laid upon the Table:

announced that Mr Speaker had in terms of Rule 14(2) placed the Public Safety Amendment Bill [B 80—86 (GA)] and the Internal Security Amendment Bill [B 89—86 (GA)] on the Order Papers of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates for Second Reading.

Mr Chairman, I move the amendments to the Votes 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:

The proposals in the Supplementary Estimate, which have been laid upon the Table entail the making available of funds for the improvement of social pensions and for the Government’s special job creation programme. In respect of the Health Services and Welfare Vote, I mentioned during the Second Reading debate the improvement of social pensions to the amount of R26,568 million which could be negotiated out of the total allocation of R170 million made by the hon Minister of Finance to all population groups.

I shall not reiterate the individual increases which I announced on 17 March 1986. The additional amount of R11,2 million which is being requested comprises the expenditure for job creation allocated to the Administration: House of Assembly by the hon the Minister of Manpower out of a total available amount of R160 million. The respective departments in the administration launch the job creation programme as agents for the Department of Manpower, and if necessary my hon colleague will enter the debate to furnish further information.

Mr Chairman, there are merely a few points which arise from the hon the Minister’s address.

The first point is the question of money which is voted for work creation. I think that will be dealt with in detail when the particular votes come up for discussion. Obviously we approve of money which is being voted for work creation as we in fact asked for it, not only this year but also last year when we could not get it. Therefore we recognise that “the sinner that repenteth” is one that is no doubt welcome and we are happy that this has to some extent been done.

Our difficulty though is that we are not satisfied with the nature of the programmes which are being embarked upon. Our view is that what should take place in South Africa is that there should be work creation on a far greater scale initiated by the Government in order to improve the quality of life of the underprivileged people of South Africa. While we would prefer that the initiative for work creation should come from the private sector and while we would prefer—we will deal with this a little later in some greater detail—that there was a greater degree of confidence on the part of the private sector and that they would invest money in job creation activity, as this apparently is not the case and there is not the adequate stimulation from the Government in order to create that element of confidence, we believe that the Government should play a greater role in job creation in South Africa so that it may become the instrument whereby eventually the private sector takes off.

If that is done and we thus create jobs in which people build their own houses and clinics and lay out their own parks and roads so that they can see for themselves that they are improving their own situation in life, and so that the fruits of their labour are before them, they will have far greater respect for what they have built. There will be far greater pride in what has been provided than there is where part of the programme is not of such a nature.

We support the training aspect of the programme, but we believe that the true essence of assistance to people who are unemployed is that they have work of which they can be proud, that there is dignity in their labour and that they can see the fruits of their labour.

If we do not get the people off the streets and back at work, we are not going to restore stability in South Africa and we will not be able to deal with unrest.

The initiative that has to be taken on expenditure in respect of job creation has to be on a far greater scale than is the case now, because this expenditure is needed in order to restore stability in South Africa. That is why, although we will support the supplementary estimates in regard to the additional amounts to be voted, we do not regard them as being adequate even now, and we actually want them to be directed into another quarter.

The other matter on which I want to touch, and to which as yet there been no satisfactory answer, is the 2% cut. To my mind, this cut is a nonsense and is not actually going to be effective. This has already been indicated by the published expenditure figures for this month. The hon the Minister needs to give us some indication why in the very first month of the new Budget he is the leader in overexpenditure. This House is the leader in overexpenditure. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning should not smile because he is number two when it comes to overexpenditure. [Interjections.] There is competition for the number two spot but the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of this House is without challenge number one in overexpenditure. Now that he is asking for this supplementary budget, he needs to tell the House why he is number one in the Government when it comes to overspending on the Budget with the inclusion of these amounts. It really takes some doing and I feel that the hon the Minister should tell us.

I have never believed the 2%. I think it is an arbitrary situation, that it is not real and that it will never come about. By the time we reach the end of the year the 2% will have become a forgotten element of the whole show. The hon the Minister needs to tell us how the 2% can be reconciled with these figures, how his expenditure during the past month coincides with his planning for the rest of the year and how it ties in with the new cash flow budgeting procedure. The Treasury has told us that we will at last have a cash flow system in South Africa applied to Government expenditure. Cash flow in Government terms, however, means money spent and cash flowing. It does not mean that one actually restrains oneself in regard to those things where one should be restraining oneself.

I think this needs some more explanation on the broad basis of expenditure before we can deal with the details of the individual items.

Mr Chairman, we on the CP side are very grateful for any additional amount we are able to obtain for White own affairs. Hardly two months of the 1987 financial year have elapsed, and here the hon the Minister is already coming forward with a supplementary budget of R37,7 million. Could he not have budgeted better? Was there no ability to force concessions, or must he first have a little pressure exerted on him? What happens these days, of course, is that if pressure is exerted on the Government, whether internally or externally, then it forks out. I do not want to say, though, that if this additional amount is included, the total is R4 874 million for own affairs. The total appropriation is now R38 205 million. The Whites are therefore receiving a mere 12% for own affairs.

That is not true.

It is true.

The Appropriation is not for Whites only.

I am talking about own affairs. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville has already referred to job creation. The hon member referred here to a few matters in connection with job creation. As far as care of the aged is concerned, R100 000 is being budgeted for job creation.

I want to put a question to the hon the Minister and I do not want him to wait until his other hon colleagues have reacted to it before he replies. He must give us a reply now. On two previous occasions I asked the hon the Minister to tell me what he understood by a group, and he did not want to reply to me. He did not want to do so, whether across the floor of the House or in public. [Interjections.] That is why I would be pleased if the hon the Minister would spell out to us how he is going to create further employment. He must not fob it off onto his hon colleagues.

He can explain it in Pietersburg as well.

That would be a very good thing. [Interjections.] In the newspapers yesterday, for example, we read about the terrible distress which is prevailing in the Eastern Cape for example. That is one place in our country where elderly persons and everyone else is suffering. In fact, this is happening throughout the country.

Would the hon the Minister please tell us precisely what is being done in respect of job creation for elderly people in particular, as it is stated here? There is no work in this country, and the Government is responsible for the unsatisfactory economic situation in our country, but we are grateful if they now wish to create employment. However, I do not know precisely what they are going to do with this R100 000, or is it merely a nominal amount which they are indicating there so that they can subsequently come forward with a further supplementary estimate?

The same applies to Votes 3 and 4, under which employment is also going to be created. As far as Education and Culture is concerned, the amount indicated here becomes a transfer payment for job creation. Could the hon the Minister also explain what he is envisaging with that amount of R350 000.

Mr Chairman, let me first of all react to the hon member for Yeoville. He says that in his opinion the Government is not doing enough in connection with the creation of new and additional jobs in South Africa. The amounts reflected here, however, evidently do not tell the whole story. He knows what the total amount is that is involved here. Even that does not tell the whole story though.

Every rand that we invest in decentralisation is also money spent on the creation of jobs. Assistance to farmers is obviously an important ingredient of the whole effort of retaining existing jobs. Therefore quite a large proportion of the total budget is directly or indirectly aimed at the economic stabilisation of South Africa, at ensuring that those people who have jobs will remain employed, and is also—apart from the amount directly involved in relation to this—aimed at the creation of jobs on the short and medium terms.

Therefore, Sir, I cannot agree with the hon member for Yeoville. I do, however, agree with him when he says we are dealing here with one of the greatest problems we have ever had in this regard.

*Hon members may rest assured that the Government is absolutely mindful of ensuring that on the one hand the greatest possible measure of alleviation, and on the other hand direct investment, is brought about in regard to the creation of employment opportunities. But the Government cannot carry out this task on its own. At present a great deal is being said about high liquidity among many institutions. The question of course is also what is being done on the part of the private sector in regard to investment in projects which are of a genuinely job creative nature.

I believe that an exceptional need also exists for the kind of investment which takes place in the private sector, perhaps in view of the present problems, to be directed to a greater extent at job creative activities—of course by the private sector itself.

Furthermore the hon member said that we were already overspending, and that the Administration: House of Assembly was the main culprit when it came to overspending.

We can go into this in greater detail during the Third Reading. I know, also in view of Press reports in this connection, that an hon member is preparing himself thoroughly for this. I do not wish to steal his thunder now because he has worked hard on the preparation of his speech, and I should like to afford him an opportunity to state the facts.

I just want to say one thing briefly. The so-called more than 13% which has already been drawn, includes quite a number of facets. This is not the payment for one month only. It is quite unscientific to deduce from this that there has been overspending.

Firstly I could mention a few facts: All leave bonuses of all officials and teachers that had to be paid between January and March of this year are included in this amount. More than one twelfth of the leave bonuses are therefore included; in fact, four twelfths have been included here. In the same way payments in excess of those made on a purely monthly basis have been made to other institutions that are dependent on us for their cash flow. Transfer payments have been made to universities, technikons, and the provinces in so far as provinces are still involved in own affairs. That is why I say that the hon member’s deduction was quite unscientific.

Last year frequent reports appeared in the newspapers to the effect that this administration was overspending. Eventually hon members will be able to ascertain what the additional appropriation consists of, and how much this department overspent. Hon members will find that no real overspending occurred, but that it was only decided afterwards to incur additional expenditure which, as a result of unforeseen circumstances, could not form part of the original appropriation. That is why I say that the hon member’s argument in this connection had no substance.

I do not want to go into detail about the 2% suspension. I just want to tell the hon member that we are determined to achieve the objective that has been set. We see our way clear to doing this and we are convinced that we will attain that objective, unless absolutely unforeseen circumstances emerge.

I should also like to react to the inquiry made by the hon member for Sunnyside, and to a certain extent by the hon member for Yeoville, on the question of job creation. My colleague the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply made a full statement some time ago on how the largest portion of this amount, namely R2,2 million which falls under him, could be utilised for job creation in Agriculture.

He said inter alia that the tasks for which people could be employed with that money in terms of this programme included the following, namely the construction and repair of smaller conservation works that did not qualify for assistance under the existing scheme; the reservation of land and the planting of drought-resistance fodder crops; the cleaning of irrigation canals; the repair of sub-standard farm roads; minor building works such as labourers’ house; and the combating of proclaimed invader plants and weeds.

As far as the other departments are concerned, there are also certain amounts applicable, as printed in the documents hon members of this Committee have in front of them. As regards the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works, the amount is R50 000 and those funds are to be applied for the cleaning of plots and State-owned property.

The Department of Education and Culture has an amount of R350 000. This is divided up primarily among the education departments. The Transvaal receives R140 000; the Cape, R87 500; Natal, R52 500; and the Orange Free State, also R52 500. Then, too, there is an amount of R17 500 for job creation at State-aided schools. This will be spent mainly on cleaning, the beautification of grounds, and minor repair work.

As regards the Department of Health Services and Welfare, R100 000 is being allocated. There too the money is being used for cleaning and beautification of hospital grounds, as well as the cleaning of buildings and minor repair work.

In the Department of Budget and Auxiliary Services we are also retaining a further amount of R500 000 which has not specifically been allocated, but it is in respect of additional needs in certain programmes on which work is hard in progress at the moment.

The basic pattern is in fact what the hon member for Yeoville asked for, namely that immediate results are achieved by those participating in these programmes. There is immediate beautification and immediate cleaning of what was dirty. What was broken, is being repaired and weeds that once grew prolifically have been eradicated.

In reality, therefore, we are doing precisely what the hon member for Yeoville advocated. In terms of the allocation of funds it is not for us to build major roads and tackle similar schemes; the hon member will simply have to debate this on another occasion. As the hon member knows, we have more to do with education, etc.

As far as housing is concerned, it is true that provision is already being made to a considerable extent in our Budget for economic and subeconomic housing. As the hon member knows, this is made available at low interest rates to town and city councils, which basically launch the schemes themselves. The city councils receive money and share in this pool, which provides job creation. It is they who have to utilise that money in that sphere.

Vote No 1—“Health Services and Welfare”:

Mr Chairman, I should like to discuss programme 4 of this Vote with the hon the Minister. It deals with the care of the handicapped, for which a supplementary amount of just over R4 million has been requested, thereby bringing the total amount in this regard to R90 million.

The amount of R90 million may seem to be very high, but the extent of the treatment and the costs involved in the care of the handicapped are enormous. It has been estimated that it costs more than R1 million to rehabilitate a quadruplegic today. The total amount in this regard is therefore only enough to cover the costs of 90 quadruplegics. Consequently I should like to make a particular appeal to the hon the Minister, during this Year of the Disabled, to do everything possible in financial terms to help these people.

There is an interesting publication on the rehabilitation of the disabled and this particular problem was discussed in the March issue.

†In the editorial, The Year of Disabled Persons by Mr J H Dillman the importance of this problem is stressed in its opening paragraph. I quote him where he says:

*The care and rehabilitation of the handicapped is clearly set out in this article. South Africa’s problems were once more brought home to one in yesterday’s newspapers. We saw and read about people’s despicable reactions, and realised what people could do to one another.

I do not know whether hon members watched a television programme yesterday afternoon about three boys who received a severe shock from an overloaded power line at Swartvlei about a year ago. I wonder whether hon members saw what had happened to these boys as a result of the electrocution. Two of them lost an arm and one lost an arm and a leg. Since we are discussing the handicapped, I want to point out that this television programme paid tribute to what people were capable of doing. I, as a medical practitioner and a member of the group working towards their rehabilitation, watched how the State President gave recognition to one of those boys for his braveness in that programme. The depiction of the rehabilitation of those three boys through the co-operation of their parents, relatives, the people in their area and all the doctors and paramedical staff who assisted them, was like a ray of light to me to give me hope for what we can do to rehabilitate our fellow human beings in this country with its hatred, problems and devastation.

It was important for me to observe the role of the various disciplines in this rehabilitation programme, the surgeon, the nurses etc. Did hon members listen to that nurse? I wish we could see her on television every day. To watch her speaking to people and to see her enthusiasm and the way in which she spoke was quite an experience. Together with the occupational therapists, physiotherapists and all the other people concerned, she went to work like a weaver putting together that garment of rehabilitation which enabled those boys to make a comeback. Hon members must realise that when we are dealing with the handicapped, we do not look at what they have lost, but at what they still have, and we build on that.

I therefore make an appeal to the hon the Minister who has requested an additional R4 million, not to forget the people who render paramedical services, because they also need financial aid. They are unhappy, Sir. Hon members need only to listen to this letter which I received. I have already forwarded a copy of the letter to the hon the Minister. It reads as follows:

They are professional people after all; they are not technicians. The letter goes on to state:

She wants to improve her qualification. I read further:

The final paragraph reads:

†I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister and to the Government to realise that paramedical services are essential for the development and the rehabilitation of the disabled in South Africa. We cannot do without them because they are absolutely necessary. Those three boys we saw on television yesterday recovered because of what I thought was a miracle made possible by modern medicine and men and women who still have the compassion to serve their fellow human beings.

*I believe that that programme called on the hon the Minister to accord recognition to the people who make such rehabilitation possible and to make every possible effort to obtain more money to improve the important role which they play in the rehabilitation process as well as their own circumstances.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare said in the discussion on the Main Budget that there was not enough money available for the old hospital at Kuruman, which is adjacent to the old age home and which has been converted beautifully by the ACVV so that it can be used for the care of the infirm aged. I now want to ask the hon the Minister whether he cannot use money from the supplementary estimate to make this fine project, launched by the Kuruman ACVV under the leadership of Tannie Drien Combrinck, possible. The hospital is situated right next to the old age home, and I want to ask whether the infirm aged—there is a great demand for the accommodation of infirm aged people in that region—cannot be accommodated in the old hospital. I therefore ask whether it is possible for the hon the Minister to assist them with money from the supplementary estimate.

Mr Chairman, I support the plea of the hon member for Kuruman wholeheartedly. The need does not exist only there, however, since there are many infirm aged people throughout our country. It is true that we do not want all aged people to go to homes and that, as far as possible, they should stay with their children. It happens, however, that parents can no longer stay with their children because of adversity, because they become weaker, or because, for example, they have strokes. This makes it impossible for those children or relatives to take further care of the old people. It is absolutely imperative that those people be taken care of. There are too few institutions such as hospitals which are prepared to care for such infirm aged people.

Many of the old age homes—I have a thousand aged people in my constituency— do not admit aged people when they have become invalids. There are two old age homes in my constituency which each have more than 500 people on a waiting list. Once a person has had a stroke, however, he is not admitted to such an old age home. I want to associate myself with the hon member for Kuruman and ask the hon the Minister whether more cannot be done for such aged people. They made South Africa into the fine country it is today, one in which we can live good lives.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare will see that a sum of R19,75 million has been set aside for the care of the aged. This is quite a sizeable sum because it accounts for approximately half of the increase that has to be voted today.

It is very interesting to look at the percentage increase. When one looks at the pattern that is being followed year after year one finds that the increase as a percentage is actually getting smaller and smaller. I can remember when the previous Minister of Finance made the point that social old age pensions had kept pace with the rate of inflation, and that was true. However, when one looks at the situation in recent years one finds that it is no longer true. The increase in the social old age pension has been less than the increase in the consumer price index.

I think that we have to accept it as a realistic fact that the scope for improvement is becoming less and less. This is partly the result of economic conditions and partly because of the need to equalise pensions among the various race groups. This begins to reduce the scope that one has for increasing White pensions.

I know that the hon the Minister will say that it is a supplementary allowance, and he is absolutely correct in this. The social old-age pension is a supplementary allowance, but for too many people it unfortunately becomes the major part of their income. In South Africa today we are suffering because we have delayed establishing some sort of national pension dispensation. The hon member for Paarl, who is the chairman of the committee that is examining this matter, knows that even if Parliament passed a Bill tomorrow which required everyone to contribute towards a pension fund, it would be years before the problem was actually sorted out. If salaries stayed constant, it would be at least 10 years before the average person received a pension equal to the present social old-age pension.

I am glad that the hon the Minister of the Budget is present. We have to look at more imaginative forms of financing pensions, such as the United Kingdom’s “granny bond” scheme designed for retired people in particular. The interest rate on such a bond rises with the inflation rate, and there is a limit. It helps those people who have tried to provide for their retirement. Those who have retired recently will know the problem which this tries to combat. A year ago the interest rate on a participation mortgage bond was from 22% to 24%. Today it is 15%. The income earned from these bonds has declined by a third, and so, with the best will in the world, retired people who have invested in them have to look to the social pension to supplement their income.

There is another measure which I would like both hon Ministers to consider. We have a limited ability to continue to improve White social old-age pensions because of the economic conditions in South Africa and the need to equalise pensions. It is one thing to grant a R16 monthly increase to a few people, but it is another matter entirely when such an increase applies to 750 000 people.

We must look at something like the old bonus bond scheme. However, instead of a bonus bond scheme which is used for defence purposes, we should get a bonus bond scheme which is used for social welfare and the care of the aged in particular. I think it is wrong that we do not look after these people, but I can accept that it is becoming more and more difficult. If we actually gave society the opportunity to contribute towards looking after the aged and the disabled—my colleague the hon member for Parktown spoke about this—I am sure that there would be a tremendous response from the public of South Africa. Something like the old bonus bond scheme, but geared towards welfare needs, will get tremendous support.

Mr Chairman, let me eliminate any misunderstanding about the amount in the supplementary estimate for care of the aged, care of the handicapped and child welfare right at the outset. This is being budgeted only to make provision for the increase in pensions. With that as our point of departure, we must accept that unfortunately this money cannot be spent, as the hon member for Parktown requested, on the improvement of facilities for the care of the handicapped. No matter how dearly we want to do so, that is definitely not the purpose for which these amounts are contained in the supplementary estimate.

I have great respect for the programme to which the hon member referred. I watched it myself, and found it moving. I am proud of being part of a team which could reach such a degree of rehabilitation in respect of those children.

As far as the question of the increase in the salaries of occupational therapists and other paramedic staff is concerned, I want to tell the hon member for Parktown that this is the subject of a structural inquiry by the Commission for Administration at present. In due course …

Mr Chairman, is it at all possible for the hon the Minister to give us an indication of when the final decision will be taken in this connection? People have problems, and they are deeply worried.

Mr Chairman, I regret that I cannot anticipate the period this will take. I really have no idea when the Commission for Administration will conclude its inquiry. It is conducting an in-depth inquiry, however. That is all I can say on the topic at this stage. Such matters are usually urgent, and the Commission for Administration regards it in this light.

The hon member for Kuruman argued that we should use the old hospital in Kuruman … Where is the hon member for Kuruman?

He had to leave urgently. We shall convey the reply to him. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I visited the old hospital in Kuruman myself, and acquainted myself with what has been done there. I also told the people involved, however, that there is no money to subsidise the place at the moment. Unfortunately this will have to suffice. If the hon member were here, I could have replied to him in greater depth.

†Mr Chairman, the hon member for Edenvale said the increases in pensions were diminishing year after year.

Percentagewise.

Yes, perfectly correct. Pension increases are diminishing. That is owing to the financial position in which we find ourselves. There is no other reason for this. We are certain that nobody is satisfied that the amounts we pay monthly by way of pensions can be considered as sufficient for those people. We would dearly love to pay them more but owing to the stringent financial measures at the moment we simply cannot do so. I should like to stress, too, that we have never ever based our increases on the index of the cost of living. We simply cannot afford to do so. Moreover, if we had done that, and the cost of living came down in a particular year, it would mean that pensions would have to be lowered. That is certainly one thing we do not want to do. Whenever our finances allow us to do so we increase these pensions.

The hon member for Edenvale also referred to bonus bonds. Perhaps he is aware of the experience we had with bonus bonds. The Government ultimately decided that it was not in favour of the principle involved, and bonus bonds were abolished altogether. That then is my reply to the hon member for Edenvale.

Mr Chairman, let me make it quite clear that I am personally not wildly enthusiastic about pensions and those sorts of things being own affairs. The situation at the moment, however, is such that they are an own affair. I want to ask the hon the Minister, therefore, whether he has in fact given any thought to resuscitating the concept which the Government itself used to have, and which we in this party have been trying for years to persuade them to adopt again, namely to have a contributory pension scheme for White communities. I think it was in the late 1970s or early 1980s that the Government attempted to put the idea of such a scheme across. It was thinking in terms of a full contributory pension scheme among various employers so that pensions could be transferred from one employer to another when people changed jobs. Because of the resistance, however, on the part of particularly the Black community the whole idea was ultimately abandoned. It is quite obvious, Sir, that the time is coming—in the not too distant future—when the Government will find it utterly impossible to meet pension demands from the revenue it receives. As the pension systems have been separated among the various communities, does the hon the Minister not think there could be some merit in this? Insofar as the Whites are concerned does he not think we should have a compulsory transferable pension fund organisation set up for them? If we do not do that, people are going to suffer in due course. Many people do not even have the option of transferring their pensions when they change jobs. For this reason I wonder whether the hon the Minister would perhaps give some serious consideration to bringing such a scheme into being.

Mr Chairman, in reply to the request of the hon member for Umbilo, I can tell him that I am in the fortunate position of not having to make that decision. That decision has already been made by my predecessor. At the moment there is a joint committee investigating such a possibility, under the chairmanship of the hon member for Paarl. They are investigating the possibility of a provident or contributory pension scheme. The committee is still busy with its work. We hope that they will complete their work and then we will take a look at their recommendations.

Mr Chairman, with due respect, the hon the Minister is quite right. I am aware of such a committee. However, from what I have been able to read about that matter, and according to the opinions of the chairman of that committee, he does not seem to be very enthusiastic about implementing such a scheme. In fact, I read in the paper only the other day that at some pension fund meeting he indicated quite clearly that he did not have a great deal of enthusiasm for such a scheme. Therefore I do believe that, whether there is a committee investigating the matter or not, the hon the Minister could make a meaningful input if he felt it was justified.

Mr Chairman, again in reply to the hon member for Umbilo, I should like to point out that I think it is up to him to make a meaningful input in respect of this committee, if what he says about the attitude of the chairman of this committee is correct. He should go and tell him where he gets off if he does not agree with him. I think the hon member for Umbilo is quite capable of doing so.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 2—“Agriculture and Water Supply”:

I notice that under the hon the Minister’s Vote an additional amount has been voted under programme 9 for job creation. Programme 9 is “Associated and Auxiliary Services”. Looking at this programme, I would imagine that the level of manpower used for most of the functions under this programme is fairly high. There are, for example, chemical services and datametric services. The only area where I could see jobs being created, is under maintenance services and minor works. The question I want to put to the hon the Minister is this: Does he foresee the employment of additional staff to do jobs which have perhaps fallen behind in this area? The second thing I would like to put to the hon the Minister is that in my experience where money has in the past been available for this, all too often the impression is given that, although it is necessary to create the jobs, the money is not well spent. I would like to give the hon the Minister an example. I have seen gangs clearing the bush. They go through an area or water course and clear the bush, but it does not have a permanent effect at all. The next year, despite having spent all that money and those jobs having been created, the undergrowth, brush and lantana, or whatever it was that was cleared, is back there again. I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether this is where he intends spending the money and whether he is satisfied that, once the money is spent, it is actually going to have some lasting benefit.

Mr Chairman, the hon member is quite right. That is the only programme under which we could budget for job creation. It is mostly unemployed persons who are used here, most of whom are either Coloured or Black people.

May I just reiterate what my colleague said when he spelt out the different tasks that may be done under this programme of job creation. These are, inter alia: The construction and repair of minor conservation works that do not qualify for assistance under existing financial schemes. These conservation works are very important. Others are the preparation of soil and the planting of drought-resistant fodder crops; the cleaning of irrigation canals; the repair of minor farm roads; and smaller building works such as housing for labourers, which is also a very important aspect. The farmer will now be allowed to make use of unemployed persons to build his own housing in terms of our loan scheme. Then there is also the control of proclaimed invader plants and weeds. There are still other components as well, but these are the main ones.

The hon member also asked me about the maintenance of works that fall under this scheme. I think this is a relevant point that he has made and I would suggest that we ask our extension officers to monitor this work. I think that is crucial, and I shall see to it that our regional offices are informed of this so that they can monitor the various jobs that are being done under this job creation scheme.

Mr Chairman, it is a fact that as a result of the drought etc certain areas in the Bushveld regions are experiencing tremendous bush encroachment. Would farmers now receive assistance in order to control this bush encroachment chemically as well? Would this assistance be provided for by this revised Budget?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sunnyside is quite right. Under this scheme he is entitled to apply for a maximum of ten labourers. The control of bush encroachment is one of the functions that he could carry out.

I only want to say that on a small scale chemical control is not very successful. There are other methods which farmers employ, especially when using a gang of labourers, which are more effective. The farmers in that region know about them and they are already using them, especially in the Molopo region and in the region where the hon member himself owns a farm. It is true that they are entitled to use that labour for bush clearing.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 3—“Education and Culture”:

Mr Chairman, it appears that provision has been made here for additional expenditure to an amount of R350 000 and that those funds are for the purpose of job creation. Reading through Programme 8—“Associated and Supporting Services”—which covers a very wide and extensive field, one gains the impression that the R350 000 which has been allocated for job creation will be for the provision of jobs in terms of an extension of the bureaucracy which exists in the hon the Minister’s department for the provision of all the services which are set out in Programme No 8. They are very extensive and I do not want to read them all. However, it says that it is for supporting educational services, setting up and exercising control over standards of education, and planning courses, syllabuses, examination and educational facilities and aids. In the second paragraph it deals with researching and planning physical facilities regarding sites, accommodation norms, buildings and equipment. As far as the last two words—subsidy formulae—are concerned, these pertain to promoting education and training in general, the evaluation of teaching staff, the provision of audio-visual means of education and the conducting of examinations on a very wide scale. As we know, the hon the Minister of the Budget is involved with the work which the hon the Minister of Education and Culture is doing. As we also know, a number of pieces of legislation are in the pipeline which will set up …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: We are now discussing a supplementary appropriation and I should like to know whether you are not of the opinion that the debate should be limited to the additional amounts being requested.

Mr Chairman, that is what I am dealing with.

Order! The hon the Minister has asked me to give a ruling. The hon member for Bryanston must at least give me an opportunity to do that! Obviously one expects that hon members will confine themselves to a discussion of the additional amounts being requested and the purposes for which they are going to be used. However, it has become the practice that the discussion is not confined too strictly to that matter. I do not want to limit hon members too much in their discussion, but I would appreciate it if they would confine their contributions to the additional amounts and the purpose for which they are being requested. The hon member for Bryanston may proceed.

Sir, I thought I was succeeding very well in that regard! What I was trying to indicate, was that it is simply stated here that R350 000 is going to be provided under programme 8, “Associated and supporting services”, and that that R350 000 would be utilised for additional job creation. In my view those jobs must be created because of the bureaucracy which exists in the department concerned because that bureaucracy is charged with a thousand and one responsibilities. I can speak until the cows come home about what should and what should not be done in this regard!

That is an agricultural matter!

I do not know why the hon the Minister gets so excited. He gets very nervous indeed when one moves close to things concerning his department. [Interjections.] I have a suspicion why he is getting so nervous but it is not my intention to say much about that. I wanted to deal with matters relating to the department of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture who is trying to hide away behind various things which he is setting up in front of him. [Interjections.]

I want to ask very sincerely whether the hon the Minister is prepared to share with us some of his views on the provision of complementary educational equipment such as audiovisual equipment, computers and video equipment—both the hardware and the software—which fall within his field. I particularly want to address the hon the Minister on this matter in view of an unfortunate development. Because of the fragmented educational structure we have in South Africa, we have a situation where every department is doing its own thing in a field in which there should be very close co-operation and a co-ordination of efforts.

Allow me to give an example in this regard. When one looks at these particular systems of educational support, one finds that, for instance, the Coloured Department of Education has its own set-up. The White Department of Education in the Cape Province has its own set-up, while the people in the Transvaal are working in another direction. Every university has its own set-up, and in the private sector there are a number of organisations which are also working on projects of this nature.

Let us discuss the position with regard to hardware first. One has a situation today where the format which is used, both for computer hardware and software and for video hardware and software, is not the same. Different departments use different formats. It simply means that because of that the use to which the products can be put is narrowed. The Department of Education and Training are for instance standardising on an 8 mm format of video tape, but not one of the other departments is standardising on that format. The Cape standardises on, I think a “VHS” ,75 inch format of tape. Other organisations use other formats for both their hardware and their software. The cost-effectiveness of those systems is therefore severely reduced by the fact that a product which is produced for one department cannot be used for all the other departments.

Let us say the educational programme that we are talking about is mathematics for matric, then certainly mathematics for matric, physical science or biology does not differ in terms of the norms and the standards of the field that is covered—or it should not differ—for all the various education departments, but if a standard set of programmes is made to support that education, it cannot be used for all the matriculants in South Africa, or even in Southern Africa. It can then only be used for a restricted number of matriculants and therefore the cost per capita or the cost per pupil of acquiring the equipment and acquiring and producing the software is so much higher.

What I am pleading for is that in this particular field of education it should be the case for education as a whole, because after all we have decided that the norms and standards for curricula for education, for examination and certification, should be standardised as far as is possible for all the people of South Africa. That is a decision which we have taken. It is enshrined in the law. However, particularly in this field, when one is talking about the technological support services for education, there is no reason whatsoever why there should be any differences between departments and why there should be separate services, all duplicating one another’s work at tremendous cost, waste of time and energy. There should not be separate services for the separate departments. I would like to …

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

Mr Chairman, I am only half way.

Mr Chairman, I have a couple of points to raise with the hon the Minister dealing with the administration of the education department. I am wondering whether the hon the Minister is yet in a position to indicate whether there will be an executive member in the provinces who will be handling the provincial aspects of education.

Order! May I ask the hon member whether he is not perhaps taking the debate far beyond the scope of this supplementary appropriation?

Mr Chairman, with due respect, I do not think I am, because there is money here on the estimates and I am not making a big issue of it. I am trying to find out whether in fact there will be an executive member in each province who will be looking after the affairs of the Minister in that province and whether some of the money that is going to be spent will in fact be used for that purpose.

Not all of it.

Not all of it, naturally. If there is to be such an executive member then it would be appreciated if we knew that that was to be part of the system, because we are still a little vague on that.

Another point that I noticed in the estimates of revenue is that there is nothing yet about the revenue that the parents are going to have to pay into schools. I do not suppose it would come in here anyway, but I was wondering in this regard whether the hon the Minister could give an indication as to when this is likely to be brought into effect.

The third point I would like to make is the question of consultation in the new educational set-up which the hon the Minister handles. The parents are to a very large degree to be brought into consultations on all matters related to White education. I have recently had a letter sent to me by the Parents’ Association of Natal. Quite frankly, as far as I can see, the NRP member of the executive in Natal is being blamed as much as anybody else in this regard, and I am rather ashamed to have to say so. I am ashamed to say so because he should not have allowed these matters to be processed without their having been properly discussed. In any case, although the new system has laid down very clear guidelines as to what is to be done, these people feel that they are being ignored. So I am hoping that under the new set-up the hon the Minister will be able to ensure that the directors of education in all of the provinces will, in fact, comply with the intentions and discuss matters with these parents’ associations because they play a particularly important role in the new method of running schools.

One thing that is particularly important is that they be given an opportunity to discuss new legislation. In respect of the creation of the regional committees, for example, they have consistently objected to these bodies as they regard them as expensive and unnecessary. Yet they have not even been given a reasonable answer as to why they are, in fact, necessary. Furthermore, in the correspondence I have received from them, these associations have indicated that they believe that the new system is causing a bigger split than even the one that existed in the past between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking parents in the same school. I am hoping that, with the new administration and all the money he is getting for it, the hon the Minister will be able to see to it that this sort of thing does not prevail and that the parents will be properly consulted. By that I certainly do not mean the usual NP method of consultation, namely: “This is what we are going to do, and we are telling you.”

Mr Chairman, I find the remarks of the hon member for Umbilo rather ironic considering it was his party’s MEC and his party’s provincial council that in fact declined to consult with the parents in Natal.

I admitted it.

As regards the supplementary budget, I should like to pose three direct questions to the hon the Minister. As the hon the Minister of the Budget mentioned, this has to do with job creation. My first question to the hon the Minister is whether the Government has finalised the relationship between the technical colleges and the provincial education departments. Are these going to be combined? After all, job creation will be part of the technical colleges.

Secondly, I should like to know whether the relationship between schools for the disabled and the provincial education departments has been finalised. I understand ongoing investigations are being carried out and I should like to know whether any time limit has been set in that regard. [Interjections.]

My third question has to do with the sum of money itself. I trust the hon the Minister has taken into consideration that the regulations he has laid down in respect of private schools make it quite possible for a large number of private schools to receive the 45% subsidy. Has the hon the Minister made, or does he intend to make, financial provision for all those schools which could receive the 45% subsidy to in fact receive it?

Mr Chairman, since additional funds are being requested, I should like to put a question to the hon the Minister in connection with the future implementation of the task of education in the respective provinces.

Divided control in education has often been the topic of discussion in the past. Certain schools were transferred to the provincial authorities by the Educational Services Act of 1967. A great deal was said at the time about how there would be less divided education.

I realise the department could not bring these things about overnight. I understand that, and I do not expect absolute uniformity between the four provincial education services—I do not know what we are going to call them in future—but I do think there is an opportunity to eliminate quite a bit of duplication.

One has great appreciation for the services rendered by the respective provincial administrations through the years, but there were often differences as well. I remember that one of the provinces decided to go ahead with the three-term school system when this question was discussed. For practical reasons the other provinces were not in favour of doing so. That one province, with a stubborn administrator, proceeded with the three-term system, and today they are also using the system of four terms although they do not call it that. I mention that just in passing.

Where there are differences which have not been caused by educational reasons, they must be eliminated. They cause problems for parents and pupils who have to move from one province to another. There are such cases, and I hope these unnecessary differences which are not the result of educational reasons, will be eliminated in future. I really trust the hon the Minister and his department will make an in-depth enquiry to eliminate all those unnecessary differences since there is central control now. Each education department has an own education bureau at the moment, for example, where research and so on is done. I do not think it necessary for us to have four research centres in the country to carry out investigations. After all, we are still living in the same country, and I do not think it is even necessary or desirable for such differences to exist.

In conclusion I want to ask what the future of pre-primary education in this country will be. I have no clarity on that matter because in the past the four provinces applied that policy as it suited them or as they were capable of doing so. I should like to know whether an enquiry is being instituted so that certain guidelines can be determined in respect of pre-primary education, also as far as the training of teachers is concerned. It would not be fair to give rise to an over-supply of trained teachers for whom there are no posts. That is why there should be a correlation between the number of teachers who are needed and the number of people who are being trained.

Mr Chairman, I am not questioning your judgement, but you allowed the debate to range far and wide. I should like to point out as far as the discussion of my Vote is concerned, that the following is indicated very clearly in the supplementary estimate: “Presentation according to programme 8—Associated and Supporting Services: Job Creation”. What this amounts to is that my department agreed to make an amount of R350 000 available for possible work creation for the unemployed in the difficult economic situation we are experiencing.

Three or four hon members took part in the discussion of the Vote. I listened to each one’s arguments, but with great respect, I want to say I cannot reply to any of those arguments except to say that the R350 000 is being utilised only for the creation of posts to combat general unemployment. For my part, I should have liked to have made a contribution of up to R350 000 in my department, via the respective provinces as the hon the Minister of the Budget indicated, to make that additional job creation possible in the present difficult economic climate. The arguments raised by the hon members for Welkom, Umbilo, Bryanston and Pinetown are therefore, with great respect, not relevant here.

I listened to and agree with a number of the arguments raised by hon members. All I can say is that I shall consider them, and if hon members want to have any further discussions with me, they must feel free to do so, but since this does not fall within the purview of this Vote, I am not going to react to them now.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I could not quite complete my argument in the previous 10 minutes I had to speak. What I wanted to suggest was that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, who is going to have an additional amount at his disposal, should utilise part of it to launch an inquiry into creating an organisation which would place all aspects of supportive educational services, based on the use of the computer and video systems and so on, on a co-ordinated basis for all the education departments in South Africa. In this way the duplication of similar efforts would be eliminated and the waste of time and the associated waste of money would be prevented. All efforts must therefore be made to place the provision of those services on the most cost-effective basis. I think that can only be done with the assistance of an effective inquiry, and the hon the Minister can use some of the funds at his disposal for this purpose. There are many White teachers who have no work at the moment.

I should like to refer briefly to two other matters. The other day I spoke about the desirability of having a more effective basis for the planning of the positioning of schools. There should be an integrated town planning so that the provision of all facilities such as sports fields, libraries, swimming pools, parks and so on, as well as the layout of roads, and traffic control can make up part of the planning for the positioning of schools. This was definitely not the case in the past, and perhaps there is an opportunity for this now.

Another matter I want to discuss is the training of teachers. I made a suggestion in this connection the other day, but the hon the Minister did not reply to it. I said White teachers who are not working at present can make a large contribution to supporting Black teachers who are trying to upgrade their educational qualifications.

We are dealing with own affairs!

These are White own affairs!

We are dealing with White own affairs, since it is in the Whites’ interests that the Blacks’ teachers be well-trained.

There are White schools and Black schools and therefore White teachers and Black teachers in every town and every area in South Africa. The qualifications of the Black teachers must be upgraded if we want to make progress in the improvement of education in South Africa.

Order! I think the hon member is digressing very widely now.

Mr Chairman, if only you would listen to me …

I am listening very attentively!

I am coming to the point. The point is that there are White teachers in each area of South Africa who are not in service at the moment. They can be used effectively to assist Black teachers in upgrading the qualifications of the latter. [Interjections.] The funds can therefore be utilised productively and effectively to assist those people and in this way to uplift education in South Africa in general and also to create better race relations.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister a direct question so that he at least has something to answer. R350 000 is being set aside for job creation. I see from the initial programmes of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture that job creation was not part of his departmental budget. Who is going to administer this amount, how will it be utilised and how was the amount of R350 000 arrived at?

Mr Chairman, I am sorry that the hon the Minister chose to adopt the attitude he did. The connection between our questions and the Budget Vote under discussion was perhaps tenuous, but they were nevertheless legitimate questions. One cannot help but feel that the answer the hon the Minister gave to my question, amounted to no answer at all. I feel that this was an affront to a member of Parliament, because my questions were legitimate. The hon the Minister’s attitude indicates that he has surpassed in arrogance his mentors who have been in the Cabinet longer than he has.

I hope therefore that the hon the Minister will take the opportunity of answering some questions at some stage. Of course, it could also be that he is incompetent to answer them!

Mr Chairman, I do not know whether I understood the hon the Minister correctly. If he said that my statements in connection with the funds requested for this service were actually not relevant, I want to disagree somewhat for the simple reason that if services are duplicated, this leads to greater expenditure.

Amie, whose side are you on?

There are many interprovincial committees. [Interjections.]

I am talking about the merits of the case; this does not concern politics.

Amie is right!

At the moment there are many interprovincial committees that have in fact attempted to introduce greater uniformity because there were different departments which were controlled by different members of executive committees. In all fairness I want to ask, because this matter is now under the authority of the hon the Minister and his department, whether it would be possible and whether the hon the Minister and his department were disposed to undertake an investigation to eliminate those services which in fact entail unnecessary expense and to introduce greater uniformity where possible, so that this will not cause hardship to people who move from one province to another. I think this is a fair question. My request is logical.

It is a good question!

Mr Chairman, I am sorry if the hon member for Umbilo feels that I was impolite to him. That is not the case, and I certainly do not want to dodge my responsibilities either. [Interjections.] However, I cannot make it any clearer than I already have.

Are you going to answer the question?

To all the hon members who spoke about this, including the hon member for Welkom, I want to say that as regards the R350 000 which is under discussion, this involves the Government’s endeavour with due regard to the economic problems we are faced with, to employ unemployed persons who do not qualify for unemployment insurance in order to overcome the economic problem they are experiencing. Consequently it is purely concerned with the creation of employment for people who are in economic trouble and unemployed.

The arguments raised by hon members do not concern this directly, although of course they have something to do with my department. That is why I said that I was taking cognisance of this and would look into it. If we can we will comply with these requests as far as possible. If we consider certain investigations to be necessary, as proposed by the hon member for Welkom, we will undertake them, but that is not at issue in this debate.

The hon member for Bryanston asked the only question which was applicable here.

The hon member for Pinetown!

No, I am referring to the hon member for Bryanston. He asked whether a part of the R350 000 could not be used additionally for some purpose or other. My reply to that is no; because this amount was specifically made available for the creation of employment within this framework I have already explained. Consequently I cannot use some of that amount to finance any other matter.

The first argument of the hon member concerned video recordings and so on. Many of these were correct. I agree with many of these things, but I cannot use this money for that purpose. That is not what this debate is about.

I want yet again to tell the hon member, as well as other hon members—inter alia the hon member for Welkom who represents the constituency next to mine—that the arguments they raised with regard to specific matters had nothing to do with the R350 000 in the supplementary appropriation. For that reason I am not replying to them, although I have taken cognisance of what was said.

Mr Chairman, with due respect, I listened to the hon the Minister again, and I should like to suggest that if he had known the answers to the questions which we put, he could have answered them in half the time that it took him to tell us why he did not answer the questions. I cannot help but feel that he is splitting hairs by saying that the R350 000 does not involve the issues which were raised. If administrative expenses are included in that amount—we are perfectly well aware that it is for the creation of job opportunities and the like—then why did the hon the Minister not answer the hon member for Pinetown in chapter, verse and detail as he asked?

I did.

Well, I did not hear it anyway.

Mr Chairman, could the hon the Minister please answer the direct question I asked him about the R350 000? How did he arrive at this amount, and how does he intend to spend it?

Mr Chairman, that is a fair question, and I apologise to the hon member.

In the first place the department made an estimate and ascertained where we could employ unemployed persons and where there was a possibility of vacancies. We took that information and after we had held discussions with the different provinces, we decided on an amount of R350 000 which we felt we could spend by employing people at schools to help in various spheres, for example the maintenance of pavements or athletics tracks, etc. [Interjections.] That is how we calculated that amount. It was not determined precisely who was going to administer it, but it is going to be administered by the various provincial authorities that will report back on them later.

Mr Chairman, I also want to ask a question. I do not object to the hon the Minister employing unemployed persons, but are these people to whom he has referred Whites?

Mr Chairman, that is a fair question. We will not only employ Whites. If we can provide work to Blacks, Indians or Coloureds who are unemployed, and can do a specific job at White schools or elsewhere, we will employ them. Of course there are also people of colour in the service of the administration at the moment. This is not only an administration for the providing of employment for Whites. There are also many labourers working at schools, as the hon member himself knows. Consequently the idea is not that we will employ unemployed teachers at the White schools, but other workers.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister to explain to me how he reconciles the fact that it is an own affair to employ Blacks in order to give relief to unemployed persons in a department which is the own affair of Whites—which, by the way, I agree with and I am happy that he is doing it although the amount is insignificant—but that it cannot be an own affair to use the empty classrooms in White schools in order to accommodate Black children? Will the hon the Minister please explain the difference between those two issues? We agree with him on the one point, but then he must be logical and consistent and allow the classrooms to be used for that purpose.

Mr Chairman, I find this question of the hon member for Yeoville interesting. Over the years there have been people of colour in the employ of the education departments, not as regards education, but as cleaners, etc. [Interjections.] The hon member never spoke about that.

That is not an own affair.

But the hon member never argued about that. Now he suddenly comes along and argues about it with reference to the supplementary amount. I honestly do not think it is necessary to react further to this.

Mr Chairman, with great respect to the hon the Minister, let us try to get to the reality of what own affairs are. Own affairs is a farce. I shall tell you why, Sir. It is because under the Vote of the own affairs Department of Agriculture and Water Supply we have White housewives teaching Black people as part of a work relief programme. Under the own affairs Education and Culture Vote we have White schools helping Black unemployed …

Correct.

Absolutely correct! So, the reality is that own affairs is a meaningless phrase in this context. It is quite obvious that this is not an own affair. It is a general affair. [Interjections.] The whole concept of own affairs in this regard is a farce! [Interjections.]

Order!

The reality is that we in this party have never objected to people of all colours being employed in schools. Far from it! That has never been the case. The hon the Minister seems to forget that own affairs is a relatively new invention in South Africa. We never used to have this concept before. I want this hon Minister— and he cannot run away from it—to tell us why this can be done—perhaps the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning can help him—which we regard as laudable and proper, while, at the same time, empty classrooms which are available cannot be used for teaching people who are members of another race group, or even an empty school as a whole. There is absolutely no logic in this. It simply does not make sense. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to make it clear to the hon the Minister that in the difficult financial circumstances in which we are living today, we in this party are the last people who would want there to be unemployment in a single one of the population groups in the country. This includes all the population groups.

Particularly considering the fact that we have a minimum of own affairs as far as education is concerned, I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister. I am also doing so in view of reports in the weekend newspapers in connection with very great poverty among Whites. I want to ask him in the division of this money to give specific attention to those parts of the White community in which there are really great concern and great needs.

I believe that in those parts of the White community we must specifically try to do two things. On the one hand we must try to ascertain whether there are Whites in the surrounding areas who may be quite satisfied to do lowly jobs. We must then try to use them for this work. In the second place, we must try to ascertain whether there are not families whose children are perhaps looking for additional work to supplement the family’s income.

As far as our own schools are concerned, we can apply the entire principle of personal initiative and of self-dependent labour. I believe that we must ascertain whether we cannot use some of this money to meet needs connected with financial problems in particular. On the other hand we must apply the entire principle of self-dependent labour in practice.

Mr Chairman, as far as I am concerned, the hon member for Rissik’s request is a perfectly fair one. If, particularly in those areas, there are Whites who are in trouble and who apply to schools or elsewhere to do those lowly jobs, obviously we will give very sympathetic consideration to this. This possibly also applies—and this is a more difficult matter—to children who may want to earn an additional income. Hon members will realise that this causes a fair amount of problems. But in general I have absolutely no difficulty with the request of the hon member for Rissik. Consequently I want to tell the hon member that we will definitely give sympathetic consideration to this.

In conclusion I just want to tell the hon member for Yeoville that the entire matter of job creation in this situation transcends general boundaries and does not deal with only one of the respective population groups. Because we also want to render this service in the general context, we thought that under our circumstances it would fit in more easily under programme 8. In terms of programme 8 we will consequently also be able to deal with this kind of job creation— for example for Coloureds and Indians and even Blacks. I would say we are actually acting as an agent for the Department of Manpower. That is actually the idea. Consequently I feel that we are dealing here with what actually amounts to an indictment against own affairs as such.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 4—“Local Government, Housing and Works”:

Mr Chairman, this Committee is being asked to agree to the appropriation of an amount of R50 000 for this Vote. I admit that the amount of R50 000 is probably a small one when I compare it with the current amount of approximately R47 million. But the only particulars we have at this stage, are the general descriptions which serve as main divisions: Presentation according to Programme 6: Related Services—Job Creation.

I accept what the hon member for Yeoville said, namely that it is necessary to create employment opportunities for people. But when I compare this with Programme 6 of the Main Appropriation, I see that the aim is defined as follows: “To render services related to the objectives of the Administration: House of Assembly.”

In the first place I want to ask the hon the Minister how he calculated the amount of R50 000, how that money is going to be spent, and if we are going to create further posts, whether it is necessary to create those posts at this stage. We also accept at this stage that this department of the hon the Minister has expanded a great deal and become very large during the past year. He must now assure the Committee that the spending of this amount is necessary.

In conclusion I want to ask the hon the Minister how he thinks he is going to reduce the expenditure on his Vote by 2%, whether he has any ideas about this and whether he will be able to tell us today if he is going to succeed in doing this.

Mr Chairman, the hon member asked how the amount to be voted had been composed. I shall give him that information with the greatest of pleasure. I want to tell the hon member in passing that in the previous financial year an amount of R49 719,77 was spent on job creation.

The composition of this amount of R50 000 is as follows: The cost involved in new projects in the present financial year aimed at employing 20 workers for 80 days at R4 each per day, is R6 400; the costs involved in transport total R2 600; the costs involved in equipment total R300; the costs involved in food total R1 600; and the total is R10 900. This is for a project near Port Elizabeth.

Under the regional office of Kimberley there is a project at the Vaalharts Agricultural Research Station. For that project, project No 1, an amount of R21 000 is needed, for 50 people employed for a period of 105 days at R4 each per day. The costs involved in transport total R8 300; the costs involved in equipment total R700; and the total amount is R30 000.

At the Koopmansfontein Research Station, project No 4, 30 people are being employed for 105 days at R4 each per day. This will cost R12 600. The costs involved in transport total R7 800; the costs involved in equipment total R600; and the total amount needed is consequently R21 000.

Consequently, in the area under the control of the Kimberley regional office R51 000 will be spent this year. Consequently the total amounts needed by this department in terms of Programme 6 are the following: For wages, R40 000; for transport R18 700; for food, R1 600; and for equipment, R1 600. The total amount is R61 900.

R50 000 is being voted here, and R11 900 comes from the amount referred to by the hon the Minister of the Budget in his reply to the speech of the hon member for Yeoville. This reflects the particulars of the projects as we have set them out here. Consequently this is also the amount which we intend to spend about which the hon member asked. I have, therefore, explained in detail what we need it for.

The request for the supplementary amount naturally falls under Programme 6: Related Services of the Vote. It fits in here because the works are being done under different programmes. I want to tell the hon member that in general we will bring about a 2% saving on our Vote in the course of the year. The intention is to investigate specific savings.

Mr Chairman, I wonder whether the hon the Minister can help me. I have tried to compare this Supplementary Estimate with the original Estimate, but I cannot reconcile the two at all. I do not know where he got the R1 305 million from. Where does it appear in the original Estimate? I cannot reconcile the two at all. Two amounts have been mentioned but they do not link up at all; they are not connected with each other at all. I cannot reconcile the amounts with each other at all.

Mr Chairman, I do not know what the hon member is referring to. If the hon member looks at Vote No 4, he will find that in the Supplementary Estimate there is an additional amount of R50 000 which must be voted. This is a presentation according to Programme 6—Related Services, Job Creation. This is an additional R50 000 needed in this financial year.

If the hon member looks at the amendment on the Order Paper, he will see that the proposed total amount for this department can be ascertained by increasing the original estimate by an amount of R50 000, which gives a total of R271 537 000.

Mr Chairman, can the hon the Minister tell me on which page Estimate this appears? Is it on page 4-21 or 4-25?

Mr Chairman, what is the hon member dealing with now?

Mr Chairman, this Supplementary Estimate is an addition to the original Estimate. One can link together all the other amounts mentioned here this afternoon. But one cannot reconcile these two amounts with the previous estimate.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member were to look at the particulars of the estimate of this department in the original estimate of expenditure and he were to look at Programme 6—Related Services— he would see that according to the Supplementary Estimate the proposal was that an amount of R50 000 would be added here under the item: “Job Creation”. If the hon member looks at Programme 6 he will see that a proposed R50 000 has been added under the item “Job Creation”, which will consequently increase the amount under Programme 6 to an amount of R2,210 million. If the hon member has a problem we can discuss it further at a later stage.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 5—“Budgetary and Auxiliary Services”:

Mr Chairman, I should like an explanation from the hon the Minister as to what this amount involves. I have difficulty with this amount for a number of reasons. Firstly, the total figure in respect of expenditure on this Vote, as represented in the main estimates, is R24 336 000. If there was a genuine endeavour to cut expenditure by 2%, that would represent a total of R486 000. Therefore, if the hon the Minister genuinely intended cutting expenditure by 2%, then there would be no need for him to request the R500 000 which he is now asking for. What is interesting, is that he says this is Programme No 1. However, there is only one programme in this Vote. It is therefore a globular amount. Therefore, if there is a genuine intention to cut expenditure by 2%, then what is taking place at the present moment is actually unnecessary.

The previous Vote is perhaps the most classic illustration of this fact. The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works, who has just replied and who was trying to explain what he has done to the spokesman on finance of the CP, came to this House, amid a tremendous amount of paperwork and debate, for R500 000! If he intends to cut his Vote by 2%, then that R500 000 is peanuts, it is irrelevant. In this case it is even more obvious because there is only one programme. If there is only one programme, then there is no logic—when one intends to cut back by R486 000—in saying that one needs an additional R500 000.

I want to ask the hon the Minister when he gives his reply, to deal with it by way of the standard items. That is to say, he should take the standard items that make up the R24 336 000 and tell me which of those standard items he wishes to increase. With great respect, I say that this whole department is a classic example of the duplication of functions in a bureaucracy. The hon the Minister tried to reply to me when he dealt with this during the Second Reading debate but, I think, failed abysmally to do so. There is no logical reason for the existence of this Vote and there is no logic in the request for the additional amount of R500 000. To my mind the hon the Minister must now tell us exactly what he intends spending it on, and how he reconciles this with the intention to cut down on expenses by R486 000.

Mr Chairman, as I stated earlier, this R500 000 is related to the job creation programme. It is an amount which we will be holding in reserve to facilitate the implementation of the other programmes which have now been approved. We foresee that slight adjustments to the amounts which we have just voted for job creation will be necessary. We will be holding this R0,5 million in reserve to supply the various departments which fall under the Minister’s Council with funds with regard to the job creation programme.

Then it is not true that it is for administration as it says here?

Well, the hon member for Yeoville himself mentioned that there is only this one Vote. [Interjections.] In other words, we do not have a diversified system whereby various Votes fall under this Vote. Therefore the amount is indicated under the existing Vote. I have already given a more detailed explanation during the course of my introductory remarks.

The hon member has again referred to the question of the 2% suspension. I have already explained why the 2% suspension is not reflected per se. I think I said something to the effect that the reason why I did not deal with the 2% suspension announced by the hon the Minister of Finance was because he had already announced the measures to be taken. It was technically impossible to adapt the printed estimates. The matter is going to be dealt with—this is the crucial fact—by way of suspension by the Treasury in terms of section 8 of the Exchequer and Audit Act.

In other words, I agree with the hon member for Yeoville that we could have approached the matter in a different way. In presenting this supplementary budget, we could have rectified all our figures and, in that way, actually reduced the total Budget by 2%. That is the hon member’s argument. We could thus have deducted the 2% and added whatever we are now asking as additional expenditure. That would have been one way of doing it.

Increasing it by 2%!

However, we have a specific arrangement and a specific …

Reason.

No, we have a specific arrangement with the hon the Minister of Finance that the 2% will be dealt with by him in terms of a specific authority extended to him in terms of an Act of Parliament.

*We therefore had to choose which method we would adopt. In respect of the 2% suspension the hon the Minister of Finance is in the driver’s seat. He decided that that was the way he wanted to do it. We found no fault with his decision, and would therefore have deviated from his arrangement if we had tried to reflect the 2% suspension in a corrective manner in the documentation. The hon member for Yeoville has no reason to say that my replies did not satisfy him. Every man kisses his wife in his own way! There is nothing wrong or misleading about this, and nothing in respect of this entire matter has been hidden from Parliament.

Vote agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

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

Mr Chairman, this is of course the Third Reading of an own affairs Budget measure and I must tell hon members that the matter I am going to deal with firstly is not my own affair. It is actually somebody else’s own affair. It is the own affair of the hon the Minister of the Budget and the own affair of the hon members of the CP and their allies. I want to tell hon members that anything which affects the freedom of speech of any individual in South Africa is not an own affair; it is everybody’s affair. [Interjections.] As far as we are concerned we want to make it quite clear that we believe, irrespective of the political party that wants to express its views—whether that party be the NP, the CP, the NRP or anyone else—or any other particular view …

Or the ANC.

Even the idiot who has just interjected is entitled to freedom of speech in order to demonstrate his stupidity. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member has just referred to another hon member as an “idiot” …

Sir, whoever said it can get up and I will then, if he admits he said it, withdraw in respect of him.

Order! The hon member must withdraw the word “idiot”.

I withdraw it, Sir. I will call him the ignorant hon member. [Interjections.]

I want to tell hon members that freedom of speech is a fundamental right in South Africa and it is one that, if we believe in the parliamentary system of government, we have to defend. One also has to defend one’s opponent’s freedom of speech because inherent in one’s opponent’s freedom of speech is one’s own freedom of speech. [Interjections.] That is what is fundamental in this.

I think there is a very interesting piece of history that I should perhaps refer to today. On 10 January 1941 there was a meeting of the United Party which was convened to be held in Klerksdorp, and it was a meeting at which it had been advertised that the speakers were to be Dr C F Steyn, then Minister of Justice, and the hon H G Lawrence, who was then Minister of the Interior. There were also some gentlemen involved whose names are not unfamiliar and who were then members of Parliament. A gentleman who eventually became accused number one in the case was Mr Jan Wilkens who was then member of Parliament for Klerksdorp for the NP which was then described as being in opposition to the political party forming the Government of the Union of South Africa. What is interesting is that he had a brother who was also a member of Parliament. What I think was of some consequence was that the United Party had its meeting with 200 people attending in Klerksdorp and then at about 19h20 there was a large procession numbering from 1 000 to 1 200 persons— that is small, compared to what happened in Pietersburg—who gathered together and marched upon the meeting. They marched upon the meeting, according to the finding of the court, with the intention of making sure that their chairman was elected. They were going to pass a motion of no-confidence in the United Party Government and ensure that there was going to be no United Party meeting.

Whose brief do you hold, Harry?

I hold the brief of freedom of speech in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Tell us about the Torch Commando.

What happened then … Yes, the Torch Commando as well, if the hon member wants to talk about it. We can talk about that as well.

What is interesting is that that procession was headed by a standardbearer, bearing a large “vierkleur”. They came to this particular meeting and they wanted to elect their own chairman. It is also interesting that Mr Lawrence asked when the row started there: “Is dit ’n voorbeeld van ’n Christelike, beskaafde Afrikanerdom?” which the learned judge found was a very provocative statement to have made in those circumstances.

What happened then? I quote from the judgment:

He was one of the people there—

At least he was not afraid like Pik. Pik is a real “sissy”.

The people were then duly prosecuted. I might mention that there are some interesting statements in the judgment. By the way, the word “papbroek” is also used here in the judgment in respect of some of these people.

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

No, Sir, I do not want to answer any questions.

Sir, I just want to ask the hon member whether there was …

Order! The hon member does not want to take a question.

The last point I want to make in this regard is that I think it is very apposite that we should remember the last words of Mr Justice Ramsbottom, with whom you are familiar, Sir. Mr Justice Ramsbottom, of course, was the judge who delivered one of the judgements. The other judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Murray. Both of these gentlemen were very distinguished judges in our country. As I was saying, I think it very apposite that we remember Mr Justice Ramsbottom’s last few words. I quote:

I think we would do well in these times to remember that to “forcibly invade the rights of other people” and to affect the right of free speech of other people is not a statutory prohibition but one that is fundamental and that is inherent in the Roman Dutch Law that is precious to so many of us in this House. I want to leave this issue at that, Sir, and turn to some other matters. [Interjections.]

One of the factors which worry us in South Africa today, and worry us very seriously, is the confidence factor. There is a lack of confidence in South Africa; and one can quite understand it, what with the prevailing level of unrest, the increase in internal instability, the mounting external pressure, the unsatisfactory economic conditions, and the uncertainty as to future developments both politically and economically. I believe, however, that it is time South Africa shook off this atmosphere of despair and despondency.

There are answers to the problems of South Africa. There is hope that the problems of South Africa can be solved; and even though we remain realists, we should adopt a more optimistic approach to the future of South Africa.

I believe—and I think the hon the Minister of the Budget will agree with me—that our businessmen should create jobs. They should invest, and they should realise that they will not find any solutions to the problems of South Africa by sitting on their paper money. I therefore want to remind the businessmen in South Africa that the foundations of the greatest profit-making enterprises are often laid at a time when others are pessimistic and despondent and refuse to invest. The challenge of investing in times when other people are pessimistic is a challenge that should be taken up because that is a time when business opportunities exist.

The Government, too, must adopt a more positive attitude, however. I believe they have to contribute to a greater extent to get this economy going. I referred earlier today to the programme I called the “Employment to improve the quality of life” programme. I believe it is vital that such a programme get under way in South Africa to an increasing extent.

I also want to say that if the centrist policies of South Africa are not going to prevail, and if centrist leadership in all the communities is not going to be allowed to exist and, in fact, survive, and if centrists cannot be seen to be negotiating and co-operating, then we are failing in our duty to see that that kind of philosophy has a chance of survival in South Africa.

What concerns me most, however, is that—I use the phrase deliberately—options are exercised while they are available to be exercised. I say this because if we do not exercise our options when they are available to us they close and we cannot exercise them any more. I want to keep repeating that one of those options which is vital for our future is the federal option in South Africa—a federation for South Africa with a rigid constitution; with executive decisions and legislation based on consensus; with a strong independent judiciary; with proportional representation; and an entrenched Bill of Rights. The tragedy is that when we can get a Bill of Rights we do not enact it, but when we will need a Bill of Rights and want it we may not be able to get it. I want to submit to the hon the Minister of the Budget that when he will most need a Bill of Rights he will not be able to get it, and when he should be enacting it so that other people have rights he will not want to enact it. We should actually be doing it and be doing it now.

One of the issues on which there has often been great debate in this House has been the issue of groups and group rights, individuals and their rights, and the question of freedom of association. This whole question of own affairs is to some extent related to it. Freedom of association is to our minds an integral part of freedom as such, but while individual rights are vital I do not believe that anyone can realistically deny that groups really exist, whether groups comprise people of the same race, colour, religion or something else which can conveniently be covered by the word “cultural”.

History shows many examples of people who were oppressed, discriminated against or persecuted by virtue of their membership of a “group”. They were not persecuted or oppressed by reason of any personal act, omission or attribute, but their persecution and oppression took place by reason of their membership of a particular group. I do not need to quote historical examples of that because there are examples in our history which quite clearly show that. Therefore there should be protection to ensure that no one is discriminated against, no one is oppressed and no one is disadvantaged by reason of his membership of, affiliation with or origins in a particular group. That can be done by means of a Bill of Rights because we can ensure by means of a bill of rights combined with a strong judiciary in a rigid constitution that the individual is not discriminated against or disadvantaged because of his—as I have said—membership of, affiliation with, or origins in a particular group. That is why a Bill of Rights is so vital for the future of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he also believes that the group per se has group rights, therefore collectively?

I am coming to that right now. I want to take the issue of groups and the freedom of association further in that context.

Freedom of association does not mean that one ignores the group; on the contrary, it accepts by its very terminology the existence and rights of the group and one’s right to affiliate with a particular group.

In the federal constitution which we propose there will be two chambers; in other words it will be a bicameral system. One of the chambers is to be a senate and in the senate there will be senators representing cultural councils. A cultural council may be established by any cultural group to assist in maintaining and promoting its cultural interests. What is more, what we say, is that no legislation which affects the cultural interests of such a group may be passed unless it has first been referred to and approved by the cultural council concerned. If such a proposal is accepted, entrenched and implemented it offers protection to those interests which need to be protected. That is the answer to the hon the Minister’s question. This clearly demonstrates that group interests are neither ignored nor neglected under the federal proposals that we put forward; on the contrary, they are protected, and this can be done without race classification laws and while respecting the freedom of association.

It faces the reality of the risk of discrimination or domination that exists in any society. There is no question that such risks do exist in any society. Those risks are even greater in a multiracial society. This makes it clear that individual rights and freedom of association are not inconsistent with the reality that there are groups, that groups do have fears which cannot and should not be ignored and that the individual is entitled to being protected by reason of his membership of that particular group.

Mr Chairman, I want to get back to the statement by the hon member for Yeoville that freedom of speech must be present when a person wants to express his views. I agree with him that there are solutions in South Africa which we can offer, but then everyone in South Africa—I am including absolutely everyone—has a responsibility to be part of that solution. On the one hand the Government has a responsibility, but on the other, so does the business world and the private sector.

We are working hard on the various options as possibilities to solve South Africa’s problems, but the Official Opposition must also have the fairness and understanding to realise that the Government and the NP need time to work on this options. I shall refer to this more specifically later on in my speech.

The country’s economy has not yet met the expectations for a total recovery. A few months I foresaw that the turn in the economy was imminent and that the expected growth would start soon. Although there are still significant indications that the turn in the economy is imminent there are still inhibitory events which are slowing down and delaying the recovery. The general economy is slow to react to specific inputs.

The petrol price has dropped, but nevertheless commerce and manufacturers are very reluctant to come to light with significant drops in prices. The gimmick or so-called publicity decreases are not real drops in prices. These are outpriced as loss leaders to lure clients to the relevant store where they end up spending more money on the more expensive items.

The rate of exchange has also improved, but this has had little effect on prices for example. The interest rates are low, but it would seem as if the user of credit has not yet shaken off the pressure of the almost wickedly high rates. Interest rate fever and the fear of the effect of such a high rate still remain part of the resistance to using credit. The present hire purchase rates are still too high to bring about a significant change in the purchase of goods such as motor cars, furniture, and other expensive consumer items, on credit.

It is not only the above measures which are having a damping effect on the spending pattern of the consumer. I am afraid that it goes deeper than merely the monetary and fiscal measures which are having an inhibiting effect. The average consumer is in fact trapped in a spirit of negativism and total pessimism.

There are definitely different factors having an effect on this spirit and activating and feeding this pessimism. One of these is definitely the drought which has now prevailed for a number of years in certain areas. Another factor is definitely the negative attitude of overseas countries towards South Africa and the resultant drop in the rate of exchange and the attitude of our business partners.

But in my opinion the most important reason is the present unrest situation in South Africa which has been continuing for months now in some of our residential areas. The cruelty of unrest is really and substantially experienced in the areas in which it takes place. The fear which those inhabitants must experience day after day can certainly not be assessed properly by the outsider but it has a completely totally deleterious effect on everyone in South Africa. The ending or levelling off of the unrest is in the interests of everyone in South Africa. That is why it is necessary to do nothing which will activate and assist the rioting further.

In this connection we as Whites in South Africa probably have the greatest responsibility, and also the ability to limit the rioting. The control situation in which the White finds himself is another method which can be used to defuse the present situation and remove the conflict. Consequently we are in the privileged position of still being able to do something to improve and even normalise the present situation.

The governing position in which we as Whites find ourselves at the moment must be used at full strength for the sake of everyone in South Africa. I want to emphasise that it is in the interests of everyone.

The institutional means available must be used fully. The most important of these is definitely Parliament which must be used in its entirety. Every hon member has the responsibility to try to achieve to the maximum in this connection to find solutions.

In the present confusing and conflict-laden circumstances extra-Parliamentary action is totally explosive instead of preventative. Only those persons who participate in the system can and will make a contribution. Those persons who are seeking solutions outside are not seeking peace as a solution but are contributing towards a total confrontation and violence.

The fires burning in the Black areas represent the actions of those persons who condemn the system and want to set it aside. Their purpose is to paralyse this institution.

That is why it is extremely important for us to accommodate the Blacks in the system in a proper manner. But the tragedy is that those persons who have traditionally been linked to the system for all these years and who form part of the system are now going the same way as those persons who are acting outside the system. I am referring to Whites who prefer to subvert the democratic process from outside Parliament and cause it to fail.

The ANC and the UDF want to make South Africa ungovernable by means of violence. Now the AWB is displaying precisely the same mentality, and that is what they are proclaiming. [Interjections.]

That is a disgraceful thing you have just said!

They even say that in this way they want to put the Government of South Africa in the position where they cannot govern. [Interjections.]

Now you are looking for trouble!

Their modus operandi, as revealed by their actions at certain recent meetings, is clearly aimed at control through demonstration and violence. [Interjections.]

I want to accept that there are still hon members of the CP who would want it to be otherwise. The reaction I have now got, makes me doubt whether they all think so.

One cannot compare those people with the AWB.

I believe that there are still CP people here who would like it to be otherwise. [Interjections.] There are some of them who would prefer to use the system as it is now. But unfortunately the time to do so has almost run out for them. The hijacking by the AWB was immediate and deadly.

Today I want to make a statement here. The CP has become almost irrelevant in right-wing politics. [Interjections.] They have been virtually entirely taken over and hijacked by the activistic Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche and his Stormvalke. The CP, as a party in Parliament, must guard against becoming the mere lackeys of the extra-parliamentary group. That group wants to enforce its wishes demonstratively with a great degree of violence.

They must not argue that the NP also did the same in the past. That was the case. We did do so. The NP did also successfully paralyse meetings by means of heckling and asking questions and resorting to interjections. [Interjections.] We are not apologising for that. This is true and politics were conducted in that way at that stage. But this was not done while fires were burning elsewhere in South Africa.

The whole world was burning. There was a World War in progress.

While milling and raging “Comrades” are making Crossroads and other Black areas go up in flames, there are Whites who allow themselves the luxury of demonstrations. The White who must take the lead, is also starting to march and clench his fists. He is beginning to seek confrontation with the Police. He is also beginning to damage buildings, break doors and throw stones. What example is the White setting outside? [Interjections.] What guidance are we as Whites giving in South Africa? [Interjections.]

The CP leadership must not allow its people to be taken in tow by the emotions and the hysteria of the AWB. They are binding themselves irrevocably to the AWB. [Interjections.] The AWB, with Eugéne Terre’Blanche, is going to become the dog which is gaily going to wag the CP tail in future. Unless the hon leader of the CP, his party and his hon colleagues in this House unconditionally break their ties with the AWB—he will have to do so quickly—they are increasingly going to become the lackeys of the militant faction of right-wing politics. [Interjections.] Otherwise they are going to be swallowed entirely by the AWB, and are going to suffocate in this kind of politics which is being conducted. [Interjections.]

If we as Whites want to play a role in the solution of the problems of South Africa, we must seek that solution within this system and within this Parliament, but also in such a way that we are worthy of these solutions. The example we are going to set and the willingness for decent discussion, even if it is the hard politics we are conducting at present, will in future determine the destiny of everyone in South Africa.

Consequently I want to make a serious appeal to the voters of South Africa, specifically the White voters of South Africa, to ascertain and to decide what role they as Whites have to play in the solution of the country’s problems and they then determine their behaviour accordingly. The role of the White is decisive in the future of South Africa. We must use that role.

Emotional ideas do not necessarily lead to the correct solution. Sometimes it is necessary for the mind to lead the heart to level-headed thoughts. [Interjections.]

As a matter of fact, Dr Malan realised it at that stage when he dissociated the National Party from the Ossewa-Brandwag. We are waiting for the hon the leader of the Conservative Party to see what guidance he is going to give his people.

Judas, where were you?

Is he going to lead them to a next Brits and Pietersburg? Is he going to lead them to another emotional exhibition and demonstration? Or is he going to lead them …

Straight to Gezina! [Interjections.]

Or is he going to lead them …

Just wait for Gezina! [Interjections.]

Yes, to Gezina too, Mr Chairman. I have no quarrel with the CP about that. But I am asking whether he is going to lead them … [Interjections.]

Order! Just a moment, please. Apparently there are a few hon members—inter alia the hon member for Langlaagte and the hon member for Rissik, as well as other hon members—who are deriving a great deal of pleasure out of talking at the same time as the hon member for Gezina. This must cease at once. The hon member for Gezina is the only person speaking. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, thank you. I am asking whether the hon the leader of the CP is going to lead his people in the direction of a second Brits and a second Pietersburg and whether he is going to lead them in a responsible way to participate properly in the democratic process and in that way help to introduce a reasonable and fair dispensation in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, while I was listening to the hon member for Gezina, it felt as if dawn were breaking—that is how loudly the cocks were crowing! [Interjections.]

I think it is perhaps quite important that the hon member for Gezina asked the question he did today—today, 26 May 1986. It is important that he asks today where my hon Leader is going to lead this party. The hon Leader of the Conservative Party is going to lead his party—and those who are nationalists in their hearts and souls, to another 26 May 1948. [Interjections.]

Thirty-eight years into the past!

Let me tell the hon member for Gezina one thing, Mr Chairman. I do not know which faction of the National Party he belongs to. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs links the ANC and the AWB. The hon the Deputy Minister of Information, who is linked with the State President’s office, however, says that the ANC and the AWB may not be mentioned in the same breath. Now the hon member for Gezina will first have to run and quickly find out which side is the strongest before he decides whom he is to support. [Interjections.]

When one drives through Pietersburg, one sees the notice of the National Party meeting on 22 May still gracing every telegraph pole. According to this notice, the speaker at the meeting is Minister Pik Botha and the Chairman, Mr Pietie du Plessis and right of admission is reserved. In the days prior to that meeting, the tone adopted by the NP office-bearers and the hon the Ministers involved, was that they were seeking confrontation with everyone who wanted to come and cause trouble at their meeting. The National Party’s Press handled the publicity for that meeting, and announced everything about it to the public at large.

Brian Pottinger gives a very good description of what the purpose of that meeting was. He says, and I quote him:

Mr Chairman, …[Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Rissik entitled to say the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is a donkey?

I did not say that!

You did say that! I heard you!

Order! Did the hon member for Rissik make that remark?

Mr Chairman, I did not say that. But I withdraw everything the hon member for False Bay thinks I have said. I do this because I should like the hon member for Soutpansberg to continue with his speech.

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thousands of Nationalists, including a “waakkommando” of approximately 40 Nationalists—a few armed with sjamboks and pick-axe handles …

Where did you get hold of that?

That was written in Rapport. [Interjections.] Yes, it was written in Rapport, Mr Chairman. According to Rapport the number of nationalists increased later on, and even the Karate Springbok Captain, André de Meyer and three of his Springbok team-mates, Schreuder, Schoeman and Adler, joined the crowd of nationalists. [Interjections.] They all set off for Pietersburg with one aim, ie to make short work of the right-wing elements—in the heart of CP country. It would have meant the end of the Conservative Party.

There was great interest in that meeting. This interest extended from these green benches right up to the banks of the Limpopo, even beyond the borders of South Africa into the furthest chancelleries.

The 22nd of May came and went, and South Africa was waiting for the following night’s news on the box to see what had happened. Thousands of Nat members and others waited for that. Then everything was showed on TV: The stage, the wrestling and the scuffling. But where were the advertised speakers? [Interjections.] Where was the chairman as advertised? [Interjections.]

The prima donna!

Where was the “war horse? [Interjections.] Was he present when his little group of stalwarts struggled against superior numbers? Was he present when fists flew and they were smothered by teargas? Was he present where the karate champions were chopping and those who were carrying pick-axe handles were dealing out blows. [Interjections.] No, that was not where he was. Much later, when everything was over, the hon the Minister appeared in all his glory, glaring, scolding, threatening, before a timid, bewildered crowd of 1 500 divided by five! I then thought of the time when we were students and he was our cheerleader. The Tukkies and Witsies always held a “groot brag”. This you also know, Mr Chairman. There was one big difference between that “groot brag” and the hon the Minister’s: The students always have their “groot brag” before the clash, but the NP and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs held their “groot brag” after the clash and after they had lost. [Interjections.]

And then the advertised speaker ever so bravely links the daring AWB with the ANC, and the advertised chairman scolds the SA Police, in spite of the fact that the SA Police on the face of it, consistently carried out their orders. [Interjections.]

What do we have as evidence after the events of the past two weeks? The events at Pietersburg were the work of the NP. They wanted that confrontation. That was how the NP and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs wanted things to be, to such an extent that the hon the Minister arrived well ahead of the time to issue his battle orders. [Interjections.] What do we find as evidence? The NP looked for that confrontation. Hon members can go and read about it in the newspapers. His media advertised it. He wanted to do it to recapture his glory. His party transported karate champions and “at least 40 members of Johannesburg’s traffic and security service department in a hired luxury coach”; but there were also other luxury coaches which also transported other people who had been hired. They wanted that confrontation. The reason why they wanted it, was to put the right-wing elements in their place. The State President had after all said in the House of Representatives that they should leave the AWB to the NP. They would deal with them themselves! [Interjections.]

They did this for a second reason, ie to try and make internal political capital for that dying party through intimidation. They also had a third motive, ie to be able to tell foreign pressure groups that the “right radical backlash” was their excuse and that they cannot progress as fast as countries abroad would like them to.

What have we also proved? The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the “trusted warhorse ain’t what he used to be.” For the NP the meeting at Pietersburg was a fiasco. He also “ain’t what he used to be”. [Interjections.] Since the time of the generals up until the John Vorster era, there were people who were prepared to fight and be beaten for their political convictions, but there are no longer any people who are prepared to do this for the NP.

What has also been proved? As far as internal intimidation is concerned, there are enough people who can recall the NP’s history of violence at meetings as if it had happened yesterday; quite honestly, people who started off in the NP, are now applying what they learned there against the NP. [Interjections.]

The State President is after all the wrecker of wreckers of political meetings. He is the champion and he became famous for that. He not only broke up meetings; he also had systems, according to which he planned weeks before the time in what way and at what stage he was going to break up the meeting. [Interjections.]

Now we are seeing the movie!

That was after all always part of the political scene in South Africa.

I remember there was a big Torch Commando meeting in Pretoria in 1953. A man who is a reverend professor in constitutional law these days and who often seats himself here, and I, organised the students and Nationalists who came from the four corners of Pretoria. I think the hon members know about this themselves. That professor who was my lecturer at the time, walked in front with the Vierkleur. There was a big fight on Kerkplein. The chaps landed in the fishpond, electrical wiring was cut with uninsulated pliers and blood was shed, but the cowboys did not cry. [Interjections.] They also did not look for the police to settle the physical battles in the South African political struggle.

Hon members are welcome to ask Etienne Malan about the time when he was struck against the head by a stone thrown by the Nats in Pretoria West. They can go and ask Japie Basson what the Arcadia Primary School looked like after the Nats had dealt with his meeting. Not one chair or table remained in one piece, but the cowboys did not cry. [Interjections.]

One evening we held a sing-song under the leadership of I think, the hon the Minister, and that evening the same professor and I told the students that when we had finished the sing-song, we had to go to the United Party meeting in the Sons of England hall in Hatfield. I think that was in 1953. When we arrived there, the United Party members had closed the front doors and I saw them going in through the back door. We saw that they were going in through the back door and Willem Kleynhans and I entered that way. Then they said: “He is here!” That hall was packed to overflowing with United Party members and members of the Torch Commando. They beat us up that evening, but we fought back. [Interjections.] Order was restored when they agreed to my putting a question, but still the cowboys did not cry. [Interjections.]

I have here the minutes of the reorganisation meeting of the NP’s divisional executive held on 12 September 1984. The hon member for Klerksdorp who is sitting here, said: We must break the CP’s necks. [Interjections.] That is the language the NP uses.

Is that Soutpansberg you are talking about?

Yes, the Soutpansberg division.

But what does the hon the Minister of Manpower say now? Now the cowboys are crying. What is he doing now? Of all the scandalousness! He now attacks the police in a shameful way and says the police could not, or did not want to, maintain law and order. [Interjections.] What does the hon the Minister of Law and Order say about that? Does he stand by the police or is he going to allow them to be paraded on television again, as was the case at Uitenhage?

He is crying with the cowboys!

The CP says to the SA Police we stand by you, in spite of the teargas; we know that you were under orders. The hon the Minister of Manpower himself said that they were under orders. We have a message for them from Pietersburg. The people there say they are not angry with you; they are just sorry for the elderly people of Pietersburg who the Nats brought to the city hall and who were simply left there by them when the chaos and the teargas descended. That is when they ran. The “boereseuns”—regardless of the language they speak—took it.

I want to ask the hon the Ministers of Law and Order and of Defence not to use the sons of South Africa to fill up NP meetings and to advance the NP’s struggle.

The UP never used the police.

The United Party members never did that and the Nationalists have never done that. The police do not want to fight the NP’s battles. They have more important work to do. Landmines are exploding on our country’s borders. Our young men who are farmers, go as reservists to relieve the full-time members of the force who are tired because there are not enough of them to do their work. And then hundreds of them have to be conveyed to go and fill up and to protect NP meetings, as has been written about the meeting at Ellisras. The following was written about that:

[Interjections.] Even a general in the police force and various police vehicles went there to protect the hon the Minister.

According to reports more than 200 policemen and reservists were called up to go and protect the hon the Minister in Pietersburg. We say that it is not necessary. We do not want such people at our meetings. [Interjections.]

Here is the chairman!

The advertised chairman has arrived. It is no wonder, and it also says a great deal, that yesterday’s Sunday Star stated:

It is significant and prophetic. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Soutpansberg devoted the greater part of his speech to the meeting at Pietersburg. I am sure that there are hon members who will reply to him on this, such as the hon member Mr Van Staden, and also the hon the Minister of the Budget, who is after all the leader of the NP in the Transvaal.

I want to glide through the peaceful waters of cultural matters for awhile. But I shall not disappoint the hon member for Soutpansberg; I shall say something about the meeting in Brits later on in my speech. I want to refer to an aspect which was discussed in great depth here on Friday. This concerns the application which was submitted in connection with the use of the amphitheatre at the Voortrekker Monument. I think it is necessary to give an indication of what aspects were singled out in Friday’s debate before we can debate this matter further.

In the first place I want to point out that according to the letter that served before the control board, application was made to use the open-air venue at the Voortrekker Monument for an atonement meeting for Afrikaners. The letter went on to say that this gathering of Afrikaners would be arranged by a special committee of compatriots.

The hon the Minister of Education and Culture also quoted from the guidelines used by the control board when considering such an application. I am only quoting one of these:

During the debate the hon member for Rissik said inter alia that this was a delicate matter. It goes without saying that this is the case. I am quoting for the unrevised speech of the hon member for Koedoespoort regarding what he said about this:

He went on to say:

This is then what the hon member for Koedoespoort said about this.

The hon member for Sasolburg also participated in the debate. He adopted a very interesting standpoint. I am quoting from his unrevised speech:

He then made a series of statements, and concluded with the words:

[Interjections.] That is what the hon member for Sasolburg said.

Let us now see what the facts are. I should like to bring the 21 May edition of Die Afrikaner to the attention of hon members. A banner headline on the front page reads: “Saamtrek op 31 Mei—Volk opgeroep na Pretoria”. Let us now take a look at the contents of this report. Then we will be able to assess whether the control board may not have made the right decision in view of the fact that party-politics was in fact involved. I am quoting from the report:

Then the arrangements, time, etc are given, after which the report carries on as follows:

I am continuing to quote from the report:

Let us see what the report goes on to say. I should like to quote what I have underlined:

Now I just want to ask the hon member for Koedoespoort whether he still agrees with his own statements that there is not a vestige of party-politics in this matter. Here it is mentioned by name. [Interjections.] I did not have an argument with the hon member for Koedoespoort when he said there is nothing wrong with a person being present there as an individual, but these organisations are being represented by name. [Interjections.]

I am again quoting from the report:

That is where the idea originated—at a party-political meeting.

No, not at the meeting.

Can you not differentiate?

I am still quoting from the report:

I also want to quote the last paragraph of the report. The hon member for Sasolburg will probably speak again later on, and then he must explain the standpoint he adopted compared with the standpoint expounded in this last paragraph.

There is nothing to explain yet.

He does not get Die Afrikaner.

I am continuing to quote:

I shall read it again so that the hon member for Koedoespoort can also take cognisance of it:

[Interjections.] Those hon members must now decide for themselves to what extent party-politics had a share from the outset in the application to use the amphitheatre at the Voortrekker Monument. [Interjections.] Another aspect I want to refer to briefly is that referred to by the hon member for Rissik. It concerns the attitude adopted by students on campuses nowadays. He referred inter alia to Jeugkrag. I am again quoting from the hon member’s unrevised Hansard of 23 May when he said:

The hon member also referred to this further and quoted a report on Jeugkrag. The hon member only referred to Tukkies and Stellenbosch, but what happened at Tukkies? Let us look at the facts in that connection. I am quoting from Die Burger of 3 May.

Do not quote from Die Burger.

The hon member is welcome to refute the facts given here.

You must quote from The Star.

No, from Die Volksblad.

The caption of this report is:

I am quoting from the report:

[Interjections.] I am referring to the mass meeting, Sir. [Interjections.] The report goes on to say:

Do you support Jeugkrag?

I fully support Jeugkrag. The report goes on to say:

A further aspect I want to refer to briefly, is what befell the CP youth on the Kovsie campus. I am quoting from Die Burger of 22 May 1986:

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Newcastle devoted the major portion of his speech to the argument that has developed between the NP and the CP and other groups over the use of the Voortrekker Monument. Well, I am sure those hon members will excuse me if I do not enter that argument. I know the Voortrekker Monument is of particular sentimental attachment to the Afrikaans people, and I have a great respect for that monument and their sentiments, so I shall keep out of the argument altogether. [Interjections.]

I do, however, propose to say a few words about the “broedertwis” which is developing rather drastically in respect of public meetings, particularly those held in the Transvaal. You know, Sir, we of the old United Party have a rather wry approach to this whole matter. It gives us that feeling of déjà vu—the feeling that we have been through it all before. [Interjections.] We did not appreciate this sort of activity that the time, however, although, as somebody indicated, “cowboys don’t cry”, and we did not cry. At the same time, however, I say again that we did not appreciate it then and we do not appreciate it now. That is the crux of the matter. [Interjections.] While one might derive a little amusement from somebody’s being hoist with his own petard, one is inclined to feel that this is definitely not good for South Africa. [Interjections.]

At this point I should like to interject a personal experience I had as a consequence of this very meeting in Pietersburg. I happened to be sitting in on the Natal-kwaZulu Indaba in Durban. There was an African businessman sitting next to me who had the newspaper with all the news on the front page. He said to me: “You know, this is terrible. We expect it among our people, but we don’t expect it from the Whites.” [Interjections.] I believe that is something that must be borne in mind. When I asked him why one should expect this from the one group and not from the other, he said to me: “Well, you people have had all the advantages of education and a culture which we haven’t had. Our people haven’t had the advantages of the education you have had and we have so many young people out of work. We do not expect it from the White people for those reasons.” I merely make those points in passing. Many of us consider ourselves to be the people who are guiding other people from darkness into light, and this is one heck of a way to do it! [Interjections.]

I want to get back to the subject of the debate, and that is the own affairs Budget. I was criticised on one occasion for not sticking to the matter that was on the Order Paper so I propose to try to get back to the question of own affairs. I would say that generally so far, the own affairs concept has not been terribly successful, especially in certain areas. I would quote specifically local government, medical services and to some extent education as well, largely because although the Constitution creating the concept was introduced in 1983 it has still not got under way in respect of those three subjects to any great extent. As from 1 April 1986 education has been handed over to the new department. The other two have not been handed over.

Much has been said about all three matters during the Committee Stage and, quite frankly, I do not believe that the answers to the queries have cleared the air to any great extent. It is quite clear to me that the Government is paddling around in a very, very expensive morass of its own making. By removing provincial control—this is what I have said before and I feel it bears repeating—before completing their feasibility studies and their organisational planning in respect of all these very vital matters, they have got us in respect particularly of local government and health services into a very unhealthy and uncertain position. I believe the Government is to be criticised in this regard.

Consequent upon the State President’s announcement of the establishment of a National Council to frame an entirely new constitution—that is one of the functions that this new National Council is supposed to perform—one wonders whether even at this late stage it might not be desirable to leave those matters that have not yet been handed over where they are with the provinces and not hand them over. I can tell hon members without any doubt whatsoever that no national convention is going to achieve consensus if these matters, these own affairs—particularly as I say, hospitals and local government—are left as they were put into the Constitution of 1983.

As I have mentioned on more than one occasion, I have been sitting in on the Natal Indaba now for every meeting that has been held. As far as that Indaba is concerned it is absolutely clear that the Government will not achieve any consensus with their National Council while they retain the present concept of own affairs in respect of matters that are of common concern. There is no question about it that hospitals and local government are of common concern. I mention only these two and will not go into the details of others. I consider that we can get acceptance of the fact that there are group rights and group identities and that the groups have a right to protect those things that are close and near and dear to them. That is valid for all groups; it does not matter whether the group is based on colour, language, religion or whatever. I believe and we in this party believe that one is entitled to have a protective device for those things that are of great importance to one’s group. However, it is quite obvious from the way things have been operating during this period that we have been trying to run own and general affairs that while there may have been a certain idealism in the creation of the concept of own affairs, it is not going to work as it is. Therefore it is quite obvious that a whole new look has to be taken at this concept. Furthermore, if we are going to have Black participants in government—that is the stated and avowed intent of the State President—we will have to look at the very concept itself again. Insofar as I am concerned—if that is the case—it really does seem quite crazy to me to continue making these changes and amendments.

Are you not going to vote “yes” any more?

Little boy, why don’t you keep your big mouth shut! [Interjections.] There are certain people who really do not deserve to have the confidence of the public that put them here in the first place. They are not making any constructive contribution. I am trying to do what that hon member’s own leader and other leaders have asked for, namely to get the broad central group to talk together and not to score cheap, nasty little political points against one another! [Interjections.] I can take heckling as well as the next person and I do not particularly mind it but I think that the situation in which this country is at the moment is far too serious for us to play this sort of silly game. It is far too serious!

Then answer my question!

When one listens to this sort of nonsense of people trying to score cheap political points—no matter if it is that hon member or any other hon member—then I cannot see how we are helping this country of ours which is in a very serious position. We will not be able to get the more reasonable people of the broad spectrum to come together whilst we keep on taking silly little snipes at one another.

You are a nice guy! [Interjections.]

I do not believe that we should worry too much about it and perhaps I have devoted too much time to it. Insofar as own affairs is concerned we really should seriously consider having another look at the whole matter. Insofar as my own party is concerned we naturally subscribe to the concept of own affairs. Initially it seemed a reasonable prospect but experience has shown that it is not a practical thing as was put forward in the Constitution.

It is as certain as night follows day that we are going to have a new constitution. The new South Africa which must arise from the ashes of this Constitution will not have an own affairs concept as we have it here because one will not get non-White South Africans to subscribe to it. They will, however, subscribe to the idea of the protection of those things which are important to each community.

Mr Chairman, I should like to agree with the hon member for Umbilo on one point that he made right at the beginning of his speech and that is that we are not going to save South Africa and the future of civilised norms in this country with this in-fighting between Afrikaners.

*I cannot express strongly enough how alarming I find the image which other South Africans, particularly Black South Africans, are beginning to formulate of Afrikaners as a result of the events of the past month or two. However, I think the image which the outside world is beginning to formulate of Whites in South Africa as a result of the events of the past month or two is even more alarming. If we continue in this way we are heading for a conflict which this country cannot afford. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member for Kuruman and the hon the Minister of Law and Order would only finish their conversation, the hon member for Paarl could proceed. The hon member may proceed.

Having said that, I want to try to get away from this subject and confine myself to what is genuinely important to the future of this country.

I have no doubt that the present system of a Tricameral Parliament, and the principle of own and general affairs—as far as own affairs are concerned, we are today finishing off the year’s activities in this House—is in fact the first step towards the realisation of a great participative democracy for South Africa. Whether our hon friends want to know this or not, South Africa is irrevocably committed to a course of justice and reform.

The final objective is a constitutional dispensation in which democracy is being broadened, with full participation within the realities of the multicultural South African society. This is what all peace-loving South Africans are striving for.

I know there are many dangers attached to this, but I think there are far greater dangers attached to the alternatives, namely a bloodbath, a revolution and a dictatorship.

In South Africa we must learn to direct our thinking to the future, with full regard being had to what is happening around us while we fight among ourselves. In my opinion those very realities will compel people of different backgrounds, customs and cultures to co-operate and deliberate together for their self-reservation, but particularly for the norms which are precious to them.

I think what we really need in South Africa is warmth, that is to say interpersonal and interinstitutional warmth and compassion. Obviously this must come from all sides.

We shall also have to guard against the conduct of a small section of a group being regarded as synonymous with that of the whole group.

In the development of sound relations among peoples, particularly those living together in one country, exceptional mutual understanding is necessary. What we need is a more relaxed, spontaneous and more natural relationship among the ethnic groups of South Africa. In spite of that we must also not close our eyes to the fact that we are nevertheless going to have alienation, misunderstandings, prejudices and tensions among the population groups, but honest mutual understanding becomes extremely difficult if contact is confined to the minimum.

Sound ethnic relations require mutual understanding and appreciation. Spontaneous and natural contact among members of the various peoples does not inevitably imply the elimination of the group identities; on the contrary, they could lead to a better understanding and appreciation of one another’s national characteristics. That is why communication must be established through honest dialogue and through discussions and joint planning on various levels of life.

One of the greatest disadvantages in South Africa with our structure of developed and underdeveloped population groups is that one so easily seeks parity on the highest levels. We do indeed want that parity.

If we quote interesting figures for Black per capita income, Black standards of living, Black educational facilities and the Black health situation, and compare them with the figures for the rest of Africa, we are jubilant about them and we cannot understand why people are not grateful for this. The reality is that a Black man working for me in Paarl is unable to compare his situation to that of a Black man in Kenya or Nigeria. He compares it with the best he sees, and most of the time that is the White situation.

In the nature of things the problem is that as a result of the lack of communication to which I have referred there is frequently no understanding for the historical and educational background to the differences.

Although I should like to see this happening, I consequently doubt whether we will be able to achieve parity in South Africa overnight. Our problem is that in South Africa the First World is so easily set up as a norm, while we should in fact perhaps consider the best of the so-called Third World to be the norm.

The distinction between the First and the Third World in South Africa is so frequently seen as ethnic, cultural and historical, but I think it is more correct—by doing so we are going to make far more progress in this country—to regard the differences along economic and educational lines along which promotion can occur from the one to the other. In addition there must be equal opportunities, but the standard is going to depend on the efforts of the individual himself. I think this must be very clearly understood. We are discussing parity in the sphere of education …

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

No, Sir, I do not have the time. We are discussing parity as far as pensions are concerned. The principle is completely correct, but it is not easily attainable in practice.

That brings me to this idea. In the 76 years since Union South Africa has made unbelievable progress on the constitutional level. Dramatic further development will have to occur before the end of the century, before the end of this decade and before the end of this year. Many faint-hearted people—there are many of them sitting in this House—have doubts about the future of South Africa. They doubt whether it is possible for a new, peaceful, fair South Africa to come into existence.

I want to say at once that it will not come into existence without trauma. It will not happen easily, and it will not happen without great sacrifices. We know only too well that we are dealing with vast problems and in order to find the solutions we as Whites will have to strengthen our spirit and character. We shall have to see to it that we provide strong and correct guidance, with the right spirit and character, but always in the interests of South Africa and not selfishly in the interests of Whites only.

I do not doubt the seriousness of the dangers threatening South Africa, but I believe that those dangers which are threatening us and which we will have to face up to, will in the long run be an undisguised blessing because they will serve as a nursery for a big-hearted, broadminded and courageous people equipped not only to amalgamate respective racial elements into a new and richer whole, but in particular to normalise relations among Whites, Coloureds and Asians on the one hand and the Black peoples of South Africa on the other.

This brings me to a final thought. Black people in South Africa are ultimately going to occupy their position in the constitutional dispensation of this country. The question is whether it is going to take place by means of peaceful negotiation or by means of escalating violence. There is no doubt at all what the choice of this side of the House in this connection is.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Paarl made a very excellent speech, and I should like to congratulate him on it. He well deserves the place he occupies in the party on the other side of this House. However, I want to say to him that if we are going to bring about a peaceful solution to South Africa’s problems and the co-operation of groups, then the last thing we should do is to force people to belong to a specific group based on the colour of their skin. What we shall have to do is to allow people to form their own groups by voluntary association, and that, I think is one of the keys to a peaceful solution of our problems. [Interjections.]

I want to add one thing to what has already been said about the meeting in Pietersburg.

When the National Party broke up political meetings—and they did so undoubtedly; they broke them up by force—at least they did it themselves. They did not hide behind another organisation to break up meetings for them. As far as I can gather, it was the AWB, which is not a political party, which broke up the meetings in the Transvaal. That, Sir, I believe is dangerous. [Interjections.] The AWB is not a political party which seeks, by the democratic process, to have its representatives elected to this House, and to help to bring about peaceful change in South Africa. No, Sir! They do not seek to be elected. They are anti-everything. They are anti-Black. They are anti-Rooinek. They are anti-everyone except themselves. They are a danger because they have a uniform, they are armed, and they wear a badge on their arms which is very reminiscent of the swastika. I believe that they are a danger to the South African society. [Interjections.]

Now, Mr Chairman, I want to speak about another issue in relation to freedom of association. That is the issue of beach apartheid. In Port Elizabeth we have the extraordinary situation that in 1986 we are to have a referendum among White municipal voters in that city on the question of whether our beaches should be integrated or not.

And you are going to lose that referendum!

Mr Chairman, if it were not so tragic, it would be laughable. [Interjections.] The world, and sensible South Africans must be astonished by the pettiness of a political organisation that wants to have such a referendum. To think that in a time of massive unemployment and unrest and turmoil, we, the Whites of Port Elizabeth, are to decide whether or not to open God’s beaches to all the people of Port Elizabeth! How pathetic can we be, Sir? The mere fact that such a referendum is to be held is damaging to Port Elizabeth. [Interjections.] Now, Sir, what about the other races? Does the hon member for Sasolburg not believe that there are other races in South Africa? Does he not believe that they have the right to have an input in relation to this subject? What about the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks? They, too, live in our city. Are they not important too? Why should the referendum not include them as well?

I am totally certain, Sir, that if a proper referendum were held of all the property owners and occupiers, there would be an overwhelming vote in Port Elizabeth in favour of open beaches. [Interjections.]

The Blacks have their own beaches! [Interjections.]

Sir, the situation is that the council decided to apply to the Administrator of the Cape to open the beaches to all races. That, Sir, was in March—two months ago. In two months the Provincial Administration of the Cape has not given an answer. Now, Sir, we have a situation in which the State President of this country has declared apartheid to be an outmoded concept. What then, Sir, is the Administrator waiting for? Why does he not say to Port Elizabeth: They have asked for it, they can have it? What is he waiting for? And what, Sir, is apartheid which is outmoded? Apartheid is the separation of groups on the basis of skin colour. Separate but equal is still apartheid, Sir, because in reality it can never be equal. As an example, the Black who works at Summer Strand or Humewood has to trek a long distance if he wants to reach a beach where he can swim, shall we say, during his lunch-hour. The White does not have to do that. The same applies in reverse. It is not equal. Now, what is the Administrator waiting for? He can say today that he will open the beaches of Port Elizabeth, as requested by the council. It is his own executive decision. Perhaps he needs to consult with his Executive Committee? Perhaps he has to consult with the Lord High Everything Else—Poobah, Sir—the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and so forth. [Interjections.] Perhaps he even needs to consult with the State President.

Be that as it may, however, Sir, over a period of two months he could have done all that consultation. It strikes me that if our bureaucrats are tortoises, as they were once called by Dr Piet Koornhof when he was still a Cabinet Minister, then their political bosses are snails.

We are also awaiting another decision in Port Elizabeth—a decision in relation to the opening of our central business district to all races. We also applied for that almost two years ago. Yet they are still investigating only a portion of what the council asked for. If this is the way our political system works, we should get rid of it and find something more efficient.

However, it is not only the Provincial Administration of the Cape that is sitting on the fence. I want to quote Mr Smit who is the regional secretary of the NP in that region. He said the following:

He said further:

Can hon members believe it! What leadership! What strength of policy direction these NP members have! What firmness of belief they demonstrate! What wretched fence-sitting on the part of the governing party!

Two Port Elizabeth National Party MP’s— and they are both in this House at the moment—have called in the past for this matter to be solved and for the beaches to be integrated. I want to know where they are now, what their viewpoint is and whether they will ask their constituents to vote against beach apartheid in Port Elizabeth. They have to take a stand. If the Administrator does not act soon and this referendum goes ahead, one must not underestimate the damage that a bad result can bring about. Nationally a vote in favour of apartheid will set back a whole host of areas that have also applied for integrated beaches. It will set back the pace of reform in South Africa, and that is why it is being pursued by the HNP and the CP. We must recognise that. Is Mr Smit right in saying that it is only a matter for the HNP and the PFP? Of course not! It affects us all. In Port Elizabeth itself an apartheid vote can cost us new industries and lose us existing industries. It can put us in a worse situation than we are in already. The right to use and to swim on our beaches is surely an elementary human right. If we vote against it, we will damage our city. I think Port Elizabeth has to decide whether they want their jobs or apartheid beaches. I appeal to the municipal voters of Port Elizabeth to do away with this nonsense. Let us get rid of apartheid on our Port Elizabeth beaches.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to the throwing open of beaches and I believe he will receive a reply. [Interjections.]

After last year’s by-elections, Dr Carel Boshoff wrote a letter to a newspaper which ran:

That is an unequivocal acknowledgement that Opposition parties to the right and the left of the NP can muster only negative support so the question whether there could be an alternative government has become one of the most important in South African politics. Challenges come from the far right and the far left in White politics. What do they have that will give voters more hope at all?

Prof Boshoff continued as follows in his letter:

This is an admission that the fantasies which the CP presents of an even greater geographical division of peoples, of heartlands for Coloureds and something similar for Indians, are neither clear and credible nor realistic; that these matters have not been researched and analysed and that the vague policy which is offered as an alternative is not well founded.

This acknowledgement of the lack of content in extreme rightist politics causes numerous questions to arise. Firstly, why did a group under Transvaal leadership break away from the NP without a clear, realistic alternative policy? What was the reason for the series of efforts at hijacking in which Prof Boshoff himself played such a prominent role in an effort to obtain control of the Afrikaner’s cultural life? Why all the creation of suspicion? Why are there such biting personal attacks on Government leaders? Personal grievances, personal frustrations and negativity land one in a dead-end street if one elevates them into a credo. It appears that the AWB’s “Groot Karwats”, Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche, is cracking the whip increasingly hard in the politics of the extreme right. [Interjections.] The AWB is obtaining progressively more support and this comes to the AWB at the expense of the CP in particular. There is considerable dissatisfaction with the hon member for Waterberg who is being overshadowed by Mr Terre’ Blanche’s vigorous antics.

The hon member for Waterberg was always so eager to unleash a tiger among some people. Here he has a tiger by the tail which he will have to control as never before.

He has a tiger in his tank! [Interjections.]

The flirting of the hon member for Waterberg—and particularly that of Dr Mulder and some of the CP members—may be attributed to their realisation that their followers are crossing in substantial numbers to the AWB and its culture of violence—hence their eagerness to comply with the AWB.

Those people taking the same road in the effort to build an organisation on a structure of cells in order to topple the system and to organise paramilitary groups like “Storm-valke” and home guards to achieve its objectives are striving for a White dictatorship which wants to nationalise mines and other industries along socialist principles. They want to organise emotional mass rallies to incite mass hatred and to denigrate the Security Forces and through their actions they are playing unconsciously into communist hands. And then to hope and to expect to bring about the slightest measure of peace in South Africa really passes my understanding. [Interjections.] One cannot build the future of South Africa with a policy lacking credibility and realism and with a completely anti-policy and that is why voters will repudiate the CP.

In its turn the Official Opposition staggers on as an ineffective party with its great dream of a national convention going up in smoke time and again. In addition it hides behind the hollow cliché of “away with all apartheid” just as the CP hawks the cliché of partition. The Official Opposition makes a pathetic showing because it and its members have distanced themselves with a rush from their former leader, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert. What a fuss there was over Dr Slabbert! How lyrical the Prog Press waxed on this great “Super Van”, this colossus who would dominate and envelop the political scene and whose name was even linked inter alia to a so-called trust fund! What did these former leaders of the PFP have to say as reported in Die Burger of Friday 11 April 1986? I quote:

On the same page I also saw the following:

I now wish to ask hon members of the PFP and especially the hon member for Yeoville—I should be pleased if I could have his attention—whether they agree with the utterances of the former PFP leader. Are Dr Van Zyl Slabbert and Dr Boraine still members of the party? If so, what is the PFP going to do about it? [Interjections.]

I want hon members to listen to what André Meyerowitz of the PFP wrote in the Cape Times:

I doubt very much whether what remains of the PFP, as the hon members sit there, will remain the Official Opposition.

The NP is the only party capable of offering direction to the country. [Interjections.] It is the only party which stands between hope and chaos. That is why a solemn commitment rests on it to put its plans for peace, security and prosperity into operation. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am very pleased the hon member for Smith-field broached the question of the turbulence in White politics. I should like to enlarge on what he has already raised.

Permit me first to refer to the utterances of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central this afternoon. He fulminated here in his fury because the HNP had taken the lead in Port Elizabeth in requesting a referendum to enable the White electorate to vote on whether to have their beaches thrown open or not. [Interjections.] A meeting under the chairmanship of the mayor was attended by 100 people. Of that 100 people, 99 said they wanted a referendum. [Interjections.] If the PFP were sincere, its members would have attended that meeting and made strong speeches there. Even if they might possibly not have won, they would at least have laid the foundation for a campaign against the HNP. They did not do this! [Interjections.]

Even worse, the English newspapers in Port Elizabeth are armed with electric prods which they are inserting in the flanks of PFP members, as it were, to goad them into battle but they do not wish to enter the lists! They have not yet decided to fight.

The NP has not yet decided to fight either! That is worst of all! [Interjections.] I can understand that the NP does not wish to enter the struggle; the majority of its supporters would vote for the HNP. A number of NRP supporters would also vote for us but that the PFP, this band of gallant heroes, should not see its way clear to fighting a referendum against the HNP in Port Elizabeth on opening the beaches illustrates only one fact and that is how incredibly far South African politics have swung to the right. [Interjections.] We shall leave it at that although I want to invite the PFP as leftists to come and fight the rightists in Port Elizabeth so that we may see who wins the referendum there. [Interjections.] I invite the whole caboodle to come and fight us. Let them come! [Interjections.]

Order!

Is the AWB also voting rightist?

Yes, the AWB is also voting rightist and the CPs and a number of Nationalists, if not almost all of them, and many of the NRPs! [Interjections.] That is why they want to call in the Blacks to help them! No, I am sorry, they had better come and settle the matter in Port Elizabeth. We are looking forward to it, especially to joining battle with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Law and Order has instructed an inquiry to be held into what occurred in Pietersburg but in 1969 the NP did not order an inquiry into what happened in Paarl, George, Klerksdorp and Bloemfontein. There was no question of it then! Here and there in church circles today we are being read lessons and sermons on Christianity but, if my memory serves me, not a voice rose from church circles in 1969 on the treatment meted out to the HNP at the time. [Interjections.]

In 1969 Mr Koos Potgieter took the lead at Brits; there were riots at Klerksdorp; the hon the Minister of Law and Order was one of the ringleaders at Potchefstroom! [Interjections.]

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

Mr Chairman, is it a point of order? [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

No, Sir, not now. I first want to finish speaking. [Interjections.]

In Bloemfontein Dr Nak van der Merwe and the present hon Minister of Justice, the leader of the NP in the Free State, were the ringleaders in destruction and thuggery. It was the same in Port Elizabeth, as in George, where they nearly threw me into the fishpond. [Interjections.] Fortunately I can swim so I did not take fright. They also made themselves felt in Kimberley and Worcester. In Worcester it was the hon member Mr van Staden. There he was a doctor in wrecking meetings! At Worcester he was the moving spirit in the uproar and thuggery.

But Paarl took the cake. There Messrs Piet Marais, Wynand Malan, Hennie Smit and Flip le Grange came marching up to the platform one behind the other and took the lead in inciting the entire audience to such an extent that they threw Fanie van der Merwe off the platform three times. [Interjections.] Yes, hon members are joining in the laughter now but that evening it was not amusing. Police officers stood laughing outside the hall at the time. There was no voice, no move in the NP to order an inquiry into the treatment, the hooliganism, the thuggery which the NP carried out against the HNP. [Interjections.] The NP does not have the moral right to complain about thuggery and hooliganism at public meetings at all. That is one sphere into which it cannot venture.

At the time the HNP appealed in vain to the SA Police chiefs—General Mike Geldenhuys and later General Gideon Joubert—to curb the hooliganism. They refused time and again with the statement—this is on record— that those hiring the hall were responsible for what happened inside—not the Police. In Paarl officers stood outside the hall laughing and I think that is right. What happens within the hall is the responsibility of those hiring it and we should keep to that and not run about crying now, shedding tears and sprouting wings about something which occurs in South Africa politics from time to time.

What does concern us is that the State is applying its power for the first time to protect the NP; it is using State power to protect its party. I want to ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order to extend the inquiry he ordered in Pietersburg to Ellisras because five members of the AWB were not arrested there—three of them did not belong to the AWB. One was a member of the HNP and his evidence was that there were double the number of police compared with the 125 Nationalists present in the hall. [Interjections.] I would rather not mention all the Military Police vehicles; they even brought the dog unit from Pietersburg—some people say there were even three dog units. [Interjections.]

It is a disgrace.

So our man was arrested. There was uncertainty on the charge at the meeting. The NP organiser then said he did not want him there; he was not to be there. This was said to Peet van Vuuren, our former organiser, currently a businessman. Subsequently the charge was changed again. The Police then said that right of admission to the meeting was reserved. There was no clarity as to the charge when these men were arrested. When they reached the police station it was said to be an unlawful gathering.

A Police state.

The NP’s meeting was not unlawful. There were no more than eight rightists standing at the gate. Because they were talking to the Police at the gate, this later became “the unlawful gathering” at the police station! [Interjections.] Can you beat that!

Louis, were you there?

That is why I say the hon the Minister should extend this inquiry.

I must say the hon the Minister of Manpower has a point. He has a point and I think he is entitled to feel slightly unhappy and to criticise the Police. He is actually criticising the hon the Minister of Law and Order but he does not have the courage to do that; now he is criticising the Police because the hon the Minister of Law and Order protects his meeting with hordes of policemen and members of the Defence Force but the poor hon Ministers of Manpower, Foreign Affairs and Agriculture and Water Supply are left to the mercy of the wolves. I think the hon the Minister therefore has a point; I should have felt the same if I had been he. [Interjections.]

What is occurring in South Africa was clearly displayed on the front page of yesterday’s The Star. The report ran:

[Interjections.] That is what it is all about.

Do you believe The Star?

The Sunday Star. [Interjections.] This is what is happening: There is an enormous move to the right in politics here. There is nobody, not even the Progs or countries overseas—I shall be receiving the Los Angeles Times tomorrow morning and they are white about the gills already—who can contest this shift in politics.

In conclusion, I wish to say I cannot agree with the hon member for Yeoville’s statement that the sole solution which can emerge can only be one which is more to the left than the NP. I ask the hon member, if things are going as they are at Pietersburg, Brits, Warden and possibly other places while this Government has not yet reached the stage of Black participation in the White political dispensation, what does he think will happen if Black participation is actually brought about. Does the hon member after all his years here—let me say I greatly appreciate the hon member; I listen to all his speeches—have any perception of what could happen in Afrikaner ranks if this Government took us into a political dispensation involving the Blacks as well? [Interjections.] He has no idea!

Consequently I say the solution cannot come from the left of the NP; it can only come from the right of the NP. [Interjections.] The NP itself no longer has a solution; after all, we are experiencing this crisis as a result of NP policy. The solution is therefore either to the left or the right of the NP but it cannot be to the left. It can only be to the right.

Mr Chairman, it is 26 May today. [Interjections.] Today the NP has been in power for 38 years. [Interjections.] I predict that it will still be in power 38 years on. [Interjections.]

I first want to get to the hon member for Sasolburg. The hon member disseminated an untruth here. [Interjections.] I once attended a meeting at Worcester. The HNP had not yet been founded. Dr Hertzog held a meeting there. It was right at the beginning before the “Skilpad” hall meeting where the party was formed.

No, Oom Koot, your memory is deceiving you. [Interjections.]

I attended the meeting and put a few questions to Dr Hertzog and I was treated very amicably. The chairman said I could put only three questions; he passed me their microphone and I put my three questions. It was an open-air meeting and there was no disturbance; an absolutely peaceful meeting was held there.

It was not absolutely peaceful, Oom Koot.

No, it was an open-air meeting and, as far as I am concerned, an absolutely peaceful one. [Interjections.] I did nothing to disturb them. Hon members can see it is almost like a snowball. They make a snowball for themselves and later believe in it themselves. [Interjections.]

I want to say I felt sad that hooliganism and thuggery was condoned and encouraged in this House today. [Interjections.]

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

No, my time is running out. The hon member had better resume his seat.

How many meetings have you broken up? [Interjections.]

I shall get to that; the hon member had better resume his seat meanwhile.

How many times have you been a thug? [Interjections.]

Sir, the militant movement—I am speaking from experience—is hijacking them. They have embarked on a venture they cannot control and they are riding for a fall. [Interjections.] Under the OB-Malan agreement we had a strong man. The OB tried to swallow the NP. If we had not had Dr Malan, it would have succeeded. He encouraged us to join the OB and he saved us; I see no salvation for the CP. [Interjections.] The hon member for Langlaagte is going to land up in the water with the crocodiles.

I wish to say something about the CP propaganda method. Its members include three theologians.

The Judges …

I have copies of their speeches with me. Two weeks ago the hon member for Waterberg said the following about Brits:

That reminded me of the verse in the Bible which runs that one should not see the mote in one neighbour’s eye and overlook the beam in one’s own. Surely the hon member had a strong man there too. I see the strong man was at Pietersburg as well. What kind of theology is that? [Interjections.]

I want to get to the hon member for Rissik. Last Friday he slandered Stellenbosch here before he was called to order by the hon member for Stellenbosch and correctly informed but he had already done the damage. Why did he do this? He wants to vilify Stellenbosch. The leaders about whom he makes such a fuss—Dr Malan, Adv Strijdom and Dr Verwoerd—over the years all spoke of Stellenbosch as the mecca of Afrikanerdom.

That is so.

The CP will reinstate Stellenbosch as such.

Other Afrikaans universities were added but Stellenbosch is still one of the meccas of South Africa today.

No.

The hon member vilified Stellenbosch in the Chamber just to have it recorded in Hansard to cause damage upcountry and then he calls himself a theologian!

I am making a deep impression on you prophetically. [Interjections.]

I want to get to the hon member for Koedoespoort who is also a theologian. Last Friday he asked here who had broken up HNP meetings in 1969 and who had flung eggs at them amongst other things. He referred to the hon member for Kimberley South, to the hon member for Rissik and to me. The hon member said we were the people who had broken up HNP meetings.

Is that right or wrong?

It is nonsense. I have never broken up an HNP meeting. [Interjections.] I said the other day I did not attend nincompoops’ meetings. [Interjections.] I do not do so. Let me tell hon members I have never broken up a meeting.

Never?

No. [Interjections.] It is rubbish. Not once in my life have I been on another man’s platform and I have never held a meeting in his hall. Let me tell hon members clearly. I went to meetings to choose a chairman or put questions. The NP had a small majority and people did not attend our meetings; they went to those of the UP. We therefore went to meetings with a good attendance and put questions there. We did not act like thugs. That story about breaking up meetings is nonsense; the hon members have heard rumours. Nowhere was I on another man’s platform to take over his meeting or to hold my own in his hall. I took my people away. [Interjections.]

Let me tell the House what type of work we did. Have a look here next to me; this is one of the best organisers the old United Party ever had. He is my benchmate.

You beat him into submission! He will talk against you yet! [Interjections.]

Just think about Mr Marais Steyn, to mention a name, but there is a whole list. If there was one man I pestered with questions, it was Mr Marais Steyn; hon members can question him on this themselves. We are good friends, however, and he is a member of this Party. We were not bullies but with our questioning we took all the people from the Opposition parties because they saw the Opposition parties had no case. Those people are with us today. [Interjections.] The NRP is all that remains of the old United Party; only five hon members remain of that once powerful party. We took every last man of its followers off it and it has none left. They are with the NP today and I say this is the result of putting questions properly. [Interjections.]

I want to speak on another matter.

What about the time you stood on a chair and shouted me down?

I shouted to be able to put questions! [Interjections.]

It was because the hon member for Durban Point was making such a noise with the loudspeaker!

Yes, he was making so much noise with the loudspeaker that I had to shout! [Interjections.]

Nowadays the CP is making a great fuss about how it is going to take over control in South Africa.

Just hold an election!

I want to tell them to calm down a bit because they are harming South Africa. They are contributing more to investment that the Blacks.

That’s right! [Interjections.]

Yes, they are contributing more to investment than the Blacks.

Put him right! [Interjections.]

There is no government or businessman in the world who would want to see the CP in power.

The old UP said exactly the same in 1948!

I want to tell businessmen and the world it is just a hollow din; empty vessels are making all the noise.

You are talking like a real old UP man!

They are led by the Three Musketeers who are theologians.

I have the figures here. Twenty-two parties broke away to the left of the old United Party; ten to the right of the NP. Not one of those parties to the right succeeded and to the left they destroyed the United Party. The last straw was its joining the Unionists; that was the end of the United Party. Originally the South African Party was a centre party but then it moved to the left.

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

No.

The SAP moved from a centre party to the left but the NP did not become a rightist party. It became the centre party because the United Party moved increasingly to the left. [Interjections.] It attempted to draw in every one of the twenty-two groups which broke away.

Was the NP in the centre in 1948?

Yes, it was the centre party. [Interjections.] The NP did not subsequently try to include the people of those twelve parties which splintered to the right; they one and all returned to the NP. I can mention the names of all the people in those rightist parties who ultimately all sat here. Even Dr Van Rensburg, the Leader of the Ossewabrandwag, returned to the NP.

John Vorster too!

Yes, he did too.

In 1943 there was a break with the New Order of 17 members of Parliament; that was Pirow’s party.

The bushcart 17!

In the 1943 election not one of them won a constituency. They were all kicked out. [Interjections.] I say to the CP there were also 17 of them. [Interjections.]

There are 18 of us! [Interjections.]

You now have one more.

There are two more now.

There were 17 rebels. They will be kicked out just like the New Order! [Interjections.]

Hold an election!

Militant people have no place in South African politics. [Interjections.] Our politics are calm and peaceful and democratically orientated. We shall continue on this road and win the following election more easily than in the past.

You will sell out the Whites!

The CP will disappear under South African militants.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Van Staden gave the CP a testimonial this afternoon which I should like to confirm. He said the CP contributed to investment. [Interjections.] We are in full agreement. [Interjections.]

He must not change his Hansard!

He must just not change his Hansard!

It was a slip of the tongue!

We agree with him. [Interjections.] Whereas the Government’s policy promotes disinvestment, the CP creates confidence for investment. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member Mr van Staden supposedly never had anything to do with violence; he did not break up meetings; in fact, he has a type of purity about him. [Interjections.]

Snow White!

He was just a little thing.

I wish to refer to a speech he made in this House on Tuesday, 11 April 1972. He referred to the Springbok Legion (Hansard: House of Assembly, Vol 38, col 4620):

[Interjections.]

Order!

I think I have dealt adequately with the hon member Mr van Staden. [Interjections.]

I wish to refer to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central who made such a fuss about the beaches and the referendum. I want to tell him the CP stands four-square in that battle. Two CP members of the Port Elizabeth City Council, Mr Meyer and Mr Dorfling, took a stand in the meeting of the city council and voted against throwing open the beaches. [Interjections.] They are part of that battle and are taking part in the referendum. [Interjections.] I wish to assure hon members today that, when the CP comes to power to the delight of the hon member Mr van Staden, we shall ensure that there are beaches for the exclusive use of Whites. [Interjections.] With that I have also dealt beautifully with the hon member. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Smithfield really surprises me. The hon member is so concerned that the AWB is supposed to be taking the CP in tow and is going to eliminate, dispose of and destroy it. He would certainly like to have the CP removed from the scene, eliminated and destroyed. So why is he so concerned if the AWB is doing this? [Interjections.] It surprises me that one can be so concerned at the possible destruction of one’s enemy whom one would like to see destroyed. [Interjections.] In the final analysis, to whom will it matter whether it is destroyed by the AWB or the NP? If I want my enemy destroyed, surely I am pleased if that is to happen to him; I am surely not going to be concerned about it. [Interjections.]

That is NP logic.

It just illustrates NP thinking on this matter.

I also wish to pause briefly at the hon member for Paarl. In a debate on White own affairs here this hon member made a speech in which he appealed for the inclusion of Blacks in the governing structure of this country. His plea was that race should actually disappear from the scene; he spoke of one race as a whole. I do not know what type of racial potpourri he is trying to create but it surprises me that White own affairs should be used for that purpose by the hon member.

I am very pleased that the hon the Minister of Manpower is present as I wish to quote from the Pretoria News of 23 May 1986:

Those were his own words:

[Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Law and Order, who is responsible for the SA Police, held a meeting in Ellisras and on that occasion referred to the incidents in Pietersburg. It was reported inter alia:

I accept that the hon the Minister of Law and Order was actually referring to this flagrant utterance of the hon the Minister of Manpower’s against the police. Out of loyalty to a colleague, however, he did not mention him by name and merely referred to “some quarters”. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House and all rightists who were involved in the Pietersburg incidents are all on the side of the police. [Interjections.] We are not prepared to have police accused of being called in to carry out a duty but not being capable or prepared to do so. This hon Minister said this about the police. The report continued in inverted commas:

But that is not true.

Did the hon Minister say this? Did the hon Minister say the police had escorted this man to the meeting?

Make your own speech!

The Minister must not tell me to make my own speech. I ask whether he said that. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister did say that and that is why the hon the Minister of Law and Order acted correctly in taking this hon Minister to task during his meeting at Ellisras. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall reply to the hon member. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon the Minister taking a point of order?

Mr Chairman, the hon member asked me a question and I merely want to know whether I must answer him. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I can understand an hon Minister who is frightened trying to waste my time in the House in this way while knowing the Rules of this House. [Interjections.] In addition, I wish to state it clearly that we in this party endorse the statement of the hon the Minister of Law and Order when he said and I quote:

That is correct!

We endorse those words. [Interjections.] We endorse them because we have a great regard for the Police. [Interjections.]

Order!

We have great regard for the Police and for the work done by the SA Police. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I wish to refer briefly to a few matters which emerged from the debate on White own affairs.

In the first place, it was noticeable—and I want this to lead to the statement I actually wish to make—that every hon Minister responsible for own affairs here came up against a single problem—that he did not have enough finance to satisfy the demands of his department.

All hon Ministers come up against that problem; I am not the only one.

No, Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister should not become defensive so soon. Surely White own affairs are of paramount importance to this hon Minister; surely he is their greatest champion. As he is the Minister of the Budget and as his colleagues in the Ministers’ Council are rising one after the other to indicate that they have too little finance and as the existence and survival of own affairs depend on adequate finance, this hon Minister bears the enormous responsibility—as the Minister of the Budget—to intercede in the Cabinet, where he has a seat, for finance to be made available so that White own affairs will not suffer, so that White education, White health and welfare services, White agriculture and so on will not suffer; that they will not deteriorate owing to a lack of finance. That responsibility rests on this hon Minister’s shoulders which prompts me to make this appeal to him. I request him to ensure that this deficit will be converted into an adequacy and that there will be no hiding behind the argument that every hon Minister has to put up with a shortage of finance. So much finance goes to general affairs so own affairs, and White own affairs in particular, have the right to lay full claim to adequate finance to deal successfully with those portfolios in the interests of the Whites. [Interjections.]

We cannot permit White education to suffer and its standards to decline because there is insufficient finance available for it. [Interjections.] We cannot permit medical and welfare services to suffer. We cannot permit agriculture to suffer because the hon the Minister who would like to carry out his work and who is responsible for it is stopped short by the fact that he does not have adequate finance at his disposal. [Interjections.] And this hon Minister, who is responsible for the Budget, is responsible that the Ministers of his Ministers’ Council receive adequate money to permit White affairs to proceed successfully.

They are too weak to negotiate for the Whites!

A second matter which is noticeable and to which I wish to refer is the great injustice taking place. Every specific population group receives its money from the Budget, but it is the White with the limited finances allocated to him who has to share those finances with those of colour because he has to share his facilities with other population groups— make them available to other population groups. The White has to share his private schools and universities with other population groups so the money the White receives for Whites to study at universities and other educational institutions has to be shared with those of colour. Consequently he shares the small amount of money he receives for White affairs with those of colour as well whereas, if two White students want to study at a Black university and share the money those Blacks receive, there are strikes and threats by Black students and the White students are compelled to withdraw from that university. In addition, Black students are not prepared to permit White students on their campus; neither are they prepared to sit with them in the same lecture hall nor to share their budget with them.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to one more matter; my time is very limited. If this Government is sincere about own affairs, it should prove this to us. Our criticism is not aimed at the question of own affairs; we do not despise our affairs. We value own affairs very highly but our criticism is merely—hon members had better listen well—that self-determination in these own affairs is being eroded and minimised and actually taken from us because White own affairs are being subjected to general laws which are guidelines and bind the White so that he cannot make his own laws; he always has to take note of general law. Nevertheless he is bound by a general policy—particularly in education; he cannot lay down his own education policy; he cannot devise his own welfare or medical policy; he is bound by the general policy prescribed to him.

Self-determination is the right which enables a people personally to order and decide about itself, its possessions and its future without the interference or domination of any other group.

I wish to say that, while the NP continues to subject White own affairs to a general law, a general policy and a general Budget so that cupped hands have to reach out for funds to a racially mixed Cabinet, the NP is eroding self-determination on White own affairs. We are not prepared to continue on that road. We demand an own fatherland, a White people … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the end of his speech the hon member for Koedoespoort made reference to an own fatherland, and earlier he referred to the distribution and the utilisation of tax. In an earlier debate the hon the Minister of Finance dealt thoroughly with the argument in connection with the utilisation of tax. I am not going to reply to that.

The matter of an own fatherland is beginning to irritate me. The hon members of the CP maintain that South Africa is the White’s fatherland, and theirs alone. Surely that is not correct and cannot be correct. This country, this dear fatherland of mine and theirs, is not only ours. This fatherland also belongs to the Blacks who live here.

Creed of a liberal!

Of course. It is also the fatherland of the Blacks who live here, were born here and have never known any other country. What is more, the people who can lay greater claim, perhaps even greater claim than we can, to this country, are the Coloureds. This country is their fatherland just as much as it is those hon members’, and just as much as it is mine.

The hon member for Koedoespoort referred to the Budget. I want to do so too. We are dealing with its Third Reading, but we only had very short references to the Budget right at the beginning of the debate when the hon members for Yeoville and Sunnyside spoke against the overspending by this hon Minister and his department.

They link their own statements and their criticism to a report by Mr Deon Basson which appeared in yesterday’s Rapport, that of Sunday, 25 May, the day after the Springboks gave the All Blacks such a thorough thrashing on Loftus Versfeld. Mr Basson’s report appeared under the heading: “Staat: Wie nou oorbestee”. The report reads:

By making a single telephone call, this man could have acquainted himself with the facts, and these two senior hon members of the House of Assembly and of their parties walked into this trap by agreeing with this journalist, simply to be able to criticise this hon Minister and the administration of his department.

What are the facts? The fact is, drawings of 13,3% were made against the Vote. That is true. That 13,3% of the budgeted amount has not been spent, however. Why has it not been spent?

In the first place, as regards the advance payments made to the provinces, almost two months’ budgeted expenditure is paid out to them in April. These are amounts which have not yet been spent. This is simply money which has been transferred from one account to the provinces’ accounts so that by April or May the provinces can make payments against these amounts. [Interjections.] A further matter which obviates this argument …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Smithfield say the hon member for Langlaagte is intoxicated (getrek)? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Smithfield say that?

I asked whether he was intoxicated, Sir.

The hon member said he was intoxicated. He is distorting his words.

Order! The hon member for Smithfield must withdraw that. An insinuation by way of a question can also be un-parliamentary.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Langlaagte was the first to use the word “intoxicated”, with reference to an hon member on this side of the House and also by way of a question.

Mr Chairman, I asked whether the amount of money had been drawn (getrek). [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Hercules may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. In terms of an arrangement with the universities and technikons, 25% of the R847 million budgeted for them—viz R212 million—was paid to those bodies as early as April for spending and for the payment of their expenses.

A third drawing, which does represent a payment, is the service bonuses which were budgeted for. The service bonuses for January, February, March and April, which entail a third of the budgeted amount for service bonuses for the year, were only paid at the end of April, however. When Mr Basson maintains, therefore, that the overspending already amounts to 13,3%, he is completely off the mark. He is quite wrong. What is more, it is unforgivable for these two senior hon members to repeat what this man said. They could have acquainted themselves with the facts by making a single telephone call.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, this speech has been interrupted a number of times, but nevertheless, the last remark I want to make in respect of my criticism to the report that appeared in yesterday’s Rapport, is that I merely want to appeal to financial reporters please to acquaint themselves with the facts of the matter before they publish articles of this kind, because such a report creates a completely erroneous impression of the real situation. [Interjections.]

Earlier tonight the hon member for Sasolburg told us about the evening in Paarl when Mr Fame van der Merwe was thrown off the stage three times. We are waiting for the opportunity to throw the hon member for Sasolburg off the stage three times on the same night, since Mr Fanie van der Merwe has come back to the NP in the meantime! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Hercules whether he has knowledge of all the circumstances that led up to that? [Interjections.]

I should now like to ask the hon member for Koedoespoort a question. According to the newspaper report there were approximately 3 000 people—no, let us give the CP all the benefit of the doubt, and say there were 5 000 people—on the football field after the meeting had ended on that notorious night in Pietersburg.

Make it 6 000. [Interjections.]

I now want to ask the hon member for Koedoespoort how many of those 5 000 people were CP members? [Interjections.]

That is not the same question you asked me in the passage.

No, the hon member said then that 99% of the people had been CP supporters. I merely want the hon member to repeat that.

Then I shall say 100%.

The hon member for Koedoespoort said 100% of those people were CP supporters, with the exclusion of Mr Terre’Blanche who addressed the meeting. [Interjections.] I do want to ask that hon member, with reference to that takeover and everything that happened there …

We took nothing over!

Oh no! Very well. I give the CP all the benefit of the doubt. Everything! [Interjections.] I merely want to ask the hon member whether that 99% or 100% of the audience who were CP supporters, who broke up the meeting …

We did not break up the meeting! [Interjections.]

… and who went to the football field, still support the CP policy, and whether some of them support the Terre’Blanche’s National-Socialist policy.

No, they are CP people! [Interjections.]

It was merely a question. I just want to say that with this fraternisation, the CP is burdening itself with something it will not be able to get rid of. [Interjections.]

Earlier tonight it was denied from those circles that the Police had accompanied Mr Terre’Blanche into the hall.

Are you opposed to the Police? [Interjections.]

No, I am not opposed to the Police; on the contrary, I am in favour of the Police. [Interjections.] The Police protect all people, because according to The Star of Friday, 23 May, Mr Terre’Blanche requested the Police to accompany him when he entered the hall, and the Police complied with the request.

Are you angry?

No, I am not angry with anyone. I am merely angry with people who play on their harps and flutes like modern Neros, while Rome is burning. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, earlier in his speech the hon member for Hercules rightly said South Africa is our common fatherland. I hope the hon member will also support us when we say that the facilities of our fatherland should be shared by all. Naturally this includes seaside resorts and all the other parts of our country, which must be shared by everyone in this father-land.

Parliament too?

Of course, Parliament too, and Parliament in particular, if we want to utilise the future of this fatherland and want to dwell in it in peace in future with the members of the other peoples. I wonder if the hon member for Sasolburg— who protested strongly against sharing facilities—ever goes abroad and tries to explain to the foreigners that in the year 1986 there are discussions about who may share beach facilities. When I broached this topic abroad in the past, I found they regarded it as something that belonged to a period when our ancestors were still baboons. It is no point of discussion there any more, and it is a pity that that hon member still belongs to a party that makes an important point of that kind of thing. [Interjections.]

I regret having to turn from this subject, but I should like to talk about own affairs. I should like to raise two points with the hon the Minister.

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

No, Mr Chairman, unfortunately I have only seven minutes at my disposal.

The hon the Minister is aware that life continues outside this House, amidst all the talk about Pietersburg and such absolute nonsense. There are people who are deciding at this moment whether or not they want to leave South Africa as a result of our right-wing friends and their deeds, and because of the Government’s legislation. Let us not argue about that. [interjections.] A growing number of people in our country are deciding whether or not they want to leave South Africa—for specific reasons. That is why there is a group—including professional people and academics in particular—among whom there is an immense feeling of frustration as a result of economic and political uncertainty, as well as certain problems which they are experiencing in their professions.

Which were caused by power-sharing.

I should like to refer to the full-time medical staff in this connection. I am thinking of newspaper reports, for example “The National Manpower Commission shows that South Africa lost 70 doctors and dentists last year”. These are people we cannot get back, and we cannot afford to lose them. That is why I want to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget, as well as the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, to take specific note of the professional and full-time officials in our country who are under economic pressure, and whose working conditions as a result are yielding problems which are not easy to deal with. We are thinking of job satisfaction in particular. As a result of economic pressure on the fulltime hospital services, we find professors and others who cannot progress with their research. They also have the problem of fewer and fewer trips abroad. As a result of salary problems and working conditions, some of them are planning to leave South Africa, and some have already done so.

There is hardly a South African doctor left in the specialist groups in the two English medical schools where heart surgery is practised, the medical schools of Cape Town and the Witwatersrand. Only one or two are left. This is a problem which should receive our very serious consideration. We cannot afford to lose these people.

In the recent debate about the Health Services and Welfare Vote, I put a question to that hon Minister. In today’s newspaper, we read:

There are two MECs who say the same thing, of whom one is definitely no Prog. I continue:

Once again I appeal to the hon the Minister and associate myself with the hon member for Umbilo in saying that the fragmentation of health services in own affairs is something we are going to pay dearly for. At this late stage I ask the hon the Minister and his hon colleagues to take another look at this matter.

†Then, in these days of privatisation, I should like to talk to the hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare about the private nurses in South Africa. There is very little incentive for private nursing in South Africa. For instance, private nursing is not encouraged by legislation. Private nurses can only attend patients once they have been asked to do so.

It is really amazing that in South Africa, where we set such a high standard for nursing, nurses themselves are not allowed to treat patients while chiropractors, homeopaths and herbalists have the right to treat patients. I think we should look into this matter with a view to acknowledging the professionalism of these nurses so that they can also be regarded as a professional part of medical services.

Secondly, medical aid schemes will only pay private nurses two thirds of the cost of a house visit by a general practitioner. This works out to about R12 per house visit, which just does not cover their expenses. For instance, she uses her own car, has to supply her own fuel and he has to cover all her other expenses. I am glad to see that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs is here. Some medical aid schemes do not even cover the cost of the nurse’s house visit. These medical aid schemes include quite a number of Government and quasi-Government medical aid schemes. The SATS scheme, Transmed, for instance, will not even allow patients to claim a refund of the cost of private nursing.

When we talk about privatisation in South Africa, we must remember that the private nurse will play an important role in the medical care development of privatisation. I would therefore be very grateful if the hon the Minister and his hon colleagues would assist the private nurses.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Parktown. At the beginning of his speech he made the remark: “When our ancestors were still baboons”. I should like to tell him my ancestors and the ancestors of all the hon members on this side of the House were not baboons. Perhaps his ancestors were, and perhaps the ancestors of the hon members on that side of the House were baboons as well. Perhaps that is why the voters do not want to permit them to govern South Africa. [Interjections.]

Before I come to my actual speech, I also want to make a remark about the debate earlier this afternoon about Pietersburg and associated events. To my mind the most important question—I believe other hon members on this side of the House agree with me—is what is in the interests of South Africa today and what we must do to promote South Africa’s interests. Through the years the NP has proved that it has always placed South Africa foremost. It has always answered South Africa’s questions and always said “yes” to South Africa. We have always said we would live for South Africa; and if it was required of us, we would die for our country. I therefore want to appeal to the CP, the HNP and the AWB, which are using the political platforms in all kinds of ways today to stimulate and exploit emotion, also to live for South Africa and not only to live to die for South Africa. We have a beautiful country. There is room for everyone here. We are working at it, and they must not put a spoke in our wheel. They must rather help us. [Interjections.]

I also want to say the AWB is not acting in the interests of South Africa. Nor are those people who condone the AWB’s actions in the House acting in the interests of South Africa. Those people are using the methods one would expect the UDF to use, and I want to tell them they must take some time to think about whether they are still acting in the interests of South Africa. They must consider saying “yes” to South Africa for a change and ending their emotional agitation. [Interjections.]

I should like to come to my actual speech. When one reviews the discussion of own affairs Votes in this House, one can justifiably admit that the Administration: House of Assembly has been developed to something the Whites can be proud of today. It emerged in the discussions of the Votes that each Government department had planned properly in respect of funds which will be needed in the 1986-87 financial year.

The complaint is often flung at this side of the House that the administration in control of own affairs has made government unnecessarily expensive. That is not true. The administrative auxiliary function rendered by the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services in respect of the Administration: House of Assembly, amounts to R24 million. That is 0,5% of the total budget of R4,8 billion.

Reference was made in earlier debates— the hon member for Koedoespoort referred to this in his speech as well—to how little money is negotiated for the Whites. Repeated reference was also made in earlier debates to the so-called decrease in the budget for Agriculture and Water Supply. It is true that a smaller amount appears for agriculture in the 1986-87 Budget than was the case in the past. An amount of R571 million appeared in the Budget then.

It is important to remember that drought aid had already been added to the R571 million of the previous year. The amount for drought aid had not yet been added to the R529 million which was budgeted for this financial year. When the Budget was drawn up in January 1986, the magnitude of the drought damage could not be determined. In fact, the harvest prospects for 1986 were still very good in January.

When one looks specifically at the programmes under Agriculture and Water Supply in the Budget, one finds that most of those programmes’ amounts have increased. I mention only a few examples. Plant production promotion increased by 13%; animal production promotion by 63%; agricultural resource utilisation by 15%; the establishment of State-aided water schemes by 19%; and I can continue in this way. The amounts of nearly all the items under programme 9 have also been increased.

As far as agricultural financing in particular is concerned, a smaller amount is given in the Budget than that of last year, but if one adds the R70 million, which was repaid into the revolving fund, to the amount which was budgeted this year, one finds the allocation has increased by R1 million. I think it is important to rectify this matter.

The charge that funds in the Budget for agriculture have decreased enormously, is therefore not quite correct, and nor is the deduction made from this that the Government does not care about the farmers.

I am aware of the fact that the Jacobs Committee will give its proposals concerning additional aid to our farmers in the drought-stricken areas to the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply shortly. The Cabinet will have to take the final decision on this proposed aid. Since I am aware of the Government’s sympathy to agriculture and to our farmers who have been through five years of drought, I know the Government will budget additional funds for drought aid. In the end this will mean that the 1986-87 Budget will be more than the 1985-86 Budget where agriculture specifically is concerned.

You are correct, Willie.

It seems the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs agrees.

One must therefore stop broadcasting the erroneous view that the Government does not value agriculture very highly.

Agriculture will also have to be assisted, however, in building up its own funds for the lean years in future. The system of writing off implements in the year of purchase led to the making of injudicious purchases in an effort to evade tax. As a result little money was invested for the lean years. I am aware of the fact that the Margo Commission is inquiring into this matter, but I should like to raise it here in the own affairs debate as well so that we can also get the support of the own affairs ministry—of the Chairman in particular—in this connection. During the 1984 SA Agricultural Union Congress in Pretoria, the State President expressed his support for the Capital Reserve Fund.

I want to conclude by asking the hon the Minister in the last place which other functions are going to be transferred to the Administration: House of Assembly before 1 July 1986. I also want to express a word of thanks on behalf of my constituency and myself to the Administration: House of Assembly, the Ministers’ Council and all the officials who work in that particular Government department. I want to thank them for the work they are doing and to tell them they must continue to develop the own affairs departments, since it is important to do so. This applies not only to the Whites’ own affairs departments, but also to those of the Indians, the Coloureds and ultimately, if need be, the Blacks. This is where the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks will manage their own affairs in the end, those things that affect them directly every day.

Mr Chairman, since this debate revolves around White own affairs as these are entrenched in the Constitution, and the interests of the Whites are under discussion, I should like to refer to an organisation of which few hon members in this House will probably have heard. It goes under the rather pretentious title of “Aksie Blank Natal” (Action White Natal). It also professes that it seeks to serve the interests of the Whites.

And you are selling Natal down the river!

I have in my hand a rather unsavoury little pamphlet … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman has now made his last interjection. The hon member Mr Schoeman may proceed.

Before the hon member tried to interrupt me I was referring to a rather unsavoury little pamphlet which was recently distributed in Durban, and also to certain Press reports which appeared there about a so-called protest meeting which was held last week in the Durban City Hall and which was addressed by Mr Jaap Marais, the leader of the HNP, and by the hon member for Lichtenburg as representative of the CP.

We in Natal would like to respect the freedom of speech and I want to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg that his gloating and ill-concealed protection and condonation of the AWB’s disgraceful conduct in Pietersburg will not pass unnoticed by the voters of Natal. They will not soon forget it.

How did you get here?

There are not even many Lord Haw-Haws from that party in Natal. [Interjections.] The message which this Action Group and its supporters are proclaiming is a soothing message of escapism. Natal has never really in any sense of the word been White, just as no other part of South Africa as a country seen as a whole was really White. There has never been greater mingling and interdependence among the people of all races in Natal than at this very juncture.

To assert the opposite is untrue and in these times in which we are living dangerous and irresponsible. It is an illusion and it is being proclaimed by people who are political sleep-walkers. The danger, however, is that it can degenerate into a nightmare in view of the damage it could cause among the various races in this country.

†We do not need these political dream-merchants in Natal. They have nothing to offer Natal—in fact, they have nothing to offer any part of South Africa. They are yesterday’s men and I have no doubt that the voters of Natal will reject the historical mumbojumbo and the rabble-rousing that they are coming up with in that province. [Interjections.]

The crucial issues which are to be faced in Natal are difficult enough without having to be subjected to the mischief-making and the sowing of dissension by Mr Jaap Marais and his CP and other right-wing accomplices.

*If an organisation such as Aksie Blank Natal wishes to play any kind of role in the politics of Natal—and it has every right to do so—it must state what kind of “action” it is proposing. Is it the “action” of the CP, the HNP or the AWB? Interestingly enough, this question was put to him more than two months ago by one of my parliamentary colleagues, by way of a letter written to Mr Chris Wolmarans, the organiser of this protest meeting. A reply to this critical question is still being awaited today.

Until there is clarity on this matter, this organisation will be branded as merely another front organisation and has nothing to contribute to the preservation of the Whites or the solution of any national problem in South Africa.

The allegation that the Government is failing to preserve and protect what was built up over many generations to the advantage of the Whites, and the allegation that we are on our way to abdication, is just as false in respect of the position in Natal as it is in respect of the rest of the country. As recently as 15 May the State President spelt out the policy of the Government in this connection very clearly before the President’s Council.

†The Government has repeatedly committed itself to negotiations, and in this regard I should like to quote the response of the Leader of the National Party in Natal, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, to the invitation to our party to participate in the Natal/kwaZulu Indaba. He said the following:

As one of the NP’s observers at that Indaba, I want to say that we do not apologise to anybody for being there. It was the absolutely correct decision irrespective of the outcome, and anything which comes out of the Indaba will have to have submitted to the central Government in any event. In my view, for the NP to have ignored, run away from or even been dismissive of the Indaba would have been a serious omission in the times in which we live.

In closing, I would like to urge my fellow White South Africans, each in his own area of influence, to commit themselves to being part of the solution and not part of the problem by accepting the principle that we as Whites can only continue to play our rightful role in this country in terms of a policy of live and let live.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to announce that my benchfellow, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has arrived. I am very pleased that he can be here this evening. [Interjections.]

Pik ’n Play!

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has just arrived back in this House. We are pleased to see that he has not been harmed, wounded or killed, and that he is still able to take his place here.

I think it is essential to say a few quick words on behalf of the PFP about the events in Pietersburg. We must emphasise that it is not a joke, but is something which will do great harm to South Africa’s image abroad, for we would very much like to demonstrate to the outside world that we wish to bring about reform in South Africa in a civilised way. Such violence, whether from the left or from the right, can only do enormous harm to our image abroad. [Interjections.]

A second matter which is affected by this, is the image of the Whites among the other population groups in South Africa. To hold up such an example to these people, that violent means are used to conduct the political dialogue and debate, can only create the impression among those people that violence is an acceptable way of conducting that debate. I do not think we can afford that.

It is true that the CP, the AWB and the HNP are adopting the pattern laid down by the NP over many years. But that is no justification whatsoever for the continuation of that reprehensible type of conduct.

In a democracy it is the inalienable right of the citizens of the country to be able to assemble peacefully to discuss national affairs; of a political party to convey its message to the public without interference from others; and equally of the public to be able to listen to the messages of political parties.

To conduct the political debate on a basis of violence will only lead to violence becoming a way of life in that society. Everything we stand for and that means a great deal to us will be destroyed if that happens.

In South Africa one is sometimes pessimistic and sometimes optimistic. As soon as the NP has done something which makes one feel optimistic, they turn round and do something which makes one feel pessimistic. Now it is fortunate that the Government has come forward with the legislation on the National Council. This is something which made me feel optimistic again. I want to quote a very short passage from the long title of that Bill, without much comment, to indicate why I feel optimistic about this piece of legislation. It reads as follows:

If the Government means what it says there, this is truly something we can become optimistic about. It is encouraging and even exciting. I believe that it could mean an important step in the right direction for South Africa. I believe that all leaders of all groups should give serious consideration to participating in the proposed council. I believe that it is the duty of the Government to clear up the misgivings which exist among the leaders of the other groups.

We are not going to get dozens more opportunities to try to solve South Africa’s basic problems. I think we should make use of these opportunities. This is not anywhere near an ideal opportunity and does not even come close to complying with what we on this side of the House would like to see, but I believe it is nevertheless an opportunity for South Africa to get down to some positive work on finding the solutions to the serious problems we are experiencing. However, it depends on both sides. It depends on the Government on the one side, that has to allay the misgivings of other groups. It also depends on participation by the other groups, and their willingness to do their best to solve the problems there and to make use of the machinery that has been created.

Let there be no doubt that the situation in South Africa, internally and externally, is extremely critical as far as we are concerned. It requires dramatic intervention on the part of the State President. We can no longer afford the use of long discussions, the appointment of commissions and the waiting for reports from the President’s Council on matters on which we have already agreed. Quicker and more purposeful action must be taken. When the Government said it accepted the principle of no discrimination, it was not necessary to subject the Group Areas Act or the Separate Amenities Act to further examination. That kind of legislation should be scrapped forthwith. If the Government has decided on power-sharing among all groups in South Africa, they cannot have any further reservations about the possibility of Black people sitting in the same Parliament or of a Black person becoming head of state. Since the Government has decided on negotiation with Blacks at all levels, reconsideration should be given as quickly as possible to the organisations that have been banned and the leaders who are in detention.

Reform to save South Africa and to stop the spiral of violence must be clear and unambiguous. It must not go hand in hand with the confusion which is prevailing at the moment. It must be carried out enthusiastically and courageously, and not reluctantly and apathetically. It should be imaginative and workmanlike, not clumsy and maladroit. It must take place on one’s own initiative, and not under compulsion. It must anticipate the revolution, and must not be delayed. Only then will reform be effective and make a contribution to the salvation of South Africa.

Order! Just before I call upon the hon the Minister of the Budget to speak, I want to point out to the House that the hon the Minister is also Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. It will therefore be in accordance with the practice in this House if interjections are confined to a minimum. I am therefore asking every hon member for his co-operation in this connection.

Mr Chairman, I hope you have not given hon members such a fright that they are not going to make any more interjections. That would be a very strange experience indeed.

Just don’t talk any nonsense then!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bryanston is keeping a very watchful eye on us during this session. We are, of course, also keeping a very watchful eye on him. We can see how he is struggling. Even though he frequently manifests this in a jocular fashion, we can see that there is a great struggle being waged in his innermost being because, although he can identify the shortcomings in the National Party, he can also, with relative effectiveness, also notice and analyse the shortcomings in his own party’s policy.

Hear, hear!

We respect a prophet who sometimes talks his heart out, particularly one with such a lovely grey beard. We enjoy listening to him. That fine sense of humour was, however, again in evidence this evening, Sir. Whilst expressing his optimism, and whilst engaged in a relatively appreciative analysis of the positive aspects of what the National Party is made up of and what it is doing, and now, too, the positive enthusiasm about what is embodied in the aforementioned draft Bill relating to the National Statutory Council, he did try to drag in a few minor aspects. Again he made the old mistake that the PFP so often makes in their newspapers, and that is to read more into something than is actually said … [Interjections.] … and preferably to ignore what is also said by the same speakers.

Then please say what you mean and mean what you say! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we are sincere when we say that we are moving away from discrimination. We are serious about that!

Are you merely saying that, or do you mean it too?

The hon member knows, however, that everyone on this side of the House—from the State President to the most junior hon member—regards it as the official, formal and fundamental policy of the National Party, because we see the realities, which the hon member for Yeoville also recognises—in his speech earlier this evening he emphasised, for example, the existence of a diversity of groups and peoples in this country—when we say that that diversity in regard to specific, fundamental matters should also manifest itself in how we organise our society. It must also manifest itself in how and where people exercise their political rights. That is, in fact, a form of differentiation. It must manifest itself in a protected own community life for each people and group in this country. That is, after all, a form of differentiation. That is why the hon member is specifically trying once more, in his speech, to pretend that when someone says discrimination must go, what is actually meant is that a line must also be drawn through differentiation which embodies the building into our solutions, and into our systems, the recognition of the realities of South Africa, to which the State President likes to refer as the multicultural nature of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Does Pik agree with you? The Cabinet is divided! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, before I react further to the speeches of hon members, I should first like to extend a sincere word of thanks to all hon members on this side of the House for their contributions. The hon member for Gezina made a very good speech this afternoon. I should fully like to endorse his plea for discipline and the necessity for the creation of order in and through Parliament and the institutions of authority of the State. The hon member for Newcastle level-headedly gave the true facts about the planned rally by the CP, the HNP and the AWB at Monument Hill, and I hope that his contribution will promote a sensible and responsible attitude to this matter. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Paarl emphasised the spirit and character of the Whites’ acceptance of the challenges with which we are faced. I believe that all of us, when we manage to rise above petty politics, recognise that fact and the extent of the challenges facing us.

The hon member for Smithfield unmasked the CP, effectively exposing its negative way of doing things. [Interjections.] At the same time he presented the PFP with a challenge. It was quite surprising how quiet they suddenly became. He challenged them to dissociate themselves from Dr Van Zyl Slabbert and Dr Alex Boraine. [Interjections.] That they do not do so, speaks volumes.

Now you are playing petty politics! [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon member Mr Van Staden effectively informed the House about the distinction between hard-core politics …[Interjections.] … about which he made certain avowals, and unacceptable browbeating, which he rightly rejected. [Interjections.] He presented the Opposition with a lesson in political history. [Interjections.] The hon member for Hercules effectively responded to the hon member for Yeoville’s speech on the misinterpretation of our pattern of expenditure. It is an over-simplification to divide our appropriation by twelve and then to say that when, at the end of the first month, we have spent more than one twelfth of the appropriated amount, we have been overspending.

That is rubbish! I never said that!

No, but that is the impression that is created.

I never said that.

The hon member said that we were guilty of overspending because he had looked at a percentage and found it to be higher than one month’s allocation.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he has a cash flow projection for this year? If so, what is the amount and how is it spent in accordance with his cash flow projection?

The hon member must not, when I reply to him, suddenly come to light with new questions. [Interjections.] Of course we control our cash flow. Last year exactly the same stories were told, ie that we were overspending, that certain assessments were made after one month, two months or three months. In the long run it was proved that we were in complete control of our cash flow. The facts are as stated by the hon member for Hercules. As early as April we start making advance payments, for example to universities, for their cash flow for the next three or four months. We make certain advance payments, for two months’ cash flow, to the provinces which still have to pay certain salaries. That is why all the conclusions that are drawn from the 13,3% figure are unfounded and simply untrue. I most strongly want to associate myself with what the hon member for Hercules said. He said that the person who had written the report in Rapport could have obtained the correct facts by making a single telephone call. As far as I know, no one made any inquiries about that. If they made any inquiries from more junior officials in my department and were not given an answer, they should have come to me. I take it they place a high premium on their reliability as reporters on economic affairs. That is why they should make sure of their facts before making a statement implicating a department in something like this.

Are you and the editor not on speaking terms?

We are, but we do not allow our politics and our kinship to mix. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke actually replied effectively to the hon member for Koedoespoort’s speech embodying his insinuation that too little finance is made available for White affairs. I shall be coming back to other facets of this matter. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member asked what functions would still be transferred before 1 July 1986. As far as local government is concerned, in terms of ordinances which are now in the process of being adapted, specific functions will be transferred before 1 July. I have already announced that resorts, museums and libraries would be transferred, and certain facets of health services, to which I shall be returning at a later stage, will also be transferred.

In conclusion I want to extend my sincere thanks to the hon member Mr Renier Schoeman. He did a good job of coming to grips with the CP’s and HNP’s extra-parliamentary group in Natal, and it would be a good thing for the inhabitants of Natal to take note of that.

One of the basic themes in this debate resulted from the events at Brits and Pietersburg and from the way in which they were dealt with by the Press, including the actual events surrounding the present political debate in White circles. No one would deny that in recent times a highly emotional element has entered the political debate. As far as this matter is concerned, I really do want to try to steer clear of petty politics this evening. This has been turned into petty politics, but these trends in White politics place the leaders of all the political parties and politically orientated cultural movements—because there are such cultural movements—before a specific choice. They can either participate in whipping up more feeling and emotionality for short-term gain or they can play a responsible role by opposing ill-mannered behaviour and violence. Today I want to commit the NP to the second alternative. I am not doing so because the NP is the primary target at the moment, for example when it comes to disrupting meetings. I am doing so because I am convinced of the fact that our country’s best interests demand this of us.

A fundamental problem we are encountering throughout South Africa at the moment is reflected in a tendency towards lawlessness and a lack of respect for discipline and order. The hon members sitting there charge us with not taking a strong enough stand against lawlessness and undisciplined behaviour on the part of other population groups. [Interjections.] That is why they agree when I say that is a fundamental problem at the moment.

To all right-minded South Africans, regardless of their political views, assuring stability by way of law and order is a specific priority at the moment. Our ability to combat violence and unrest is of decisive importance for our future. The silence in the House proves that no one here disputes these statements.

That being so, surely there is no argument about that. It therefore almost goes without saying that we dare not allow White politics to begin displaying the same disorderliness as that which is in evidence elsewhere in our country. We cannot combat intimidation when, in our own ranks, we are palpably permitting intimidation to take place. We cannot preach orderly democracy if we ourselves do not practise it. [Interjections.]

It is worth noting which of those hon members are silent and which are reacting. [Interjections.]

Politics has never been a game for the soft-hearted. It is a tough game.

Yes, but you are sissies!

Order! The hon member for Kuruman has been using that interjection ad nauseam. I have previously told the hon member that that would be the last interjection, but because I realise that his party is being addressed, I shall leave the matter at that. The hon member must nevertheless stop making that interjection. It is becoming monotonous. The hon the Minister may continue.

That interjection is typical of someone who seeks his strength in his muscles and not in what he has between his ears. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Since the Chairman of the House has instructed an hon member to remain silent on a certain matter, I am asking that the hon the Minister should also be called to order when, on the strength of the Chairman’s ruling, he exploits the situation for the purposes of conducting a political argument. [Interjections.]

Order! I will, in fact, be taking note of that. I shall also note whether the hon member is reacting under provocation. The hon the Minister may continue.

Politics has never been a game for the soft-hearted.

The Minister is a sissy!

Order! What does the hon member for Lichtenburg mean when he says the hon the Minister is a sissy?

Sir, I mean he is a sissy.

Order! What does the hon member mean by that?

I mean he is a sissy; he cannot fight.

Order! I am not satisfied with the hon member’s explanation. Does the hon member mean by that that he is a coward?

No, Sir, I mean he is a sissy.

Order! Does the hon member mean by that—I expect an answer from the hon member for Lichtenburg—that he is too scared to stand up for his rights?

Sir, I mean he is just short of being a coward. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon member must also withdraw the word “sissy”, because it is now apparent what he meant by that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it unparliamentary to say that someone is a sissy?

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon the Minister may continue.

I hope that everyone will take note of the fact that that is someone designated by the CP as an alternative leader who must take over the Government of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Politics has never been a game for the soft-hearted; it is a tough game. That is why I am not hurt by what they say. It is a tough game that we are all prepared to tackle, but there are certain rules of the game, in an ordered, civilised society, which have to be adhered to when we play this tough game.

Tell that to the SABC too!

Every party in this House must simply—I am saying this with the utmost seriousness, for our benefit as well—in these serious times we are experiencing in our country, refer back specifically to its Constitution to find out what is permissible and what is not. If each of us would merely try to implement in practice those Christian national principles in our Constitution, which we are proud of, we would not need to conduct a debate here about what is decent and what is not. [Interjections.]

That is why I find it extremely disturbing, before and after the events at Pietersburg, to have heard from responsible senior members of this House about their support for the planned, unlawful disruption of meetings. The hon member for Soutpansberg took the utmost delight in, and gained the utmost satisfaction from, what happened at Pietersburg. That was clear, not only to those of us here in the House, but also to everyone in the gallery. It radiated from him; he was like a cat that had caught a mouse!

I said it was because of your capitulation.

What did he do? Firstly he blamed the NP for the confrontation that took place.

Quite right! [Interjections.]

No. However, he ignored the prior threats—made days and weeks before the time—by Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche. He ignored what Mr Eugène Terre’BIanche said at Potgieterus!

What about the statements made by Pik Botha?

You ignore what Pik says!

What about the Thursday itself, when the hon Chief Whip of the CP and a few other hon members who joined him …

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

No, I just want to finish putting my point. What about the time when, ad nauseam, they shouted to us across the floor: “Pik is not going to talk”? [Interjections.] At that stage there was no one, so they alleged, who had resorted to carrying pickaxe handles and sjamboks.

Pik was already in Pietersburg by then.

No, Sir, at that time my hon colleague was still on the plane! At that time not a single Nationalist had yet reached the town hall.

On the contrary, by that time Pik was in Pietersburg!

The hon Chief Whip of the CP said there would not be any meeting that night.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon the Minister utter the kind of blatant untruth that he has just uttered here? [Interjections.]

I call everyone on this side of the House to witness that on more than one occasion the CP has laughed at us here in the House. It began in fact when I walked past them and they asked me whether I was going to Pietersburg.

That is not true! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order …

Order!

On more than one occasion hon members of the CP created the impression—everyone on this side of the House saw this—that they had a feeling, or knew, that there would not be a successful meeting held that night!

When did the Minister arrive in Pietersburg?

Order!

I do not know!

On Wednesday evening.

Order! The hon member for Brakpan may raise a point of order.

Mr Chairman, it is a well-known rule of this House that an hon Minister, or anyone else for that matter, must accept the word of another hon member. The hon member for Kuruman denies having made that allegation and the hon the Minister must accept the fact. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may continue.

Let me say that the CP’s overall reaction to what happened at Pietersburg …

That is a blatant untruth!

… and their reaction on the day on which the meeting was to have been held …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Kuruman say that the hon the Minister of the Budget is telling a blatant untruth? [Interjections.]

When did you arrive in Pietersburg?

Order!

Man, that is none of your business! [Interjections.]

Order!

Man, you are an agitator!

Order! I am referring to the hon member for Lichtenburg and the hon the Minister of Manpower! I have now called for order three times. You have not reacted. I shall be compelled to ask you to leave the House. I am not prepared, under any circumstances, to permit this kind of discussion. Nor is it unparliamentary to say that something is a blatant untruth. The hon the Minister of the Budget may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it unparliamentary to say it is a blatant lie, because that is what the hon member for Kuruman said.

Order! I did not hear that. Did the hon member for Kuruman say that?

Mr Chairman, you can check my Hansard; I said it was a blatant untruth. [Interjections.]

Order! I accept the hon member for Kuruman’s word. The hon the Minister of the Budget may continue.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon the Minister of Manpower say that the hon member for Lichtenburg is an agitator?

Order! That is a difficult question, because one can agitate for a good cause or a bad cause. In order to remove any doubt, in the prevailing circumstances I shall regard it as unparliamentary, and the hon the Minister must withdraw it if he said it.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I shall not allow myself to be driven off course, because I want to speak seriously about this matter. I want to ask hon members of the CP—who criticised what they regarded as being action taken by the NP—whether they are as critical of the conduct of the members of the AWB that night at Pietersburg.

We are dealing with you now!

It is a fair question. Do those hon members condemn the fact that by acts of violence people forced their way into a hall during a meeting for which, by law, the right of admission was reserved?

Their conduct was not as bad as in the past. [Interjections.]

It is on record that hon members of the CP are not prepared to condemn, in unqualified terms, the violence and disruptive conduct of AWB members at meetings. [Interjections.] That is on record, and I thank those hon members for the fact.

I should, however, like to continue with my speech. Hon members of the CP made a very personal attack on the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, alleging that he was a coward, that he went into hiding and never turned up at the meeting. [Interjections.] The actual facts, as supplied to me, is that my two colleagues were on their way to the meeting and that the Police officer in charge informed them that they should not go to the hall at that stage for fear that their presence would give rise to spreading the violence. It was then agreed that they would go to the NP offices near the hall and would wait for some indication that they could, in fact, enter the hall. [Interjections.] Subsequent developments were such, however, that in the interests of good order it was not advisable for the hon the Minister and his colleague to enter the hall. That they had no intention of appearing there, however, or had never set out for that hall, is untrue; it does not matter who said it.

The NP will continue holding its public meetings. [Interjections.] I should like to qualify that by saying that I am not issuing a challenge. I am not throwing down the gauntlet to anyone this evening. I am saying this against the background of my introductory remarks, ie that in South Africa orderly democracy must take its course.

By way of television!

I also want to say that members of other parties who can be trusted to behave decently are welcome to attend our meetings. We should like to have them present. We should like to reply to their points of criticism and offer them an opportunity to move a motion of no confidence if they so desire.

Where, for example?

At Riversdale the other night when the CP obtained three votes and we obtained 600. [Interjections.]

At your meeting or at our meeting?

Those who have only one aim, however—such as expressed threats of disruption—are not welcome at our meetings. That is why we shall continue to reserve the right of admission, but that right of admission is not aimed at keeping CP and HNP supporters out of our halls. They are welcome, and as long as they behave themselves, we shall welcome them at our meetings. Let me reiterate this evening that we shall be returning to Brits and Pietersburg and that we shall be holding meetings there in the foreseeable future. I am not saying that as a challenge. In fact, this evening I want to announce that I shall be addressing the meeting at Brits. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs will also be speaking at Pietersburg in the foreseeable future. [Interjections.] Throughout the Transvaal NP speakers will continue to proclaim the impartial message of the NP. It is the NP’s right …

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

No, I am not interested in you. [Interjections.]

It is the NP’s right and its duty to do so. We arrogate that right to ourselves, do not begrudge it to others and undertake to meet our obligations.

This matter, however, involves a dimension other than the mere party-political dimension. [Interjections.] This dimension—it is discernible in this debate—involves the fact that these events have placed the Afrikaner in the spotlight. One can almost feel that hon members of this House who are not Afrikaners have virtually taken a step back in the face of what is happening in the ranks of the Afrikaner.

Who was the cause of it?

We Afrikaners on both sides of this House …

Are you going to bring your sharpshooters along next time too?

… no matter how strongly we disagree with specific standpoints …

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte’s interjections do not contribute anything to the debate. The hon member must limit his interjections. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Those of us who are Afrikaners, on both sides of this House, remain Afrikaners, no matter how strongly we disagree with each other on specific standpoints. Now, because the struggle is a bitter one, and because Afrikaners play a leading political role in South Africa, the attention of the entire world, but in particular within South Africa, is focussed on the Afrikaner. None of us can succeed in our policies if we do not ultimately have a reasonable majority of every Black people, of every group or of every community accept such a policy and extend their co-operation. None of us can hope to succeed in obtaining the co-operation of the Blacks, enabling them to take a firm stand against ANC propaganda, and against the promises made to them from revolutionary quarters, if they do not have any respect for us.

They do respect us! [Interjections.]

If the CP were ever to come into power, its policy—and now hon members of the CP must listen to me carefully—would be dependent on Black, Coloured and Indian majority support, for otherwise they would not be able to have their policy implemented. [Interjections.] That is the reality of South African politics.

And yet it was the policy on which you were elected in 1981.

You have the support of 17% of the Coloureds.

I am saying that we Afrikaners …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is any hon member of this House entitled to shout to another hon member: “Keep your trap shut!”? [Interjections.]

Order! Who shouted that remark?

An hon member on that side of the House said it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I said that to the hon member for Innesdal. He is an hon member whom I do not speak to and whom I do not take any notice of, but who tried to speak to me across the floor of the House.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it, because it is unparliamentary.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: Here where I am sitting one can barely hear what the hon the Minister is saying, because the hon member for Soutpansberg is continually making interjections.

Order! I shall take note of that. The hon the Minister may continue.

Sir, I was saying that all the attention is focussed on the Afrikaner. The test we are now faced with is one of proving that we are, in fact, worthy of our leadership role thus far. [Interjections.] In a certain sense—and that is why we are heartbroken …

Order! All interjections will now cease. The hon the Minister may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have listened to the hon member for Soutpansberg’s tirade in silence, and I am having a very serious discussion with him … [Interjections.]

Conservative Party members withdraw from the Chamber

Cowards!

Order! The hon members of the CP are entitled to exercise their democratic right to walk out. One of the hon members of the NP said the hon CP members were cowards. Who said that?

I said it, Sir.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I do not know. It is very difficult.

Order! The hon member is disregarding the authority of the Chair and he must withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting. [Interjections.]

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it now correct that we should continue to have the ruling on no interjections because I believe hon members on this side of the House have been remarkably quiet, and of course in due course the hon the Minister might have something to say to us …

I am coming to you.

… and I think to be restricted by your ruling would perhaps be unfair.

Order! My ruling is obviously subject to what the hon the Minister has to say. [Interjections.] I cannot predict what he is going to say.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I understood your ruling to be that there should be no more interjections, which means that anybody who makes an interjection would then automatically be expelled from the House. That is why we have obeyed it. However, three quarters of the hon members of the NP interjected when hon members of the CP walked out and therefore they should now all leave. We would then have a majority. [Interjections.]

Order! As a matter of fact I think that I must remind the hon member that one hon member of the NP has withdrawn from the Chamber.

*The hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, there are still many Afrikaners left in the House, and for that reason I want to complete my argument.

The test we are faced with is that of proving that we are worthy of the leadership role which we have played and—this is what I think—which the majority of Afrikaners believe we should still play in the future. In a sense the Afrikaner’s honour is at stake at the moment. That is why I want to make an appeal to the responsible elements in the CP. Let us ensure that our people’s dignity is not encroached upon, no matter how vehemently we disagree. [Interjections.] The times are too critical for the petty politics, the emotionalism, the hatred and the bitterness characterising the debate at the moment. I for one shall endeavour to ensure—I am not looking to make political peace with the CP; they will find out who are sissys and who are not—in accordance with the attitude of my party that our hands are really clean in this struggle. If I become aware of any facts actually indicating that our hands are not clean, I give an undertaking to take the necessary steps to put matters right.

On the other hand, hon members of the PFP, basically with the hon member for Yeoville as their spokesman, came to light with another central theme of the session as a whole. This was the question of free association. In a realistic speech the hon member for Yeoville said that his party acknowledged the realities of South Africa and the importance of group existence. On that basis he tried to explain how they wanted to ensure group existence. On the strength of the question about free association, however, I want to tell him that there is another reality that he did not mention, and that is that a large percentage—I think the major percentage—of the Whites prefer, as Whites, to do their own thing when it comes to specific matters and to take their own decisions for themselves. We would be able to apply that to schools and residential areas. That is a reality of South Africa.

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

No, Sir, I just want to finish making the point that I am busy making. Then the hon member can put a question.

I want to ask whether, in terms of his explanation of the PFP’s policy and interpretation of free association, a community which feels that way is entitled to do so. Is it there fore the PFP’s policy that free association— since they are now saying it should be protected—inherently embodies the right of disassociation too. Must the right of disassociation also be protected by law?

But surely a group cannot disassociate!

Of course! [Interjections.] That is how they argue.

Let us take a practical example. Choices have been presented about the simple matter of cinemas—it is an issue about which I am fairly lukewarm, having no particular views on the subject. In Pretoria the cinemas were slow to say they would open their doors to all races, and then a campaign was launched because cinemas had not done so in Pretoria, but had done so in the rest of the country. [Interjections.] All I am asking, in terms of PFP policy, is whether it is the right of an elected authority in Pretoria to say that it prefers not to have the cinemas in Pretoria throw their doors open.

It is because they have a public licence!

There we are getting an answer. [Interjections.]

From time to time the hon member for Bryanston advocates that we heed the wishes of parental communities asking for their schools to be thrown open.

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

No, I first want to make my point; then I shall give the hon member a chance to do so.

The PFP’s standpoint is that we should pay heed to those parental communities which say that their schools should be open schools. Is it their standpoint that when a parental community, from their point of view, expresses a majority opinion about not wanting to open up schools, the schools should then not be open schools?

If they are private schools, then …

No, in the case of a State school. [Interjections.] It is therefore the PFP’s standpoint that State schools should be compelled to be open schools. [Interjections.] One cannot have the standpoint that there is no free choice as far as State schools are concerned, but that it is not compulsory to be an open school either.

The State schools must be open!

Very well, it is PFP policy that it should be compulsory for State schools to be open schools.

Yes! [Interjections.]

That brings me to the next question. The PFP says that a group should define itself and that there should not be any measures applicable. If a group defines itself in terms of their policy and says it is forming a “cultural council”—as the hon member has stated their policy to be—can membership be refused to someone who applies to join that group?

If he belongs to that group, he has the right to join.

No, but what if that group says it does not want to accept the individual who is making the application? [Interjections.] Let us, for example, say that the Afrikaners—or more specifically the CP—establish such a group and someone comes along and says he also regards himself as an Afrikaner and is applying, can that group say no?

What about the Afrikaners who have become Anglicised? As Afrikaners go, they will no longer … [Interjections.]

Such a group can lay down certain norms and decide that an individual does not comply with those norms, whilst the individual may be of the opinion that he does, in fact, do so. Surely that is an hypothesis that no one can dispute on scientific grounds.

Yes, it is a fair question.

My argument is the following: The PFP either advocates truly free association, in which case they must also permit disassociation on a group basis, or forced integration as an overall pattern, with a little bolt-hole here and there for someone who does not want to be forced to integrate. Now the hon member for Yeoville may put his question.

Mr Chairman, I should like to put the following question to the hon the Minister: If the Whites in South Africa want to govern themselves and want to arrogate certain matters to themselves, and take that decision, is that not their choice and is it not, in reality, the freedom of association that they are exercising?

That is a fair question. I think the answer is “yes”. If, however, they say that it excludes others, is the PFP saying they are not entitled to do so. The PFP is therefore restricting their freedom and saying they are, in fact, permitted to do certain things, but they may not say no to other people. That is, of necessity, the logical consequence. [Interjections.]

I cannot agree.

Let me come to grips with the hon member for Yeoville on a further issue. He says the PFP effectively makes provision for minority rights with their concept of cultural rights, their “cultural councils” and their senate, but how would they avoid having a typically majority government in regard to all those things which do not form part of those specific minority rights? That is why the NP does not talk solely about minority rights, but also says that one group must not dominate another.

We are talking about consensus government, not about majority government.

In that case, in regard to non-cultural matters, for example Appropriations, Mineral and Energy Affairs, ordinary legislation and non-contentious matters, is the federal Parliament not going to take decisions by way of a majority vote?

Yes, but that is consensus government, including people from all parties.

But the hon member’s party wants one federal Parliament.

Just like yours, with the Labour Party included!

No, it is going to be a unicameral parliament.

No, a bicameral parliament.

Yes, very well, a bicameral parliament. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon the Minister is holding a discussion with the hon member for Yeoville who is quite capable of asking his own questions. The hon the Minister may proceed.

It is a very good discussion, Mr Chairman.

Will decisions be taken in that House of Assembly by way of a majority vote, and not by way of consensus, on all matters not entrenched as cultural rights?

In the Government itself there is consensus. [Interjections.]

Yes, but the Government does not pass legislation; Parliament does so. According to our concept, and as Parliament now functions, there must also be consensus amongst the various Houses.

But you make use of the majority in the President’s Council …

What about the President’s Council?

There must be a defusing mechanism in the case of a deadlock. [Interjections.]

Is that not consensus?

The hon member’s defusing mechanism is that in regard to all matters which are not entrenched as cultural rights, there will simply be majority government in the country. About that the hon member apparently agrees with me. [Interjections.]

Are cultural rights not the important rights as far as you are concerned?

There are also many other important aspects that cannot be defined as cultural rights, for example the need to declare war in specific circumstances.

That is a majority decision.

Maintaining a free economy, the non-socialising of South Africa, is not a cultural matter. It is a matter which could be passed by a majority vote in that federal parliament.

[Inaudible.]

That is why we say that even in matters such as that, one group may not dominate another. And that is the reason why there must be built-in mechanisms, in whatever system, to effectively prevent that.

That is why there is the minority veto.

The hon member for Yeoville went on to say that we must shake off our despondency. I fully agree with him and welcome the strong way in which he expressed himself in that regard, and his statement that our businessmen should create jobs.

He said that the Government should do more. I think he will find that the Government is anxious to do more. The best the Government can do at the moment to get the economy going is not to do too much. I think the hon member agrees with me on that too.

There are things you must do.

I have now completed my reply to the hon member’s speech, and I will now move on to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. I do not want to become involved in the details as I do not come from Port Elizabeth and therefore do not have detailed knowledge of the facts the hon member referred to. What he essentially addressed, however, was the general question of facilities.

*A beach is a facility, and there are also other facilities.

Our attitude to this is crystal-clear. Throughout the country there are numerous facilities which are accessible to all population groups. We have one qualification. When a group’s over-all character is at issue, as in the case of education, each group must have its own lebensraum, its own community life.

There is a second qualification in regard to matters which are not of such a fundamental nature, and that is that we have to obviate friction. That is why the NP is not prescriptive when it comes to matters which do not involve the identity, the character or the fundamental interests of a specific group, but deal rather with everyday matters. An owner’s right to make certain decisions for himself, however, is also of importance in that context.

That brings one back to this question of association or disassociation. Is an hotel-owner entitled to say that his hotel is only open to one population group, or must it be open to all because he has a “public licence”, as the hon Chief Whip has said?

Exactly.

That is forced integration.

Who owns the beaches?

Well, who has authority over the beaches? That is the fundamental question. Those who, in terms of the law, have the authority, should make the decision. We in the top echelons did not interfere in the development of matters in specific areas as a result of decisions taken by those elected by those local communities. Our basic attitude is that friction should be prevented.

I am saying that the point of dispute between the PFP and us, in regard to this non-fundamental issue, lies in the fact that they want to enforce integration, whilst we say there should be an option.

†The hon member for Umbilo referred to outstanding facets with regard to own affairs still being administered by the provinces, in particular health and local government. He argued as if there was a stark choice, as if all hospitals and everything else under the control of the provinces with regard to health must be transferred or stay in its present form where it is—as if all control with regard to every aspect of local government must either be transferred to own affairs or must be retained where it is. That is not how our Constitution works. Our Constitution recognises that, when one distinguishes between own and general affairs, almost every facet contains components which can be classified as own affairs in terms of the definition, but there is also the other side of the coin where co-ordination is necessary.

Therefore I want to assure him that, when local government is transferred to own affairs, an area of responsibility with regard to local government will remain a general affair. Here the Administrator will have a function to perform and authority to ensure that there is proper co-ordination. Likewise, whenever a final decision is taken, and we hope that this will not take too long with regard to health—this is also in reply to the hon member for Parktown—the position will be exactly the same. Whatever is transferred will be transferred because of a true analysis of what is really intended by own affairs. However, there will have to remain an area of responsibility for co-ordination to work against whatever fragmentation there may be and to ensure that there will be one general cohesive health policy in this country which will be co-ordinated at central level as a general affair.

The best illustration of this is education. This aspect has been completed and there we have the general Department of National Education as well as the own Departments of Education which have full authority with regard to a specified defined area, whereas National Education has full authority with regard to general affairs.

*The hon member for Koedoespoort got on his high horse, and I would rather not reply to him now. The hon member for Sasolburg accuses us of using the power of the State to protect the NP.

Look how petty you are being now.

I think that walking out was being petty.

You can reply to him.

I think that walking out was being petty. [Interjections.] I would gladly turn the other cheek, but this reply is not all that important, because the hon member does not really want an answer.

You do not have an answer.

If he had wanted an answer, he would not have left. [Interjections.] If hon members go and fetch him, I will give him a reply.

Look how big Frank le Roux is!

If hon members go and fetch him, I will give him a reply. Let him show us how big he is, and I shall reply to him.

You said you wanted to rise above the pettiness.

The hon member for Sasolburg said the State was abusing its power to protect the NP. Everyone who acts lawfully in this country is entitled to be protected against violence and lawlessness. My hon colleague is not here at the moment, but I want to commit the Government to this. If they want to make use of their rights in this context, they are welcome to do so. Regardless the persons the State will use the instruments available to it to the benefit of everyone engaged in lawful activities in South Africa and threatened by violence or by any irregularity of whatever nature.

That was not the case in 1969 and 1970! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Parktown has asked me to look to the interests of doctors and other professional people. He also expressed his concern about emigration. In lighter vein let me tell him that when his party comes into power, he will see how many doctors emigrate. In all seriousness, however, … [Interjections.] But I said I was speaking in lighter vein. The hon member does not need to take on so.

I was really being serious!

Yes, I know. It is true that it is specifically our professional people who are experiencing difficulties these days.

Great difficulties, yes!

I hope, for example, that the recommendations of the Margo Commission—I know the hon the Minister of Finance has already expressed certain intentions in this connection—will bring relief to the high tax bracket in our tax system. I really do believe that there is a certain category of our people who are being very hard hit by taxation at present. That is why we really do need this fundamental tax reform. Hence the tremendous emphasis on privatisation, the object being to ensure a smaller share in the economy for the State. So, too, the fact that the State, under the guidance of the hon the Minister of Administration and Economic Advisory Services in the Office of the State President, is completely committed to ensuring, in regard to our employment policy, that any broadening of the bureaucratic base is kept to an absolute minimum and that the trend is, if possible, even reversed. We are taking a critical look at whether certain functions that we carry out should still be carried out. After all, we have conducted many debates on these themes. The hon member could possibly say that we are not doing this efficiently enough. We are, however, completely committed to moving in that direction.

There is one thing, of course, that we must not overlook. The professions in this country certainly do have a lot of elbow-room. In comparison with England, the medical profession in this country has a much greater personal say and a much greater right to self-determination in what it can do than in that modern and developed country. That is why I think that South Africa is a land of milk and honey. Just the other day I saw figures about people in the medical, accountancy and a number of similar professions who had emigrated. I want to reassure the hon member for Parktown. The increase is not as dramatic or traumatic as is generally implied. The increase is really not such a big one. There is an increase, that is true. In one specific professional category, I recall, there was an increase of 23 to 35 in one year. That is not of such a nature, however, as to cause the hon member to lie awake at night. This country presents opportunities that no other country in the world does. We must just grit our teeth and make sure that we achieve the necessary breakthroughs. The fundamental challenge involves the achievement of this in the political sphere. Hence the Government’s insistence that we move fast and that the full consequences of the reform programme be realised as speedily as possible.

You know, there are some shops in Toronto that specialise in biltong!

That could indeed be true, Sir. And here in South Africa there are many shops that specialise in giving the thousands upon thousands of immigrants who come to South Africa the things they are fond of.

It seems to me he is unhappy about that!

Yes, it really does. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Parktown went on to ask specific questions about the nursing profession. I have no specialised knowledge of that. Let me just inform him, however, that the Government does not fix the salaries of private nurses. These are determined by the medical aid schemes. They are privatised organisations. Does the hon member want more Government intervention in this regard? Does he want the Government to intervene in a free-market system.

I want the Act to be changed.

Oh! Then I shall refer the matter to the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development for his consideration. The fact is that the Browne Committee has given quite a bit of attention to the medical aid schemes and that its report will shortly be finalised. We therefore hope for some new insights from that quarter.

The hon member for Parktown also asked for more money for research and equipment. I agree with that having a very high priority. We are really doing our best for the proper financing of medical faculties. It is a pity that we cannot yet make full use of the financing formula of our universities. I am, however, continually negotiating with the hon the Minister of Finance in an attempt to have this done.

The dividing up of health services I have already dealt with, and with that I think I have dealt with most of the matters raised by hon members. In conclusion I just want to point out that own affairs has not yet fully evolved.

I feel that the concept of own affairs has not yet fully developed. I also feel that the concept of own affairs, as it is defined and is developing at present, is not the right concept when it comes to the development of Black political rights, in the sense of its being comprehensive enough and having all the answers, because—and this the hon members’ arguments overlooked—in most Black communities there is also a geographic element attaching to the own affairs over which they already have a say. Here I am speaking, in particular, of the national States. That is why it is possible to develop own affairs there to a much greater extent than in our present tricameral parliamentary set-up. Already, on the basis of a division of the power base on all kinds of matters, powers have already been granted to those authoritative bodies, something we cannot, because of specific factors, do amongst Whites, Coloureds and Indians in terms of our own system.

The hon member for Yeoville’s plea this evening for their cultural rights pattern is another way of formulating own affairs. It was a pleasure for us to obtain the hon member for Yeoville’s acknowledgement—other hon members spoilt it all with their qualifications when I briefly confronted him, which eventually nullified the whole exercise—of the wisdom in the basic philosophy embodied in the recognition of own decision-making on matters of fundamental importance to a specific group.

The NP will continue to entrench, extend and refine this concept, and to use it as a foundation on which to build practicable solutions, including those in regard to matters of common concern to all. On that it can build up a structure of co-operation and have co-operative co-existence succeed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move—

I noticed just before I stood up that my colleague, the hon member for Yeoville, was yawning. I am sorry but this is the late late show.

[Inaudible.]

Copies of the draft Bill and the explanatory notes have already been made available to certain hon members of the three Houses of Parliament in order to enable them to study the contents.

In accordance with standing practice the proposed amendments to the text of the principal Act were submitted to representative bodies of commerce and industry such as the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, Assocom, FCI and others, for comment.

I should also like to mention that pursuant to the procedure followed since 1978, all amendments to the Schedules of the Customs and Excise Act during a year are bound in book form and, together with explanatory notes, are laid upon the Table in the form of a White Paper.

The proposed amendment of section 6, as embodied in clause 1, empowers the Commissioner to deem any place outside the Republic as a place of entry for the Republic. This amendment merely clarifies the position with regard to the powers of the Commissioner in respect of the determination of places of entry outside the Republic.

The amendment of section 10, embodied in clause 2, is consequential upon the amendment of section 6 and needs no elaboration.

*In the amendment of section 13, as embodied in clause 3, the proposed subsection 3(b) makes provision for certain goods imported by post, after consultation with the Postmaster General, to be entered before a controller. That is not a new principle, since a similar provision already exists for goods imported by post to be cleared at the customs and excise office under certain circumstances.

The proposed subsection 13(5) requires the importer of goods, imported by post, to submit the relevant invoice to the Postmaster and prohibits a person from dealing in or with such goods unless the correct duty has been paid to the Postmaster. An obligation for submitting an invoice and paying the correct duty, and in regard to the prohibition against dealing with or in such goods, unless they have been properly cleared, is imposed in the Principle Act in regard to all imported goods. In this respect this specific provision in section 13 for goods imported by post is, therefore, simply being augmented by the amendment to the relevant extent.

The proposed subsection 13(6) empowers the Postmaster to hold an imported postal item and cause such item to be removed and given to the controller who may examine it, and if the goods contained in it are found not to agree in all respects with the form or label completed by the sender, or the invoice, such goods are liable to be forfeited. The procedure involving illegal goods being handled by the controller is already adopted in practice.

I should like to draw the attention of hon members to the fact that the Commissioner has informed me that it has recently been found that labels which have, in terms of the Act, the same status as bills of entry are, with the collaboration of importers of commercial goods, being falsified. There is therefore a need to expressly stipulate the necessary powers in terms of which action can be taken.

The amendment to section 36A, as embodied in clause 4, is self-explanatory and needs no further explanation.

The proposed amendment to section 44(8), as embodied in clause 5, makes provision for the liability of the seller for the duty on excisable goods and sales duty goods until such goods have been duly entered and the relevant duty paid. This provision vests the liability for duty in the seller who is neither a manufacturer or a owner, the object being to combat evasion.

The proposed section 44(8A) provides that anyone dealing with imported or excisable goods which should have been duly entered for local consumption in one of the BLS countries, for example, is liable for the duty on such goods brought into the Republic from such territories.

The provision aims at preventing any jurisdictional disputes and at facilitating implementation of the Act in the event of dutiable goods moving across the borders of member countries of the customs union. These powers are necessary to protect revenue and to collect duty for the benefit of the common revenue pool, for which provision is made in the Customs Union Agreement.

The proposed amendment to section 47, as embodied in clause 6, relates to the operation of the two-year period for determination in relation to the date of commencement of inspection of the books and documents of an importer or manufacturer. Inspections are normally only carried out in regard to entries two years prior to the date on which the inspection commenced.

Tariff determinations resulting from in spections must inevitably be deemed to be applicable to all the consignments cleared during the two-year period prior to the inspections. For the sake of clarity, provision is therefore made for any tariff determination following upon an inspection to be deemed to have come into operation in respect of the goods in question entered two years prior to the date on which the inspection commenced. The amendment encompasses existing and essential practices and is in no way indicative of any new principle or policy.

†Clause 7 amends section 56 of the principal Act. Section 56(1A) is amended to clarify the position with regard to the retroactive imposition of anti-dumping duties. The amendment includes provisions for retroactivity specified in Article 11 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade— the so-called Anti-Dumping Code. It does not place any further burden on importers; on the contrary it places a duty on the Minister to satisfy himself that certain circumstances in accordance with those specified in Article 11 are present before he can impose an anti-dumping duty retroactively from a date prior to the date of imposition of a provisional charge.

The effect of the addition of subsection (2)(b)(iii) is that the highest comparable price of identical or comparable goods when exported from any other territory to the Republic in the ordinary course of trade may be applied as an alternative basis for determining whether imported goods have been dumped in terms of the provisions of the anti-dumping duties under section 56. This provision is necessary in order to take more effective steps against the dumping of imported goods.

Clause 8 amends section 65 of the principal Act. The proposed addition of subsection (7A) clarifies the position regarding the operation of any determination of the value for customs duty purposes following upon the inspection of the books and documents of an importer. The amendment relates to the addition of subsection (11) to section 47, as embodied in clause 6, and what I have said in that regard is also appropriate in respect of this amendment.

The amendment to section 65(8)(a) of the principal Act provides that the duty payable in terms of Section A of Part 2 of Schedule No 1 also forms part of the value for the purpose of calculating the duty as specified in Section B of Part 2 of Schedule No 1. At present this amendment does not affect the calculation of the value for duty purposes of any particular commodity.

Clause 9 embodies the amendment of section 75 of the principal Act. The most important aspect of this amendment is contained in subparagraph (iii) of section 75(2) which provides for a rebate under Schedule No 3 of the principal Act elsewhere in any activity other than in a registered factory or a mine or works, as defined. This provision will enable small manufacturing operations to obtain goods under rebate of duty, as specified in Schedule No 3. The other amendments to section 75(2) are self-explanatory and require no elaboration. The amendments provided for in clause 9(l)(a) shall be deemed to have come into operation on 5 October 1984, the date on which the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act, Act No 6 of 1983, came into operation.

Clause 9(l)(c) deals with the deletion in section 75(5)(b) of the reference to the price of distillate fuel or residual fuel oil which has been entered under rebate of duty inasmuch as duty is not the only form of taxation that affects the price of fuel entered under the various provisions for rebate of duty.

Clauses 10 and 11 embody the amendment to sections 78 and 79 of the principal Act. These amendments increase the fines provided for in the two sections from R400 to R1 000 and from R600 to R1 500, respectively. These fines have not been increased since the promulgation of the principal Act in 1964. In section 78 the fine is also related in the alternative to treble the value of the goods in respect of which the offence has been committed. Since the fines have not been increased the amounts have lagged behind the rise in the value of goods and there is presently no meaningful relationship between the two alternatives.

Clause 12 amends section 80 of the principal Act. In section 80(l)(b) the reference to signed invoices became obsolete when certified standardised invoices were dispensed with inasmuch as commercial invoices do not require a signature. The amount of the fine is increased from R1 000 to R2 500, and my remarks in respect of clauses 10 and 11 are also appropriate in this regard.

Clauses 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 respectively amend sections 81, 83, 84, 85 and 86 increasing the amounts of the fines from R2 000 to R5 000.

Clause 18 embodies the proposed amendment to section 95 of the principal Act. This amendment provides for jurisdiction in the Republic where offences under the Act have been committed in Maputo or member countries of the Customs Union. The amendment will facilitate law enforcement between member countries of the Customs Union. Paragraph (b) of section 95(2), which restricts the criminal jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court, is deleted, having regard thereto that the existing section 95(3) does not limit the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court in respect of the amount claimed.

The proposed amendment of section 111 of the principal Act, as embodies in clause 19, extends the circumstances under which licensing authorities are enjoined not to register motor vehicles unless a certificate issued by an officer is produced stating that the prescribed customs requirements have been complied with in respect of all imported vehicles.

Clause 20 amends section 117 of the principal Act to provide for the furnishing of a value for excise duty purposes for the compilation of statistics of excisable goods manufactured in the Republic of South Africa.

As usual, clause 21 provides for the continuation of the amendments of schedules 1, 3, 4 and 6 to the principal Act, which were published in the Gazette during the period 1 February 1985 to 24 January 1986, and on 18 March 1986.

Clause 22 provides for the extension and commencement of certain amendments with retrospective effect.

Mr Chairman, 1 want to say initially that I do not understand why this Bill does not go to a standing committee. The rules provide not only that this Bill will not go to a standing committee, but also that there is a time limit of two hours.

I have been in this House since 1974—12 years—during which we have hardly ever managed to reach the Committee Stage of such a Bill, certainly not in the past ten years. We are given, if I may just demonstrate, an explanatory memorandum which, by itself, in respect of the notices, is 60 pages long. We are further given a Bill which contains highly technical provisions and we are given a book which contains the notices. I wonder how many hon members in this House have bothered even to look at any one of its 307 pages. That is in addition to the Bill, the explanatory memorandum and listening to the hon the Deputy Minister. The whole of Parliament is expected—here we are, all of us—to dispose of this within two hours. I think it is an unutterable farce, because nobody can tell me—I defy anybody here to tell me—that he is able to debate this matter adequately in the time available.

I cannot see why this should not go to a standing committee. It is the obvious type of legislation to go to a standing committee. There can be no clearer case for it. Secondly, I cannot understand why there should be a time limit of two hours in relation to this. If Parliament is really supposed to function, if the committee system is supposed to produce something, there is no better piece of legislation than this to be dealt with in standing committee. Do hon members know what the result is? The result is that the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill, which affects people fundamentally in all aspects of their lives, is regarded as an unutterable bore by hon members of Parliament. They do not pay attention to it. They hardly debate it. They do not have any time for it and the result is that it is not given the due attention to which it is entitled. This is not a situation that can be allowed to continue. If we are going to give attention to it and deal with it properly then we have to handle it properly.

Let me give hon members an example. I have amendments that I want to move and I can tell hon members now that there is not a chance in Hades that we will ever be able to move these amendments. Unless I can actually convince the hon the Deputy Minister to move amendments—because he will be the only one able to do so; we will not be allowed to move amendments or to speak—one can forget about amendments, one can leave them out. The answer will be to talk to the officials, to try to persuade them in advance, but that is not how Parliament is supposed to work. Parliament is suppose to work in its committees and in the Chamber. Parliament is not supposed to work in any manner other than that. I must therefore say to the hon the Deputy Minister that I hope that he will now try to do something in relation to this completely and utterly farcical situation.

The second matter I want to deal with is that I believe this is the first of the measures which we should be debating in order to look at the economy. For that reason I move as an amendment:

I am not suggesting for one moment that the removal of this surcharge is the only ingredient of that fiscal package. However, the time has come for us actually to take a clear look at the economy and to ask ourselves whether we can really allow the situation to continue. There is a lack of confidence in the economy, there is a lack of disposable income on the part of the public, and people are unwilling to invest. We must now ask ourselves whether all of these can be allowed to continue so that they remain, in themselves, one of the major causes of unrest in South Africa. I ask the hon the Deputy Minister to say in reply to this debate that he does not believe that unemployment is a major cause of the instability in South Africa today. He will not say that, however, because he will agree with what I am saying. Yet, what are we doing at the moment? We are taking no action in order meaningfully to get to grips with this situation.

So what is going to happen? One of these days an announcement will be made to the effect that something is going to be done— and again things will have gone too far! One of the things this Government just will not understand is that it has got to act timeously. The Government has got to act quickly and deal with the situation before it gets out of hand.

Let us take this import levy as an example. In 1984, when the Government made an unholy mess of the economy, when the hon the Minister of Finance had to come and tell us that his Budget was completely wrong, he imposed an increase in GST. It was a dramatic increase and we pleaded with him not to impose it. Instead, we told him, he should, first of all, take a careful look at the economy; and, secondly, he should not kill the demand for locally produced goods but rather impose an import levy on consumer goods, on things we do not need; that he should try to channel the demand into locally produced goods and kill, instead, the demand for imported goods. I see the hon the Minister for Administration and Economic Advisory Services is smiling. He was then the Deputy Minister of Finance. As I was saying, we warned them of the risks in regard to the economy, especially as far as unemployment was concerned. At that time, however, the then Minister of Finance got up, ably supported by his Deputy, now departed, and said that our proposals could not possibly be implemented and that import levies were absolutely wrong.

What has happened since, however? Last year, on 23 September 1985, import levies were imposed. They did it wrongly yet again, however. Instead of restricting the import levies to those items upon which they should have been imposed, they actually helped to stifle the manufacture and the production of goods in South Africa, and so once again to accentuate and indeed accelerate unemployment.

I have stood in this House and appealed again and again for a campaign to be launched to buy South African products. Every time one buys a South African product one helps to keep somebody in a job. We appealed for that again and again. Yet where is the Government to be found upon this issue?

I must tell hon members that what worries us about all of this is that South Africa has now become a prisoner of its balance of payments. We are caught in a net and we cannot grow sufficiently in order to deal with our unemployment problem because we have to use money from the current account in order to pay off the money we owe on the capital account. We have a situation in which there has been a freeze in respect of certain debts although not a complete freeze. As a result almost the entire anticipated surplus on the current account of the balance of payments for the current year is going to be used to pay debts. We cannot allow the economy to grow, so we are told, because we will then not be able to pay our overseas creditors— who will not lend us any more money in any case! Even more important to me, however, is that the people of South Africa should have jobs, and perhaps we should settle our overseas debts over a longer period. I want to stress this point: I would much rather see us in a situation in which we settled our debts more slowly but brought our people back to work than to have our present position because at present we are simply prisoners of the balance of payments situation.

The other thing that this Government just does not want to appreciate is that in encouraging growth one has to decide what kind of growth one wants to encourage. It does not to help to encourage growth that makes the rich get richer and the poor poorer and makes more and more people unemployed. It does not help to have a tremendous growth rate in South Africa and half of our people are without jobs. We have to plan our growth and let it take place in the right direction. In this regard it is fundamental to put more money into the hands of those who have the least to spend. They will spend it on the essentials of life, which are produced in South Africa, and that will give more work for people in South Africa which in turn will help us to solve our problems. Unless we embark upon a “Buy South African” campaign and encourage our people to help to keep people in jobs and channel the growth in the right direction we are heading for more and more economic trouble in South Africa. The more economic trouble we have the more political trouble we will have and the less we will be able to solve the problems of South Africa.

Are you inventing the wheel, Harry?

Some hon member has made the rather stupid interjection of “inventing the wheel”. One has to re-invent the wheel for people who have not heard of it. In this House there are hon members who unfortunately are in power who have not heard of the wheel. This is the tragedy. When one wants to talk to them about the necessity of applying Keynesian economic principles at this stage of our economy they will not be able to discuss it with you. They resort to praising all kinds of measures that have got us into this trouble. When they talk about re-inventing the wheel, I want to ask who has created this depression in South Africa. Who is responsible for the unemployment and instability in South Africa? It is the people who do not know that there is a wheel and who are now saying that we are re-inventing the wheel. [Interjections.] When hon members joke about it they must remember that they are joking about people who are going hungry or are without work while they are living like fat cats in South Africa! I think it is despicable to joke when people in South Africa are unemployed or hungry and living in an impoverished situation. I think what we hear from some Government benches is a disgrace! [Interjections.]

I want now to turn to some of the provisions of the Bill itself. There is no problem in regard to the issue of having points of entry outside the Republic. It is obvious that that should take place. We all know it happens with other countries. In fact, if we had better relations with more countries we would be able to use this provision more. We are therefore in favour of clause 1. In the light of that I think clause 2 requires no comment but I think clause 3 is important. In this regard we must look at a few factors.

Firstly we accept that there is a degree of dishonesty which exists in regard to the importing of goods where there is deception, falsification and bluffing. There is no question about it that this does occur. We accept that and we accept that it has to be dealt with. However, there are two matters which we should look at. When one looks at clause 3(b) and the addition of subsection (5) to section 13 of the Act, I want to say it is not always possible to present an invoice by reason of the nature of the transaction. There may well be circumstances in which the authorities are satisfied that an invoice cannot be produced. However, in terms of this provision he “shall submit the invoice” and no person is enabled to receive the goods unless the correct duty has been paid. We would therefore like the following amendment inserted—I think the hon the Deputy Minister has a copy of this and I put it to him because I know we will not get to the Committee Stage. I quote:

In other words, this gives one the option that where there is no dishonesty and where the postmaster is satisfied …

[Inaudible.]

Sorry? Does the hon the Deputy Minister not have it? What is he looking at then? If he does not have it, we will send him another one. Has he got an Afrikaans copy? Here is an English copy for him. The Afrikaans reads as follows:

To my mind there is therefore no prejudice to the customs because it requires the person concerned to satisfy the postmaster and, if the postmaster is not satisfied, that provision will apply.

The proposed subsection (6) of section 13 reads:

“In all respects” means even in the minutest respect. I feel that if an article complies in substance then that should be sufficient. We would therefore like to delete the words “in all respects” where they appear on page 5, line 28 of the amending Bill and to substitute the word “substantially”. In other words, if there is a substantial compliance then there seems to be no reason why the forfeiture provisions should be invoked.

The third amendment concerns line 28 on page 5. If the word “substantially” is substituted the subsection will read:

And here we would like to insert the words “and such difference is found not to be inadvertent”. In other words, if there is an inadvertent mistake, if somebody makes an error which is a genuine mistake without any prejudice, then we believe that this forfeiture should not take place.

One can of course argue that one can approach the Commissioner in terms of section 93 and say “please be kind to me and give me back my goods” after they have been taken away, but that should not take place if somebody has made a genuine mistake. There should then not be forfeiture of these particular items.

We do not have any problems concerning clause 4. As far as clause 5 is concerned, we accept with reluctance that once again the onus of proof is placed upon the public and the Commissioner has the benefit of having the onus in his favour and it must be rebutted. However, we do understand that there are problems here and whereas we do not like this in principle we will accept it in these circumstances.

We have no problems with clause 6. I feel that clause 7 requires some comment. We do not have difficulties with the provisions of this clause but with the speed with which the department acts. I feel that speed is of the essence here because even though one has the power to act retrospectively there can be substantial prejudice as a result of retrospective action where the goods have already been resold. There can therefore be prejudice to the person who does not know that there will be a retrospective dumping duty. It is vital therefore that the authorities should act very quickly in this respect.

Let me put to the hon the Deputy Minister a case in reverse. This applies to him in his other capacity as the hon the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry. It is an example of where the lack of speed in action has caused great prejudice.

Let me give him the example of the export of machinery. What did we do in that regard? In order for people to gain advantage from the depreciation of the rand they have exported machinery which will cost a fortune to replace. Despite the fact that there was every degree of publicity given to this it took months and months before the Government acted. Now they have closed the stable door, the horse has bolted and the majority of the machinery has left the country. When there is a revival in the economy we will pay dearly and heavily for it in foreign exchange. My appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister is that his department should adopt the motto: “We act and we act quickly”. It should not delay when things go wrong, but should deal with the situation promptly.

Order! Hon members must lower their voices, please.

Well, Sir, the hon members are not particularly interested in customs and excise. Because of what I referred to earlier I do not blame them, but they are going to have to listen. That is the rule, and that is all there is to it.

The issue of what is or what is not dumping is a fundamental one that we have to look at again. I am not sure that the provisions as they are at the moment are adequate to protect us in this regard. I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will allow us to have another look at this issue, because South Africa is to my mind one of the countries most vulnerable to dumping. We believe that a method used by those endeavouring to evade exchange control is overinvoicing, as a result of which not only are the anti-dumping provisions avoided, but money is left overseas and the exchange control regulations are contravened. We have to go into this matter very carefully because the overinvoicing provisions are perhaps the greatest source of abuse of exchange control, and anti-dumping duties are also being evaded in the process. I ask the hon the Deputy Minister in his dual capacity to look into the whole issue again.

Although we are not going to oppose clause 8, there is a problem I would like to raise with the hon the Deputy Minister. The clause provides for the examination of an importer’s documents and for the retrospective application of any subsequent determination of a period of two years. It has to be borne in mind that a bona fide error may have been made. The goods may have been sold and the duty imposed. The importer may have suffered a complete loss as a result and, in fact, be completely innocent.

I would like to return to another provision, that dealing with motorcars, which I skipped over earlier. I believe that there has been a very substantial racket in South Africa in regard to the importation of motorcars, which has involved the evasion of duty and—this again concerns the hon the Deputy Minister in his other capacity—of GST. Some of these rackets have been exposed, but the matter still requires intensive investigation.

Tell the House how it works.

Lastly …

Hear, hear!

I am afraid I shall have to disappoint the hon member who just shown how keen he was to hear me. This will not be my last point!

I wish to deal with two more aspects, the first of which is the question of fines. Nothing can be greater proof of the failure of the Government’s policy on inflation than the way in which the fines are being increased. The hon the Deputy Minister even admitted the Government’s failure in his speech. The increase of certain fines, including some by 150%, is a clear indication that the Government is admitting how much the value of our money has decreased, how currency values have depreciated and how it has been unable to deal with inflation.

When were the fines last increased?

They were last increased in 1964. If the hon member is so clever, he should apply the proportionate increase of these fines to the value of money in 1964. Would he then tell me that it is a proof of sound policy to increase a fine from R400 to R1 000? Would he claim that that is not inflation?

It is an increase of 2i times in 20 years.

He says two and a half times in 20 years is nothing.

But what is it in the USA, in Britain and anywhere else in the world?

Where the United States is concerned, the hon member really is in trouble because the United States did not have that inflation at all. [Interjections.] I have learned that the more one opens one’s mouth when one knows nothing about something, the more one makes a fool of oneself, and I think the hon member, despite his change of political affiliation, should try to get this into his head. [Interjections.] It does not help to say it is nonsense when one does not know the facts oneself. The hon member really is an ignoramus— and that is parliamentary, Sir! [Interjections.]

I just want to deal with some of the tariff determinations which have taken place. I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to explain some things to me which, on the face of it, are examined by the Board of Trade. Why, for instance, do we abolish all duties in respect of dried grapes? I would have imagined that South Africa has no shortage of grapes and that we should have no problem in regard to dried grapes. The same applies to figs. I also cannot understand why yoghurt of all things should be imported completely duty free into South Africa. There is no shortage of yoghurt, and I am sure that there must be many people sitting in this House who must be astonished that yoghurt should now be imported into South Africa duty free. It is specified that yoghurt containing fruit as well as yoghurt as a beverage is duty free. With great respect, one cannot understand why that is the case. If there are reasons for this, I want the hon the Deputy Minister to tell us why he wants yoghurt to be imported duty free to compete with local yoghurt. [Interjections.] I really do not understand that, and I should imagine that the farming community should have something to say about it, not the farmer from Yeoville! I therefore ask the hon the Deputy Minister to deal with these matters I have raised.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Yeoville. When one is discussing this subject, namely the amendment of Schedules to the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, one finds oneself dealing with a highly technical and specialised subject. Over the weekend I examined many of these aspects attentively, and today I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister in all modesty that I have no other choice but to agree with the hon member for Yeoville. This measure must be referred to a standing committee. [Interjections.] No, no political issue is involved here.

We are working here with absolutely highly specialised, technical aspects of tariffs that have to be adjusted. We keep on hearing and reading about customs and excise in the newspapers, periodicals, speeches etc. Do we realise, however, how they affect the public’s pocket? Do we realise that this is a levy which affects many people? I believe the members of the standing committee must examine these aspects attentively to see why the duty on grapes, for example—as the hon member for Yeoville said—is being cancelled. What explanation is there for that? What are the motivations for this? We can say a great deal about the whys and wherefores in connection with certain fish oil, figs, snoek and sole. We can occupy our time for hours with aspects which, I think, should be discussed on a standing committee.

The hon member for Yeoville also moved an amendment. I cannot agree with it, but he emphasised certain aspects in support of that amendment this evening which I think the House should support.

We want to give the hon member for Yeoville credit for certain arguments which he raised here this evening. This is perhaps not the place to discuss his “Buy South African” plea, but I believe that it should at least serve as a point of departure.

There is something I find astonishing. The Government is placed in the dock and we are asked why we have not yet initiated such a campaign. If the private sector outside comes forward, however, and asks the Government to take the initiative, we in this House, regardless of what political party we belong to, must stand together and ensure that a product manufactured in South Africa receives preference and priority in regard to all sales. No supermarket or shop should hesitate to launch an active publicity campaign to secure the sale of South African products instead of those from abroad.

The hon member for Yeoville also referred to the question of unemployment here. I think we are going to conduct a very interesting debate on the Manpower Vote tomorrow, and that this matter will definitely be raised.

Harry was at least far better than Alf!

Oh, yes! Honestly, to allege that increased fines encourage inflation! I think that is really an argument we should discuss with one another over a cup of coffee—preferably not in this House. [Interjections.]

We have received explanatory notes in regard to the legislation under discussion. What always worries me, Sir, and why I too feel so strongly about it that I have to support the hon member for Yeoville, is the fact that this piece of legislation is a so-called hardy annual. It is discussed all over again in this House every year. This is legislation which is closely associated with the Main Budget, and which can in reality be regarded as legislation arising out of the Main Budget. Consequently I think many of the provisions contained in this legislation are already applicable in practice. The explanatory notes are therefore essential.

In the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill which was introduced in this House last year there was a clause which provided that not all the amendments which were effected in terms of certain sections lapsed in terms of section 48(6) of the principal Act. I am merely mentioning this to emphasise once again that legislation of this nature ought to be kept actively up to date—and this is of course being done—in order to provide certainty in regard to the whys and wherefores of the application of certain measures in this connection. When studying the explanatory notes on the present measure one finds confirmation of one good and positive thing, which is that a transfer is taking place to a harmonised system. Perhaps I should dwell on this aspect for a few minutes.

All those involved in international trade realised several years ago that an unsatisfactory situation was prevailing in that different international trading systems were being used by customs authorities, statisticians, carriers and producers. They came to realise that there was a real need for the existing system to be consolidated into a single harmonised system, which would comply with all the requirements of all parties and organisations involved in international trade. Under the patronage of the Economic Commission for Europe, it was agreed in 1970 that the task of establishing such a harmonised system was to be dealt with by the Customs Co-operative Council in Brussels. This task was finalised in June 1983, when the Harmonised Systems Committees’ Draft National Convention was agreed to.

This new harmonised system will come into operation on 1 January 1088, and all member countries of the Customs Co-operation Council that accept this system are obliged to convert their existing customs tariffs on that date. As a member of the Customs Co-operation Council South Africa consequently accepted the new system, and the Department of Customs and Excise is at present rewriting the tariffs of the Republic of South Africa so that they can conform to the harmonised system. I believe this is a positive step in the right direction.

The hon the Deputy Minister elaborated in detail on certain important provisions in the legislation under discussion. In particular he placed emphasis on clause 3, which seeks to amend section 13 of the principal Act. This is concerned with the powers of a postmaster in regard to the handling of certain imported postal articles.

In this connection the hon member for Yeoville once again made a very important suggestion. I wish to repeat it, and I request the hon the Deputy Minister and the officials of the department to give careful attention to it. I believe that the suggestion which the hon member for Yeoville made in this connection could eliminate many problems if we accepted it and applied it in practice. I am referring to the hon member for Yeoville’s motion on page 5, in line 22 after the word “concerned" to insert the words “unless the postmaster is satisfied that there are good reasons why such an invoice cannot be produced”. The clock is ticking away, but I think that since the hon the Minister is also a businessman, he will realise the practical problems involved here.

You therefore support the hon member for Yeoville?

Yes, I support the hon member for Yeoville, and I would be pleased if the hon the Deputy Minister and his department would look into this.

The hon the Minister and the hon member for Yeoville also referred to dumping. Dumping is an evil in South Africa. We are all subject to certain rules and regulations, but in my humble opinion, as far as dumping in South Africa is concerned, there is no measure strong enough to prevent it in any country. If we look at the international agreements, however, and at what South Africa has already done and what we are prepared to do to satisfy other countries, I think, without being nasty now, that South Africa is the gentleman in world trade and economy. I think that if South Africa is still operating within the correct rules, we can, as far as dumping is concerned, simply tell the people that we are digging in our heels, we are prepared to abide by the rules, but so help us, we will fight for what South Africa is entitled to.

With those words I support this measure. I hope and trust that it will be examined by a standing committee next year.

Mr Chairman, I must say that this evening’s debate on the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill has been very interesting. I also agree wholeheartedly with what the hon members for Yeoville and Overvaal said here. We cannot get away from the fact that the import and export regulations have a direct bearing on the economy. Particularly in the manufacturing process, for example in the clothing district, one has the problem today that one cannot really buy any materials. The smaller factories are faced with the problem that the material manufacturing firms of today only bother about big clients. One must take 400 metres of a specific kind of material. Hon members will realise that if one has 60 or 70 workers, for example, and one has to take 400 metres of material for suits of clothing which one manufactures before they will serve one, it means that before one places an order for material for 10 different kind of suits, for example, one already has to take 4 000 metres. In many cases one is also told that they will only be able to deliver in five months’ time. That is why it is essential in my opinion that that 10% import levy on materials be lifted. At present there are many factories employing 50 to 60 people that will have to close down if no improvement is made in this connection. The shortage of materials is causing workers to be laid off.

What is it that you want lifted?

The 10%, that should be abolished.

Is that the surcharge?

Yes. People should be allowed to import because at the moment …

[Inaudible.]

No, wait a minute. On the standing committee we were told to ask the manufacturers to submit their requirements for the import of material, and then they would possibly be granted an exemption, but what manufacturer has the time now to establish an import section? I do not think that ought to be the case. That is not the way in which the requirement was submitted to us on the standing committee.

What is important is that the statutory amendment as proposed is necessary to ensure orderliness in regard to imports and exports. That is why I find no fault with the measures which are about to be agreed to in this Bill. It is a great improvement on the existing regulations, and we have no objection to that.

In particular we agree that attention should be given to present-day cases in which other countries transfer goods to the independent states. People in South Africa place orders, but have the goods delivered in a neighbouring country. From thence they bring the goods into the Republic in some way or another without paying the required customs duties.

Large quantities of clothing are today being imported to the Ciskei from Taiwan. In the Ciskei a few threads are snipped off, and a few button-holes are made and those items of clothing leave the Ciskei, ostensibly having been manufactured there. In addition this Government subsidises people in the Ciskei to decentralise. [Interjections.] A person operating such a factory, then receives R100 or so per worker whom he employs. In the meantime we are experiencing tremendous unemployment problems in places such as Cape Town. The entire West Coast area too, is experiencing problems. The people in the clothing industry in the Atlantis area are just about all insolvent! It is a very grave problem. [Interjections.]

For that reason we are in full agreement that we should like to have more time to examine these matters. In particular we should like to see this Bill been referred to a standing committee. I think that will definitely produce good results. We want to tell the hon the Minister tonight that he must not think we are simply criticising. We have a tremendous economic problem in this country and we as Parliamentarians are not being afforded a proper opportunity to make an input when decisions are made on customs and excise. We have no opportunity to discuss legislation in this connection anywhere else but in this House, where one only has two hours at one’s disposal and, as the hon member for Yeoville said, one’s chances of moving amendments then are nil.

It is necessary to literally digest such legislation. Our economy has reached rock-bottom so that the infusion of money will be of no avail. The idea in financial circles that one will immediately have a stimulus if one allows the lending rates to drop a few percent, is not true. A stimulus is created when the product can be manufactured and there is a demand for it. The problem is that the initiation of such a process cannot simply take place through the reduction of interest rates. It must take place through a wider reaction.

In the meantime the economy of this country, is slowly dying. We have many strange ideas in this connection. I was amazed this afternoon when I heard that R50 000 was being appropriated in order to pay R4 per day to have certain areas cleaned up. That is something which dates from 1936. That method of rendering assistance, is something that belongs to that era. There are many other methods which could be utilised today.

I am thinking of the small business co-operatives people are talking about. We are establishing new ones while existing ones, with infrastructure and all, are going under. [Interjections.] These are people who know what is happening in the business world and who have years of experience and they are simply being wiped out by 25% interest rates, 10% surcharges, 12% sales tax and the inflation rate of 20%. Such people then have to increase their prices by at least 60% to show a profit and merely recover their capital investments. In the long run one then arrives at a zero point. That is why people today think it foolish to invest additional capital as a result of the general uncertainty in all of these industries.

The clothing industry for example is on its knees today; one will not soon see it recover.