodes in particular. In addition many sporting bodies conduct their own research as does the SA Association for Sport Science which plays a most important role in keeping us up to date. This is done in the first instance in assisting sporting and recreational bodies in training as far as scientific disciplines are concerned. In the second instance it promotes physical education, sport and recreation through the collaboration of its members in its numerous activities such as the presentation of papers, training courses and symposia, as well as services through the research laboratories and counselling.

The association is affiliated to numerous international associations and regular congresses and symposia are arranged which are often addressed by overseas experts. In this way we keep ourselves up to date with world trends.

South African sport has made dramatic strides towards full integration and I believe can claim full credit for making numerous inroads into the socio-political system in South Africa. The South African Government’s prescription on participation has largely been eliminated, and the sports bodies, clubs, and sportsmen have to all intents and purposes ensured that racial discrimination in sport is a thing of the past. I think the road ahead of us is open to afford all sportsmen and sportswomen the opportunity to achieve their full potential and to develop sport as a means for promoting sound intergroup relations. Over the years meaningful amendments have been made to Acts of Parliament which inhibited the complete freedom of sportsmen in the past. These accentuate the determination of this Government to remove all restrictive and discriminatory legislation from sport and to develop sport fully because of its importance in our community life in this country.

I think we are known as a country of sunshine, rugby, boerewors and … I will not give the vehicle’s name. [Interjections.]

I personally have spent much time and effort in promoting sports and sports facilities among other race groups, as well as our own group, within my field of sport to achieve complete freedom of participation. Regrettably the continued interference of and intimidation by an organisation such as Sacos, which is nothing but a radical, political body in disguise, has done much to harm the good intentions of sportsmen, sportswomen and sports associations on both sides of the fence who are trying to achieve harmony. Their slogan is: “No normal sport in an abnormal society”, and I am given to understand that the PFP give their tacit support to this organisation.

You are being silly now! Neither covert nor overt support! [Interjections.]

Oh, has the hon member changed his mind? [Interjections.]

Normality will never be achieved by abnormal actions promoted by abnormal feelings of hatred. This destructive organisation goes to great lengths in its harassment and intimidation of the communities in which it is involved. Threats on the lives of sportsmen and their families who dare to participate in so-called “White” non-racial sport are the order of the day. Schoolchildren and even teachers who have non-Sacos contacts are victimised and intimidated. It is sad indeed that this so-called sports organisation’s main thrust is confrontation and not conciliation. They are the people who practise apartheid and it is time that they got their house in order.

The affected society they harass do not accept their bona fides and intimidatory threats, and believe it is high time that action was taken for the sake of a free community. To support my case I quote from the speech of Mr Abe Williams, the hon member for Mamre, on 3 August when he said (Hansard: Representatives, col 1796):

This brings me to the question of bursaries to sportsmen. It is well known that certain of our universities and technikons award bursaries and scholarships to students with outstanding sporting ability. At most of the interprovincial school tournaments the talent scouts abound. I have seen them in action doing their horse trading.

I have no real quarrel with the principle of any institution seeking to achieve excellence in the quality of its sport, or with the principle of granting bursaries provided that the recipient has the academic ability in addition to the sporting skills. However, we must guard against wastage of funds granted to persons who have little or no chance of obtaining a tertiary qualification. Other abuses include the awarding of bursaries to graduates earning a working living and who register a course they seldom complete, at the expense of undergraduates. But what of the gifted sportsmen and sportswomen without outstanding academic ability? At present South Africa loses hundreds of talented juniors annually who accept sports scholarships in other countries, particularly the USA, and often are lost to South African sport for ever. Having travelled widely in my involvement with international sport, I have been greatly impressed by national sports institutes established in many parts of the world. The success of sporting codes in many countries can be largely attributed to the existence of these institutes. The revival of British and Australian sport and with it their national pride and the consequent development of these sports—facilities, equipment, clothing businesses and the like that go along with such a revival—has much to do with the excellence achieved by their sporting institutes. Some of these successes have been—I do not have time to elaborate—in British athletics people like Sebastian Coe and Steve Cram; and in Australian tennis, Pat Cash who went through the Australian institute. The Australian hockey team—that is the sport I am involved in—are the current world champions. These are all examples of the products of these sports institutes, not to mention the achievements of the sports institutes of Russia, East Germany and the USA which are legion.

My overall opinion of South African sports training, coaching and research is that the standard is very high indeed. While I fully support the regionalisation which has built up a healthy provincial system, there is no doubt that to achieve the very best from the cream of our sporting talent, coaches and researchers, a consolidated co-ordination and utilisation of all these ingredients is necessary to achieve the excellence that we all dream of.

The siting of such a sports institute is a thorny problem, because of the existing facilities already established. From a climatic point of view it was the opinion of an international coach—he is also a lecturer at a famous sports institute—who recently visited South Africa that Durban with its many existing facilities of international standard would be ideal. This is from a climate point of view—we have very mild winters there. I believe a full investigation is essential. It is high time that we moved with the times.

There will be critics who will say that there are other priorities, such as housing, provision of sports halls or community halls utilisation and the provision of fields in the Black areas for the underprivileged societies. I agree with this view, but I believe that the promotion of sport and recreation generally—the provision of facilities at both ends of the scale—is absolutely essential. It is time to take stock and for a thorough and full-scale investigation to be undertaken by the Director of Sport and Recreation Advancement to identify the needs of our sport and all our people.

Mr Speaker, I should like to refer to the contribution of the hon member for Caledon, and say that to me he is a typical example of a confused Nationalist. He made a contribution full of clichés, which are meaningless. He is a typical enlightened junior, who speaks about realities, and so on, but he cannot find his way through all these clichés. I do not think he made an exceptional contribution. [Interjections.]

At the outset I want to congratulate the hon member for Kuruman, because he taught me a very good lesson with his little joke. He is right. However, I want to tell him that except for that, his whole contribution was very frivolous. His statements about the tricameral system only went to prove that an old member of the United Party first has to be given a little information before he goes to sit in another place, so that he is at least familiar with their policy. The hon member said that we were all working on the tricameral system as far back as 1977 and 1981, but I just want to point out two things to him. In the first instance, in 1977 his new party—when he was still an old United Party member—published this document, Vote with Confidence, in which it was clearly stated that there would be three Parliaments, and not three Chambers. Furthermore, here in Rapport of 10 September 1978, there is a clear reprimand of Mr Piet Marais by his hon chief leader, in which he says—that was way back in September 1978—that the NP’s policy is not a tricameral parliament. That hon member must therefore wake up now and stay awake, and familiarise himself with his new party’s policy, and forget his old United Party ways; then perhaps he will do better in the NP. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Innesdal—he is not here now—by implication approved of Hillbrow’s disregard for separate residential areas. He said that the NP accepted geographic realities. Now I just want to ask the NP and the Minister who has to reply: What about separate residential areas elsewhere? Are the NP just going to say everywhere that geographic realities—because realities are all they have in their heads—have caught up with them, and that they can no longer implement the Group Areas Act? When it comes to group areas, the NP’s word has become worthless.

I asked the hon member for Gezina whether he regards a people as a group. He replied “no” and laughed at me, but he was really laughing at himself, since what he also said was that there would have to be own affairs and own affairs structures, etcetera for each group. If one takes a look at all the rubbish he spoke—since there are any number of groups among the Whites alone—it seems to me he wants to make provision for about 750 group structures for own affairs. [Interjections.] He wants to make provision for every group. Now how many groups are there? When one has no philosophical basis for one’s policy of own affairs, and one tries to reach for the philosophical basis of full self-determination, and tries to apply it to own affairs, one encounters the problems and ridiculousness of the hon member for Gezina.

That brings me to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Now, after the election, he is as right-wing as they come (jy kan met horn toor.) The other day I heard one of the hon members of the House of Representatives say: “De Klerk is so right-wing now, it is just not funny” (dat jy kan met horn kan sweis). Perhaps that is a better description. His posing here as rightist, has been of no use to him, however, since he has assailed the credibility of the CP here, and I wanted to tell him—he is not here this afternoon; he sent his apologies—that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. His problem is that his present problem of power-sharing is not in keeping with the things he wrote in the past and which we preserved. I have here the things he wrote in 1977. There is no question of power-sharing in the proposals of 1977. No question!

As far as power-sharing is concerned, he went further and spoke to the Tukkies about the question of a joint dispensation. He spoke to them after the split between the NP and the CP, on 25 March 1982, and said:

The assurance, Sir!

Precisely what he is doing now, he said did not even form part of the pattern of thinking, philosophy or view of the future of the NP, and he then went on to add:

Sir, this is the assurance we have from the future State President.

He will know that his own past is an untrustworthy past, politically speaking. He also spoke about the AWB here. I asked him yesterday, and I am going to ask him today again, which hon members of the NP are members of the Broederbond? What goes on inside the Broederbond, Sir?

The Broederbond is not a political party.

We want to know what secret concoctions the Broederbond is brewing. Can the hon the Minister tell us who are members of the Broederbond? Can he tell us what anti-semitism is brewing in the Broederbond, since I believe there is a committee of the Broederbond striving to solve the Jewish problems? Now I am asking the hon the Minister: Who in the NP are members of the Broederbond? Who in the NP accepts Black majority rule? The country is awaiting the answers, and the NP can no longer run away and hide behind other things. The activities of the Broederbond must be made public so that we can know what goes on there.

Ask Andries!

The hon the Minister spoke about the politics of knuckling down and said that the policy of the CP is such that everyone simply has to knuckle down to the CP. That is what he said, and he also said the NP—Oh, no!—does not practise knuckling down politics. He is therefore saying that knuckling down should not be a choice. However, he then shot down his own argument in flames by saying in conclusion that the NP has a “bottom line”. The NP will not place the White man in a position in which there is insufficient assurance against domination of the Whites. Then he will not knuckle down. Then the Coloured must knuckle down! Then the Indian must knuckle down to him, Sir! His whole idea of knuckling down politics has therefore caved in, Sir. The hon the Minister allowed his own argument to explode against him.

We are also tired of talking about the protection of minority rights. It has become a complete farce, since I have asked about 14 or 15 times in this House how the NP wants to protect minority rights, and each time the stage is reached where we are told that we are going to have structures. The NP, however, does not get past the structures, since it is impossible, and I want to tell hon members why it is impossible. There is only one way of protecting minority rights, and that is by way of separate development. [Interjections.] Now someone is saying “no”. I just want to quote my authority on this, Mr Speaker. On 31 July 1980, Die Transvaler reported the words of Mr P W Botha as follows:

Mr P W Botha is the hon the State President. He says that the only way of protecting the rights of minority groups, is through separate development. That is as far as we are concerned. The NP is wasting its time. They no longer have a way of protecting minority rights. It is a farce that has been exposed. After the next election the NP will be sitting in these benches, and the CP on the opposite side. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I can understand why the hon member for Overvaal is rather excited. I am told that he is leaving for a legal visit to the border tonight. [Interjections.] The hon member for Overvaal made the very interesting observation that realities are the only thing we in the NP think about. I must say that that is an exceptional compliment.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Rissik imply that I am leaving for an illegal visit to the border? [Interjections.]

Order! I shall rule on that point of order myself. What exactly did the hon member for Rissik say?

Mr Speaker, I said I had been told that the hon member for Overvaal was leaving for a legal visit to the border tonight.

Order! The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

Mr Speaker … [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, surely the greatest admission on the part of the Official Opposition that they work with illusions and dreams, is the compliment the hon member for Overvaal paid us when he said that all we thought about was realities. [Interjections.] The hon member for Overvaal also referred to the hon Chairman of the Minister’s Council, who on occasion appeared before an audience at Tukkies. The Tukkies students had an opportunity to make a political statement of their own on 6 May of this year. On that occasion, and as a result of that statement by the Tukkies, the Official Opposition were beaten in Rissik as they were beaten in few other places in this country. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I should like to broach a few ideas about the cultural function of the Department of Education and Culture, as appears clearly from the Budget under discussion here. The Department of Education and Culture performs a number of cultural functions, of which so many are mentioned in the department’s annual report that one cannot do justice to them in the available time. What is important, however, is that almost 300 000 people were involved in projects undertaken by this department during the previous financial year.

The department also does excellent work among young people, for example by means of the Land Service Movement, in which approximately 30 000 young people throughout the country are taught an exceptional love for the country, for culture and for nature. I myself have attended camps arranged by this movement and was impressed by the exceptional way in which young Afrikaans-and English-speaking people were united in a special love for this country. In addition, the exceptional contribution of this department to the Huguenot Festival, the Dias Festival, the official commemorative festival of the Great Trek, as well as the 1820 Settlers Association, has been discussed in this House times without number.

Nevertheless, it is important to say that when culture is at issue, it should be made clear that it is not the Government’s task to act in a prescriptive way in respect of culture; nor should it force culture down the throats of the community. Culture is inherent in one’s spirit. It represents inherent human values. The Government has to play only a supporting role, therefore. This comprises the provision of infrastructure and financial support, as well as the establishment of a framework within which a cultural group can express its culture. According to these criteria, this Budget is a praiseworthy attempt to effect precisely this, and it is an example of a balanced contribution that the Ministers’ Council is making in this connection to the White community in this country.

It is also clear that the CP’s criticism, in which they are trying to create the illusion that this Ministers’ Council is not making its contribution to the White community on the cultural front, is nothing but a propaganda trick to disguise and to refuse to take cognisance of reality.

Let us take a look at what the Official Opposition has done in the cultural sphere. It is obvious that in right-wing politics, the highest criterion of living is political ideology. If one were to borrow a term from clerical terminology one could describe right-wing politics in South Africa as a sect; that is a group which takes a specific truth and elevates it—out of context and out of relation—above other truths, and makes an absolute ideology of it.

We find that these people isolate themselves in every sphere—including those that are not really related to politics—and allow this political ideology to prevail there. The same applies to the cultural front—the strategy of right-wing politics is to create fronts to create credibility in certain spheres of life, particularly on the cultural front. Various organisations are established, of which the most important one is the Afrikaner-Volkswag, which is probably one of the best examples of a CP cultural front.

It is interesting to see in the latest edition of Die Patriot that 30% of the 30 advertisements in this newspaper are devoted to the Afrikaner-Volkswag. There are reports about the Afrikaner-Volkswag in 44% of the pages in this little newspaper, of which the most disturbing report must be the one reflecting a speech made by the chairman of the Afrikaner-Volkswag, in which he claims the following:

Further on the following appears:

In his words they are on their way to becoming a terrorist organisation, not because they want to, but because they have to.

I think this is one of the most irresponsible, most polarising statements ever made in this country, and in my opinion it is important to mention in conclusion that that side of the House must never underestimate the will of this side of the House to unmask, expose and destroy this cultural farce of the CP.

Mr Speaker, I want to come back to what the hon member for Rissik said. During the recent election, that hon member managed to intimidate the former member, Mr Daan van der Merwe, to such an extent that he is back with the ox-wagons where he belongs. I should also like to congratulate the hon member on the very good speech he made.

I wanted to speak to the hon the Minister about the problems concerning an old age home in Port Elizabeth today, but since the Whips do not have much time left for us, and the hon member for Overvaal made such an aggressive speech, I shall broach that topic with the hon the Minister on some other occasion.

The hon member for Overvaal referred to the successes of the CP during the recent election, and also had a great deal to say about the CP’s showing the NP during the next election how many beans make five. Let us consider that for a moment. Whereas the CP is trying to pass itself off as a certain winner in the next election for Whites, 54,4% of its present seats in Parliament are borderline seats. All indications are that in a subsequent election, the CP will once again be involved in a life-and-death struggle in order to retain its status as the Official Opposition in this House. [Interjections.] The CP’s vulnerability, with its less than 13% representation in the House of Assembly, emerges even more clearly from the fact that seven, or 31,5%, of its 22 elected members obtained majorities of fewer than 500 votes on 6 May this year. The CP could succeed in gaining majorities of more than 2 000 in only two seats. In only a further five seats could they succeed in gaining majorities of more than 1 500 votes.

To cap everything, the CP remains a one-province phenomenon. I do not want to offend the hon member for Barberton, since I have a great deal of appreciation and respect for him, but I can add that the CP is very well grouped up there in the Bushveld.

Where they belong. [Interjections.]

If one looks at the onslaughts in the other provinces, it seems that there is a slim chance of the CP’s making any progress outside Transvaal in a subsequent election. Even the PFP, which won three seats fewer than the CP on 6 May, looks less vulnerable. After the breakaway of the hon member for Claremont, however, I am not so sure that this statement is quite correct. [Interjections.] In comparison with the CP’s seven, the PFP won only three of its seats with majorities of less than 500. In comparison with the CP’s 12 out of 22 seats, the PFP won only four of its 19 seats with majorities of less than 1 000. The PFP also won 13 of its seats in comparison with the CP’s two with majorities of more than 2 000. In comparison with the CP’s 54,5% seats which were won with less than 1 000 votes, this was the case in only 18,6% of the NP’s seats.

What about Sandton?

Sandton is a last outpost. [Interjections.]

Whereas the CP could obtain majorities of more than 2 000 in only two or 9% of its seats, in the case of the NP this was 74 or 60%; in fact, in 29 seats or 23,7%, the NP obtained majorities of more than 4 000.

During the recent election, the right-wing parties also came to Newton Park with a great flourish. I am sometimes inclined to say too much and this time I really put my foot in, which was something the right-wingers tried to exploit in a dramatic way. The CP did not see their way clear to doing so, and pushed the poor Hertzogites to the front. What were the results in Newton Park? The NP trebled its majority and the number of votes cast in favour of the right-wing parties in South Africa dropped from 12 000 to 900. Hopefully we shall have an opportunity to stand against a member of the Official Opposition’s party in Newton Park in a subsequent election.

I do not question the CP’s sincerity or their right to proclaim their policy and standpoints. Those parties have every right to do so. What bothers me, however, is the effect of their standpoints and policy. I am afraid—and I must conclude with this—that unfortunately the effect of the CP’s policy merely contributes to greater polarisation among the population groups in South Africa. We must try to prevent this at all cost.

I should like to wish the hon the Minister everything of the best in his great task.

Mr Speaker, the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill allows for a discussion of a wide range of subjects, and that has also been the case in this debate. Consequently it will not be possible for me to reply to all speakers individually; in fact, the majority of the speeches were of a political nature and hon members on this side of the House have very effectively replied to allegations and statements from the opposition. I should like to thank the hon members for Caledon, Kuruman, Innesdal, Gezina, Pietermaritzburg South, Rissik and Newton Park, not only for their interesting contributions, but also for the astute way in which they squared accounts with the opposition parties.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made a very forceful speech here this morning. I think that he very effectively exposed the deception on which CP policy and propaganda are based. It is clear that the CP is in trouble as a result of the hon the Minister’s speech. The hon member for Overvaal has already, in his reaction, intimated that hon members of the CP cannot reply adequately to the allegations made by the hon the Minister. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the CP as a whole are facing a challenge, and they will ultimately have to answer to the House for their standpoint in regard to the AWB, national socialism and a group which leans strongly towards anti-Semitism and Nazism. The hon the Minister dealt so effectively with the CP that I want to confine myself more specifically to the PFP and to a few of the arguments raised by members of that party.

The hon members for Yeoville and Pinetown referred, in their speeches, to the question of levies. Recently the whole question was again broached on the strength of a number of unfounded front-page reports which appeared in the Press. I am referring here to reports such as “Own affairs tax plan is on the cards”, Business Day, “Government must come clean on levies”, Business Day, “Row over secret own affairs levies”, Cape Times', “Government plans new own affairs tax”, The Argus', and so on. It is not only a question of the reports that appeared. The hon member for Green Point, who is unfortunately not present here this afternoon, immediately seized the opportunity to attack the Government. In a previous debate in this House he delivered a speech—or should I say a tirade—in which he attacked the Government on the basis of levies.

I do not want to express an opinion on many of the statements the hon member for Green Point made in that speech. In reading through it, it appears that he ultimately had three objections to levies or to the alleged introduction of levies or a general tax.

†His first objection is that Parliament is the last to hear about new plans. Secondly, Parliament is given the least information. Thirdly, it seems that obscure sections of the Constitution are being used to place extra financial burdens on the public.

*Listening to these objections on the part of the hon member for Green Point, I wonder where the hon member has been for the past few years in this House. Where was he when the Constitution was discussed here? Where was he in the similar debates after that? The principle of levies is very clearly laid down in the Constitution. For the sake of thoroughness—hon members must please be patient— I again want to place the question of levies in perspective.

Firstly, in item 11 (3) of Schedule 1, the Constitution makes provision for:

That is what the Constitution provides in item 11 (3) of Schedule 1. The authorisation in a general law for the imposition of levies to which reference is made in item 11 (3) of Schedule 1 of the Constitution is contained in section 3 of the Revenue Account Financing Act, 1984, Act 120 of 1984. I should like to quote this because it puts the whole matter clearly into perspective. The entry in the margin reads: “Imposition of levies on services rendered”, and the relevant section reads:

Thus far section 3.

More clearly than that I cannot state or sum up the matter involving levies. These levies cannot be compared, can in no way be compared, with a general tax because they are subject to clearly defined conditions and restrictions to which I should also like to refer briefly.

Firstly, the levies will only be applicable to the relevant population group; secondly, no levies can be imposed unless they are authorised by or in terms of a general law; thirdly—this is very important—the levies can only be imposed on services rendered; and fourthly … [Interjections.]

Very similar! I shall be coming to the hon member’s question.

Fourthly, the levies and the conditions relating to those levies, must first be submitted to the House of Assembly and approved before they are promulgated by notice in the Gazette.

What is also important is that the whole question has not only been embodied in the Constitution, but has also been debated in this House on various occasions. As far back as February 1985 the former Minister of the Budget, who is at present the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, dealt with this matter. I quote him (Hansard: Assembly, vol 2, col 2284):

At a later stage in the same speech he went on to state:

In a later debate, in March of that year, the matter of levies came up for discussion once more. The then Minister of the Budget then said the following (Hansard: House of Assembly, vol 3, col 2673):

I want to emphasise the words “in-depth investigation”:

The present position is precisely the same as that which pertained in 1985 when the then Minister made these statements about levies. Apart from the possibility of a parent’s contribution to education, to which the Minister referred in 1985, a matter which has also subsequently been raised in several debates in this House, at present the Ministers’ Council is not planning or considering any levies. [Interjections.]

At the same time it is also essential for us to exchange ideas frankly and honestly with one another about why provision is made in the Constitution for the imposition of levies. The reasons why the imposition of levies could be considered should not be ignored.

I think that it should be clear to everyone who considers the future of South Africa, and the relevant financial implications, that the State cannot unconditionally continue to finance all services at the present levels. The rightful claims of all population groups to basic services are increasing to such an extent that the State, and the country’s economy too, are simply not in a position to meet all the demands and expectations. I think the State will therefore have to subject every service it furnishes to a close scrutiny to determine to what extent it can continue to furnish such a service at the present levels of expenditure.

The extensive claims that have to be met by the State in order to bring about a fair and just dispensation for all are simply enormous. If we want to phase out discrimination, from the financing of services such as education, welfare, housing and so on too, this is going to make tremendous demands on the Exchequer.

[Inaudible.]

I will come to the points the hon member for Yeoville raised.

*Seen in that light, the financing of all services will naturally have to be investigated in depth. After all, it is unthinkable simply to accept that we can maintain the present patterns of expenditure unaltered or unchecked in the future. For that reason the State will have to assess every service it furnishes in accordance with how essential that service is and whether it can afford to furnish that service. Let us be honest with one another. We have known good times in this country, and this goes for the furnishing of services too. Services were offered on an extended scale, services which benefited the more developed members of the various population groups in particular. Those are historic facts, and I am not making any apologies for them, but this cannot continue without qualification. Can any hon member in this House—and I extend this challenge to the CP too—for example justify the per capita expenditure on a Coloured or Black child always having to be lower than that on a White child?

Not in a unitary state.

I am using the word “justify”. They would be able to explain it, but not justify it. It is a simple matter to spell out the causes that gave rise to this disparity. One would be able to advance arguments to indicate why it is not financially possible to correct the situation within a few years. For financial and other reasons it could possibly take a decade or longer to eliminate this disparity, but one cannot justify or defend it. This Government is therefore systematically endeavouring to eliminate this inequality in the financing of services and, bearing in mind whether one can afford to furnish these services and the differences that exist between the various population groups, to reach parity within a reasonable period of time. This does not merely apply to education, but also to other spheres in which services are furnished, for example housing, welfare and so on.

There is a price to be paid for freedom, development and prosperity in South Africa. There is a price to be paid for reform and for striving to achieve a just South Africa. The price that has to be paid also means that the State cannot continue with the unqualified financing of everything at the present levels. We shall sensibly and responsibly have to adapt ourselves to this.

Services will have to be rationalised. What this embodies, amongst other things, is the elimination of duplication, the better utilisation of existing services and facilities and the elimination of red tape. It also embodies the fact that some services will have to be furnished on a more economic and market-related basis. Privatisation and deregulation are all part of this approach.

Unfortunately this also means that less essential services will have to be scaled down and in some cases even eliminated if they cannot be furnished more economically. We only have one of two choices. Either we accept that there will have to be a systematic downward adjustment in the standard of furnishing services in all spheres, which therefore means a lower standard, or a population group decides to increase the quality and standard of the furnishing of services to a level above that which the Exchequer can afford for all population groups. That could only be done if those making use of those services were prepared to make a greater contribution themselves.

I now come to the matters which the hon member for Yeoville raised here. The hon member spoke very responsibly about levies, and in essence I do not disagree with the points he mentioned; in fact, since I am speaking about that, let me say that the hon member’s speech was a very responsible speech, as a whole, and this emphasises the fact that the hon member cannot, in reality, feel at home in the party to which he belongs. I shall still be dealing with that. [Interjections.]

Services can be sold, in part or as a whole, and certain services can therefore be made available in accordance with the principle of a “user’s charge”, or levies can be imposed on those making use of such services. The revenue obtained from those levies—this is important—should always be employed for the improvement of that specific service. It should be ploughed back into the service on which the levy was imposed.

If a levy is considered for or imposed on any service, it is done with the intention of benefiting those who make use of that service. Levies make it possible, of course, for services to be rendered on a differentiated basis. Not only would these services be differentiated in respect of specific population groups, but also in respect of specific regions and areas. A very thorough investigation will still have to be conducted into levies as a method of financing. The position of the country’s economy, existing taxation practices and the financial potential of consumers will all have to be taken into account when eventually …

Order! Hon members really must give the hon the Minister a fair chance to deliver his speech in a more tranquil atmosphere. Hon members are talking so loudly in a certain section of the House that I find it difficult to hear the hon the Minister at times. I appeal to hon members to co-operate; give the hon the Minister a fair chance to deliver his speech.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I am of the opinion that the Government should do everything in its power to reduce the existing rates of taxation as much as possible and then ultimately strive to put as much money in the consumer’s pocket as possible so that he can be placed in a position to decide for himself what services he requires and what he is prepared to pay for them. That is, in fact, in accord with the whole spirit of privatisation. As far back as 1985 the hon the Minister of the Budget said that in-depth investigations into this matter were taking place. We are still engaged in those investigations and the Administration: House of Assembly is also being assisted in this process by professional consultants.

I therefore want to conclude my discussion of this question of levies by reiterating that nothing has changed since the then Minister of the Budget spoke about this matter in this House in 1985.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Minister? In 1985 the then Minister of the Budget said that certain investigations were being conducted to ascertain which levies we could, in fact, make use of. What progress has been made with those investigations?

Mr Speaker, those investigations have not yet progressed to the point where we can, in effect, be satisfied with the information we have at our disposal. That is why we have extended the investigations to encompass the appointment of relevant consultants with a view to investigating the whole matter thoroughly, bearing in mind the country’s economic position, and also the other matters to which I referred.

I do want to state that the purpose of the tirade launched on 6 August by the hon member for Green Point, who is not here this afternoon, was not so much aimed at obtaining more information about levies, but rather at diverting the focus of attention from that party and trying to shift it onto the NP. On 6 August, when the hon member made his speech, the hon member for Claremont had not yet left, and the reverberations surrounding the Dakar affair were still discernible in that party. If one reads the hon member for Green Point’s speech, it is very interesting to note that in talking about levies, he cannot keep himself from ultimately highlighting the deep-lying point of dispute inherent in that party. There is a schism in that party. The hon members are free to laugh about that. The division in the PFP is no secret. Nor is it a matter of the Dakar affair. The Dakar conference was merely a catalyst highlighting this deeper-lying division or schism even further. [Interjections.] The actual point of dispute involves the question of the role the PFP should play inside or outside Parliament. [Interjections.] It concerns the role of Parliament. On that question the hon member for Green Point concluded his speech on levies with the following words:

He is referring to the Government:

Outside Parliament is what he is referring to:

This ambiguity on the part of the PFP damages its credibility. It is the split in the PFP which is one of the reasons for its downfall. [Interjections.]

†The problem with the PFP is that they try to placate two irreconcilable constituencies simultaneously.

Dawie, what are you doing in Parliament?

They try to satisfy those people who believe that Parliament is the real vehicle for change and reform, and at the same time they try to satisfy those who pin their hopes on extra-Parliamentary forces.

This is nothing new. The tensions in the PFP started many months ago. Commentators who hold no brief for the NP referred to this division in the PFP ranks long before the last election. Let me quote from an article which appeared in the Financial Mail of 20 November, that is six months before the last election. The article is headed: “The PFP lost hope and last chances”. The article reads:

I see the hon member for Sea Point is back. He spoke about confidence and said that the NP’s policies do not inspire confidence, but what happened at the last election? Are the policies of the PFP very inspiring for according to the election results they are not very inspiring either? As a matter of fact the hon leader has now asked his people to go back to the drawing board to find something more inspiring.

After the election and in light of the most recent developments this article makes very interesting reading. There is undoubtedly a polarisation taking place in that party, a polarisation between those who believe they should align themselves with the extra-parliamentary forces like the hon member for Claremont—and he is only the first. It is interesting to note that the hon member in an interview in today’s Cape Times reiterates this fact and makes it quite clear. I quote from the Cape Times of today’s date:

That is the problem with the PFP and therefore we are witnessing a strange alliance in that party; we even see the liberal hon member for Houghton joining forces with the conservative hon member for Yeoville.

I do not know whether it could perhaps also have something to do with age, for the article in the Financial Mail to which I referred, concludes as follows, and I quote again:

Unfortunately we are witnessing the demise of the PFP as we used to know them.

*Mr Speaker, the fact of the matter is that I cannot but think of what a previous Prime Minister, Mr John Vorster, said about this on a certain occasion. The moment the opposition speaks about a split in the NP, the PFP itself splits, he said. It was not all that long ago that the hon member for Houghton and other hon members went around telling people about the tremendous impending split in the NP.

†The hon member for Houghton stated in Business Day of 10 April this year: “Up to 40 set to quit the National Party.” And we are still intact! It is obvious that there is a major division in the ranks of the PFP.

The hon member for Sea Point spoke about confidence and I was also interested in his remarks on the Rev Hendrickse. He suggested that the Rev Hendrickse’s speech on perceptions be made compulsory reading. I have nothing against reading the speeches made by other Ministers or politicians. What I find strange, however, is that when the Rev Hendrickse agrees or co-operates with the Government, he is regarded as a stooge; but the moment he adopts a different stance, he becomes a hero. Then his speeches should become compulsory reading. [Interjections.]

Really, Sir, I believe the hon leader of the PFP did the correct thing by sending his people back to the drawing board. They do not offer anything inspiring. As a matter of fact, they have their hands full trying to keep the party together. [Interjections.] I believe we are witnessing only the tip of the iceberg and that what is happening in their ranks will soon be evident outside Parliament as well.

*The fact is that although the NP is criticised from all quarters about its policy, it is the only party that still holds out any hope and engenders any confidence.

The hon member for Barberton began his speech by speaking of confidence and referring to the presidential address of the President of the Reserve Bank in which he said that that spark of confidence, with which to get the economy going, was lacking. The hon members of the CP are making a tremendous mistake if they think that confidence will be engendered by the policy of any party but the NP. The lack of confidence proceeds from the uncertainty about whether we are going to be able to reconcile the conflicting expectations and demands of all the people in this country. That is the reason why people are in two minds about the future. I am now asking whether there is anyone in the world who would believe that the CP’s policy had a better chance of bringing about reconciliation in this country than does the policy of the NP.

The hon member for Carletonville, who apologised for the fact that he could not be present, said that if the NP could only be unseated, throughout the world there would be a resurgence of confidence in South Africa. Oh, Sir, in what a fool’s paradise is the hon member living? I really do want to recommend to him that he take a trip around the world to find out what the attitude to South Africa is on the international front. This does not mean that the world should prescribe to us, but that in this country, within the limited time-spans that exist, we should do everything in our power, as different population groups, to reach agreement. That is crystal clear as far as I am concerned.

The struggle is not one of White against Black, but one of the moderates in this country against the forces which are not only pitted against the Whites in this country, but also seek to subvert the existing order. That is why the NP says that we have a policy that makes it possible for the leaders of the respective population groups to negotiate with one another about a peaceful future. That is why we are ever hopeful and, I believe, why confidence will be engendered by the NP’s policy, and not by the policies of the bankrupt PFP and the right-wing radical Official Opposition.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

According to estimates, approximately 39 000 hectares should be afforested annually to adequately provide for the future demands for timber and timber products. At present new afforestation takes place at a rate of approximately 13 000 hectares per annum. In order to stimulate the production of timber, clause 2 of the Bill makes provision for the rendering of assistance by way of loans to landowners for afforestation and reafforestation. Clause 5 provides for relevant administrative measures.

†The Forest Act provides that the Director-General of Environment Affairs may grant temporary or permanent rights in respect of State forests to certain Government authorities for public purposes. Departments of State are, however, not explicitly mentioned in this particular section of the Act and the power of the Director-General is being extended by clause 3 of the Bill so as to cover all departments of State. The provisions of clauses 1, 4 and 6 are of a technical nature and do not affect the legal position.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House support this Bill. In fact, we not only support it, we also welcome it.

There are some conditions, however, to which we feel particular attention should be paid. The object of this legislation is, after all, to afford the landowner an opportunity to obtain funds in order to plant more trees, for which there is a great need. According to the information provided, we see that approximately 39 000 ha have to be newly planted every year, and that at the moment this is taking place at the rate of only 13 000 ha per annum. According to our information, the amount that has been allocated for these loans during the current year is approximately R800 000. It is reported that this will not enable us to plant more than approximately another 3 000 ha. That falls far short of the actual requirements.

It is true to say that this situation has arisen over the past ten years because ten years ago, the small farmers, or rather family farmers, did the necessary planting and supplied approximately 60% of our needs. That situation has now been reversed so that at the moment, only approximately 30% of our needs are in fact being catered for by the small farmers. That is the extent to which their contribution has been reduced in recent times. As a result of this, depopulation is taking place in those areas, one of which, namely Piet Retief, falls within my constituency, because we find that the small farmers are once again leaving the land. Since this is a border area, there is an additional risk factor involved whenever the population leaves.

I want to say, therefore, that while we welcome the legislation, we ask that when these funds are applied, priority be given to the establishment of family farms such as the ones that operated there in the past. We therefore ask that thoughtful consideration be given to the allocation so that we may keep those farmers on our farms and even increase their numbers. We regard this as vital, and we welcome this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Ermelo, and of course I agree with what he said. This legislation is a very positive measure and I want to join him in requesting the hon the Minister, when dealing with the concept of ownership, to consider also assisting long-term lessees in this regard.

The objective of the Bill is of course to encourage afforestation and in this way meet the future needs. This is the first time this has happened and R800 000 is probably not much but it is at least a start. This side of the House, therefore, takes great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Active research is an integral part of forestry. It is gratifying to hear that our scientists at the Plant Protection Research Institute are at present actively involved in research into the biological control of the Australian acacia. After careful experimentation a fungus has now been released which will hopefully put a stop to the unchecked spread of Port Jackson, while beetles will be used to attack the seeds of, inter alia, the golden wattle. Research of this kind deserves all the encouragement we can give it. For that reason I was rather surprised to read the following in the June issue of Plantbeskermingsnuus, under the caption “Work on biological control of invasive Australian acacia suspended”:

†The reason why they did this is because the wattle growers have objected as there is a slight possibility that the seed of the Acacia Mearnsii may be attacked.

*I should like to ask the hon the Minister to give serious attention to this particular aspect, because I find it inexplicable that a project of this kind and this entire research strategy is being reconsidered so carefully, as a result of the objections of a particular sector of the industry only, that it is being halted. In the winter rainfall regions in particular contamination and invasion by these acacias is causing tremendous problems, and I am asking the hon the Minister to give very serious attention to this particular matter.

We on this side of the House support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the hon member for Uitenhage in requesting the hon the Minister to look at this whole question of shutting down what I consider to be an excellent piece of research viz, biological control. I did talk about it during the agricultural debate and I believe it is most important that this particular acacia be dealt with. The best way of doing so is by means of biological control. If this should be held up for a certain section I would be very distressed indeed.

Coming back to the legislation before us we in these benches will not oppose this Bill. The principle of giving financial aid to the long term prospect of afforestation for any farmer is a necessity. The returns when one is planting trees are a long time in coming and it is absolutely necessary that farmers be encouraged to grow more trees. The growing need for timber in this country is inarguable and we will support this principle just as we supported a similar principle when the hon the Minister of Agriculture provided the money to encourage farmers to turn land over to pasture that had been arable land for some time. The same principle applies and we do support it, as well as the other provision of this Bill which allows the Director-General certain powers to give State departments usage, either permanent or temporary, of forest land. We will therefore support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Bryanston for his support.

*If there is one industry which really deserves this support it is the forestry industry. This industry is subject to the same risks and dangers as the agricultural industry, namely droughts—in their latest report Satga estimated that there was a loss of 1,44 million cubic metres—financing, interest rates which rise and fluctuate in the long term, increased production costs, and particularly, as the hon member for Uitenhage indicated, the danger of pests, and so on.

This industry’s reply to this was that it was very well organised, particularly through research, manpower training and retraining, to which the State of course made a major contribution, but regarding which the industry also played its part to regulate itself very well. I want to tell the hon the Minister that I am quite sure that this investment in the industry will not be misplaced. I also want to convey the thanks of my constituency and of the members of the timber industry to him.

Mr Chairman, I want to extend my very sincere thanks to those hon members who lent their support to this legislation. The hon members for Ermelo, Uitenhage, Bryanston and Nelspruit all supported the measure. It is true that the timber industry has not made the progress we expected of it during the past few years. It is very important to us in South Africa that the necessary afforestation take place. It is also important to us, however, that there be as many individual entrepreneurs in the forestry industry as possible. It is clear that there is a tendency in this industry towards an over-concentration in the hands of a few large entrepreneurs. This legislation makes it possible for us to render financial assistance to landowners—we are not specifying whether they must be large or small. If hon members were to look at the legislation, however, they would see that the proposed section 9A provides for the appointment of a committee to grant loans.

As matters stand, this committee will be working with a modest amount of funds, if I may say so. It will be involved in reviewing the applications, and will probably also have to consider the financial means of the applicant. I should find it quite strange, however, if a financially strong entrepreneur were to apply for a loan and receive assistance, while assistance was withheld from someone who was not in so strong a financial position. The fact is, however, that this committee, which will consist of three officers of the department and three members of the Forestry Council, will consider these various loan applications.

The Bill is by nature an enabling one and not a prescriptive one. It actually affords us a considerable degree of latitude to exercise control by way of regulations.

The hon member for Uitenhage raised a matter which one must approach with a great deal of caution, namely the importation of plant pests in order to combat specific plant species which were also imported. The problem is that when we imported these plant species, we did not import the pests with them. In its country of origin, such a plant—I mention as an example the acacia, which is posing a problem in our country—was, and still is subjected to natural limitations as a result of plant pests which attack it there, but in most instances when we imported the plants which have now become a pest here in themselves, the plant pest did not come with them. We must be very careful, however, not to import pests which could also attack our indigenous trees.

†The hon member for Bryanston also supported the research that must be done in order to decide whether or not we should import these biological means of controlling certain plant species.

*I shall give that some attention. I think that in supporting this measure, we have taken a step forward today as far as the forestry industry is concerned.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Temporary Removal of Restrictions on Economic Activities Act was passed by Parliament last year. As has been the case with many other new pieces of legislation, however, a number of technical problems were encountered when it had to be implemented in practice. The proposed amendments are intended to overcome these technical problems and do not change the principles contained in the existing Act.

Before any proclamation can be issued in terms of the Act, in accordance with the rules of administrative law its validity must be carefully examined in the light of the wording of the Act. In the course of investigations to determine the possibility of issuing proclamations, it was found that there were unfortunately quite a number of unnecessary words in the Act which did not clarify the principles of the Act, but did cause legal problems of a technical nature which could invalidate a proclamation under certain circumstances.

The Bill seeks to remove these technical problems. The Standing Committee on Trade and Industry has already considered and recommended it without any amendments. I should like to thank the members concerned for the work they have done in this respect.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House are going to oppose this Bill, although we have no objections in principle to deregulation where it is in the interests of progress in the economy. However, when one studies the White Paper produced by the hon the Minister regarding privatisation and deregulation one finds under Annexure B: “Steps already taken in respect of deregulation.”

Under those steps are quoted the removal of influx control, the issue of uniform identity documents, the opening of certain central business districts to entrepreneurs of all population groups, the abolition of job reservation, and quicker procedures for the establishment of urban areas for Blacks, like the proposed Norweto.

We also have serious problems with the whole concept contained in this Bill. We would far rather see that each aspect of deregulation comes before Parliament and is discussed. We cannot accept a concentration of power in the already overburdened with power State President and his Cabinet, with only a reference to the standing committees before the temporary suspension comes into operation. We have very serious doubts about this measure, and my hon colleague from Roodepoort will go into it more fully from a legal point of view. When one reads the memorandum on the objects of the temporary removal of restrictions it becomes quite clear that this could apply to almost any legislation. We even have serious doubts regarding some of the provisions of the Bill itself, and we shall therefore discuss these more fully.

In view of the broad aspect covered in these terms we would far rather see that each time deregulation is proposed, that it be considered separately. Once again I want to refer to Annexure B which states that:

It is our feeling that once these bodies have identified these measures they should then present them to Parliament so that Parliament can approve their deregulation or otherwise.

Mr Chairman, last year when we passed the principal Act, we held a very detailed and wide-ranging discussion on this matter. All the principles and all the other matters were debated in great detail at that stage. The amendments that are now being proposed to this Act in no way affect the principles that were embodied in that Act after having been agreed to and disposed of. I therefore think the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis is a little off course if he wants to debate the principles of this legislation again.

Ail that is at issue here are a few technical amendments which will make it possible for this legislation to function more smoothly. As the hon the Minister also stated very clearly in his Second Reading speech, what is involved here, as in all instances in which a new Act appears on the Statute Books, is the passing of amendments to cater for those instances in which certain matters could not be dealt with quite so smoothly. The Bill before us today is intended only to effect those technical amendments so that the legislation can function more effectively.

It is a great pleasure for me to support these amendments.

Mr Chairman, when we note that the principal Act—that is to say, the Temporary Removal of Restrictions on Economic Activities Act—came into operation on 10 September 1986, it is quite remarkable that the Government, less than a year later, has deemed it necessary to come forward with an amendment to that Act. As befits the Official Opposition of course we shall immediately subject these measures to a close scrutiny. As the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis has indicated, it is true that there are certain measures which the Government says it regards as being in the economic interests, but which very clearly carry a very heavy political connotation and are linked to their whole new political philosophy.

For example, in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill it is stated in relation to section 1 (1) of the principal Act that amendments are required because, and I quote:

At first glance, then, the amendments have been cast in the mould of economic progress. However, when one takes note of the provisions themselves, and of the effect of the amendments, one finds that the picture looks quite different. In terms of the amendments that are now being effected to Part 1 of the Schedule to the principal Act, the State President is now being afforded the power—this is provided for in clause 3 of the Bill before us—to suspend laws or to grant exemption from them, in relation, inter alia, to the following:

I have left out a part in the middle and read only the last few words of the sentence in order to better convey its meaning. It goes on to state that this provision does not relate to premises or land which may be occupied or used solely for residential purposes. The only restriction that is being placed on this power of the State President, is that this may only take place on the advice of a standing committee of Parliament to which the proposed suspension or exemption has been referred. We find this in section 1 (2) (a) of the principal Act.

In our view, the implications of this are very clear, Sir. Wherever a legal provision governs the acquisition or occupation of land, premises or buildings in an area in which a township scheme or a town planning scheme is legally in force, the State President may suspend that legal provision or grant an exemption from it by means of this new system that is being created. Therefore, if such a township scheme or town planning scheme were to prohibit free trading areas, for example, the State President could suspend that provision, without even consulting the local authority concerned.

We say this is totally unacceptable to us, firstly because we in the CP are totally opposed to free trading areas, which are not in keeping with our basic policy, and secondly because we believe that the Government, in line with its own statements that it wants to transfer the maximum amount of power to the lower levels by means of devolution, should now begin to live up to its own statements, and should not have measures of this nature passed by Parliament, measures which detract from the power and the democratic right of local authorities to retain the final say over this fundamental aspect of local government.

Mr Chairman, when the principal Act was discussed in this House last year it was the result of a long period of deliberation in the Standing Committee on Home Affairs. The hon member for Innesdal is the chairman of that committee. We spent a considerable time hearing evidence and conducting discussions in connection with that legislation.

It is interesting to note the opposition of the CP to this amending legislation. They are at least being consistent in their opposition. They opposed the principal Act as well. The CP, I must mention, did not participate at all in the deliberations of that standing committee, but merely sat back observing things happening all around them.

Mr Chairman, we in these benches will be supporting this measure, as we supported the original legislation. I want, however, to direct one or two questions to the hon the Minister and also to make one or two comments regarding the position of the CP.

The first revolves around the handling of the Bill itself. This Bill was introduced by the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology and was referred, I understand, to the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry. I find it rather curious in the light of the fact that the principal Act had been handled, less than a year ago, by the Standing Committee on Home Affairs, which in fact handles part of the portfolio of this hon Minister—the Minister in the Office of the State President. I ask this hon Minister whether he can explain why it was that this Bill went to the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry, and not to the Standing Committee on Home Affairs, where I would have expected this hon Minister’s departmental functions to be handled.

My second question revolves around a question that I asked regarding this Bill in May this year (Hansard: Assembly Questions, 26 May 1987, col 12) regarding the action taken in terms of this Bill. On that date this hon Minister indicated that although no proclamations had been issued, certain actions had been taken by the Competition Board. I merely want to follow this up at this point by asking whether any proclamations have in fact been issued. I understand from the memorandum in this Bill that such proclamations cannot in fact be issued, or may not have been issued because of the objections to the Bill itself which we are now addressing.

Lastly, I wish to say to the hon the Minister that we in these benches have taken careful note of the position in clause 1 (b) of the Bill, which refers to the new section 2 (b) of the principal Act. The purpose of this is in fact to allow the hon the Minister—obviously it is the hon the State President through the hon the Minister—to issue proclamations amending conditions, limitations or obligations under particular Acts without reference to the standing committee. The Act itself—if it were to be amended—would have to be sent to the standing committee, but not the regulations. This particular point was addressed in the standing committee last year—in fact we had a full discussion of this issue. It was felt at that stage that the regulations themselves should also be addressed by the standing committee. However, I can understand the amendment. Objections were raised at that point by the hon the Minister’s department—which was handling this measure—relating to problems which may arise regarding the handling of such a matter by the standing committee. From these benches, however, we must reiterate that we would have been far happier had the regulations continued to be referred to the standing committee for due consideration.

Finally, I wish to address a remark to the opponents of this measure before us—the CP. I think they are quite correct. This measure does not deal only with economic matters. I say this because in South Africa one cannot divorce economic matters from their political constraints. One of those political constraints is in fact the imposition at an earlier stage of race as a restraining factor on the economic development of this country. Therefore, if one is going to remove restraints on economic development, one has to address the issue of restraints brought about in terms of restraints on racial participation. For this reason the CP are quite correct. I believe they are wrong in their attitude, but they are right from their point of view. We believe that this measure, more than any other, can be used by this Government to address those racial restrictions which still apply to economic activities, and we believe it should be used as quickly as possible.

Mr Chairman, we thank the hon member for Pinetown for supporting the Bill. The hon member asked the hon the Minister three questions, and I feel sure that the hon the Minister will furnish him with a full reply. In a nutshell, the first question dealt with the transferal of the activities of the Standing Committee on Home Affairs to that of Trade and Industry. I should think that the reply to that would be that they relate more closely to economic activities, and that it was felt that they would be better situated there.

The second question related to the application of the Act in practice and to how many regulations, and so on, had already been affected. I think that one of the reasons why the Act is being amended is precisely because it was found in practice that the wording was too restrictive, and that for that reason, it could not really achieve its objective in practice. An example of this is that by requiring that regulations pertaining to persons in an industry could be suspended, it closed the door wherever the regulations were keeping people out of an industry. For that reason, the amendments are necessary.

The hon member then went on to make an interesting point regarding the position with regard to Acts of Parliament. I think, however, that when one looks at the wording of the Act, namely section 1 (2), the following is clearly stated:

That will, to a large extent, resolve the hon member’s problems.

As the hon member for Sunnyside has already said, this Bill in no way affects the principles contained in the principal Act, and is intended only to clear up certain problems that have arisen in the practical application of the Act.

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis and the hon member for Roodepoort are clearly experiencing colour problems; to such a degree that one could say that they have been rendered colour-blind with regard not only to this Act, but any Act. I find it interesting that the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis should have said that he had a suspicion that this Act did not relate to economic activities, and then gone on to quote a number of examples from the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation. However, not one of those steps has been taken in this Bill.

Apart from that, the hon member was also strongly insistent that the matter of parliamentary control be given some attention, and that the CP in particular wanted to examine every step very thoroughly. This Bill does, in fact, make provision for that by providing that wherever Acts of Parliament are involved, they must be submitted to a standing committee of this Parliament before the hon the State President may take any action. I think those hon members should relinquish their fears and face up to reality instead.

It is of paramount importance to the Republic that all its inhabitants be afforded equal opportunities to participate in our economy. Apart from that, one of our greatest problems is that of unemployment, and sensible measures which could give rise to job creation, must enjoy our support. Small business undertakings play a very important role in this regard. One may consider, for example, the achievements of the SBDC over the past five years, during which period job opportunities were created for almost 200 000 people at a relatively low cost of approximately R2 400 per job opportunity. This gives one an understanding of the tremendous contribution the small business sector can make in the field of job creation. It also naturally affects the so-called informal sector and in my opinion, everything possible should be done to suspend unnecessary restrictions in this regard and only those measures that are really necessary for the protection of the public, such as health regulations and so on, should be retained.

The hon the State President will consider every' case that is submitted to him on merit and according to the advice given to him, and will make his decisions with due regard to existing businesses in the industry and the effect these will have. It is high time we broke away from unnecessary restrictive measures, and we on this side of the House therefore support the measure wholeheartedly.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members on this side of the House, as well as the hon member for Pinetown, for their support.

†The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis’s contention was that each deregulation case should be considered separately. This will, in fact, be the case as each proclamation will be dealt with separately.

*Among other things, the hon member for Roodepoort raised the question of group areas as well as the conditions upon which the hon the State President may take action. The Act prescribes the procedures and the hon the State President may not, therefore, take arbitrary action. I refer the hon member to the principal Act.

†Mr Chairman, then the hon member for Pinetown asked why this Bill had not been referred to the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry. Now, why was it not referred to the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry?

Why was it not referred to the Standing Committee on Home Affairs?

Oh, yes. To the Standing Committee on Home Affairs. I am sorry. The point is, I became the relevant Minister only a few weeks ago when I became the Chairman of the Minister’s Committee. This matter was therefore dealt with by my predecessor’s committee.

Furthermore, the hon member asked whether any proclamations had been issued. The answer is “no”, but one is under consideration.

Then, in answer to another point the hon member for Pinetown raised, it would not be practical to refer proclamations on subordinate regulations to standing committees. The matter was fully discussed by the standing committee which considered the principal Act.

*In this connection the hon member for East London City also dealt with many of the points which have been raised here before. I honestly admit, however, that because this legislation was entrusted to me so suddenly, I do not have a good grasp of the whole background involved. The point—as the hon member for Sunnyside rightly said—is that the amending Bill was approved in principle by the standing committee. Basically nothing here differs from the principles contained in the principal Act. I merely want to say that we have examples of new developments of this kind in the country, in the sphere of the small businessman. It is absolutely essential to give small businessmen an opportunity to practise their profession without unnecessary regulations and handicaps. This is in the interests of the House, and I therefore move that the Bill be passed.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Credit Agreements Act, Act 75 of 1980, which came into effect during March 1981, makes provision for the regulation of certain transactions in terms of which movable goods are purchased or leased on credit. Certain practical problems were recently encountered with the definitions of initial payment and initial rental. In the Supreme Court case viz Nel versus Santam Bank which was decided during 1986, the court ruled that a credit agreement was invalid on the grounds that the initial payment was not paid on the date on which the credit agreement was entered into.

In view of this decision many bona fide situations could arise in practice were the initial payment, or in regard to leasing transactions, the initial rental has been or is paid after the date of conclusion of the credit agreement, with the result that a substantial number of credit agreements could be invalid for this reason.

In order to remedy the situation, the definitions of “initial payment” and “initial rental” are amended with effect from the date of commencement of the Credit Agreements Act, 1980, to prevent that reliance is placed on the said Nel versus Santam Bank decision in order to escape compliance with existing agreements which do not comply with the requirements in question.

The protection currently afforded to a credit receiver by section 6 (5), of Act 75 of 1980, namely that a credit agreement is not enforceable until the full deposit is paid however, remains in force. The credit grantor can, therefore, only enforce a contract after the initial payment or initial rental has been paid in full.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the Official Opposition cannot support this legislation. I actually want to appeal to the hon the Minister to refer the Bill back to the standing committee.

With all due respect, I feel that certain complications of this measure were not appreciated. The judgement on which the amendment is based is that given in the Nel v Santam Bank case. Over the years the position has always been that it is one of the principles built into a hire-purchase transaction or a credit agreement, as we now call it, that the deposit must be paid before the agreement is entered into, or at the time it is entered into. The idea always was that the person entering into the agreement had to have enough funds to enter into such a transaction. That is why, some times alternately, it is provided that a third or a quarter of the amount must be paid as a deposit, but that this amount must be saved beforehand, so that a person who cannot afford it, does not become involved in an agreement.

This was also reflected in the Nel v Santam Bank case, in which Mr Justice Hattingh had the following to say regarding why he adjudged that specific transaction to be invalid, where the deposit had been paid later, after the agreement had been signed:

In terms of the new legislation it need therefore not be paid prior to the agreement being signed, but it must nevertheless be paid on the day on which the agreement is signed. I am continuing to quote:

Since 1949, as a result of the Ellinas case, it has always been the case that if the deposit is not paid on that day prior to the agreement being signed—now it has been extended to the day on which the agreement is signed—that agreement will be null and void.

In the Ellinas case of 1949 Mr Justice Ramsbottom said the following regarding section 7 of the Hire-Purchase Act of 1942:

One must pay one’s deposit beforehand, and not enter into an agreement if one does not have the money and cannot afford to enter into that agreement. Mr Justice Harcourt confirmed the same principle in the Trust Bank of Africa Ltd v Eksteen case.

Mr Justice Hattingh went on to say the following in the Nel v Santam Bank case:

However, if he has the money the following day or at a later stage he enters into a new agreement; the judge also says this:

Let us analyse this aspect. If one were to allow this person to pay his deposit to the hire-purchase seller bit by bit and the agreement only becomes valid once it has been paid in full—a kind of deferred stipulation has now been added—this could take up to a year. He pays R1 per week. He is used to paying R1 per week. Suddenly the hire-purchase agreement becomes valid, and the next week he may have to pay R10, because this is the first instalment.

This gives rise to exploitation, and in practice one finds—I am saying this with all due respect—that people are told: “Come and buy! It does not matter; you can take a year to pay the deposit”. Once that person has paid the deposit he cannot pay the next instalment. The goods are then repossessed and he loses his deposit.

There is a tremendous possibility of exploitation in this legislation, and I want to make an urgent appeal to the hon the Minister to refer it back to the standing committee before we proceed with this Bill.

The other uncertainty it creates is that the agreement only becomes valid on the day on which the deposit has been paid in full in this piecemeal way by means of instalments. In the meantime everything is up in the air. Now a bona fide buyer pays R1, R2 or R3, for example—there is no time limit within which he must pay; it can go on for years—and one day he has finished paying. What happens to the money? There is no valid agreement; the agreement only comes into operation at that stage, and he can only demand delivery of the goods on the date on which he has paid the deposit in full.

I really want to make a serious appeal. I do not think the complications were understood when this legislation was considered. The principal Act offers that protection, and we are now taking that protection away.

The point of departure in the explanatory memorandum that certain people can now get away with illegal transactions, is incorrect. It is true that if the deposit is not paid that transaction is null and void. The goods are returned and the money is returned, but we are going to do far less harm in this way than by introducing this totally new principle in this legislation that a deposit is not needed for a hire purchase contract.

I am appealing to the hon the Minister to refer this matter back to the standing committee before he proceeds with the legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bethal is indeed correct as regards the historic legal position in respect of the old Hire-Purchase Act. Since the introduction of the Credit Agreements Act in 1980 provision has been made in section 6 (5) for the payment of the deposit after the agreement has been entered into and that the agreement only comes into force and acquires validity after payment.

It is true that the definition in section 1 indicates that a substantive component of the right is contained in it, because it provides that the initial payment must be made on the day on which the agreement is entered into. The somewhat ironic situation now exists that one does not have to pay a deposit prior to or at the time the contract is entered into, as was the case in the past, but that one can now pay it later on. It must, however, specifically be paid before midnight on the day on which the agreement is entered into for it to be valid.

In the Nel case, to which reference has been made, acting judge Mr Justice Hattingh stated that if the deposit was not paid that day and the hire-purchase buyer were to pay it the following day, he could then enter into a new agreement.

There is, however, another implication which in my opinion one must not lose sight of, namely that if one were to continue with this narrow interpretation of the Act as it is applied at present, the situation would arise that if someone were to make out a cheque to the creditor on that day, a contract could not be entered into if that cheque were only cashed the following day.

It is interesting in this regard to refer to what Fleming said on page 182 of his book Kredietooreenkomste:

These same sentiments are also dealt with in Diemont and Aronstam’s book The Law of Credit Agreements and Hire-Purchase in South Africa, pg 118 of which reads as follows:

All those cases in which payment was made in this way, would run the risk of being invalid, although payment was made after the agreement was entered into, but on the same day.

This statutory amendment envisages the improvement of the Act so that the bona fide cases, where the deposit may technically not have been paid on the same day but later, can be valid. The credit purchaser or the person who pays off the credit slowly, is the person who is in the best position. Exploitation is therefore detrimental to the creditor, but not to the credit purchaser or receiver of credit. The creditor could suspend the agreement until such times as the deposit has been paid, after which the agreement would then be valid.

I have no fault to find with us looking in a meaningful and ongoing way at this Act, the application of which is obviously very difficult. I believe this is a significant amendment under the circumstances, and in order to solve the present problem, I support the amendment.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House also support this amending Bill. We believe that the amendment in fact makes the application of the Act more practical in the actual market-place. We also believe that the protection given to the credit receiver in that the transaction only becomes valid once the initial payment or deposit is paid, is necessary. Therefore we will support the Bill.

While I am on my feet, however, I wish to echo the call made by the hon member for Constantia relating to credit transactions in general, but also specifically to problems that have arisen in so many cases resulting from double discounting or rediscounting of credit transactions. I merely wish to support his plea that this should be looked at, specifically with regard to the sale of motor vehicles, and specifically with the intent of having a centralised register, if possible. In that way one could avoid this kind of situation which seems to be occurring so often of late.

Mr Chairman, we appreciate the support of the previous speaker for the Bill under discussion.

When one looks at the amendments involved here, one finds under the new section 1 (c), as amended by clause 1, a mere replacement of the name of the Minister of Trade and Industry by that of the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, which is self-evident. As regards the new subsections (a) and (b), the words “on the date” are replaced by the words “in the case”. The initial amount paid in a hire-purchase transaction, is mainly a deposit, as we call it, and it is the first instalment of a lease transaction.

We on this side of the House understand the problem which credit organisations, and discount groups in particular, are experiencing. We must bear in mind that when a credit agreement is entered into and this matter is discounted, the discounting body is quite frequently not aware how this matter took place on the specific date.

Now we are going a step further. When this transaction is discounted, it is elementary when it refers to cash. However, quite frequently we are dealing with a trade-in transaction. With a trade-in transaction a typical problem can arise. Today we have the position that there are several cases where certain of these transactions would become invalid and where the situation could arise that the credit receiver could back out of the transaction, which could result in direct losses and have catastrophic consequences for the entire hire-purchase industry as well as other industries.

But there is always estoppel!

Yes, I grant the hon member that, and I readily concede that an estoppel situation can arise.

However, we are dealing here with one of the 15 consumer Acts which are basically aimed at protecting the consumer. This legislation gives adequate protection to the consumer, but we cannot allow there to be eventual exploitation of the situation or of the other party. There is section 6 (5), which very clearly protects the credit receiver. The contract remains null and void until the date on which the deposit is paid in full.

I am appealing to the hon member for us to accept this matter as it stands. I give my full support to this legislation.

Mr Chairman, it really sounded as if the hon member for Port Elizabeth North did not understand the crux of the hon member for Bethal’s objection. If he looks at the judgment in Nel v Santam Bank 1986(2)SA28 (OPD), he will find that it is quite clear that the interests of the credit receivers are at present being protected, in terms of section 6 (5) of the existing Act, which must be read with the existing section 1.

This makes it absolutely essential that the payment of the deposit must take place on the date on which the contract is entered into, otherwise the contract is invalid. This is protection existing at present. Through this amending Bill this protection is now being taken away and a credit agreement can be valid in spite of the initial deposit being paid in over an indefinite period.

I want to associate myself with my colleague the hon member for Bethal by saying that this is an extremely sensitive matter, which takes away all the protection which has existed for the credit receiver thus far and creates a situation of absolute legal uncertainty. Like my hon colleague I should therefore like to recommend to the hon the Minister that this matter be referred back to the standing committee. The discussions and the way in which the discussions took place, in my opinion indicated that this matter was not thrashed out properly, and I want to repeat this appeal to the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, I first of all want to thank the hon members in these benches and also the hon member for Pinelands for supporting this measure.

With regard to what the hon member for Pinelands had to say about a central register for motor vehicles, I wish to inform the hon member that the hon Minister has already replied to his colleague the hon member for Constantia during the debate on the Vote of the department when the hon the Minister informed the House that the department is in the process of drafting the necessary regulations regarding a central registry for motor vehicles. There are, however, certain matters that have to be cleared up with the Department of Transport and also with the CSIR.

The CP is opposing this Bill because they are obviously at odds with the other learned gentlemen of the legal profession and I would like to tell the hon members that this Bill went through the standing committee and was fully debated in the standing committee albeit at a time …

This point too?

Well, the hon members were not members of the standing committee at that time and I think that the hon member for …

Order! I find it a little difficult when hon members shout out intermittent questions. There is a method of asking questions, viz by means of the Chair. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I think the hon member for Port Elizabeth North has clearly indicated to the hon members that section 6 (5) of the principal Act should be considered here where it clearly provides that no agreement is binding until the deposit has been paid in full.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister? What is the legal situation until the agreement becomes valid, and what are the rights of the purchaser who has in the meantime paid a deposit, bit by bit?

Mr Chairman, the way I read it as it presently stands is that the contract only becomes valid at the time when the first payment is made. That is clearly stated in section 6 (5). That is when it will become valid. That may be on the same day, the following day or in the future. I think that makes it very clear. I do not understand what the hon members are getting at in that regard.

Might I say that the situation as is clarified in the present section 6 (5) is very similar to that which is included in the Hire Purchase Act since an amendment to the Hire Purchase Act was effected in this House during 1965 I think it was. I am therefore afraid that we cannot concede to the hon members of the CP in this particular regard. With that I thank the hon members who have supported this Bill.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Merchandise Marks Act, No 17 of 1941, as in the case of other statutes passed by Parliament prior to the coming into being of the Republic, still contains references to inter alia the Union, King, Governor-General etc. These terms are antiquated and the Office of the State President, which administers certain provisions of section 14 of the Act, has submitted a proposal to the Department of Trade and Industry for consideration, to update the terminology concerned. That is the reason for this amending Bill.

(Second Reading)

Mr Chairman, I am sure the hon the Deputy Minister will be most relieved to hear that we on this side of the House have no problem whatsoever in supporting this measure. [Interjections.] In fact, I wish to express the feeling that possibly the hon the Deputy Minister, himself long a member of the “No Republic Party” may have more difficulty approving this Bill than we do. [Interjections.]

I have one request to make, however, I must say it surprises me that this terminology still appears in the legislation of the Republic of South Africa, and I wonder whether it is not time for us to launch a search through the channels of Parliament to eliminate all of this by means of one lengthy Bill and settle the matter permanently.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis for lending the support of the Official Opposition to this amending Bill. It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Merchandise Marks Amendment Bill.

The legislation makes a straightforward case of bringing outmoded terminology—some recent, some ancient—up to date.

*As a young boy I lived in Pietersburg and I sometimes went to the cinema on a Saturday morning.

†I mention this, Sir, because at the end of the film show I would stand proudly to attention—perhaps in my ignorance as a small boy—to the playing of the British National Anthem “God Save the Queen”. I did so, I might add, at great physical risk to myself, because not many in Pietersburg shared my views! [Interjections.]

In 1961, however, I put that behind me when I voted for the first time in support of the referendum for the new Republic.

The legislation before us contains many references relating to the “King”, the “Royal Family”, the “Arms of Union”, and the “Governor-General”, the like of which are out of place today.

Of course these terms are obsolete, and the Office of the State President, which administers certain provisions of section 14 of the Act, suggested to the Department of Trade and Industry that consideration be given amending the relevant terminology. On behalf of this side of the House I take pleasure in supporting this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House support this amending Bill. [Interjections.]

That is your best speech yet! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Pinelands for his long speech in support of this Bill.

There are a few interesting things about this legislation. It was first passed in 1888 in the Cape of Good Hope, and we have had many revisions of it since. One of the nicest things mentioned in the debate of that time is that there were objections to the fact that a brandy under the name of “Oom Paul Brandewyn” was being marketed. [Interjections.] I do not think we on this side of the House would like to see that happen again, and so we on this side of the House support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is very nice to have a Bill go through this House so quickly and easily, Sir, and I should like to thank all the hon members who have supported this side of the House in this particular regard.

In reply to what the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis said about this terminology still existing, I want to say that the hon member will find that just about every session a Bill comes up which has been designed to update terminology. One will find that some of the Acts to which these Bills relate are very old but have yet to reach the stage at which they will be amended in this House. Nevertheless, this does happen as we have seen here today.

I am very pleased to tell the hon member that some of the provisions of this Act fall under the jurisdiction of the hon the State President’s Office and he has to deal with them. He in fact asked that the position should be rectified after looking at all these old terms. I am quite sure that in due course there will be more changes coming through this House and the hon member will also have to support those changes at that time. I want to thank the other hon members for their support of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Speaker, before dealing with this amending Bill I should like to make reference to the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare of the House of Representatives. Hon members will be aware that he was involved in a very serious car accident. I am very grateful that he is faring well at this stage and that he is out of danger. I believe I speak on behalf of all hon members of this House when I wish him a speedy recovery.

Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, the salient feature of the Bill now before us is that it aims to bring the Mental Health Act, 1973, into line with present practices and customs. I can assure hon members that these practices and customs have stood the test of time. Although the principal Act contains detailed provisions on the detention, treatment and discharge of President’s patients, no provision exists for the granting of permission to such patients to leave the institutions or places in which they are being detained temporarily for short periods. Nevertheless it has always been the practice and policy to grant such permission in appropriate cases because the emphasis is on the treatment of the patient and not on his detention and isolation. Clause 2 will rectify this omission and will also serve to confirm the practice which hitherto existed.

†I come now to clause 4. Since the enactment of the principal Act, section 74 thereof—which empowers the Minister to designate certain officers to sign orders, warrants and documents on his behalf—has been interpreted as referring to either the hon the Minister of Justice or the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, depending on the order, warrant or document issued. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Justice, has drawn my attention to the fact that this interpretation does not tally with the definition of “Minister” in section 1 of the principal Act and that section 74 of the principal Act does not apply to the hon the Minister of Justice. As explained in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, clause 4 will bring the position of the hon the Minister of Justice into line with that of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development. It will also validate all orders, warrants and documents issued on behalf of the hon the Minister of Justice.

The remainder of the Bill substitutes certain obsolete designations or is of a consequential nature.

*Mr Speaker, at this juncture allow me, too, to extend my sincere thanks and congratulations to the hon member for Britstown, who is chairman of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, on the way he dealt with this standing committee. The hon member for Britstown is the only member of that House who is a chairman of a parliamentary standing committee. I greatly appreciate his services, the leadership he gives the standing committee and particularly the consensus achieved with regard to this important statutory amendment.

Second Reading resumed

This Bill brings the Mental Health Act of 1973 in line with practices already in use, practices which, as the hon the Minister put it in his Second Reading speech, have already stood the test of time. One of the most important provisions of this Bill regulates, in clause 2, the release of President’s patients for short periods to enable them, for example, to attend funerals and to spend religious holidays with their families. At the same time it also serves the purpose of preparing families for the patient’s reacceptance into the community, a community of which he must be a part in the future. That is necessary, because in these cases the emphasis has always been placed or focused, not so much on the detention of the relevant patients, but on their treatment.

Clause 4 brings the position of the Minister of Justice in line with that of the Minister of National Health and Population Development. All orders or warrants and documents issued on behalf of the Minister of Justice are therefore hereby ratified.

As far as the rest of the legislation if concerned, certain outdated terms are being replaced, this being of a consequential nature. I therefore have pleasure in supporting this Bill on behalf of the CP.

Mr Chairman, as indicated by the hon member for Pietersburg, there was no problem with this Bill on the standing committee. I also thank the hon member for Pietersburg for his support of the Bill. He has explained what the Bill is all about, and let me just mention that on the standing committee one question was, in fact, raised. The question was: What would happen if this President’s patient, when on leave of absence, committed a crime? The fact that this practise is now being legalised means that the department will not be responsible for the misdeeds of a President’s patient during his leave of absence. In the future, a President’s patient who commits an offence or injures someone whilst on a leave of absence will be in precisely the same position as one who has absconded from an institution. The patient is given a psychiatric evaluation, and if his mentai state is found to be normal, an application is made for his release as a President’s patient so that he may be brought to trial. Every patient for whom an application for a leave of absence is submitted, is of course very strictly evaluated by the multi-professional team in the hospital concerned before such leave of absence is granted. Special attention is also given to the supervision of these patients during their leave of absence. We on this side of the House gladly support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to state that we on this side of the House support this Bill.

I think it is appropriate to pay a special tribute to those people—the doctors, nurses and other staff—who care for our psychiatric patients in mental institutions. It is nearly 40 years ago since I did my psychiatric course as a fifth-year medical student. In those days psychiatric patients used to be hidden away from their families. They were hidden away from children. They were sent to the mental homes and they were forgotten people. Because of the development of psychiatric treatment—this is why I want to pay tribute—a psychiatric condition no longer means incarceration in a mental institution. In fact, with proper treatment, more than 80% of these patients will go back to live a normal fife in their societies.

This Bill actually makes it possible to legalise what has happened in the past. Owing to the excellent management and treatment of psychiatric patients the superintendents and officials at these psychiatric hospitals can return these patients to their families on special occasions and prepare them for their future lives outside these institutions.

This Bill is therefore a tribute to all those people in South Africa who treat thousands of patients in mental institutions. It has been my privilege to visit many of these in the past seven years since I came to Parliament and the love, care and attention that they are giving to these patients is unbelievable. This usually happens under very sad and unpleasant circumstances. They receive loving care and thus an opportunity to be restored to health. I must plead for the training and employment of more and more psychiatric nurses and workers who can do follow-up work in respect of these patients once they return to their families. Once there is a breakdown in their out-patient treatment there is a very great risk of these patients having to be readmitted because relapse into their previous condition then becomes a distinct possibility. This Bill is therefore a tribute to the mental health workers and I should like to support it on their behalf.

Mr Chairman, I actually think this was a fine debate on a very good Bill, and I want to thank the hon members for Pietersburg, Umbilo and Parktown for their support of it. Each of them touched upon the essence of the legislation and came to light with what, in fact, it was all about. The hon member for Pietersburg mentioned the fact that we actually concentrated on the aspect of treatment—the hon member for Parktown raised the same argument—and that we took a wider view and no longer thought in terms of the incarceration or detention of patients.

The hon member for Umbilo dealt quite neatly with the question posed in the standing committee, and I do not want to elaborate on that. I want to thank him very sincerely for that explanation.

I appreciate the fact and thank the hon member for Parktown very sincerely for the tribute he paid to a work team which, owing to the overall set-up in the psychiatric field, has a never-ending and very difficult task to perform each and every day. With this Bill today we are not only paying tribute, as the hon member for Parktown expressed it, but we are also expressing the hope that that team will be in a position to do what it is supposed to do. By its very nature that team’s work load is a very extensive and a very heavy one. It goes without saying that from time to time one will have to examine the needs of the staff as and when this appears to be necessary. With these words I merely want to thank hon members once again.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

I should like to associate myself with the words the hon the Minister addressed to our colleague, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. I should also like to extend my own best wishes, and I hope he will be back in this House soon.

I need not say much about the Bill before us, because its purpose is, in my opinion, adequately explained in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill. Suffice it to say that section 45A of the Nursing Act, 1978, empowers the South African Nursing Council to exercise its powers and perform its duties in respect of the nursing profession in the TBVC countries. The Bill before us today only extends the ambit of section 45 so as to include the self-governing territories.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, according to the memorandum on the objects of this Nursing Amendment Bill the self-governing national states are in the process of passing their own nursing legislation to replace the various South African nursing Acts. This means, therefore, that the Nursing Act, under which the South African Nursing Council falls, will no longer be applicable in the relevant self-governing national states unless relevant agreements are concluded between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the governments of the national states. The Bill under discussion also provides for the conclusion of such relevant agreements. I am sure that similar agreements already exist between South Africa and the TBVC countries.

This development accords with the ethnic policy of the CP. It is a further step towards autonomous status for the nursing profession in the relevant states, something which we should like to see unfolding at every level of society, for each people in its own area of jurisdiction. For that reason we support this Bill and shall be voting for it. In fact, we regard it as the ideal pattern according to which health services should generally function in South Africa. Each state ought to accept full control and responsibility for the health of its own citizens. It will be necessary, of course, for inter-state agreements to be concluded to the mutual benefit of neighbouring states—in this case in the field of health.

With these few words I should like to support the Second Reading of this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Pietersburg for his support for this amending Bill. The hon member highlighted the fact that the object of this amending Bill was to extend the scope of the existing Act to such an extent that the SA Nursing Council could also continue to apply its expertise in the self-governing areas. This kind of legislation, which has now become essential, emphasises the extremely important role played, not only by the SA Nursing Council, but also by the nursing profession as such, in furnishing health services. I should therefore also like to pay tribute today to this noblest of all professions, ie the nursing profession. I should like to say in this House that we pay homage to them and tribute to them for the vital task they perform with so much diligence and so much love. We wish the everything of the best. They perform that task 24 hours out of every 24, seven days a week. With these few words I should like to support this amending Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, I should like to tell the hon member for Welkom, who is also a medical practitioner, that I support the feelings he expressed about nursing and the nurses of South Africa. I should like to go even further. As a medical student for six years, and a post-graduate student for five years, I came to know nurses very well, both in the work we were doing…

You are a Barnard, aren’t you!

… and, of course, after working hours. For that reason it gives me the utmost pleasure to support the nursing profession.

To pay them back, eh!

Mr Chairman, I said that I supported this Bill, but after having listened to the reasons why the hon member for Pietersburg supports it, I am not so sure any more. I support it for quite different reasons.

Hon members are familiar with the policy of our party. We advocate one South Africa, one Council and one health service.

And one nurse!

We do not distinguish between germs for White people and germs for Black people. We are familiar with a nursing profession which is completely opposed to fragmentation in our health professions at any level-—on a provincial basis or on the basis of colour or race. So the reason why I am supporting this Bill on behalf of my party is because it will bring order to the profession and place nursing in a position in which nurses can regulate their affairs with the help of others. I only hope the day will soon come in South Africa when nurses—in that connection I cannot agree with the hon the Deputy Minister—can serve one nation as one group with all the expertise, loving care and skill at their disposal.

Mr Chairman, hon members have supported this Bill for various reasons. The fact of the matter is, however, that the Bill is going to be passed, and for that I thank them.

The moment the hon member for Parktown started speaking about the girls he had encountered during his studies, he wandered off the point for a moment. Then he came to light with a little politics, but I do not begrudge him those erstwhile pleasures, nor his present-day ones. [Interjections.]

For this side of the House it is a matter of furnishing the best possible nursing services in Southern Africa. If one furnishes a nursing service of any kind whatsoever, and it is a good service, it knows no boundaries. I reaches across borders, and we would specifically like to see the norms and high standards, which the Nursing Council has jealously guarded, also becoming part of the nursing services beyond our borders. I want to pay tribute to the SA Nursing Council, which is a multiracial council and which does its work very well. It has built up its management skills over the years and is proud of the work it does. For that reason it is also prepared to work in those areas in which a nursing council does not yet exist.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, in this atmosphere of apparent brotherly consensus, I want to move a consensus motion:

Agreed to.