House of Assembly: Vol1 - MONDAY 8 FEBRUARY 1988
The ACTING SPEAKER laid upon the Table the Seventh Report, 1987, of the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry, dated 25 November 1987, as follows:
The ACTING SPEAKER laid upon the Table the Fifth Report, 1987, of the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal, dated 12 January 1988, as follows:
With regard to the draft proclamation relating to the Local Authorities Ordinance, 1974, the Committee, mindful of the aspirations of people of colour, recommends that every effort be made by all concerned, including the Natal Executive Committee, to effect equitable and acceptable participation of all races at third-tier level in the shortest possible time.
Mr E ABRAMJEE, as Chairman, presented the Seventh Report, 1987, of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 2 December 1987, as follows:
Your Committee further wishes to report that it is of the opinion that clauses 3 and 6 of the Bill should be further investigated with a view to further amendments, and that there should be reported back to the Committee in this regard.
Financial Institutions Second Amendment Bill [B 114C and D—87 (GA)]—[B 32—88 (GA)] to be read a second time.
Mr P C NADASEN, on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Seventh Report, 1987, of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:
Criminal Law Amendment Bill [B 119A and B— 87 (GA)]—[B 31—88 (GA)] to be read a second time.
The MINISTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING, as Chairman, presented the Second Report, 1987, of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, dated 21 January 1988, as follows:
Your Committee recommends that legislation relating to township establishment, the registration of title deeds, etc, be consolidated in a single set of laws applicable on the same basis to all population groups.
Black Communities Development Amendment Bill [B 128A and B—87 (GA)]—[B 30—88 (GA)] to be read a second time.
The MINISTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, dated 21 January 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Dr H M J VAN RENSBURG, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development, dated 13 January 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr D E T LE ROUX, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, dated 1 December 1987, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr D E T LE ROUX, as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, dated 1 December 1987, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr D E T LE ROUX, as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, dated 2 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr D E T LE ROUX, as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, dated 2 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr D P A SCHUTTE, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:
Your Committee recommends that the possibility of dealing with interim judgments in a similar way be investigated.
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr J H CUNNINGHAM, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs, dated 22 January 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Dr P J WELGEMOED, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Transport and Communications, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr P G MARAIS, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Education, dated 2 February 1988, as follows:
The Standing Committee has taken note of representations made, not germane to the Bill under consideration, concerning the application of the principal Act to boxing in South Africa. In particular problems appear to be experienced in the relationship between the Control Board and individual boxers and promoters, etc.
In the light of these representations the Standing Committee recommends that the Department of National Education fully consider these representations and that any further amendments that may be necessary be submitted to Parliament.
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr L WESSELS, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Security Services, dated 3 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr A FOURIE, as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report, 1987, of the Standing Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, dated 2 February 1988, as follows:
- (1) The description of the area mentioned in the schedule, in terms of section 2 (4) of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No 18 of 1936), as amended, as an area in which the State President may declare released areas for the purposes of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
DESCRIPTION OF A CERTAIN AREA OF LAND SITUATED IN THE DISTRICT OF INANDA, PROVINCE OF NATAL
The portion of the farm Groeneberg 844, situated within the following boundary description:
- (2) The description of the area mentioned in the schedule, in terms of section 2 (4) of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No 18 of 1936), as amended, as an area in which the State President may declare released areas for the purposes of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
DESCRIPTION OF A CERTAIN AREA OF LAND SITUATED IN THE DISTRICTS OF WARMBATHS AND CULLINAN, PROVINCE OF TRANSVAAL
Your Committee begs to report further that the Government is requested to pay attention to the need for housing within and on the boundaries of KwaNdebele for people of colour employed by the industrial sector.
Report to be considered in Committee of the Whole House.
Mr A FOURIE, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr A FOURIE, as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr D P A SCHUTTE, as Chairman, presented the Report, 1987, of the Select Committee on the Marriage and Matrimonial Property Law Amendment Bill [B 120—87 (GA)], dated 19 October 1987, as follows:
Your Committee wishes to report further that it requests the Minister of Justice to consider extending the provisions of section 7(3) of the Divorce Act, No 70 of 1979, to marriages automatically entered into out of community of property, with special reference to marriages entered into outside the Republic.
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr A E NOTHNAGEL, as Chairman, presented the Report, 1987, of the Select Committee on the Electoral Act, 1979, dated 19 January 1988, as follows:
In the circumstances, and because an extensive investigation being undertaken by the Department of Home Affairs at the request of the Committee is still in progress, the Committee has found that it will not be able to complete its enquiry before the prorogation of Parliament, and your Committee accordingly requests the House to appoint a select committee at an early stage in the next session to form part of a joint committee to resume and complete the enquiry.
Order! I have to announce that Mr Speaker is unavoidably absent and that in terms of section 58 (4) (a) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 he has designated the Chairman of the House of Assembly as Acting Speaker with effect from today to perform Mr Speaker’s functions during his absence.
Mr Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:
Before I come to the subject of my motion, I should like, on behalf of all hon members on this side of the House, to express our regret at the indisposition of Mr Speaker. We should also like to express the hope that he will make a speedy recovery.
Mr Speaker, I am convinced that there is increasing justification for a motion of this nature in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.]
Since 6 May 1987, nothing has happened on either the constitutional or the social level of our society to support or revive the hope that the actions of this Government guarantees the Whites, and specifically the Afrikaner people, a free continued existence in this country. What has happened to a far greater extent is that the lack of purpose and planning of the NP has been more clearly unmasked, and the disillusioned White voters have to an increasing extent made the CP their political home. In fact, they are still doing so to an increasing extent. [Interjections.] I am delighted at the gestures of consent from the opposite side of the House. [Interjections.] I am firmly convinced that the outcome of the byelections in Standerton and in Schweizer-Reneke, and a little later in Randfontein as well, will indicate that the CP is indeed trusted to protect and guarantee the freedom and self-determination of the Whites, and specifically the Afrikaner people in particular—after all we must talk about that, too—and also to bar the way to domination of the Whites by a Black majority. [Interjections.] If that is not done, we as a people have no free future in this country.
I understand the President’s Council is inquiring into two matters. The one is the improvement of inter-group attitudes, and the other is alternative political models for South Africa.
As far as attitudes are concerned, I think it is an admission on the part of the Government party that the NP’s reform has not brought about the promised dispensation of peace and love and goodwill. Secondly I think it has also brought about a bitterness—we must consider this candidly—in Afrikaner ranks in the spheres of politics, culture and even the church.
It has not caused Black people to relinquish political demands and claims to land throughout the whole of South Africa. It has not elicited among non-Whites any admission that the Whites, too, have a right to separate freedom; on the contrary, instead of that right being confirmed by opinion in those quarters, they have continued to demand immediate and total renunciation of any White claims in White South Africa.
Furthermore it has brought about no amelioration among radicals and revolutionaries. As far as these people are concerned, reform has been concessions on the way to power-sharing. The abolition of separateness has given them a foot in the door for Black Power and for joint decisionmaking. It is bringing intensified demands for a so-called ‘open democracy’, and to those people ‘open democracy’ means nothing but Black domination in South Africa.
If one talks about attitudes, one knows that one is not improving attitudes with discourtesy, unchristianity and insults. One is not promoting sound attitudes with injustices or unchristian behaviour. We condemn such behaviour wherever it may occur.
In addition one does not improve such relations through importunateness or through ousting members of a specific community from their specific living space, facilities and cultural home. [Interjections.] One does not improve attitudes in that way. One will not improve attitudes among Afrikaners by abasing their nationhood to the status of a minority group. One will not improve attitudes among Afrikaners through camouflaged integration; nor will one do so through multiracial managements, multiracial executive committees and multiracial regional services councils and such forms of government over Whites. One will not improve attitudes in that way. One does not improve attitudes by forcing disparate entities together; instead one is stimulating resistance.
Even the TV beer adverts we see depicting White and Black drinking buddies do not improve one’s attitude; nor do forced multiracial TV programmes of the kind we have to watch, nor the presentation of American rubbish which is aimed at nothing but conditioning South Africans towards multiracialism. One cannot promote goodwill in South Africa in that way. [Interjections.]
In addition one does not promote goodwill—I say this with all due respect—with sermons on reconciliation which are nothing but pleas for humanistic equalisation and mixing. This side of the House knows something about that too. We can also distinguish between sermons on true peace and when we are dealing with a political motive under the banner of the Gospel. One will not promote better attitudes in that way; better attitudes will be promoted through positive cultivation of one’s own community life and through communities mutually supporting one another so that those communities can be themselves and can develop their own individual freedom. That is the way in which one will engender goodwill.
As far as the alternative models are concerned, I think it is also being confirmed now that the NP has not yet found an acceptable model. By now everyone knows that. There is no plan; there is only a promise of negotiation. If one asks what the plan is, they tell one they are negotiating in that regard. These are statements made even by parliamentarians who are visiting Black homelands.
That is an untruth.
There they had to admit it.
The hon member over there is reacting very quickly; I was not even referring to him.
I say they still do not have an acceptable model. The present model has failed. It is causing a sense of grievance and resentment. Let us admit this candidly to one another; let us not beat about the bush here. These are facts, and I have the honour this afternoon to convey that attitude and to say that the grievances and resentment among Whites and non-Whites because the Government is not coming forward with a satisfactory political model, and because the present one has failed, must not be underestimated. It has no hope of success, and never had. It had no hope of acceptance and now there is even less hope of that ever happening.
If one speaks of one undivided South Africa, of equal treatment with equal opportunities—this is the slogan of the NP as expressed by the hon the State President—and of joint decision-making on all levels, we say that one cannot expect Black people to accept this present constitutional dispensation.
It offers no really equal opportunities to Coloureds and Indians even though those people are also in a position to delay legislation today—they have already done so—and to veto an amendment to the Constitution, something which they promised they would do.
As far as the Whites are concerned, I should like to refer to certain leading academics such as Prof Eddie Hamman, former rector of the University of Pretoria, Proff C A du Toit, D H Cilliers, P J Coertze, G I Jordaan, C K Oberholzer—well-known academic names.
All of them CP!
If they are CP members, all the better for the CP. They stated the following unequivocally:
I gladly take cognisance of the opinion of such clever academics.
When we speak about political models I should like to refer in general to Prof Huntington’s discussion of constitutional models for South Africa. I think one could describe these, in his exemplification, as firstly the one race model or Black model; secondly, the no race model or ‘non-racial society’; thirdly the tripartite model; and fourthly, the four stream model or consociational model. In contrast to these the CP postulates the only model that can prevent domination, that can guarantee self-determination and that can assure one of one’s own government in one’s own fatherland. That is the partition model.
Where?
The hon member is sitting inside one, and then he wants to know where. It is being applied in all regions of the world. To me it is one of the most striking things, when foreign visitors come to this country, that they first ask: “Now, what about this apartheid?” One then says to them: “But you are living in a dispensation of apartheid in West Europe; why do you ask us, ‘What about this apartheid’?” To an important extent it has already been applied successfully in South Africa. It was in the process of succeeding, and it can still succeed if we have the will, the courage and the energy. It can succeed if we refuse to give away our political power and refuse to adopt a course leading to domination of the Whites.
I want to assert something with great certainty this afternoon. One can twist and turn as much as one likes; one can plan and manipulate as much as one likes; one can appeal to so-called “checks and balances”; one can try to be clever about pluralism; one can talk piously about reconciliation and a changing of attitudes instead of political power and control; one can pin one’s hopes on negotiation and consensus; one can say: “We are not working with numbers”, yet one is working with them all the time; one can say all these things, but if one forces various peoples into one state under one government and parliament on the basis of equality, one is embroiled in a power struggle and a conflict, and at least in a cold civil war such as the one not only Dr Verwoerd but even Dr Piet Cillie once spoke about in Die Burger.
A few years ago, when the old United Party planned to bring 16 non-White members of the House of Assembly and nine non-White senators into Parliament, Die Burger—and I give it credit for this—issued this warning on 15 April 1972:
I think this is rather strong language for that time. Today, so it seems to me, people will castigate them if they use that kind of language. On 10 April 1972 he went on to write the following, and I quote:
To those who pin their hopes on White leadership, Die Burger says:
… of totdat die Blankes op hulle beurt in opstand sal kom teen wat die Verenigde Party in sy dwaasheid oor hulle gebring het.
These quotation appear in Die Suid-Afrikaan, Spring 1984.
Do they know what it means?
What is happening now, as a result of this? I merely quoted an opinion, but I think it is a considered opinion. Now we say that we have White confusion, and we have that White confusion because a White government has turned non-Whites into co-rulers of Whites in South Africa.
Surely we have a long history which tells us that one must not do those things to the Whites in South Africa. One divides them; you will find those who applaud and you will find others who are prepared to resist them to the point of bloodshed.
Surely we do have White confusion now, and that is what the NP has done to us. I now find myself tempted to quote what the hon the Minister of National Education said approximately five years ago and which was regarded as one of his best speeches. He said:
The little crown prince!
Surely we accept that the views and principles of that side of the House have changed. We accept that. We now have a struggle for domination throughout the entire country. We have this struggle because the NP is forcing peoples with conflicting political aspirations into one political dispensation. That is the stark fact. We do have White resistance.
We have White resistance; not to non-White aspirations to have their own governments and to govern themselves in their own fatherlands. The White resistance, as I interpret it, is not to law and order and civilised standards. It is not resistance to a Christian ordering of relations between peoples or to Christian love of one’s neighbour, not at all. It is not resistance to that. It is resistance to the destruction of separate development. The resistance among the Whites is to the destruction of separate development, to the sell-out of the Whites and to their being deprived of established rights.
Does that side of the House want to tell me that Whites have not been deprived of any rights? The most important right the Whites had, namely to have their own sovereign parliament, was taken away. If one deprives a people of their political power, one loses everything in the end according to a President’s Council report of a few years ago. The resistance is to the release of a communist while our young men were fighting communists and the ANC. That is resistance. It is resistance to the ambiguity in regard to group areas, to the refusal or inability to take action against nonWhite intrusion into White residential areas. It is a resistance to the crowding out of Whites on beaches traditionally occupied by Whites and regarded as such.
That resistance emanates quite unanimously from right-wing ranks. That resistance will be found among the ranks of the CP, as well as in the ranks of the HNP, the ranks of the AWB, and some people get the shakes when they just hear the word AWB. [Interjections.] There are certain people who get the shakes if they just hear the name PWB, not AWB, but if they hear PWB. You will get that resistance from the Afrikaner-Volkswag, from Sabra, the Oranjewerkers, Vrouekenkrag, you name them. They do not agree on everything, but they have one thing in common and that is resistance to the sell-out of the Whites in their own fatherland, and an aspiration to grant the Afrikaner people, and the Whites associated with it, their own fatherland and in that fatherland to be governed by their own people.
I should now like to make a few frank statements. Firstly I want to tell people in the Government ranks they are making a very big mistake if they dismiss the grim resistance to their reform in the shape of integration, power-sharing and multiracial government as radicalism. I am telling them that they are making a very big mistake. If it is radicalism to oppose integration, power-sharing and multiracial government…
Genocide!
An hon member here says it is genocide. If it is radicalism to oppose those things, the NP has a long history of radicalism. [Interjections.] Then it was a history of which we on this side of the House were proud for a long time that the NP adopted that standpoint. It was a history we were proud of until liberalism began to get the upperhand in politics and in religion. That is my first statement.
Those hon members are making a second mistake. They are making a very big mistake if they scuttle the CP in Standerton, Schweizer-Reneke and later on in Randfontein by presenting the AWB as a terrorist organisation and associating it with terror. I should like the hon member for Sasolburg to hear me. [Interjections.] I say that if any person, White or non-White, dabbles in or is guilty of terrorism, seize him and deal with him. However, I also say that they must get the hatred for fellow Afrikaners out of their system. [Interjections.]
I find it entirely irresponsible and reprehensible that in Parkhurst, according to Die Vaderland of 26 January, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, for whom I otherwise have very great appreciation, mentioned the AWB in the same breath as the SACP and the ANC and called them all radicals. He went on to state:
I hope the hon the Minister of Law and Order will rise to his feet and say that he really did not mean it in that way, or that he was incorrectly quoted. As it stands here it means that an entire organisation of Afrikaners are mentioned in the same breath with murderers and communists and the ANC.
The hon the Minister also said that he was now declaring war and that they were not even going to allow this lot in the streets. Now I should like to ask the hon the Minister this question: He and who else will succeed in doing that? The police do not have the time, and are not even capable of investigating motor thefts properly. That is how busy they are. Now he wants to keep radicals off the streets. The radicals are ostensibly the AWB and the CP. I think that is irresponsible.
They are 600 000 people!
This is disgraceful propaganda. Incidentally, please make sure whether the NP candidate in Schweizer-Reneke has a place to stay there, because he is registered there. [Interjections.]
The NP publication in Schweizer-Reneke, Die Realis, is making disgraceful propaganda. A photograph of a large patch of blood was published, with the letters AWB superimposed on it. The AWB emblem is depicted back to front. That photograph is designed to leave one with the impression that someone has almost been murdered, or has in fact been murdered, and that the AWB is responsible for it. The caption beneath states: “Hiermee assosieer die KP hom.” [Interjections.]
That kind of propaganda is not only counterproductive, but in the long run the NP is going to be productive for the CP, because one does not use that kind of propaganda. [Interjections.] I have repeatedly expressed my opposition to violence in party politics, so much so that I am afraid that I might perhaps become just as boring as the hon the Minister of National Education. Then at least both of us are boring.
At meetings I have expressed my opposition to thuggery. Personally I have stated: “Our bullet is the ballot”. The cross on the ballot paper is the bullet we shoot with. I stated at Balfour that the CP does not fight with thuggery and violence; we fight with moral persuasion and the convincingness of our standpoint. That is what we work with. [Interjections.] If the NP is now trying to win votes as a result of what happened at the meeting in Standerton involving the hon the Minister of National Education, if it…
Agitates here in the dark!
That was a good meeting!
I think there is room for improvement. If the NP is now trying to win votes in that way, and if the hon the Minister wishes to poke his finger into the eye of the CP, I want to tell him that he should first poke his finger into the eye of his own party. He must first condemn his own NP compatriots who, according to quite a number of witnesses, started the fighting at his own meeting. Begin with them and repudiate them; repudiate all the times the NP, with its so-called hard politics—that is to say with chairs and tomatoes and rotten eggs—broke up United Party and HNP meetings. Surely there are still hon members sitting here who participated in that robust, hard politics. [Interjections.]
I want to tell the hon the Minister, and I am saying this with all due respect, that he must then repudiate his own father, Senator Jan de Klerk, because in the good old days of hard politics he instructed the hon member for Nigel and others to break up a meeting in Greylingstad. [Interjections.] We say that if the hon the Minister wants to make politics out of this, he must also repudiate those Nats, the karate and judo men, who turned up at Minister Pik Botha’s meeting with pick-axe handles—and the pick pik has nothing to do with the hon the Minister!—sjamboks and clubs, which was definitely not conducive to the prayerful atmosphere of such a meeting. I am saying this because I think the hon the Minister has also used religion as an argument now. I think we should do that rather carefully.
Now the hon the Minister is warning me about a Trojan horse; that I am a political prisoner.
They are sitting there! There are five horses!
Sir, I do not have a Club 22 with me. [Interjections.] I do not even have a Club 2 or 3 with me. All I want is a Club 23. After Randfontein Club 23 will have been brought up to strength.
Hear, hear!
Now I want to ask—and I am doing this with respect—whether that party is prepared to say how many Cabinet members are members of the Afrikanerbroederbond. I do not want to cause embarrassment, but it is time to ask this question, because that party is now associating this party with people of another organisation. That organisation made a specific statement for public consumption.
What about discussions of the future?
I can inform hon members about that, but if hon members think I am a member, they are making another mistake. There are so many mistakes, such as that of the five who are allegedly members of the AWB; or such as that in regard to the so-called Grand Council to which they belong. [Interjections.] When will the hon members find the truth? [Interjections.]
Sir, I want to know…
Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is making his speech in the No-confidence Debate. There is a way of asking questions, an accepted way. Hon members should try doing so. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.
Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition a question?
I had thought the hon member had at least a modicum of courtesy in him. I think there is an understanding in this House in this connection. It is not that I do not want to reply to the hon member’s question, but I am making a prepared speech and I should like him to listen to it.
Or switch off.
He can switch off too. [Interjections.]
After all that party is a prisoner of the Labour Party in a specific respect. That party gave the majority parties in the other two Houses the right to exercise a veto in respect of the amendment of the Constitution. The CP warned against that, and we were laughed at. The tragedy is that if the NP wishes to deprive the Labour Party or a majority party in any of those two Houses of that veto right, those other majority parties are in a position to veto that attempt as well.
Now we ask who is dealing with a Trojan horse. Who has the veto right? I am almost sorry to admit this, but I think the hon the Leader of the Labour Party has reason to say that it is the Labour Party which will decide whether that legislation is passed. This is not authority given to him by this side of the House, but by that side of the House by means of the Constitution which they rushed through.
What political price—and I am not speaking in monetary terms now—is that party going to pay to persuade the Labour Party? Is that price the release of Mandela or is it a further chipping away at the Group Areas Act? We say that it is in any event a great humiliation into which that party has forced their compatriots by means of a constitution in which a minority, with a mere majority in another House, can obstruct them and prevent them from carrying out the will of their people in respect of constitutional changes.
I referred to the one race model, or rather the Black domination model.
†Mr Speaker, that is the vision of the Freedom Charter of Joe Slovo. It is also the vision of the SACP, the ANC, Nelson Mandela, Govan Mbeki and the Spear of the Nation. It is also the vision and the aim of Cosatu which openly speaks in terms of “our struggle for socialism”; “waging militant struggles for workers to control the wealth that we produce”; “struggle for national liberation and socialism”; “people’s democracy… the dictatorship of the proletariat” and “workers… are striving… for a democratic socialist society controlled by the working class”. Sir, I think the time has come for a commission of inquiry into the history, aims, connections, political control and ideology of Cosatu and its hold on the field of labour.
*When I discuss the SACP and the ANC I need not address you at any length. It is well-known that the SACP has converted the ANC into a so-called “nationalist revolutionary organisation” of which the objective is:
If that is not typical communist language, I do not understand this idiom. The intention is very clear: There is no place for a separate White community, and still less for an Afrikaner people. There is no place for one’s own political institutions, community life, authoritative structures or living space for Whites in that vision of the future. According to those people there is not even room for own affairs! The same can be said of the UDF. The ANC states in Talking with the ANC, a publication of the Bureau for Information, that it wants to infiltrate the UDF and dexterously lead it. I think the time has come for an organisation such as the UDF to be subjected to a thorough investigation as well.
Hon members may ask why I am including these references in a motion of no confidence. My answer is that these organisations reject all separateness of the Whites and any claim by the Whites to their own rights. These are organisations which advocate a so-called “open democracy” which is nothing but Black domination of the whole of South Africa. Secondly I am referring to this because the legalisation of an organisation such as the ANC is under consideration.
I am quoting from the ‘Letter from South Africa’ of the South African Ambassador to the United States, Dr Koornhof:
To this can be added that the relinquishing of violence is no longer a condition for release or for negotiation, but that according to the report of that department it is now a point of negotiation on the agenda. The ANC, as a communist-inspired organisation and as a protagonist of violence, has a great deal of blood on its hands and with its vision of Black domination is therefore able now to negotiate with the Government on the use of violence, on Oliver Tambo’s threat of a bloodbath, on the “necklaces” and the murders at Pietermaritzburg and elsewhere and on becoming a lawful organisation and participating in the drawing up of a new constitution for the whole of South Africa. That road is now open to them.
The ANC itself says:
The NP’s hands and doors are open and they are inviting the ANC to come and negotiate with them!
Chief Buthelezi says he is not in favour of violence and I accept that, but the ANC are his “comrades in the struggle for liberation” and Oliver Tambo is to him a “dear brother, from brother to brother”. To his way of thinking there is no room for this tricameral Parliament or for a separate White community, and therefore there is no room, to his way of thinking, for a free Afrikaner people in South Africa. As he himself said, his ultimate objective is an open democracy in which he will condemn the Whites to lifelong imprisonment. His vision of the future is a Black dominated South Africa and his ultimate objective differs very little from that of the ANC.
Yet the Government is begging him to participate in the joint executive authority and the National Statutory Council. We say today that we must get such leaders onto their own territory with their own government over their own fatherland and their own people, and that we must get them out of the political system of the Whites and the political structures of the national Afrikaner community.
We shall never consent to everyone having an equal claim to every metre of land in South Africa, including that which, traditionally, has generally been recognised by the NP as White land. We cannot consent to everyone having equal claim to that, and we want nothing to do with the Government’s steps, which will lead to Black majority rule.
Allow me, in the last few minutes, to refer briefly to the so-called no race model. This is the PFP’s non-racial society, although they have until recently also referred to groups and self-determination.
The NP recognises communities, ethnic groups and peoples. In fact, it has a great deal to say about own affairs, as if that is the final guarantee for freedom and full-fledged self-determination. The CP says that the NP is playing into the hands of the protagonists of a non-racial society, and I shall tell hon members why. It is doing so with its slogan of one undivided South Africa with one citizenship, one government, joint decision-making, equal opportunities and equal privileges. Against the background of the NP’s slogan of equal treatment and equal opportunities, it is playing into the hands of the protagonists of an open society—a non-racial society. It is doing so with the shocking bravado with which the embassy in London is distributing its so-called Ending Apartheid pamphlet there. According to that pamphlet the Government is ending apartheid in “employment, sport, recreation, places of entertainment, marriages between races, sexual relations between races and property ownership”.
It is a panegyric on integration; a farewell to differential development, a farewell to one’s own community life and a farewell to one’s own control on all these points.
I allege that the NP is promoting that idea of one large non-racial community by what it is allowing to happen on our beaches and in our recreational facilities.
Yes.
A government that is governing in the interests of the various communities in the country, to say nothing of a government that is governing in the interests of the people it actually represents, will now allow the shocking chaos, the repugnant immorality, the unendurable crowding-out and the dangerous confrontation between Whites and Blacks on beaches.
Yes.
The mayor of Durban, however, says that he used to hold a different opinion, but that he is now following the policy of the NP. No, Sir. We on this side of the House—I think we can speak on behalf of a large sector of the White community—demand that order be restored. We demand that our people be protected and should have the right to use our own beaches. [Interjections.]
What became of the R29 million which was voted a few years ago for their own beach facilities for the non-Whites? Sir, I admit that this money is only worth three songs, but it is a lot of money that was voted for that purpose!
I maintain that the NP is promoting one large non-racial community by relaxing the implementation of the Group Areas Act, by the uncertainty it is leaving in regard to grey areas, open areas and so on, by their vacillation on the question of own community life, while on the other hand it is talking about new forms of communities that can be created under such a new dispensation.
The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said one and a half years ago that the hon the State President had said that no government could guarantee minority rights; every community should supply its own guarantee for survival itself. It cannot therefore guarantee people their own community life. That is the situation in which we now find ourselves.
He is an honest man.
With an approach such as that of the NP one cannot, surely, lay claim in the long run to the preservation of Afrikaans as an official language by the Afrikaner people, because it is being swallowed up by a majority situation. Surely one cannot lay claim to the national anthem, the Call of South Africa, remaining the national anthem of South Africa because it is going to be swallowed up in a majority. Already there are people in the ranks of the HSRC who are suggesting that “Nkosi Sikelel’ i-Afrika”—a lovely song— should become the national anthem.
Chris has people singing it to him.
Yes, Christ has it sung to him.
The flag of South Africa, with its orange, white and blue—the historical ties with our past—will have to go if it is the majority in South Africa that tips the scales.
Sir, that is why it is necessary for another government to be put into office… [Interjections.] … a Conservative government, a White government for Whites, a full-fledged government for the Coloureds.
And I believe it is coming. I believe it is coming! I believe that N P van Wyk Louw spoke prophetic words in Die Dieper Reg when he said:
[Interjections.]
Mr Speaker, I understand that in the present circumstances it is correct to address you as Mr Speaker since you are indeed the Acting Speaker. I should also like to associate myself with the wish that Mr Speaker will recover his health as speedily as possible. We greatly appreciate the fact that on the historic occasion last Wednesday he did, in point of fact, place his health in jeopardy in order to attend that ceremony, and we pray for his quick and complete recovery. We very greatly appreciate the dignity with which he holds his particular office. And we would greatly appreciate it if you would convey those sentiments to him, from us on this side of the House.
Hear, hear!
Mr Speaker, what a spectacle! What a spectacle of so-called leadership! [Interjections.] What a spectacle of someone who is presented by his supporters as the alternative State President of South Africa! [Interjections.] What a spectacle, Sir! We have been led, by the customary negative statements, past the tomatoes and the rotten eggs, to a series of rattled-off quotations—selective quotations of what other people have said. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition even selectively quoted N P van Wyk Louw. If he has so much faith in the prophetic visions of that renowned poet, we shall make a point of also dishing up to him some of N P van Wyk Louw’s other utterances which he would perhaps find less palatable.
Did you not like that one?
I am saying that, Mr Speaker, because selective quotations …
Order! In this debate hon members will not address one another as “jy” and “jou” across the floor of the House. Let me make that very clear. That will not be tolerated. The hon the Minister may continue.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Did you not like that quotation?
You will always be just Koos! [Interjections.]
Mr Speaker, in his first comments on the hon the State President’s interesting speech of last Friday we witnessed the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition …
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Langlaagte has just referred to the hon member for Overvaal by saying: “You will always be just Koos”. Is that permissible under the circumstances?
He said: “You are just Koos”.
What exactly did the hon member for Langlaagte say?
Mr Speaker, I said: “You are just Koos.” [Interjections.]
Order! The hon the Minister may continue.
Mr Speaker … [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, if this continues, let me appeal to you in advance to give friendly consideration to granting me injury time.
You are already in injury time!
Mr Speaker, on the strength of the hon the State President’s interesting speech, in his first comments to the media last Friday, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition accused the State President of sidestepping the so-called important matter of reform, and that after we have, for several years in succession, had the question of reform as the main theme of the hon the State President’s opening address. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is suffering from the same malady some overseas observers suffer from. They think that when the cricket score is not given every fifteen minutes, the cricket match is over! [Interjections.]
Reform is taking place. This side of the House, under the leadership of the hon the State President, is tackling reform in a responsible manner, and the time has come, at the level of the head of State, for attention to be given to economic matters as well. Today, however, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition sidestepped Friday’s speech completely. Completely! [Interjections.] He did not even refer to it. Not a single reference. [Interjections.] He sidestepped it completely [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon the leader does not perhaps have a problem as far as that is concerned. It set me to thinking, to some extent, about his reason for doing this. I nevertheless expected him to sidestep the issue. And I also have a theory about this. We know of a few people who are economic advisors to the CP.
Jan van Zyl! [Interjections.]
My opinion is that this time those economic advisors to the CP could not advise them on how to poke holes in the hon the State President’s opening address. [Interjections.] Any economist who is worth his salt and who is in possession of all his faculties would understand the merits of that package for the reconstruction of public finance dealt with so brilliantly by the hon the State President in his opening address.
But you thought it out! [Interjections.]
Mr Speaker, I trust that when they again obtain advice from those individuals, that advice will be somewhat more on target than the advice they received last year and also that which they used in their propaganda. We have indeed spoken at some considerable length in this House about the accuracy of their economic pronouncements. We even had problems with their figures. It seems to me as if the CP really does have some difficulty with figures. They cannot even manage to count the bunch of AWB’s in their ranks properly. [Interjections.] That figure still varies. The hon leader announces that there are two AWB members in his party. Then, however, a few more hatch out somewhere else. [Interjections.] It really is quite a spectacle. [Interjections.] Today we again witnessed an old, interesting style of so-called leadership on the part of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He told us about everything that should not happen. He also came to light with those gimmicks when he was still Transvaal leader of our Party. I sat there listening to him, and I must say that never in my life have I gained any inspiration from listening to what I should not do. Today we heard—read the Hansard—what reform is not going to manage to do. We heard it all, but we also heard about a lot of other things that must not happen. Where is the statesmanship we heard on Friday when we were told about the dynamic things that should be done in this country? [Interjections.]
We heard what we would supposedly not achieve. With great circumlocution we eventually arrived at the status quo that we had at a stage in which the hon the State President, as leader-in-chief of the NP, saw that he and the NP had made as much progress with partition as was practicable. In what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said there were subtle insinuations. We also encounter those insinuations in their propaganda, insinuations about the NP supposedly wanting to nullify what has been achieved. No, there is no question of this party trying to nullify what has been achieved with the independence of four independent national States.
Were we on this side not all witnesses to what happened when the hon the State President asked the Black leaders of the self-governing national States one by one whether they wanted more or less self-determination? The answer that was forthcoming was that they wanted more self-determination, and surely there is relevant legislation on the programme for this session. So whence the suggestion that we now want to nullify the division of South Africa as far as is practicable? [Interjections.]
This is where the difference lies. There comes a time when a statesman must draw up his balance sheet and tell himself that no matter how much he would want to, he cannot make any further progress with his classic policy than the specific progress he has made to date. He would also tell himself that he had, in point of fact, not satisfactorily solved all his problems. If one is a statesman and one has the courage or the guts to lead one’s people, even if it is bad news as far as they are concerned and even if one is asking them to make sacrifices, one tells oneself that one must hold consultations and obtain an alternative solution; one must effect a course-adjustment, because one still wants to reach one’s goal.
With partition and self-determination we have made as much progress as has been at all possible and that is why there is a tricameral Parliament today, because it is neither possible nor practicable to establish a Coloured and Indian homeland in South Africa.
The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition told us what we had supposedly not achieved, but has he looked at the positive side of things, at what has in fact been achieved? After all, we have never said that we have achieved the ultimate ideal, and that goes for this dispensation too. The reason is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has never found himself on the other side. He has not seen what has happened. There are problems, teething problems.
The basis of his leadership, and the basis of his party, is that they argue with one about the risks to be encountered along the intrepid path one is following, and they do so as if they are standing at some spot where there are no risks involved, as if the status quo does not embody any risks. That is the basis of the hon the leader of the Official Opposition’s arguments. When do we hear, in this House, about the risks involved in partition if an attempt is made to develop it further and it does not work? How is one to argue for further partition, whilst at the same time promising people less taxation and lower State expenditure?
In their little publication in Schweizer-Reneke I see a reference to ‘commuter-decentralisation’.
Has the hon the leader and his advisers ever examined the enormous losses incurred in commuter services? My hon colleague will deal with that. Who must pay for it? The answer is simple: the Blacks have to pay for it. It is not going to work like that. What shocks one is the fact that the hon the leader and some of his colleagues served in the Cabinet. They ought to know. Have the hon the leader and his advisers examined decentralisation? Do they know that over the past five years we have spent more than R2,5 billion on decentralisation and that over the past five years we have almost doubled it? Where must the money come from to extend this any further than we have at this moment?
One cannot promise a greater degree of partition, with a greater degree of decentralisation and a greater degree of commuter services that have to be introduced, on the basis of one’s dream of a constitutional model, telling people, at one and the same time, that it is not going to cost them anything extra; the Blacks would have to pay for it. Who must pay for the extra land? Surely we have never heard anything about that. That is the statesmanship one would expect of a responsible opposition, that of telling us in this House what course it has adopted for South Africa and why it was going to work.
Is this not a no-confidence debate?
He must debate with us the question of why our hon State President, according to his lights was indeed wrong in saying, when he decided that those aspects could not be taken further, in practical terms, that he could not take them any further and then having to make a slight adjustment in his course to reach his goal of peaceful co-existence. [Interjections.] That is the leadership one would have expected of someone who presents himself as the alternative State President.
There are many of his supporters who want to cast him in the mould of D F Malan, our celebrated erstwhile Prime Minister. There are parallels; they were both products of the ministry and were both newspaper editors, but that is where it ends. In having to deal with a militant extra-parliamentary organisation, Dr Malan had the courage to repudiate them. He did not do any “fancy footwork”, as we have seen the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition doing today. [Interjections.]
If I heard him correctly, he first began speaking today, in referring to constitutional matters, of the incorporation of the idea of the protection of, and guarantees for, the Afrikaner people. [Interjections.] That is a very important, but typically very subtle matter which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition broached. [Interjections.]
Let me tell him this: If he believes that if one only had partition, heavenly bliss would descend upon one—economically, socially, strategically and from a security point of view—he is living in a dream-world which would have dire consequences for South Africa if he were ever to come into power. That is not how it works.
Why has the hon the State President focused so much attention on the economy? It is quite simply the cornerstone on which a country’s security must rest, a cornerstone which must support constitutional reform. Surely they are also in favour of constitutional reform, even if it were to be a very much more expensive reform if it ever could be implemented.
If one did not have a properly functioning economy, within its present parameters, one would have inestimable difficulty in implementing even the most minimal degree of social reform. That is the simple truth of the matter. What would become of the economy under their rule? Surely there is no doubt that sanctions would be ten times worse than they are today, and that would place our exports under pressure. [Interjections.]
I read of the intrepid utterances of the hon members of the Official Opposition who say that we should implement counter-sanctions. Do they not know the history of counter-sanctions? Have they never heard of substitution? Have they never heard that if a major producer of a specific strategic commodity begins to turn on the screws and no longer wants to sell his product, apart from the damage to his own balance of payments and reserves, this generates international exploratory action? Then one would soon be in a predicament. [Interjections.] After all, that is what happened to us. When Morocco imposed a boycott on us as far as phosphates were concerned, what did we do? We developed Foskor and now we knock them for a six in the export markets. Those hon members are intrepid on their political platforms, but they do not have the foggiest notion of the economy.
I am glad to be able to tell hon members a few things now, and I want to be brief. Last year, in point of fact, the real growth of our economy was 2,6%. That is a figure which has been confirmed today, and it is a great source of gratitude. I merely want to mention three figures. At the end of last year our reserves stood at R8 billion, in comparison with R5,7 billion at the beginning of 1986. A tremendously important aspect, however, is that we all know of the inflation rate that decreased to 13,7% at the end of last year, but today we obtained another important figure—it is still subject to adjustment for December and could possibly undergo a marginally upward adjustment, but not much—ie the production price index for the last quarter of last year, which stands at 9,2% for October and November. If there is a positive sign in our economy, this is it. If there is a further stimulus for us to take the bull by the horns now and give momentum to our anti-inflationary efforts, it is to be found in these encouraging figures that have come to our attention today. That is why we intend, this year, to implement a circumspect fiscal and monetary policy, because one cannot implement the combating of inflation as a policy without having a package of measures with which to do so.
We should like to know from the hon member for Barberton what his views are of the ideal fiscal policy we should implement this year. Let him tell us of something he would like to have done as far as Government expenditure is concerned. Let him tell us at this early stage—after all it is in time for the Budget—what he would like to have done as far as the configuration of Government expenditure is concerned. Let him tell us what his party’s view of monetary policy is. Let him tell us what they would do if they had to determine the limits for the growth of our money supply this year so that we can see how much discipline they would be prepared to implement in their monetary policy in South Africa in order to make a contribution, by those means, to the proper administration of that portion of the economy and to the combating of inflation. How do they read the state of the economy? How do they interpret the events of the past few weeks? Those are the things we should like to hear.
Friday’s speech is one regarded by many people as one of the single most important speeches made in this country in many decades, particularly on economic matters. That speech is the product of a joint effort on the part of a number of bodies and people. Those who keep their ear to the ground and know about what is going on around them will know that the hon the State President drew from the expertise he gleaned in the Economic Advisory Council. Certain plans of action of the Advisory Council also embody certain proposals. There are a whole series of them, and the work of other panels of advisers, embodied in that speech.
That speech told us what we in South Africa needed. On the revenue side we needed a better distribution of the tax burden. Now we are being politically castigated because we saw to it that company tax and the tax on mines was relatively reduced. There are many wonderful explanations for that in the light of the business cycle, but there is one point I should like to emphasise. I am referring to the explicit realisation that we expertly needed to review our tax system so that we could have a fairer distribution of the tax burden. One does this on the basis of expert, scientific advice. We have now obtained that advice, and we have already seen the first relevant announcement.
That will give us a broader basis. That will give us more effective taxation, but our problem lies on the expenditure side. In this House we have previously discussed administrative tools for the administration of our expenditure. We see very clearly that our needs are so much greater than our total capabilities. Our budget has grown during the past few years in absolute terms and relative to our decreasing GDP and the rest of our economy. It was necessary to make a contribution in an attempt to get our economy going. If we had not had that so-called over-expenditure, that high growth in Government expenditure, we would not be in a position today to tell you that last year our economy grew by 2,6% in real terms. That is the simple fact of the matter. Now we must stand aside for a moment, however, and allow the private sector to fully re-energise and develop the economy.
Now comes the painful aspect. When Government expenditure begins to be curtailed or restricted, it is logical that if staff expenditure in the Main Budget comprises 32% of our total Government expenditure, that expenditure will also be affected. After all, it is not possible to concentrate reductions in the remaining 68%. Consequently, if one does not want to increase taxation one has no other choice but to say that one is confining one’s Government expenditure to affordable limits, that one is beginning to get one’s proportions in the right perspective and therefore cannot see one’s way clear, in the light of the economic circumstances, to announcing tax increases at this stage or, as far as staff increases are concerned, of granting a general increase.
The figures which the Commission for Administration have given me, indicate that approximately half of the public servants who are on certain salary scales will, in any event, be obtaining a notch increase, and 99% of them are on certain salary scales. We are not speaking solely of public servants, because this includes all government employees.
There is also an amount of R215 million earmarked for the odd occupational differentiation adjustments. The adjustments are modest ones, I agree, but this causes a very moderate growth in our total staff expenditure. This is not the first time that there has been no general salary increase. It must be a feast for an opportunistic political party on the opposition side to have such a bit of information. Do not think, however, that the full picture will appear in their pamphlets. The simple truth of the matter is that the rest of the public will also have to make a sacrifice by way of lower quality services and higher fees for specific services they have to receive from the State. We have already seen examples of this in operation.
The hon the State President has also given the assurance that the really indigent need not fear that they will be flung out by the backdoor. The really indigent will also be assisted.
If one has affected all these decreases, however, and one asks people to make a sacrifice, also calling upon the business sector to exercise discipline in regard to prices, at this particular juncture there is still an incredible number of urgent capital needs remaining. As far as the comments of the hon member for Yeoville are concerned, I merely want to point out to him in a friendly way that in his appeal to the business sector the hon the State President also consistently stated that they should also exercise strict discipline as far as prices are concerned and not only in regard to salaries and wages.
It is also so tragic, however, that the only comment the CP has had to make about our method—it is the obvious method of doing this, ie by privatisation—is that this is now an auction. Secondly, the hon member for Barberton says that it is a transfer of wealth from the White sector to the Black people. [Interjections.] Let us never again doubt the completely racist orientation of the CP [Interjections.] If those are the comments they have to make about that, one can only tear one’s hair out, if one has any hair left. [Interjections.] It is enough to drive one to tears. Privatisation means that one subjects one’s present assets to a priority investigation and that one makes a conscious decision rather to focus attention on today’s top priorities.
I see he now also has a complaint because we are no longer going to earmark funds. Does he not realise that if one earmarks funds for this specific purpose, one assigns an unassailable priority to those funds, because one never touches them again? That is a sacrosanct priority. The hon member should begin to understand that we are administering the country’s finances on the basis of a conscious determination of priorities. Every colleague sitting here is, in his department, engaged in slotting in his main priorities within the framework of what he can afford.
There are so many urgent tasks that have to be tackled on the capital expenditure front in South Africa. We have deprived areas where basic infrastructure is necessary to enable people to live there so that small industries and commercial activities can be established there and so that heavier industries can perhaps be shifted to those areas. How is one ever going to get that off the ground, however, if one does not make a fundamental investment?
Where must that come from? We cannot increase the taxpayer’s burden. We do not want to extend our public debt. We have not over-borrowed. I have the figures here. We are in a much better position than some of the so-called industrial countries, but we do not want to allow the servicing of public debt, which is a current expenditure, to increase any further. That is why we have to employ our accumulated assets in the country in a different way. That is what the hon members do not understand. [Interjections.] It is really so frustrating when, in discussing an intellectual matter such as this, one gets such stupid mutterings from the hon member for Lichtenburg.
You have to be personal! [Interjections.]
Hon members do not want to understand that if one privatises, one is not holding an auction; one is not getting rid of something at give-away prices with a view to employing the funds for current expenditure. Surely the hon the State President made that clear. What one is doing, however, is to carefully scrutinize what was then, and no longer is, a capital expenditure priority, and to ask whether one is utilising the resources of South Africa to better advantage. All these things—a better functioning economy, a better distribution of taxation, the extension of the tax base by way of privatisation, by converting bodies which pay no tax at present into tax-paying bodies, thereby creating a broader tax base so that more people pay tax and everyone therefore pays less tax—are things that go unnoticed by them.
The better allocation of the resources of this country, in other words the positive matters relating to privatisation, go unnoticed by those hon members, because they have a Black fixation. All they see is that we are supposedly taking pure white money and employing it in areas which they regard as being pitch black. If the hon member adopts a basic standpoint in opposition to that, how can he now tell us that his party is going to convert South Africa, by way of decentralisation, into a country in which the Whites are in the majority? How is the hon member going to manage that? Here there is a jarring contradiction. The time has come, however, for us to convert this into arithmetical terms and to quantify the dream-world of the hon members opposite, a dream-world which they so convincingly try to present to the electorate, and to show the voters that these hon members are telling them things that can never ever materialise in practise.
I want to conclude by saying that as in the case of our policy-changes under the leadership of the hon the State President, when we said that we could not go any further with the policy of partition and adopted another course for the solution of South Africa’s problems—that was an unpopular step to take in the eyes of certain people; how would we not have preferred to take a popular step such as the one those hon members are now trying to take—with this step we are now going to take we would be as little inclined to take a popular step and give all the officials who are hard-working and who join with us in implementing our policy, a general salary increase. We would very much like to do so, but we ask ourselves what would be in the long-term interests of South Africa. For the sake of those people, and the ultimate benefit of lower inflation rate, the benefit of low taxation, we have said that they should be of stout heart and be patient; we shall look after them. We shall do so, however, on the basis of a strong, growing economy which optimally employs its resources. That is the responsible course to adopt, the course adopted by a statesman; it is the spirit, disposition and leadership which so incisively distinguishes our hon State President’s speech from that to which we have just had to listen.
Mr Speaker, before I commence, may I say that we in these benches regret to hear of the indisposition of Mr Speaker Le Grange and we would ask you, Sir, to convey to him our very best wishes for a full and speedy recovery.
We have listened to two speeches very different in style; in a strange way each one of them was revealing of the political personalities of the parties that are jousting for positions in Standerton and elsewhere.
I want to say that the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may have been relevant in Schweizer-Reneke; it may even be relevant in an exclusive White Parliament, but I believe it is totally irrelevant to the broader South Africa. Quite frankly, I found it disquieting, I found it distressing and if, in fact, these gentlemen on the right are a growing factor, I find it frightening for South Africa. It is disquieting because the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is developing the style, and almost the ability of the late Dr Verwoerd, to convert a basic racist concept into an acceptable philosophy.
Heaven help South Africa if we go through that Verwoerdian phase again when White South Africa starts elevating racism and race to a benign and acceptable philosophy! I had hoped that that had passed through our system, but it looks as though it has been resurrected in the form of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. His style is utterly confrontational. I do not mind him confronting the Government, but his style is utterly confrontational as far as the other racial communities in South Africa are concerned. He has no thought of reconciliation, compromise or negotiation. He believes in out and out confrontation: One will win and the other will lose. And that, too, is frightening for South Africa.
The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is correct in his emphasis of the problems of race, ethnicity, language—factors with which we all have to contend—but in emphasising these problems he completely ignores the reality—the oneness of South Africa with its integrated economy and its shared destiny. Whether the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition likes it or not, whether I like it or not and whether the ANC or Buthelezi like it or not, it is within the context of a single South Africa with an integrated economy and shared destiny that we must have the guts and the courage to meet one another to talk about the future of this country.
So I found the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s speech disquieting. While I share the view that we should have a vote of no confidence in the Government it is for reasons, totally different reasons from those advanced by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.
The hon the Minister of Finance made a different kind of speech but he actually demonstrated in the early part of his speech and towards the end the real political Achilles heel of the NP. He once again said that they believe in self-determination.
But we do not!
He said that of course that is their objective, their philosophy and where they would like to take South Africa. He said that the Government has partitioned as far as we can and if we could partition further we would.
*However, he said that with the classic policy we unfortunately could not make any further progress and therefore we are forced to take a different course.
†He is saying: Vote for us for something that we admit is second best. He is actually saying that they do not believe in it. He is saying to the voters of South Africa, White as well as Black: When you are looking for the lead, come and vote for the shopsoiled second best—it is not what we would like to do but it is what we are compelled to do.
Whatever the strength of that party achieved through a whole range of manipulation, it is because they do not believe in sharing and because they believe in separate development and would prefer partition that they are unable to give a lead or an inspiration or to provide a vision for the people of this country. The Minister’s speech highlighted the dilemma of the NP.
Mr Speaker, it is inevitable that this debate should take place against the background of the deteriorating situation in South Africa in a whole range of areas and also against the background of the announcement of the hon the State President of the new economic package which he made at the opening of Parliament on Friday. Before I deal with the deteriorating situation I should like to make a few comments on the new economic package and at the same time utter some words of caution.
The PFP is in favour of steps that will increase productivity and stimulate the productive forces in South Africa. We have repeatedly argued that this can best be achieved by placing the management of production in the hands of the private sector rather than in the hands of State bureaucracy. That has been the consistent attitude of this party ever since it was established. We have repeatedly called for privatisation and for areas of tax reform. Thus it is pleasing to note that some of the economic reforms which the hon the State President has announced are those which have been called for by the PFP and by other enlightened people and organisations outside of this House.
However, before we become too euphoric, let us also utter some words of warning and caution to ourselves and to the Government. It may well be that the hon the State President has taken these into account. Privatisation cannot in any circumstances relieve the Government of its responsibility to ensure that there is the basic infrastructure necessary for development and for ensuring that there are the essential services such as education, health care, social welfare and housing for the frail, the needy and the disadvantaged. No amount of privatisation can take that responsibility away from the Government.
It was stated in the speech.
I am stating it again from our point of view.
The hon the State President said in his speech:
I agree that there is much that we in South Africa can learn from Western experience, just as there is much that we can learn from the experience of certain countries in the Far East. We must bear in mind that South Africa is not a Western country, but an African country. We South Africans are not part of a First World nation—we are a partly First and a partly Third World nation.
The economic policy, the determination of priorities, the application of resources and the whole issue of privatisation, has to take into account not only the First World component of our nation, but also the Third World component. It has to take into account those in the process of transition from the Third World to the First World sectors of our society as well as those who have been disadvantaged by years of discrimination. These elements have to be taken into account in the application of any package.
In South Africa there is a dangerous and potentially explosive gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. This gap will simply have to be narrowed if there is to be stability and peace in our society.
Tell us how you are going to do it.
It is imperative that increasing production takes place in a way that the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” is narrowed—whether that gap is measured in terms of wealth or standard of services or quality of life. In addition to the need to generate additional wealth—and there is need to generate additional wealth in South Africa—the manner in which that additional wealth is distributed among the people of South Africa is important.
If the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” is going to be narrowed this Government will have to ensure that those people who are in the process of transition from the Third to the First World sectors of our society, as well as those people who have been disadvantaged and discriminated against over the years, can, in practice, make use of the new opportunities that are going to be presented by a deregulated and open economy. This is absolutely imperative.
At the very least this will require the lifting of all racial restrictions which have a bearing on the economy. It is no use having a privatised and open economy while there are racial restrictions. The Group Areas Act with all the restrictions that that involves in the economic field has to be removed if we want to get rid of the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. The hon the State President must realise that it will also require positive steps to ensure that there is access to land, to education, to training and to capital.
We would all like to help the Government in order to see inflation reduced, but the Government is not going to win the battle against inflation as long as it continues to pump taxpayers’ money into services, institutions or Government structures that are duplicated, triplicated or quadruplicated—multiplied—on the basis of race. White teacher training colleges that are not used are being closed down when there is a massive shortage of training facilities for Blacks. What is the Government up to?
The Government’s policy of apartheid involving as it does the unnecessary expenditure caused by racially compartmentalised departments— whether one calls it own affairs or self-determination—with its vast direct and indirect costs, is a major contributor to the inflation which South Africans are having to endure today.
It is all very well for the hon the State President to ask others to make sacrifices in order to get rid of inflation, but what sacrifice is this Government going to make in terms of its policy of apartheid? What aspects of apartheid is it prepared to abolish in order to assist in the fight against inflation?
While approving of the thrust of this new economic package, we are going to watch this Government like hawks, in particular to see that its plans do not degenerate into asset-stripping or the abdication of State responsibility as a means of getting a government out of the economic difficulties caused by its own political bankruptcy.
The public has been let down before. The hon the State President will recall the enthusiasm that prevailed some years ago, when shortly after taking office as Prime Minister, he announced plans to streamline and rationalise the Public Service. There was tremendous excitement. Yet the consequence of this streamlining and rationalising was that we ended up with the biggest and the most expensive Public Service this country has ever had. So, Mr Speaker, we are on the watch.
The problems facing our nation today have been aggravated by the Government’s handling of the economy over the years. This Government, on its own admission, has allowed inflation to run rampant for year after year. It is trying to do something about it now. It has allowed bureaucracy to grow into a bloated and costly juggernaut, and it has been guilty of a whole range of acts of economic imprudence and mismanagement.
The grave problems facing our people today, however, do not flow primarily from economic policy; they flow from the fact that this Government, and indeed successive National Governments before it, has failed over a period of 40 years to solve the fundamental political issues of this country. This is what is wrong.
This fundamental reality was brought home to me in a very personal way last Friday. I attended the opening of Parliament in the new Chamber of Parliament, and I sat there, together with my colleagues from all parties, in the opulent and expensive new wing of Parliament.
Among all the medals!
I was aware, as I sat inside and looked around, of the pomp and ceremony outside. I listened to the hon the State President. As my thoughts moved from that scene of exclusiveness, pomp and ceremony, almost of ostentation, to the wider South African society—33 million to 35 million people—I was filled with a deep sense of shame. The hon the State President said:
I wish that that could be the image that that opening conveyed to the majority of the people of South Africa. Regrettably, that is not how the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa view that occasion What should have been an act of reconciliation, was the continuation of an act of exclusion.
What should have been a symbol of sharing is, I believe, to millions and millions of South Africans a symbol of domination and even of oppression.
What should have been the Great Hall of the people of South Africa is merely another hall of the minority of the people of South Africa.
The fact is that the tricameral system, with its entrenched racial components and its deliberate exclusion of Black South Africans, is in itself an affront to the dignity of the majority of the citizens of this country. I read from the text of some words spoken to me the other day by Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi:
I will do nothing to give it credibility. The Constitution must be scrapped, and there is no room whatsoever within the four corners of the present Constitution for anything that I wish to do.
The present Constitution cannot last. There is a harshness about the South African political situation which must not be underestimated. Race classification, as a fundamental principle in the country’s Constitution, must be eradicated, and will be eradicated. It will be eradicated through the democratic process or it will be eradicated through bloody revolution, but eradicated it will be. The upward spiralling of violence will continue to be fuelled by the country’s Constitution. States of emergency can curb the outward expression of that political violence, but nothing that the Government can do within the state of emergency can address the reasons for it. I, as a Black political leader, am deeply aware of the extent to which Inkatha itself is being radicalised by the new Constitution and by the failure of the Government to bring about meaningful reform.
The fact is that the majority of the citizens of South Africa, while acknowledging the statutory authority of this Government, do not recognise its moral legitimacy, for it was elected without their participation, under a constitution that was imposed on them without their consent.
For close on 78 years White South Africans, although holding the reins of power, have failed to come to terms with the issue of Black political rights. By this I mean fundamental human rights for the Black citizens of our country. For the past 40 years successive NP Governments have not only failed to come to terms with this issue, but have also aggravated the situation by imposing various forms of apartheid on the people of South Africa. The failure of the Government to resolve the issue of political rights for the Black citizens of our country, together with its stubborn refusal to abandon the shabby remnants of apartheid lie at the root of the serious problems facing the people of South Africa today.
It can point a finger at everybody else but I say to the Government: Look at yourselves! Look at your failures! Look at your record! It is these failures that have damaged our economy and have depressed living standards. It is these failures that have led to polarisation and violence and lawlessness, which threaten the physical safety of ordinary citizens today. It is also the failures of this Government that are causing South Africa to be taken at an increasing pace away from the prospect of future democracy towards the certainty of a new authoritarianism.
I have no doubt the Government will say: “Well, we are handling the question of Black rights by way of the National Council Bill.” I want to say to the Government that quite apart from thorny issues such as the release of political prisoners, the unbanning of political organisations and the lifting of the state of emergency, this Government is, through its political actions, busy creating a political climate in which a National Council, if it ever is created, is going to be a dead duck.
Let us look at a few examples. I think of the hon the State President’s totally unsatisfactory response to the very timid recommendations of the President’s Council on the Group Areas Act. I think of the Government’s inept and rudderless reaction to the release of Mr Govan Mbeki. I think of the gratuitous rejection by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, as late as November 1987, of the indaba proposals—a year after they had in any event already been rejected by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs. This action by the hon the Minister does not make sense, except in terms of White politics.
What does the hon the Minister think he is up to? Does he want to wreck the process of negotiation? Does he want to jeopardise the functioning Natal-KwaZulu Joint Executive Authority? Does he want to drive someone like Chief Buthelezi into the radical camp? Let him stand up here and explain what he is up to.
Then there is also the issue of beach apartheid, the lack of direction from the hon the State President, and the pathetic egg-dancing of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, joined by the Administrator of the Cape Province. It is quite amazing to me how, when the NP Government wanted to impose beach apartheid they very often did it against the wishes of the relevant local authorities. They told the people: “That is what it is going to be. We are putting up the signs and will debit them to your account.” Now, when it comes to getting rid of beach apartheid that hon Minister and Mr Gene Louw hide behind the skirts of the local authorities. [Interjections.] I ask the Government to give us a lead, to tell us beach apartheid must go. They should do that instead of always running away from an issue and hiding behind the skirts of lesser authorities in this country.
Mr Speaker, there is also the Government’s continued commitment to race classification and race segregation as the cornerstones of their constitutional structures. The hon the Minister of National Education is for ever calling for a sharper definition of own affairs—expanding the idea of own affairs. Heavens, Sir, what are we doing in this time? While the Government stumbles along without any clear direction or any clear vision the conflict and violence intensify in our country. I find the level of violence in South Africa quite appalling. There is a breakdown of law and order and the degree of lawlessness has become frightening to millions of South Africans of all communities. Muggings, murders, robberies, rapes, shootouts, armed attacks, killings, stabbings, burnings, bombings—all of these are the symptoms of a sick society led by an ineffective and rudderless Government. [Interjections.]
Mr Speaker, just listen to the horrific figures of the rate of killings over the past few weeks. For the week ended 25 November the figure was 18, the next week 16, the next week 10 and the next week nine. For the week ended 23 December the figure was 21, the next week 33, the next week 29 and the next week nine. For the week ended 21 January the figure was 36, and the next week 13. Is this Government not ashamed of this?
Now, whose fault is that? [Interjections.]
Whose fault?
†This Government is the Government in office. [Interjections.] Yes, there are people whose aim is that of conflict. There are, however, very many innocent people too. Some of those innocent people are ordinary citizens doing their duty as citizens of South Africa.
It is quite clear that the state of emergency with all its restrictions has done nothing whatsoever to solve the fundamental problems of South Africa. Of course, this Government will say: “Never mind, we are broadening the base of democracy.” We hear continuously from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that we are broadening the base of democracy. I want to tell him that the Government is destroying the basis of democracy in South Africa. That is what the Government is doing. It is not only the physical safety of the people that is being threatened; it is not only our living standards that are being eroded. This Government is taking the country step by step faster and faster away from the prospect of democracy into the reality of authoritarianism. Were one to measure this in terms of human freedoms and of civil liberties and of democratic values, this Government has already taken this once proud country of ours a long, long way down the road towards authoritarianism.
Let me list 10 steps they have taken. Firstly, there are the awesome and arbitrary powers given to the State and its agents often involving the bypassing of the courts and the abrogation of the rule of law. This has happened time and time again. Secondly, there are the executive bannings, the restriction orders, the detentions without trial. Is this broadening the base of democracy? Thirdly, there are the widespread restrictions on political activity including freedom of assembly, speech and association. Fourthly, there is the control of information, the restrictions on the Press and the manipulation and distortion of news and views by the SABC and SATV. Fifthly, there is the increasing secretiveness of government and its declining level of public accountability. Sixthly, there is the increasing use of coercion and force by the Government and its agents in the assertion of their authority. Seventhly, there is the growing militarisation of our society and the impact that this is having on the political and economic life of our country. Eighthly, there is the ongoing surveillance of individuals and organisations through the use of spies and informers, and the emergence of a network of joint management committees as a new factor in government in South Africa. Ninthly, there is the continuous linking by Government leaders of the interests of the NP with the interests of the State. Finally, under the new presidential system there is the dramatic shift away from accountability through elected parliamentary institutions to a new imperial style of government by an executive president and his nominees and co-optees. This is the trend that is being followed in South Africa today.
I want to quote what Mr Laurie Ackermann, a judge who has just stood down from the Bench to take up the Oppenheimer Chair of Human Rights at Stellenbosch University, had to say in an article in the recent edition of Leadership. He says:
Mr Speaker, I firmly believe that this Government deserves a motion of no confidence but I wish to move the following amendment to the bland motion of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, viz:
- (1) damaging the economy and reducing the living standards of our people;
- (2) undermining the security and safety of the citizens of our country; and
- (3) leading the country away from democracy towards authoritarianism”.
Mr Speaker, in any case I believe that this Government does not enjoy the support or the confidence of the majority of the people in this country.
That is true!
It does not enjoy the support or the confidence of the majority of the people in this country. I believe that it does not deserve the confidence of this House.
Mr Speaker, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition moved a motion of no-confidence in the Cabinet today, but it was quite clear that he was merely setting up a platform from which to put forward his traditional planless objections and complaints. The hon the leader said that this Government had no plans but then devoted several minutes of his speech to criticising and shooting down this Government’s plans which were already in operation. One is astounded by the logic of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.
However, it goes further than that. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must be careful, because if he is so constantly and consistently aggrieved, he is going to earn himself a nickname which I would not like to give him. I think he may deserve it if he is aggrieved for so long. [Interjections.]
I do not want to devote any more time to him, because the hon the Minister of Finance reacted to his speech successfully, but the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition stressed the lack of political models. It is after all as plain as a pikestaff that political models, like economic models, do not drop from the sky like parachutes. One must work on them constantly. In the course of my speech I shall, however, concentrate more on the economic guidelines which the hon the State President put forward in his opening address, because I think it is important for us as Parliament and the public outside to have a greater feeling of solidarity as regards the economic problems facing us.
As regards his proposal I merely want to say, however—this will become quite clear from my speech—that we have many models on which we have been working hard for some time now, and that this Cabinet and the Government definitely do not need to be goaded into solving their problems in the interests of the future of all the people of South Africa.
†The hon member for Sea Point started off very well. I think we should give him credit for at least recognising the absolutely critical importance of economic reform and economic stability to secure the future of this country and all its people. In the course of my speech I will comment on some of the remarks he made.
*However, the hon member then proved very clearly to us here in Parliament today that the PFP’s slip of “softness on security” in South Africa is showing; it is sticking out a mile. The hon member again blamed all these incidents of unrest on the Government. I want to ask the hon member where these incidents originate. Is it not the Inkathas and the UDFs of South Africa who are fighting tooth and nail? Who supports these people? Who are their cronies? [Interjections.] It is after all this Government which has the primary task of ensuring stability and law and order in South Africa. It is in fact this Government which must protect those factions against each other. I do not think that the hon member and his party should reprimand the Government. I think this hon member should reprimand those organisations. I did not hear that today. I did not hear him voice his concern to those organisations regarding the casualties and deaths they are causing. No, he reprimanded the Government. I think this hon member has a tremendous obligation towards this Parliament and the people of South Africa to reprimand those people instead of this Government regarding the maintenance of law and order in South Africa.
†Mr Speaker, I want to concentrate and elaborate on the speech delivered by the hon the State President giving certain guidelines in the economic field. There can be no doubt whatsoever that we have experienced a revival in various sectors of the economy in the recent past. We see this, for example, particularly in the motor industry and the industry manufacturing rubber and plastic products. Thus the real added value in manufacturing was approximately 5% higher in the second half of 1987 than in the same period in 1986. The export of manufactured goods increased substantially during the third quarter of 1987 and the increase in production prices slowed down considerably from approximately 22% in 1986 to 13% in the second half of 1987 and, I believe, is now almost at the level of 9%.
In order to stimulate these growth trends even further, the hon the State President in his address when opening Parliament placed particular emphasis on the necessity for stability and cooperation within South Africa and also beyond our borders in the Southern African context.
*There is after all a time for everything in life. There was a time when emphasis had to be placed on social welfare stability and reform and on social and political reform, but the time has now come to concentrate on the economic stability of South Africa. In the course of my speech I shall try to indicate why this is now important and why we must now give particular attention to this.
It is essential for us to have political, social welfare and economic stability in South Africa. It is after all also a recognised fact that these concepts are intertwined in a very refined way; you cannot have one in isolation from the others. In his opening address the hon the State President concentrated mainly on economic matters, and I should like to elaborate on this.
The hon the State President, as a head of Government and as a political leader of the governing party within the bounds of the body politic, and with due regard to the growth phase in which the economy finds itself, adopted absolutely essential and strong standpoints, took economic initiatives and laid down guidelines with a view to the combating of inflation and the stimulation of growth. I do not think that there is anyone sitting in this House who will tell us that the combating of inflation and the stimulation of growth in South Africa is not of cardinal importance at this stage in our existence—not last year or next year, but now.
These standpoints and initiatives afford a tremendous challenge to the leadership within the ranks of the private sector. There is the challenge of co-operation and support in order to promote economic stability and growth.
I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that as regards his motion the Cabinet stands as one man behind this approach of the hon the State President to ensure economic stability in South Africa, particularly this year.
One can include monetary and fiscal policy, as well as discipline, within the concept of “economic stability”. My hon colleague has already referred to this in his speech. One can include the combating of inflation in it. The hon member for Sea Point referred to this, and we agree with him that this must receive high priority in South Africa.
One can also include the creation of employment opportunities in this, as well as investment in production facilities. The hon member was quite correct when he pointed out that when we considered privatisation and the conversion of Government assets into cash, we were considering the re-utilisation of the State’s capability and infrastructures to tie in with the modern demands of our economy.
One can also include the promotion and creation of prosperity in the concept of “economic stability”. I think the hon member for Sea Point was quite correct when he said that we had to create prosperity in South Africa. The purpose of this attempt at privatisation is to create opportunities to bring about prosperity for all sectors of our population.
The improvement of standards of living and economic co-operation across the borders of neighbouring states also leads to economic stability.
If I may air a few views on economic co-operation within the Southern African context I want to point out that there is no doubt in my mind that we have already done tremendous work in this regard. In this connection we need merely refer to certain projects in which the Government took the lead and the initiative and in which the private sector was also involved. Over and above a variety of agreements with several countries in Southern Africa, there is also the multi-million rand Highlands Water Scheme in Lesotho, the investigation into the erection of an economically viable coal power station in a neighbouring state, the investigation into water schemes with a related hydro-electric potential, the possible restoration of the electricity supply from Cahora Bassa, and the soda-ash project in Botswana. These are a few examples I wanted to cite to show hon members on that side of the House that the Government has for some time now been actively engaged in promoting economic stability in South Africa, and that it is not necessary to urge us to do so.
In contrast with the RSA’s stabilising attitude towards and support of countries in Southern Africa it is surely surprising that I have received representations from American sources not to support the soda-ash project. There were even threats that they would report us to the GATT and would bring pressure to bear on the international financial world not to finance the project. This is in contrast with the efforts at stabilisation in which the South African Government is engaged.
In order to stimulate economic growth within the country and also to give it momentum in order to ensure economic stability, and as an incentive to industrialists, as well as to create and to stabilise confidence in the economy, the Government also started the Mossel Bay gas project. I had intended to tell hon members of Parliament as well as the people outside what progress we had made, but I do not have the time to do so. We shall have another opportunity to elaborate on this more fully. The private sector is being supported through the development of further synthetic fuel projects.
After the speech of the hon the State President the IDC made an announcement over the weekend regarding their involvement in small business development, to the effect that they would also concentrate their activities on smaller and independent industrialists. Details were already made known by the IDC over the weekend. They will also make funds available to the SBDC to afford similar benefits to the small industries in the informal sector.
Sir, as regards the industries you will also allow me to refer to industrial support, which is being considered by the Government. It is being envisaged to deal more selectively in future with State support to industries in order to achieve predetermined development objectives and to utilise State funds more effectively. This new approach will be aimed at a programme of structural adjustments. The structural adjustment programme promises purposefully to promote export development, import replacement, efficiency and closer co-operation between the Government and private industrialists.
†Mr Speaker, please allow me to make a very short statement in regard to the support for industrial exports from the country. The Board of Trade and Industry has already submitted to Government a report and recommendations on a policy and strategy for the structural adaptation of South African industry, including measures to promote exports. The overall aim is to improve the international competitiveness of South African manufacturing industries.
In pursuance of the board’s recommendations it has been decided that the existing categories C and D export incentives will be replaced by a scheme for Export Market Development Assistance (EMDA) with effect from 1 March 1989. The necessary amendments to the Act to terminate the category D incentives will be made timeously. The existing categories A and B export incentive measures will in due course be replaced by a variety of new measures, for example schemes to provide assistance in respect of input costs, productivity improvement, the development of small industries and special programmes for industrial development. However, each of these schemes will be designed for specific industries after thorough studies and recommendations have been made by the Board of Trade and Industry. The existing categories A and B will in each case be retained until the board has recommended substitutionary measures. The board will also in each case make a recommendation in respect of the period during which the existing categories A and B will be phased out and replaced by new measures.
All the amendments referred to will be preceded by a process of registration of new exporters and the reregistration of existing exporters on the basis of a set of criteria aimed at the more efficient utilisation of public funds. Further particulars of the proposed schemes and registration will be announced from time to time.
This statement supersedes my statement of 15 December 1987.
*With regard to privatisation, the hon the State President referred to certain of the organisations earmarked for privatisation. I think it is important that we should look at some of them in order to make a few more particulars available. I want to start by saying that the creation of employment, investment, economic growth—in this regard I agree with the hon member for Sea Point— primarily remain the responsibility of the private sector. In support of this the privatisation of specific functions and institutions is an obligation on which we have been working for some time now with careful and responsible enthusiasm.
I again want to emphasise that the privatisation of State assets is not an objective in itself, but that it must also lead to more effective utilisation of assets or supply of services in order to promote economic growth and that every case must be considered on its own merits. The systematic process of privatisation forms a part of the strategy and a package through which in the first place the public sector’s involvement in the economy is being restricted or reduced so that more capital, production means and opportunities can be made available to the private sector; and in the second place the private sector is being afforded the opportunity to develop and grow to the optimum and with the minimum State interference and regulation. I should therefore like to elaborate on a few of the matters raised.
As regards Eskom, over the weekend it was very clearly stated by Mr John Maree what the plans for Eskom were. Suffice it to say that Eskom is basically a statutory body with an asset structure of virtually R26 billion. Over and above the statement which Mr John Maree has already made, I think we should pay tribute to Mr Maree and his board and to Mr McRae and his management for the tremendous progress over the past two years. The Cabinet started this privatisation a long time ago and the hon the State President merely gave impetus to carry on more rapidly. Progress has been made with the structural changes, rationalisation of and adjustments to staff, financing adjustments and privatisation strategies. In the near future Eskom will appoint an expert outside consultant to investigate and make recommendations on further alternative strategies.
Iscor is a State corporation with an asset structure of R3 300 billion. I have the information here in front of me, but owing to a lack of time I shall not read it out. I can only say that Mr Marius de Waal and I have already held discussions in this connection and that Iscor is already taxable and operating at a profit. It is rather interesting to see what their profits are. During the past four years their profit was R400 million the first year, R257 million the second year, R426 million in the third year and R467 million last year, according to normal anti-inflation bookkeeping. I make so bold as to say that with the co-operation of Iscor’s board of directors and management—and we have their full co-operation—we shall be able to make progress with the privatisation of Iscor sooner than everyone may expect. It is interesting to know that the private sector already owns a large number of preferential shares in the entire Iscor set-up. We can therefore very easily build on this.
Foskor is a company with an asset structure of R160 million. There are approximately R4 million shares and the IDC is the sole shareholder in Foskor. Negotiations for the buying out of these shares have reached an advanced stage. After the implications of the buying out of these shares have been studied we hope to make a submission in the near future as regards the buying out of these shares.
I would have liked to have elaborated on the AEB because I think the AEB is the only one of the organisations mentioned whose management costs all come from the Revenue department or Treasury. Their budget for last years was in the order of R700 million. Suffice it to say that we have made a great deal of progress as regards the privatisation of the AEB and that the privatisation strategy in respect of the precision mechanics division of the AEB has progressed to the extent that the company in which these assets are going to vest has already been established. We are also already considering possible directors for that company after which it will be made available to the public sector. I would have liked to discuss the IDC as well, but I think I shall leave this matter for another occasion.
In conclusion I want to say that if we really wish to promote stability at all levels and particularly at the economic level, the leaders from the private sector, as well as political leaders—the two sitting on that side of the House, in the House of Delegates and in the House of Representatives— must follow the example and initiatives of the hon the State President as set out in his opening address and must cease sniping at one another regarding their differences. We should rather join hands regarding those matters on which we agree and build a stable future for South Africa and all its people. The time has now come to join hands in the economic sphere and to work for the future of South Africa and all its people.
Mr Speaker, I want to begin with the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology and I just want to say that we on this side of the House find it quite astonishing that after an important speech such as the one we heard on Friday, hon members of the CP were so quick to move away from economic and financial matters. Hon members will see that the hon member for Barberton will also steer clear of these matters in his speech, because the simple truth is that the Official Opposition knows that these steps which the Government has announced are economically and financially drastic, but that they form the basis on which we are going to construct a new South Africa, constitutionally and socially, to which all the people are going to feel that they belong. [Interjections.]
On the basis of the latest decisions on privatisation and deregulation, the hon the Minister of Finance, the hon the State President and the Cabinet will go down in the history of South Africa as people who were prepared to take dramatic steps in spite of the implications and the uncertainty that these could eventually or in the short term entail for many people, including my own voters.
The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition talked about the Afrikaner today, and in many respects his speech was quite astonishing. He began by talking about the survival of the White man and the Afrikaner as a free being, which is not guaranteed by the Government, and this theme ran through his entire speech like a golden thread.
We on this side of the House differ fundamentally with the Official Opposition if they think that our children or the children of any other group in this country have any future if this Government is to work for the freedom and independence of the Afrikaner only. The kind of politics practised by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is fraught with conflict. It is pure conflict politics, and this kind of AWB politics will inevitably involve ourselves and our children in conflict and confrontation.
Concerning the survival and freedom of the Afrikaner the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that the Afrikaners, on the basis of their skin colour, are the only group that has any rightful claims in this country. We completely reject that philosophy of theirs, and I am amazed that there are still people in our country who can applaud a political leader when he gets up in 1988 and preaches the politics of 1948. I have often asked myself how one can say in 1988 what Dr Verwoerd said in 1966. I have said on occasion that I consider it the most terrible insult to the intellect of a past leader such as Dr Verwoerd…
Order!
No, Mr Speaker, I do not wish to answer a question.
I do not know whether the hon member wants to ask a question.
Mr Speaker, it is a question.
No, the hon member is not prepared to take a question. [Interjections.]
It means that a past leader of great intellect, if he had still been living today, would after all these years have been standing exactly where he stood at that time. Surely that is quite ridiculous. No intelligent person and no dynamic political leader could have failed to take any cognisance of the realities of this country after all these years.
I should like to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to acquaint himself with a very interesting episode from South Africa’s history which has never been placed on record, and that is the instruction given to the late Mr Frans Durandt, the senior law adviser in the Department of Native Administration, by the late Dr Verwoerd in 1959. That instruction was in fact to draw up an Act which would have given Blacks in the Black urban residential areas a final and complete say on the local authority level.
I witnessed that whole episode. I was a young official in the department, and I remember how, in the NP of that time, that instruction by Dr Verwoerd was shot down from Messina to Cape Town and from the East coast to the West coast, and eventually we came up with legislation on urban Bantu councils which to a very large extent watered down those powers which Dr Verwoerd had intended to be given to local authorities.
Now I want to ask the hon members of the Official Opposition how, if Dr Verwoerd had succeeded in having that measure accepted within the party at that time, in the interests of South Africa, they could still have spoken constitutionally of White South Africa. I want to say to the hon members of the Official Opposition that their statement about White South Africa is fraught with conflict.
Thank you very much. You are really helping us in the byelections.
It is an emotion which is bound to propel us into major crises. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about the chaos on the beaches here today and he said that it was the NP’s policy. That is not true, Sir. Let the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition or any hon member of that party point out to us one single leader of this party who has said that he approves of uncivilised behaviour in public; who has said that we approve of immoral acts committed in public; who has said that we approve of shocking evils and low moral standards. Surely that is not true! The NP and the Government reject any form of immorality and abuse of whatever nature.
To say that South Africa is a White country and to wish all these problems away so that matters may be rectified is simply not feasible. [Interjections.]
What do you want to do about it? [Interjections.]
I want to tell the hon members of the CP to go to Loftus Versveld, the Free State Stadium or Ellis Park on a Saturday, any Saturday, and to look at the conditions which exist there among our own people as a result of evils such as the abuse of liquor and so on.
You allowed it!
These are the things we have to look at. We have to look at crowds and evils arising from the excessive consumption of liquor and similar abuses. To approach this problem as they are trying to do, and to suggest that we are creating tension in South Africa, is simply to lose sight of reality.
Keep talking. You are giving us ammunition.
In Pretoria we have the National Zoo. Now I ask hon members of the CP to whom the National Zoo in Pretoria belongs. Does it belong to the Whites?
It belongs to Koos. [Interjections.]
The hon member for Lichtenburg says that it does belong to the Whites. He nods in agreement, Sir. I want to tell the hon members of the CP that we must not try to get by with foolish attitudes such as these.
The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that the NP’s policy has not led people to love one another. I now ask him to show me one single Black or Coloured leader—only one—who says that his party’s policy has any chance at all of bringing peace to South Africa, let alone love.
What about Mangope?
I am telling them that their policy will never bring peace to the Black, Coloured or Indian leaders, because it is a conflict-generating policy, since it is a policy of the rejection of other people. One is telling fellow South Africans who are not White, Blacks who were born in this country, that they are not citizens of South Africa; that they have no claim, no right of existence and no say. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition…
Well, open up the schools, then!
… talks about equal claims to land. The matter is not as simple as he makes it out to be. Let me tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that if he and his party think that they can tell the millions of Blacks who are living and being born every single year outside the national and independent states that they have no claim to land in what the Official Opposition describes as White South Africa, they are leading the Whites whom they pretend to represent, and their children, down a road which will most certainly end in revolution, for show me a single Black, Coloured, or Asian person who will accept that political standpoint of theirs in regard to land as one which must generate peace and love among people. It is not so easy, therefore, to accuse us of selling out and of all sorts of things.
The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about goodwill and sanctimoniously maintained that the CP did not practise racist politics. I am sorely tempted today…
Go right ahead.
… to use words in this highest debating chamber of South Africa which I had hoped had been removed from our pattern of thinking 50 years ago. I am sorely tempted to ask him to rise and to say to the voters of Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke that he does not want a White voter who speaks of—I shall not mention the word used to describe the Blacks—or who speaks of—I shall not mention the word used to describe the Coloureds either— or who speaks of—I shall omit the word used to describe the Indians—to vote for him.
Mr Speaker, I challenge him. He must rise in this House and tell these people that they do not want them to vote for them. [Interjections.] If they do that, we shall believe that the Official Opposition does not practise racist politics. We know what language is used, after all. A kind of racial emotionalism is sweeping through South Africa—right through White politics in this country. It is being stirred up by those people, in a way that we last experienced with Mr Jaap Marais in 1969. I want to put it to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that it is precisely because he has stolen Mr Jaap Marais’ policy and a large number of his supporters that he has to depend on the crude emotions of racialism. It is no use either trying to cloak it in sanctimonious sentiments. It is no use maintaining that it is not racialism. It is blatant racialism. Just as the APK—the Afrikaanse Politieke Kerk—was established on a purely racial basis, those people practise their politics purely on a racial basis. [Interjections.]
Order! The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis is continually making interjections. He will have to stop doing so immediately. The hon member for Innesdal may proceed.
Of course, Mr Speaker, the hon member Comdt Clive Derby-Lewis is, I believe, the missing link between the CP and the AWB. [Interjections.] It would be very interesting if hon members of this House could have a look at some of the literature and documents that we obtain from various sources. I am referring, amongst other things, to the rubbish published by the Stallard Foundation. I am also referring to the utter absurdities about the Illuminati which the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis is deeply involved in. I may also refer, for the sake of interest, to letters sent to literally hundreds of people in my constituency during the last election. These letters were sent out under the letterhead of the American Congress, on behalf of so-called anonymous members of the American Congress. In these, my voters were told what kind of pinko communist they were dealing with. Then they listed the charges against me—the most barefaced lies one could possibly imagine. It was alleged that I was in Dar-Es-Salaam in the company of Mr George Schultz and Mr Oliver Tambo, together with the hon the Minister of Budget and Welfare and the hon the Deputy Minister of Education. This is the kind of allegation that is made under the letterhead of the American Congress. I have an idea where these things originate. What is more, we are going to expose a few of these people on the other side. [Interjections.] Yes, we shall do that to show up the reprehensible brand of politics that they practise in South Africa. [Interjections.]
We on this side of the House are not afraid, Mr Speaker, of facing the voters squarely and telling them quite frankly that we are moving towards a constitutional structure in which all people and groups in South Africa—all interest groups— must eventually share rights and powers in the legislative as well as the executive authorities. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that we have no plans. Quite right, Sir. We do not have a ready-made plan. Nevertheless, I want him to show me where in the world the constitution of a single country was finalised within the space of one, two, three, four or five decades.
The USA!
Mr Speaker, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that this system is fraught with conflict. I put the following question to him. Even if the Rev Hendrickse and his people were to reject the system, how does he think he is going to avoid a total confrontation with the Coloured community of South Africa? How is he going to avoid this kind of confrontation with the Asian population? It is very easy to tell us that this system is not working. I want to say quite frankly that that is rubbish. The fact that a system gives rise to problems does not mean that the system is not working. There is no constitutional blueprint or framework that we could implement in South Africa that would ever work perfectly, finally and absolutely, without any tensions and problems. We as a Government admit this quite frankly. We are quite open about it. We are not afraid of saying so to the voters.
In conclusion I want to say, Sir, that we as the NP and as the Government of this country say to our fellow Black South Africans—irrespective of whether they want to be represented on a group or ethnic basis or whether they want to be recognised as individuals—that they are fellow South Africans, citizens of this country, and with this new economic package which has been announced, we want to share with them the riches, the benefits and the opportunities of this country in such a way that we shall not follow the CP’s course of conflict—a course that 20 years ago we still thought capable of being implemented in certain respects. For this reason I take pleasure in saying on this occasion that we on this side of the House wish to express our fullest confidence in the Cabinet and to convey our thanks for the dramatic and dynamic decisions that have been taken.
Mr Speaker, the hon member for Innesdal tried to make a speech but I do not believe it is worth the trouble for me to try to reply to it. [Interjections.] I want to say only this to him: As regards his old story that we of the CP begrudge the other people of this country—the Blacks, the Brown people and the Indians— everything, I do not know whether he believes himself while he is telling it. Our standpoint has consistently been that we demand the right to self-government for our people and we feel every Black people in this country is welcome to this too. [Interjections.]
Where?
Do the Xhosas not govern in the Transkei? [Interjections.] Do the Tswanas not govern in Bophuthatswana or does the South African Government govern there? [Interjections.] We say we refuse to be governed or governed jointly by Blacks. That is the CP standpoint.
The hon member suggested that certain people called these coloured persons by certain names and he asked whether we would now forbid those people to vote for us. Personally I find this a rather difficult question. There are still many Nationalists in my constituency whom I want to vote for me in a future election but now the hon member wants me to forbid them to do so. [Interjections.]
We speak frankly and we say that that language is unsuitable …
As regards the problem affecting the NP, I wish to refer to it briefly as my time is short. The hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology says with justification—and I believe him—that they have many models as far as political reform or development is concerned. I only wish they would take the voters of Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke into their confidence in connection with these models. The hon member for Innesdal says they do not have an instant model; he appears to me to have arrived at one at least, however, or to have reduced them to one. [Interjections.] Negotiation with the ANC apparently forms part of his model. I do not know whether this is included among the models of the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology. [Interjections.]
I am now going to disappoint the hon member for Innesdal as he said we would not say a word about the hon the State President’s announcement. I wish to revert to that.
You have ten minutes!
I have only ten minutes’ speaking time. I was really looking forward to the speech by the hon the Minister of Finance this afternoon as I accepted that the hon the State President had made a general announcement on privatisation and the bodies which would be affected by this and I expected the hon the Minister of Finance par excellence to give substance to it this afternoon. [Interjections.]
That is what we are starting to do. [Interjections.]
The hon the Minister did not attempt it.
But that was not his point of debate. He merely replied to your leader. [Interjections.]
I know. The hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology gave us a vague indication and I am grateful to him for his action.
We now ask, however, what the true reason is behind this privatisation frenzy which has erupted. Let me say at the outset that the CP is not essentially opposed to the principle of privatisation. [Interjections.] But my question is why this sudden haste.
We have been working on it for two years already. [Interjections.]
Just let us take a look. In 1980 Government debt amounted to R19,98 billion and it stood at R47,48 billion at the end of 1986.
A further rise brought it to the trifling figure of R54 billion in September 1987.
What percentage is that of the GDP?
Would the hon the Minister just give me a chance? The Government has reached the end of the road; the moment of truth has arrived. For the past few years we have been warning that the Government is making a habit of financing current expenditure through loans. At one moment we have the announcement on privatisation which is followed by the promise that the proceeds from privatisation will not be used to cover current expenditure. What are the facts however? The proceeds on privatisation will be used to meet the current expenditure of yesterday and the day before. South African voters are not told this. [Interjections.] The options open to the hon the Minister of Finance are running out. The general public can no longer bear the burden of indirect taxation in conjunction with fiscal drag. We note that the percentage of taxpayers’ income, the tax paid on their current income, rose from 7,5% in 1981 to 11,8% in 1986. Expressed in another way: Whereas proceeds from income tax increased by 225,7% over that five-year period, the taxpayer’s income rose by 106,3%. Consequently, and during the same period, GST was increased from 4% to 12%.
Now a sudden euphoria has erupted in newspapers supporting the NP concerning Friday’s announcements. I grant these are important announcements. We shall support them as regards conversion from GST to VAT, even if it is only to curb tax evasion. There are other reasons too, which I shall not mention now.
These announcements will not become operative immediately; this is impossible, as the hon the Minister of Finance stated. The general impression is now being created that everyone in this country will be better off in consequence of these announcements. I read the following in Rapport—or some such newspaper:
That is not to say the conversion from GST to VAT will take place. [Interjections.] I mean GST … the actual amount the State will collect by way of taxes will not be less. Can the hon the Minister tell us whether it will be less? I see from the newspaper that he announced he would be able to tell us what the percentage would be next year when the new system became operative. Can the hon the Minister give us an indication at this point? Does he intend levying it on basic foodstuffs as well?
Of course!
Of course. I am pleased to receive that reply from the hon the Minister. It has implications. I should also be pleased if the hon the Minister could tell me whether it is to be levied on capital goods.
Of course!
Of course. I am pleased we have had the answer because it opens the way to future debate.
It will be identical to the present GST.
The principal reason—I cannot get away from this—behind the present frenzy towards privatisation is that the Government no longer has the capital. [Interjections.] If the manager in charge of any sound business, in any private undertaking, lands one in financial trouble, one does not sell the assets of the business; one dismisses the manager. That is what South Africa needs. We must get rid of the poor economic management in this country.
Cas, that speech is not worthy of you!
It is—one hundred per cent! [Interjections.]
Order!
I was reproached when I referred to what would be done with the proceeds of privatisation but the hon the State President announced this himself in his speech. He said the proceeds of privatisation would, in the first place, be applied to the redemption of Government debt. In the second, he said, they would be spent on less developed areas. Are those less developed areas White or are they used chiefly by other races? [Interjections.] I am putting the question but not receiving an answer. [Interjections.]
It is being held against me for saying that public servants were now being expected to accept a salary cut in real terms. It is undeniable that they are being expected to accept a reduction in salary in real terms for the coming year. [Interjections.]
I said we had had no assurance from the hon the Minister that conversion from GST to the other system of taxation would effect a reduction in the actual amount the State would collect from the South African taxpayer. No relevant details are available. The hon the Minister is not prepared to furnish those details yet.
We are not opposed to privatisation as such, but my question now is whether we shall ever conceivably be able to privatise SATS passenger services. Who will buy this, or will the situation arise in which the profitable components of Government organisations will be privatised and the South African taxpayer ultimately left with the unprofitable components? This is our question.
Unfortunately I have to close now. [Interjections.] Last Sunday I read an interesting article in Rapport by its political correspondent. She had paid a visit to Standerton. What did she find among the voters there? She discovered that Nationalists who would be voting for the NP in two months’ time are speaking the same language as CP people. She said the NP had one great problem in Standerton, which was a credibility gap between the NP and Standerton voters because the voters no longer believed the Government. [Interjections.]
Do you believe Rapport? [Interjections.]
By chance I was in Standerton myself and I shall be going there again soon. I can confirm that the overwhelming majority of voters in Standerton no longer believe the Government.
Why are we branded as racists when we object to the unsavoury incidents on Durban beaches? When I raise such objections and am called a racist, then call me one. I am not afraid of that. [Interjections.] Standerton voters who were on Durban beaches saw the results of the NP policy and the way it is unfolding. [Interjections.] The Government no longer has any control over the actual situation. Now the voters are being frightened, however, by being told that the CP will cause revolution and conflict in this country. [Interjections.]
Without a doubt! [Interjections.]
This prompts me to ask whether we are not living under a declared state of emergency in this country today. [Interjections.] Whose policy is unfolding in this country and who governs South Africa? Surely there is conflict and a revolutionary situation in this country already!
The facts of the matter have caught up with the NP in the political as well as the economic sphere.
Mr Chairman, I have listened to this debate with great interest, and thus far the most striking characteristic has been the total lack of a meaningful reaction to the interesting announcements made by the hon the State President on Friday. I had thought that once the hon member for Barberton had spoken, there would have been a few clear standpoints about these meaningful announcements from the Official Opposition.
I was sorry for the hon member for Barberton. It is a long time since I heard an hon member who had to say something about the announcements made by the hon the State President last Friday, who expended so much time and such effort to say nothing. He is not against the measures, but he is not in favour of them either. He has questions to ask and remarks to make—he really blew hot and cold about these measures. [Interjections.] I had thought that at least there would be unanimity in this House about the necessity of economic developments and progress in South Africa, and the measures that are necessary to effect this. The hon member for Yeoville, who unfortunately is not here now, immediately recognised the importance of this announcement and said he supported it. I understand that as a result he is in trouble with his hon leader—at least that is what today’s Business Day reports.
It is clear from the magnitude and the nature of South Africa’s economic problems that, just like Britain a few years ago, we are being confronted by an economic watershed. That is why the hon the State President has displayed the courage of taking measures to place South Africa’s economy on a sound basis and to prepare the way for growth and progress. The measures announced by the hon the State President contrast sharply with the Official Opposition’s economic policy. In fact, they contrast sharply with that party’s policy of partition and the catastrophic economic implications it will hold for South Africa. The contrast becomes clear when one looks at some of the hon the State President’s statements and tests them according to the C P’s economic policy.
In the first place the hon the State President announced measures aimed at reducing Government control in the economy and giving market forces an opportunity to work more effectively. In contrast the CP’s policy requires more Government intervention and greater Government involvement in order to implement the partition policy, with a resulting distortion of market forces.
Secondly, the hon the State President wants to create room for private initiative and the small entrepreneur by means of his economic measures by using deregulation to reduce the measures that restrict the small and informal businessman. In contrast, the CP wants to crack down on spontaneous economic activities by means of an extended system of regulation and control over the movement of people, the settlement of people and their labour.
The AWB wants to nationalise.
In the third place the problem of growth and inflation which has developed in South Africa over the years can be rectified only by means of drastic measures. The hon the State President has displayed the courage and vision to take such measures; he has announced a new and vital philosophy in regard to the role of the Government in the South African economy. In doing so, not only has he placed South Africa on the course of economic prosperity, but also on the course of social and political progress. This economic growth and progress will lead to greater reform in various other spheres. What is the reaction of the CP to this, apart from their complete failure to react meaningfully in this debate to the important statements made by the hon the State President? Are they so caught up in an inflexible policy of obsession with colour and race that they are not capable of understanding that the South African economy is a large, integrated economy? I have listened time and again to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who claims it is the NP that maintains that South Africa is an entity. So, these are the realities. If South Africa as a whole grows and makes progress, it is to the advantage of all of us, and then all of us in South Africa—in fact, everyone in Southern Africa—will share in that advantage.
If South Africa stagnates and degenerates, all of us will suffer.
The most important challenge at this time in South Africa is to create sufficient employment opportunities for the rapidly increasing population. These employment opportunities will improve the quality of life of all the people in South Africa. This is an enormous challenge, especially if one takes into account that, according to Prof Sadie, the total South African population will number approximately 50 million by the year 2000.
It is important that in all the countries that have shown strong economic development since the Second World War, there has been a minimum of Government control over the economy and low interest rates have applied. Less control and lower taxation go hand in hand. The less control there is, the fewer expenses there are to be taxed.
That is why the hon the State President announced that Government expenditure will be strictly limited and strictly controlled in future. This is not an easy task, because extensive demands are being made on South Africa as a developing country in respect of education, training, infrastructure, social services, law and order, and so on. Additional large increases in Government spending, with the resulting greater tax deficits, will have to be financed either by increased taxation or by further loans. Current expenditure will also have to be covered by these loans. It goes without saying that such action would do the economy irreparable harm.
That is why the hon the State President has chosen the difficult, but courageous course of placing South Africa’s long-term interests before short-term benefits.
Unfortunately I cannot say the same for hon members of the Official Opposition who spoke this afternoon. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition held his election speech here this afternoon, and that is why he referred with relish to the three by-elections. The reality is that the CP has no economic alternative for this package of measures implemented by the hon the State President to ensure growth and progress in South Africa.
Mr Chairman, would the hon the Minister be prepared to reply to a question?
No, Mr Chairman, I have too little time. [Interjections.]
Order! The hon the Minister is not prepared to reply to a question.
The CP cannot offer any economic alternative. The partition policy that they are so voluble about, and were so voluble about this afternoon, is an impracticable and foolish policy. It requires large-scale Government involvement in the economy. It requires large-scale intervention to move millions of Blacks and to reverse Black urbanisation. As if that were possible.
I should like to refer to the hon member for Lichtenburg. That hon member calls a spade a spade. Recently the hon member for Lichtenburg—he is the deputy leader of the CP—said in Evander that if the CP came into power, it would reverse the process of Black urbanisation. [Interjections.] In the same speech he said, and I quote:
Hear, hear!
It is very easy to shout “hear, hear!” but what are the realities? We discussed this matter in a debate last year, but let us take a look at the latest HSRC statistics. The following statistics are important in respect of the Black urban population in South Africa: The Black urban population will increase from 7,6 million in 1980 to 15,5 million in 1990 and to 26,2 million in the year 2000. [Interjections.]
Certain hon members want to use influx control and control measures to create the impression that if Blacks do not come to South Africa, these figures will not increase. It is enlightening, however, that according to the HSRC almost two thirds—almost more than 60%—of this increase is the result of a natural increase in the urban population, and not of migration. [Interjections.] This confirms the extent to which the urbanised Black population has become an inherent and established part of South Africa’s urban population and economy.
Hon members use Europe as an example. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition once again mentioned the oft quoted example of Europe in his speech this afternoon. If the example has any value, the question is: Which country in Europe came into being as a result of partition?
Portugal and Spain.
Which country in Europe has two, three, four or five times more visitors who are there by virtue of their passports or visas, people who cannot lay claim to being citizens of the country? Where in Europe is there an example of the majority of the people in a country having had to exercise their right to vote in another country for decades, if not for ever? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition continues to quote the example of Europe as if this is proof that partition can succeed.
Although I am not saying this is the case in the minds of the hon members of the CP, partition is either political fraud or a reckless policy which is going to plunge South Africa into the greatest misery if that party should come into power.
The hon member for Lichtenburg spoke about the reversal of urbanisation—
According to this target, two million Blacks, at a conservative estimate, will have to be shunted out of so-called White South Africa annually for between 12 and 15 years. This means that for 365 days per year, 5 500 Blacks will have to leave the country every day for a period of 12 to 15 years. That is too ridiculous for words.
Liewe Heksie Hartzenberg! [Interjections.]
In a more serious vein—have hon members calculated the cost? The more I think about the CP’s policy and listen to the wild statements, the more concerned I become. Have hon members given a thought to the transport costs, the cost of the thousands of officials that will be necessary to implement the system, the cost of policing the system, the cost of the social disruption of the lives of millions of people and their families and the cost—if it can be calculated—of the rebellion and hatred and blind anger that will be caused by this policy of injustice? [Interjections.]
Not only is this a recipe for revolution, as the hon member for Innesdal said, but also for certain economic retrogression and misery. [Interjections.] This policy forms a glaring contrast to the announcements of the hon the State President which are aimed at making growth and progress possible in South Africa so that we, as people who live in this country and have a right to it, can reach an understanding about how to live together. [Interjections.]
The CP’s partition policy is not economically affordable. It is not so much that it exceeds the country’s economic wealth as that it will destroy that wealth. The policy will fail, because it represents an injustice to one’s fellow man. [Interjections.] People who are stripped of their basic rights …
Order! No, I cannot permit a constant chorus of protest from the opposition benches to interrupt the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister may proceed.
The CP policy wants to strip people of their basic rights—their right to negotiate on and sell their labour, their freedom of movement and their right to political participation in the land of their birth, the country in which they have been living for generations. It deprives them of their right of political participation and their citizenship. Listen carefully and attentively with me to the policy as it was spelt out by the hon member for Lichtenburg. If that is not a recipe for revolution, no such recipe exists. The hon member began by saying that the CP would implement influx control, followed by a system of work permits. Then he said, and I quote:
He will simply disappear; be exported. He continued:
Well done, Dawie!
He went on to say:
Wonderful!
I recently read the absorbing and readable book by Alistair Horne about the revolution in Algeria—A Savage War for Peace. The situation in South Africa differs completely from that in Algeria in many respects, and direct comparisons are not possible. When I think about the implications and the consequences of the CP’s policy, however, there is a warning to be heeded from the course of the revolutionary struggle in Algeria.
The implication of the CP policy of partition— even if they do not mean it—and what has been said about it, is that Blacks have become a threat and an enemy to us. In this way one is driving them into the arms of the revolutionary forces.
I quote from Alistair Horne’s book:
Horne wrote the following about the fact that the Algerians were denied basic human rights and political participation, and I hope the hon members of the Official Opposition will take this message to heart.
And your own members.
He writes:
Then, in conclusion, these moving words are addressed to all of us:
Does your President read the book? [Interjections.]
Sir, do we not owe it to ourselves and posterity and everyone in this country to make South Africa a better place economically and politically by creating a just dispensation for everyone?
Let us do so by giving our wholehearted support to these measures announced by the hon the State President, because the resulting economic growth and progress, accompanied by the process of overcoming poverty, illiteracy, social backlogs, bitterness and enmity, will lead to a better and more just South Africa.
Mr Chairman, I am very, very grateful indeed that I am not a member of the Official Opposition who has to react to the hon the Minister’s speech. I would rather defend the contention that the earth is flat than defend the CP’s policies after this hon Minister has ripped them apart.
In all humility, however, I must state that I have a problem this afternoon which I hope the Official Opposition can help me solve. I heard them state this afternoon that we were going to have a policy of partition in this country, that KwaZulu would be for the Zulus, Transkei for the Xhosas and so forth.
That you already have! [Interjections.]
Be that as it may, Sir. I who am English-speaking and who do not subscribe to the policies of the CP, should like to hear from the CP this afternoon what they are going to do with me and another million people like me. [Interjections.] I should like to hear from the CP this afternoon what is going to happen to the English-speaking people of this country who do not subscribe to the policies of the CP. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, the economy of South Africa has improved to such a degree that the three Houses of Parliament can meet this afternoon in peace and conduct peaceful debates on whether they have confidence in the Cabinet or not. The economy of the country is the most important factor in our political life, and hon members of the opposition, I have noticed, have trodden very warily and very quietly past it. At the moment our economy has a very fine record. I would venture to state that the economy is more important to the people of South Africa than all the party political propaganda we have heard. One cannot eat bullets or paper. Most people in this country today, I believe, want a good life, a better motorcar, a good place to live, a good salary and a decent holiday once a year. I think that is why the opposition parties have trodden so very warily and quietly around economic issues so far today.
On 2 August 1984 the hon the Minister of Finance made one of the hardest decisions of his life, and one of the most important decisions in the history of South Africa. He increased the prime rate to 25%. Hire purchases could incur as much as 32% interest. There were bitter remedies taken in conjunction with higher deposits on hire purchase, higher sales tax and a total tightening up of credit.
More than 20 000 companies that had been living on the so-called credit binge failed over the following four years, and worse was still to come. To save the country’s economy we were forced four years ago to give the revolutionaries just the fuel they needed—unemployment and hardship.
The courageous decision taken by the NP was not one taken lightly. The gold price had dropped as low as $340 an ounce and the value of the rand had dropped to 38 American cents. The budget deficit was reaching unacceptable levels and our international bankers were beginning to react nervously to our creditworthiness. Inflation was reaching dangerous levels.
The concept the world had of South Africa was that it was on the brink of disaster and that the communists and the socialists were on the verge of taking over. Those banks overseas that were convinced that this was indeed the state of affairs and pulled in our credit lines in an attempt to bring us to our knees. They were convinced that they were on the side of those who were ultimately going to win.
The iron-hard financial discipline which the hon the Minister of Finance imposed on our country tested the mettle of our industries and our men in commerce to the utmost. Throughout the hysterical opposition to his policies, however, the hon the Minister of Finance stuck to his guns, sometimes even in spite of adverse criticism by supporters of his own party.
With tight planning and strategy the value of the rand increased steadily, and slowly our exports jumped up step by step over the foreign exchange losses that had been made by our larger banks and companies. Those losses were gradually made up for and slowly our creditworthiness abroad gained more confidence among business people who became more receptive to the hon the Minister’s repayment offers.
The political attitude and overall strategy on the part of the communists to isolate South Africa made the great financial planning all the more difficult. Sanctions and boycotts were the order of the day, and one obstacle after the other was placed in South Africa’s way in her attempts to export her way out of her difficulties. Disinvestment should have been the final blow to South Africa’s hopes of fighting off her financial troubles. With all these problems the balance of our exports became greater and greater and South Africa was able to make substantial repayments on her foreign debts to the stage where we became far more creditworthy in the outside world than we had been in 1984.
The hon member for Yeoville said the following in a pre-election speech in his constituency:
That is still the case today.
Then, as now, the opposition did not know what was going on in their own country. The Citizen’s economic headline on the very day that speech was made was: “South Africa in most cheerful economic mood in three years”. Even today, the opposition refuses to accept the fact that economically, we are winning. Economically, our record since 1984 is a fine one. [Interjections.]
Tell that to the man in the street!
The boom conditions of 1986!
I am coming to that, and I shall discuss it with pleasure.
Despite the cheerful mood, everyone was urging the hon the Minister of Finance to suffer inflation rather than revolution. The drought went into its third year, aggravating the problems of the country, but the blueprint of financial discipline was adhered to, and the fruits were slowly ripening, becoming ready to be picked.
The financial expert of the PFP described the Budget of 1987 as an unimaginative, unexciting non-event. Once more, and as usual, they were totally out of touch with what was happening. I can remember hardly any budget of any country being a better recipe for success than our Budget last year.
The first small signs of that success appeared in the informal sector. Many things had been achieved in terms of the policy of deregulation and tens of thousands of unemployed were setting up small businesses and providing work for themselves and others.
It is extremely hard to assess the contribution of the informal sector to our gross national product; some people say that up to 33% of the turnover of this country is generated in the informal sector. As I said, it is hard to measure, but one thing we do know about last year is that far more notes and coins were issued by the Treasury than in the previous year. We also know that 17% of the petrol sold was purchased by Black taxi drivers. We think that we actually did better than the 2,6% increase of the year before. It may have been very close to 3% if we take the informal sector into account.
A newspaper that is one of the Government’s most determined critics stated yesterday that the unemployment cycle had been reversed as more people were being taken into employment than were being retrenched. I am absolutely sure that not even the Government’s severest critics here this afternoon will claim that employment is on an upswing anywhere else in Africa. I doubt there is a single other country in the world which can claim that it is employing more people than it did last year. I think one of the most important marks of the success of the financial policy of this Government is that there is higher employment.
During the second debate on finance last year, one of the backbenchers in the ranks of the NP made the assertion that we were already in a boom period at shopfloor level. Those in the opposition whose job it was to break down the success of the NP laughed and poured scorn on the idea that there was an improvement in the economy. At the very time they were laughing, I think the actual increase was somewhere near 6%. Had it not been for the poor showing of the mines, we would have reached 6%.
I have not heard any debate since then, but I truly hope those that scorned the idea of a boom read the newspapers over Christmas. If the best Christmas in history does not indicate a boom, nothing will to those who do not want to listen.
Another significant indicator of the successful policy that has been implemented over the past few years is the exciting upsurge in the manufacture of motor vehicles. One merely has to refer to the case of a South African produced German motor car selling at over R100 000, for which there is a waiting list of nine months. Toyota cannot produce any of their models fast enough to stay ahead of demand in this country. The whole industry is booming and shows every sign of carrying on with its success this year.
Christmas sales in retail shops jumped a resounding 5% in real terms last December. Their figures were actually more than 20% up, but we have taken inflation into account.
January’s figures are actually better in comparison with last year’s which augurs well for this year.
There was also real growth in disposable income in 1987 and this growth has lead to a greater demand for credit as there is now greater confidence in the country’s future. If one looks in tonight’s Star, one can see pages and pages of job advertisements. In 1984 a courageous blueprint was set down for the economy of this country and in 1988 I can state with confidence that we have carried out that blueprint. We have a successful economy which is a better yardstick of a government than most other things that I can think of.
I am pleased to follow the hon member for Germiston and I recommend his speech to the Financial Mail for certain of the quotations it contains, for example that unemployment is in an upswing and that they—I take it is the NP government—were forced to give the revolutionary just what he wanted. I think the Financial Mail would be pleased to carry that on its back page.
The reference that I want to make to the savage war of peace as cited by the hon Minister of the Budget and Welfare is to a speech which I made two years ago and contained very similar references when I referred to the NP government as leading us on the path which is depicted in Horn’s book. I think it would be salutary for the hon Minister to at least look at that book in the light of the present Government’s policy.
I quote from the speech delivered by the hon the State President on Friday, 5 February 1988:
On the same or next day a 90 year old man was killed—stabbed many times and a 4 year old child murdered.
The events of Pietermaritzburg or, more correctly the 400 square kilometre semi-urban and rural greater Edendale area, give the lie to the claim that the state of emergency has brought peace. It is to nobody’s benefit that 600 to 700 people have been detained whilst few, if any, court cases have resulted. It cannot be said that internal peace has been “maintained” when 400 plus murders have occurred in less than a year. I am absolutely certain that if this had occurred in any of the neighbouring states, the NP would be using this as a hammer with which to beat that state.
I do not point fingers at the police. I will not be party to weakening the only legitimate institution of law and order in that area. Let it be clearly said that the South African Police is the institution which upholds the law and maintains public order under normal circumstances.
In November a PFP delegation met with all interested parties in that area—both political groupings, senior police officers, representatives of the churches, Cosatu and the Chamber of Commerce. We became aware of the increasing tendency for the killings there to be part of a vendetta pattern, with vengeance and revenge being predominant. We threw our voice behind the efforts of the Chamber of Commerce to negotiate a solution, and we still do. We called on both groupings, and still do—and I would like to indicate this to the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology—to stop the killings. At the same time we asked the SAP whether elements of the SADF should be drawn into peacekeeping. Their response then, at that local level, was in the negative. One week later Minister Vlok introduced SADF men in a minor supportive role into the area.
Negotiations have had an on/off history and when the time is right I have no doubt the Chamber of Commerce will tell of their efforts and difficulties. It is with regret, however, that one must accept that the establishment of peace is going to take much more than just the goodwill of leadership.
Under the exceptional circumstances now prevalent it is going to take a superior force to quell what is happening. Therefore it is true that, in spite of the efforts of the police, the level of violence and murder appears to be escalating. With limited manpower the SA Police have, we believe, been trying to do their best. What needs to be recognised is that there are factors which are not assisting either the SA Police or the bringing of peace.
Firstly, when about 400 murders can take place with few, if any, prosecutions being instituted or proceeding to trial, then the entire system of law and order and of justice becomes open to criticism. Those who know the events, well understand that intimidation and fear make the obtaining of evidence difficult. Yet this Government, with a panoply of security laws, including the detention of witnesses, appears totally unable to make progress. The PFP has called—and we call once again—for the appointment of a judicial commission to investigate this lack of any progress in bringing the perpetrators of these murders to trial.
Secondly, the imposition by the state of emergency of restrictions on the media has produced the unedifying situation, as commented on in Rapport, of “ons hoor van Maritzburg maar ons sien Gaza”. I have little doubt that the severe restrictions on free access to that area and on full and free comment on the actions being taken there have hindered, rather than aided, the SA Police in their duty. I believe we should turn a spotlight on that area, ensuring that in applying law and order neither faction is wittingly or unwittingly favoured or unduly persecuted. There must be an even-handedness. Here it is salutary to note that both factions have been critical of the behaviour of particular individuals in the SA Police, and each of them cannot be right. The current position in the greater Edendale area appears thus to be an occasion where as a result of these exceptional circumstances, the SADF should be fully utilized in a supportive role to assist the SA Police. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister has, however, indicated that he intends rather to send in more SA Police. I want to say this clearly: We hope and pray that he is right that the SA Police can bring peace, and quickly. We believe that the killings must stop.
Finally, I think it is necessary that it must be made clear by all in this country that no area is a no-go area in this country, either for the SA Police or for any other political group. We cannot perpetuate a system whereby innocent residents who belong to no political grouping are victimised simply because they live in a particular area. The full and equitable enforcement of law and order and the use of the judicial system must allow persons to live safely and peacefully.
In the end, we believe, the situation will be solved by a combination of the enforcement of law and order linked to court process, together with a negotiated agreement. What must come now is that enforcement. I say to the hon the Minister today that to consider sending in semi-trained “kitskonstabels”, as rumour has it, would be foolish in the extreme. I hope that the hon the Minister will make it quite clear that this is not going to happen. [Interjections.]
I now wish to address another hon Minister. One week after the end of the last parliamentary session, the hon the Minister of National Education announced conditions which would be made applicable to all universities to ensure that “unacceptable practices” did not occur on their campuses before receiving their subsidies from the State. That hon Minister also indicated that the representations received from the universities had been studied but that they, ie, he and the other four education Ministers, had decided that there were no grounds for not proceeding with the imposition of conditions for the payment of subsidies. Just why he did not find such grounds is hard to imagine, because I have seen some of those representations, and they are very good in the arguments that have been put forward.
No doubt his finding no grounds has something to do with the ‘kragdadige’ attitude adopted earlier in the year on this matter by his party leader. Certainly it had little to do with what the universities said.
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: At present there is a court application pending in which the validity of those conditions are being questioned. I merely want to draw your attention to the fact that the sub judice rule could be contravened.
Order! The hon member for Pinetown may proceed, but I would caution him to take heed of what the hon the Minister of National Education has said.
Mr Chairman, I will take heed of what you say.
The PFP has consistently emphasised that the universities themselves had to take steps to exercise discipline on campus. The universities were doing that, as indicated in newspaper reports as far back as November 1986. This attitude of exercising discipline on campuses was being spelled out by the universities when the crass hand of political party-mongering delivered the so-called conditions.
In general these conditions appear to be based on three premises, namely that taxpayers’ money is being wasted; …
[Inaudible.]
Order! The hon member for Overvaal must respect the Chair now.
… secondly, that academic standards are falling; and thirdly, that freedom of speech needs to be protected. I will examine the first two at greater length when the hon the Minister’s Budget is before this House. As far as the lastmentioned is concerned it is important that we look clearly at the conditions of freedom of speech.
The NP’s known antipathy to freedom of speech and of association make it the very last arbiter of these freedoms any person should be prepared to trust. The entirely subjective assessments of party politicians are not acceptable as the group sitting in judgement on such freedoms. The university councils themselves have already taken steps in this regard—as they are required to do by law.
In conclusion one must emphasise with regard to this matter that for the average South African any action that pits the Government against the universities is not beneficial. The Government is well aware of the threats, internationally, to withdraw recognition of South African degrees should these conditions be proceeded with. Such blackmail by international organisations and countries we totally reject, just as we reject the blackmail inherent in the setting of conditions by the Government. These conditions represent, we believe, a severe reversal for university autonomy and a victory for doctrinaire, centralised authoritarianism. I regret that with them we have moved a little further from democracy.
Mr Chairman, actually I was prepared to speak after the hon member for Yeoville, but hon members inform me that there seems to be a problem between him and his leader, the hon member for Sea Point.
I examined what has been said by the hon member for Yeoville over the years and found that he supports 100% if not 150% that which was said on Friday. Therefore I think he would have a problem if he wishes to criticise it.
The speech which was held on Friday can be considered as one of the most precedent-setting speeches on economic affairs in the post-war period. The gist of the speech was, firstly the identification of inflation as the primary enemy in the present economic climate as it results in disturbances on all levels of the economy; secondly, clear guidelines for privatisation were given; thirdly, guidelines for Government expenditure and value-added tax were given. All these issues which were emphasised by the hon the State President fit into the total strategy for economic growth in South Africa. South Africa cannot cut larger slices out of a cake which is not really becoming any larger. The measures announced by the hon the State President can be seen as decisive policy decisions to promote economic growth, not only in the short but also in the long term.
This creates the possibility that there will be greater expenditure on teaching, pensions, salaries and housing in the future. However, one should not expect that the results be visible immediately. It will not be possible to meet exorbitant claims to Government expenditure; not now and not in future either.
The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis, in a speech last year, spoke of the NP policy as one of liberal socialism and that of the CP as the conservative fiscal policy. The hon member will have an opportunity this week to explain how their policy differs from this ‘liberal socialist policy’ which was expounded by the hon the State President in his opening address on Friday.
The hon member for Piketberg also referred to the ‘brilliant exposition’ of the hon member for Lichtenburg during a speech in Evander. During a previous speech he also said that economic growth required fertiliser and water. In the Evander speech he explained the nature of the fertiliser and water in terms of the passage of millions of Black people back to the national states.
However, the thrust of his speech lay in the incorporation of the coal-mine at Secunda into a national state. That is the best story I have heard in many years! I now ask that hon member what he intends to tell the people of Randfontein? Does he intend to incorporate the gold mines of Randfontein in Rustenburg? That is a fine exposition of decentralisation!
He also claims that the development of the country should reflect the CP’s constitutional policy of partition. He is also a great supporter of Dr Verwoerd and he has often said as much. If one looks at the history books one sees that Dr Verwoerd also attempted to restrict the Black worker in relation to the White worker in our towns by means of permits and the like. Just ask the economic adviser of that party, Dr Berkhout. He was partly responsible for it. Just ask him why it failed. I ask the hon member, who delivered this excellent speech, whether or not he is better than Dr Verwoerd. Is the attempt of his party better than that made by Dr Verwoerd many years ago? Will he tell the workers of Randfontein that they are to force the industries to move away and that they must either move with them or face unemployment? That is what he will have to say to them as that will be the result of a policy whereby industries will be forced out of the Witwatersrand area, as Dr Verwoerd attempted to do by means of permits. The end result was that Whites had to move or face unemployment. I challenge that hon member to give this message to the people of Randfontein and Standerton. What will it cost them? The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare also asked what this would cost the CP.
Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister?
Order! Is the hon the Deputy Minister prepared to answer a question?
Mr Chairman, my time is limited.
Order! The hon the Deputy Minister is not prepared to answer a question.
In its report on inflation, the Economic Advisory Council stated that the present inflation rate was to the detriment of the worker, the pensioner, the investor, the industrialist, the farmer and the exporter. These people are harmed by the considerable inflation in our country. The public servant whose wife also works, can tell one exactly what becomes of his salary increase once he has made provision for taxation. In the meantime prices are constantly being increased and in the long run he finds that he has nothing left. The choice with which we are faced is whether to fight inflation or to succumb to the process whereby our workers and public servants are going to find that they are worse off instead of better off.
Let us consider the pensioner who, five or six years ago, thought that he would be able to retire peacefully without financial problems. However, after five years he finds that he is in need of assistance. What does the Economic Advisory Council say about this? The most important reason for inflation is the continual rise in wages and salaries higher than productivity. This is closely related to the rise in Government expenditure.
Prof Geert de Wet, who made an excellent study for us, came to the conclusion that we would have to fight inflation on the wage and price level. That is the only way in which we will be able to curb inflation.
Our State corporations, the Post Office and the SATS, are often forced to increase their tariffs. We cannot pretend that this has not also had a very important influence on inflation.
The hon the State President has now said that it will go no further. Firstly, he has announced stricter control by limiting the deficit before borrowing as a percentage of the gross domestic product and the financing of current expenditure. As the Minister of Finance stated, 32% of our expenditure goes towards wages and salaries. The hon the State President has taken this great step and we ask the business world to follow suit. We cannot allow the price of chicken to rise to R6,50 per kg in a short period. When one enters a supermarket and sees how prices have risen, the excuse we are given is that imported raw materials are so expensive. Here I refer to the price of medicines as an example. The private sector should not be allowed to continue offering our public servants three times their salaries, as happened recently in the Department of Finance. It is obvious that we must curb Government expenditure and inflation.
The well-known British politician, Tony Crosland, developed the following idea in one of his books:
This is the danger if Government expenditure is not controlled.
I will not quote in full what the hon member for Yeoville said in the Sunday Times of 20 January 1985. He suggested the following:
Therefore he agrees with what the hon the State President has proposed.
What does the hon member for Sea Point say to that?
I said it three years before the hon the State President did. [Interjections.]
Congratulations, but one should learn when to say something. [Interjections.] The hon member for Witbank also stated that Government expenditure increased inflation and that wage demands and increases did not lead to higher productivity but were an important factor in inflation.
That is the CP’s problem. Last year they agreed with the hon the State President’s line of thought. The hon member for Yeoville criticises us for keeping our expenditure plan secret and for the fact that it is developed according to secret formulas. In 1960 Britain adopted the same system on the recommendation of the Plowden Report, but they only published the details of the five-year plan in 1969. A process exists whereby their public expenditure is calculated according to their function and only then transferred to Votes. [Interjections.]
The hon member for Yeoville has also complained bitterly about the modest growth target of 3%. The 3% is a very good figure since it is important that the expenditure programme is placed on a conservative footing. In England a growth-rate of 4% was predicted for the national plan. However, the economic growth was only 3%, which had a snowball effect on expenditure. That is one of the reasons why the Labour Party lost the election.
We have reached a very important milestone and we must realise it. Joel Barrett, the ex-Minister of Treasury in England said:
In the limited time which I have at my disposal I wish to proceed to the question of privatisation. The hon member for Yeoville obviously agrees with the whole idea of privatisation. However, the CP’s analysis of privatisation was the most interesting. Note what was said in Die Patriot:
Now it is being said that as a result of this privatisation half of the public servants will fall under the influence of this liberal, left-wing management of the new company and become national whilst the other half will be workers and remain CP. [Interjections.] The hon member for Barberton should also re-examine his figures. Our public debt, expressed as a percentage of the total GDP, is 32%, compared with 43% in the USA, 47% in the United Kingdom and 39% in Canada. I can also tell the hon member that the percentage of current expenditure which has been financed by public debt over the past ten years, is minimal. Thus I think we should remember to apply our figures correctly, because privatisation holds many possibilities for this country. It broadens the tax basis whilst the capital needs for new programmes of the businesses which are privatised must be tested on the open market. Factors such as efficiency and profitability can no longer be overlooked. These are the most important factors in determining whether or not they are going to receive any money.
In conclusion I wish to say that this Government believes in private enterprise and greater scope for activities of the private sector. I think we stand before the greatest challenge in the economic history of South Africa, and the hon the State President has shown us the path we must follow.
Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister, who has just made his speech, very sincerely on his usually positive contributions. It was well thought out, and contained indisputable facts. It is always a pleasure to listen to him and an even greater privilege to be speaking after him.
After 10 years in this Parliament I now have the privilege today of putting on record two extraordinary events in my life. The first extraordinary event concerns the hon member for Yeoville. For the first time in history the hon member consented to his not being the first main speaker to participate in this debate. I cannot believe that he did so voluntarily.
[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]
Order!
I sympathise with the fact that he had to go and rewrite his speech, because I know—as he himself said—that he has for the last three years supported the facts which the hon the State President announced on Friday. Sir, I cannot believe that he can allow them to have him say anything else. I am waiting with bated breath for his speech. [Interjections.] There you have it, Sir! Now the order is coming from the left!
[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]
I have faith in the hon member for Yeoville. He is going to adhere to his convictions of the past few years. I am looking forward with interest to his speech. [Interjections.]
You will have to wait a while.
Last Friday was my greatest single experience during the last 10 years. I am saying this with reference to a speech which was made in these Chambers: “Fenomenaal”; “Op die regte pad”; “Suksesresep”; “Good Show”. Without exception the media have, since Friday, continually until this morning, praised the hon the State President and congratulated him upon this speech. Mr Botha Nomics writes as follows:
The hon the Deputy Minister repeated this last remark today. It will be lauded in bold letters and with acclaim as being worthwhile. Never before have I witnessed such unanimous approval and support by all groups in the country, except perhaps a sectional group in the teaching profession which in any case is not in step with the rest of the country. This speech not only bears witness to initiative, inspiration and statesmanship, but it also requires a great sacrifice from a leader to have the courage to say these things. That is why I also want to express my congratulations, my gratitude and my appreciation to the hon the State President for the courage and daring which he displayed by making these announcements.
I want to return to this at a later stage. At this stage, however, I first of all, want to turn to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Firstly I merely want to put a question to him. Merely with a view to testing the unanimity within the ranks of the CP, I should firstly like to know from the hon member for Delmas whether he also agrees with what I am about to say. I therefore put the question to him as well as to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I put this question to him as leader of the AWB in his party. Or is it perhaps another chap? [Interjections.] Is this hon member or is he not, the leader of the AWB in that party? [Interjections.] Very well, Sir. Would the hon member for Delmas then go and ask the AWB leadership whether or not they agree. He can merely indicate by way of gesture whether he agrees or not.
My question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is the following. I accept that he has prepared his no-confidence motion with great care and has considered it very conscientiously. [Interjections.] Judging by the reaction I am now receiving I think that I am on target. [Interjections.] Yes, thank you very much. I must say the hon leader has moved a very interesting motion here. He submits that this House has no confidence in the Cabinet. Now, Sir, we have a problem. If accusations had not been made in the past against the Leader of the Official Opposition about the way in which he dealt with the truth, this problem would of course not have arisen. Now, however, we find ourselves in an unusual situation. Who is the Cabinet in whom the hon the leader has moved his motion of no confidence? In terms of section 20 of the Constitution the Cabinet is constituted as follows. I quote section 20:
- (a) the State President, who shall preside at its meetings;
Very well, the hon Leader has moved a motion of no confidence in him. - (b) the Ministers appointed to administer departments of State for general affairs;
Fine, 19 of them are sitting in the House. The hon the leader has moved a motion of no confidence in them. - (c) any Minister appointed to perform functions other than the administration of a department of State and designated by the State President as a member of the Cabinet;
Fine again, if there is such a person, he is also included. Now we come to the final subsection. - (d) Any member of a Ministers’ Council designated by the State President as a member of the Cabinet, whether for a definite or for an indefinite period or for a particular purpose.
There we now have all four categories. Now, however, there is only one man remaining. My question to the hon leader is: Why is that one man being excluded. Why did he do that? The hon leader is shaking his head. Fine. I accept that he did not do that intentionally. If he made a mistake, he can merely indicate that that is the case. There are quite a few good lawyers sitting around him there. Politically they are no great shakes, but legally they are quite sound. [Interjections.] There is for example the hon member for Brakpan. I cannot believe that he would make such a mistake. I really cannot believe it, unless he did it intentionally. In that case the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should be wary of him. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, one man has in fact been excluded. If the hon the leader had not in the past made the accusation that this Cabinet and the Parliament allow themselves to be shunted around by that specific man, there would not even have been a problem. My question today to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is why he excluded Rev Hendrickse in this case. Why? [Interjections.] Why did he do it? The Rev Hendrickse does not fall under subsection (a). He is not the State President. Surely we all agree on that.
He certainly gave you a good hiding the other day! [Interjections.]
No, wait! The Leader of the Official Opposition is going to have the opportunity to reply to this. He should listen carefully now. [Interjections.]
Order!
The second category—as found in subsection (b)—includes the Ministers who are appointed to administer departments of State for general affairs. The Rev Hendrickse does not fall under this either. So we do not have a problem with this either.
Now we come to subsection (c), which reads as follows:
The Rev Hendrickse is not included here either. Subsection (d) reads as follows:
My question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition arises from the implication of what we are now dealing with here. It means that the hon leader has by implication approved of the tricameral system, because he has given his approval to one House. [Interjections.] One House has been approved of and the others excluded in this motion. [Interjections.]
Order! I really do find it difficult to hear the hon member if hon members are making such loud interjections. The hon member for Vasco may proceed.
Those hon members can laugh, because I think they also laughed prematurely. There are a few of them who were not seriously honest with their leader. The hon member for Brakpan—he is a good lawyer—must tell me why he did it. He is aware of the legal implications of it, and he knew that none of these four categories cover the Rev Hendrickse and his House. Now I ask whether Mr Rajbansi and the House of Delegates are included under subsection (d). [Interjections.] That is correct. We therefore have these 19, and “any Minister” as defined in subsection (c). We therefore have by implication Mr Rajbansi and his House. [Interjections.] Why did they, however, not take the House of Representatives into account? [Interjections.]
They are satisfied with that Ministers’ Council, because, by implication, there is nothing wrong with that part of the system. I still ask why the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has adopted the same course he adopted with the AWB. He condemns violence but he does not want to distance himself from the AWB. [Interjections.] Let us put the question to the hon member for Delmas as well, because I want the approval of the AWB on this. [Interjections.] Is it a little mistake? Should we include them? [Interjections.] Will the hon member just tell me? Should we include the Rev Hendrickse or exclude Mr Rajbansi? [Interjections.] There is a very long-winded member sitting there. I am merely asking which one has to be excluded or included; it is an open question. Any hon member can reply. [Interjections.]
The problem here is that we are saddled with that party once again. The problem is that that party has dual different policies for specific cases. When it suits them, they apply their policy to the purpose of the debate which they are debating at a specific time.
Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?
No, Sir. [Interjections.]
I challenge anyone of those hon members—there are quite a few of them who still have a turn to speak—to give us the explanation. If it is a mistake, let us tell each other; surely anyone can make a mistake. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon member for Delmas. If it is a mistake, we accept it. Do they want the Rev Hendrickse and his House to be included or must Mr Rajbansi and his House be excluded? [Interjections.]
In placing my congratulations to the hon the State President on record I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express the hope that he is going to have a pleasant and lively Minister who will support him to speed up this programme of privatisation as quickly as possible. I should like to wish him success in its speedy implementation.
In speaking about large bodies, such as Foskor and Eskom, we must not forget the smaller ones and implement those that can be implemented as quickly as possible.
Mr Chairman, I do not think the hon member for Vasco expects me to react to his point of debate with the Official Opposition. Let them decide its validity amongst themselves; it does not make any impression on me personally. [Interjections.]
I should like to associate myself with the hon the State President’s address at the opening of Parliament. I also want to say that I was disappointed that the Leader of the Official Opposition did not respond to this in more detail, because I think it is a much more important speech than has been acknowledged.
The NDM is not only delighted but in fact excited about the inherent possibilities. I must add that it is actually high time we to arrived at some strategy for the economy. I think that the essence of a proper future economic policy is embodied in this speech. One would have liked to see clearer goals manifested, but the truth of the matter is also—as the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance stated—that this will have to be worked out in time. We accept it all, in its broad context, and we are excited. We would, in point of fact, also have liked to see it attuned more specifically to the main objectives of economic policy which perhaps did not come through too clearly.
I should like to state the three priorities, as we see them. Firstly we must strive for economic efficiency within which growth can be promoted. Secondly the elimination of absolute poverty and, thirdly, a reasonable distribution of the prosperity of our country are further priorities. In South Africa the inequality coefficient of the distribution at national level is probably the highest in the world, and I think we should give much more attention to this on a priority basis.
Although, as our point of departure, we also accept individual responsibility, and with that, too, opportunities for the individual to participate in the economic process, I find it necessary to put an end to this false debate involving opposing systems which are mutually exclusive, ie capitalism as against socialism. I say this, in particular, with due regard to the normal pattern in the past, ie that the hon member for Stellenbosch will speak after I have spoken. I hope he will have obtained some perspective on what I am saying here. I think the hon the Minister of Finance—and others too—has already, on several occasions, referred to the fact that functional efficacy in our endeavours to reach the economic goals we set ourselves ought to be made our criterion.
In this connection it would do the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition some good to read N P van Wyk Louw a little more widely. In his collected prose I recently read a comment on the concept of nationalism. He said, amongst other things, that if a portion of a people was in economic distress, such leaders probably call themselves socialists today. It is important to take note of that, and not to write off all opposition as comprising so-called socialists.
We do not do that!
The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition concluded with the concept that we should reject socialism and communism and everyone adopting that position.
We reject communism.
That is good. We are in agreement about that. I am, however, specifically referring to the economic policy approach. After we have said everything about this individual opportunity for participation in the processes, it is also important to accept—I think the State should also do so—that the final responsibility for the provision of collective services, and in particular to the poor, rests with the State. One cannot get away from that.
In no way are we even closely approaching a new dispensation, as some commentators would have us believe, but this could perhaps place us on the road towards that goal.
An analysis of the Freedom Charter indicates, in any event, that five of the ten most important main points focus on economic goals, economic endeavours. I think that is important. I do not know whether the hon the Minister is indicating that he wants to put a question to me. My time, however, is limited.
Economic and social.
I am speaking about five which, in one way or another, specifically focus on the economy. We must recognise the importance of that, and it would have helped if the hon the State President could have indicated, to a somewhat greater extent, what he specifically envisaged after the advent of privatisation. It is true that one should not plan the spending of all one’s income in advance, but I think the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Training will not agree with his colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, that we should not examine that at all.
There are needs that have to be addressed, which have to receive our urgent attention. Over the weekend the hon the Minister of Finance said that economic reform should bolster social and constitutional reform. That is true. If the yield is not, to a very large extent, employed for the elimination of the inequality in the provision of collective services, with particular emphasis on education, housing, health services and, something I also want to include, agricultural development, the potential for social reform will be lost. Particularly in regard to making land available, not only for housing, but also for agricultural development, the State has a role to play, and the Government will have to accept this role. The abolition of, or at least major intervention in regard to, the Group Areas Act will be essential in order to achieve this. The mere investment of the money obtained from privatisation solely in facets of small business development will not have the desired effect in bringing about stability.
Further constitutional reform is also necessary, but from this point of view it can only contribute towards the removal of discrimination. When we speak of achieving a new dispensation, reform is not the vehicle by which to achieve this—we must reach the point of negotiation. Reform, which is one-sided action, no matter what consultation takes place, cannot bring about a new dispensation in an acceptable manner. We are now faced with the dilemma—I find this a shortcoming, in the hon the State President’s opening address too—that there has been no scrutiny of the initiatives that have to be taken for a security strategy and for specific political and constitutional strategies. In an emergency situation it is very difficult to reach the point of negotiation, particularly if security administration is divorced from political and constitutional goals. I am saying, and I have said this in the past too, that the whole search for stability within the framework of a security administration is not possible when it has to function in a vacuum in which there are no clearly identified political goals, even if the goals merely aim at finding a method by which to arrive at certain answers. By the way, in this regard we less strongly endorse the amendment of the hon the leader of the PFP, which blames the Government for not yet having found a solution for Black political rights. We do not think in terms of the solution approach. It seems as if those hon members want to engage in proselytising politics when they say that if everyone merely thought as they did, all the answers would be there. We do not believe that that is possible. Negotiation is an essential requirement.
†What we need even more than an economic deal, is a new security management deal. We need, in a sense, to privatise security. We are saying that the individual responsibility and individual opportunity in organising again is very necessary. Political organisation should again be made possible. The responsibility for the collective services—to use the parallel again of the developments on the economic policy side— should remain with the State and the Government. That means they have to create the space within which this negotiation may take place, and secondly, to get rid of discrimination. Only through negotiation can we really arrive at a new and inclusive deal and a new, all-inclusive constitution.
We believe it is imperative that the Government now take a new look at its security management policy. While we subscribe to the use of special powers—I have dealt with this in this House in the past—we do not believe that the Government should be entitled effectively to detain people indefinitely. Presently there are a large number of people being detained for activities which are no threat to the State security as such—people, political leaders, community leaders, leaders in education who are being detained for no other crime than their being strong and effective political leaders. The Cabinet knows this. There are people presently being detained who will never be charged and who will not be brought to trial. The hon the Minister of Law and Order and the hon the Deputy Minister know this too. I have mentioned names to them at previous meetings, but these people are still in detention. They will not be charged. I challenge the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister to say anything to the contrary.
Unfortunately I have little time. I would have liked to pursue this matter further.
What we indeed need, however, is a democratic order. The present approach will lead us further along the road towards a more authoritarian rule. Again I want to stress that neither the security police nor the security family are responsible, but only the Government which fails to give directives as to exactly how they should pursue their security goals.
*With the proper implementation of the economic goals, as outlined by the hon the State President, and by properly refining these, we can get away from what is a self-evident process of economic stagnation.
At present we are in a political cul de sac. We now need a similar process to that which preceded the advent of the economic policy statements by the Economic Advisory Council, by the inclusion of a wide spectrum of opinion in the search for an economic policy. That is what we now need in regard to constitutional development and specifically the security administration campaign. I want to advocate that the Government consider taking the same steps, because I do, in fact, think that this could bring us to a situation of process politics which could jointly lead all of us to the point of a new democratic and inclusive order based on the weighing up of political interests, on the playing of politics. It must be accepted, however, that everyone is included in this.
Neither the moral high ground, nor the occupying of a specific position of power, can bring us to that point. The to and fro arguments about an internal or external system, about relevancy or legitimacy, is not at issue. We know that for the Government sitting there extra-parliamentary politics is totally irrelevant. All its energy, or the major portion of that energy, is employed in dealing with those activities. And conversely, the whole existence of those extraparliamentary groupings, and what they experience as a threat, is the result of the Government’s position, which specifically depends on the parliamentary system. The arguments therefore do not hold water. The same applies to legitimacy. Legitimacy is a question of interests—what one regards as legitimate relates to where one’s interests lie.
I want to conclude by appealing to the Government to also try to achieve in politics, and specifically in regard to the security administration, what it has achieved in the economic sphere in regard to a positive positioning for the future. What we are in greater need of is actually a change of approach, a change of heart. All of us sitting here know that matters cannot continue as they are. The NP has, at least intellectually, taken leave of apartheid. It is true that there are still emotional remnants, which have remained in the form of verligtheid. It is still, however, White control. I now want to advocate that we consider taking leave of verligtheid.
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Randburg said the following in the course of his speech: “We are at present in a political cul-de-sac.” Seen from his point of view, that is of course true. Although he is in a political cul-de-sac, we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of his kind of politics. It is for that very reason that we practise the more practical and realistic kind of politics in our country.
The hon member for Randburg attempted, and I believe he did so in all sincerity, to be positive about the hon the State President’s opening address. I, in fact, all of us, appreciate that and it is good that it is so. When, therefore, I refer in my speech to the actions and reaction of other opposition parties I do not include him. In the course of my speech, however, I shall be less flattering about him than I am being now.
The hon the State President delivered a fundamental speech at the opening of Parliament. It testifies to the will to govern, it reflects realism, it reflects courage, and it opens up exciting new perspectives. The reaction of the business sector was positive almost throughout. Even opponents of the Government expressed their enthusiasm. By contrast, the reaction of the Official Opposition in this House was unimpressive and unimaginative. It was lacking in new and innovative thought and was merely the same stuffy old approach of years gone by, except that this year it was even worse than in previous years, because the hon the State President’s speech caught them completely unawares; that is why they are so inconsolably pathetic. In this instance it would be presumptuous of any opposition party or grouping in this House to move a motion of no confidence in the Government. They should rather consider their own destructive influence on South African public life. Their miserable image of disunity is an indictment against them, in any case. On the right of the NP there are three groups who are actually one group in the spirit. On the left of the NP there are four groups… [Interjections.]
How many are there within the NP?
Even they do not differ very much from one another. The hon members of the PFP will know that, because they tried to cooperate with everyone. [Interjections.] How is it possible that a group of more or less kindred spirits on the right and on the left of the NP, respectively, can display so much disunity? The answer, at least as far as a section of the participants is concerned, is simple: Intolerance, selfishness, excessive ambition of leaders and supposed leaders, and the inability of the participants to place their cause above themselves. All these characteristics are unpraiseworthy and objectionable. The existence of it is contaminating the South Africa public life at present. During the past year, especially, we saw a multiplication of it which we could rather have been spared. Owing to a lack of time, I shall confine myself to one particular development in this regard.
The appearance of the so-called Independents dragged an unwelcome element of opportunism and artificiality into our politics. I can cite numerous examples of that, but suffice it for me to cite just one. In March last year the South African public heard that the hon member for Randburg and Dr Dennis Worrall had gotten together. They issued a joint election manifesto in which they said that they were going to rescue the NP and show us how to co-operate. They said they were going to teach us to negotiate and that they were going to save our country for us. The manifesto began with these words:
That gave one the impression that they had this shared vision. Up to and on polling day on 6 May 1987, and afterwards, they held the trusting public under the impression that this was indeed the case. It was not true, however. It became apparent afterwards that these two gentlemen could not stand each other from the very beginning.
They could not negotiate.
They could not live with one another, and they could not negotiate with one another. The hon member for Randburg said, as reported by Die Burger of 12 October 1987:
[Interjections.] Talk about artificiality, Mr Chairman! Where can one find a better demonstration than that of this concept?
And see how the little one looks! [Interjections.]
According to the newspaper report the hon member for Randburg went on to say:
Hon members should note, he did not agree with that, but neither did he dissociate himself from it. [Interjections.]
That is shotgun vision! [Interjections.]
It suited him for the public to think that unity existed, because how would the voters ever be attracted to them if they had a divided vision? Was it genuine, however? No, it was objectionable opportunism at its worst. The hon member for Randburg was also reported as having said:
What a joke!
When one pages through newspaper cuttings of the past year, one is surprised anew. It unveils a succession of inconsistencies, calculated vagueness, reckless handling of voters’ confidence, and excessive opportunism. When one criticised them, however, one was accused of being arrogant, and unfeeling and wanting in style.
It was said then that one went for the man instead of the ball. I could have gone on about this for a long time, but I feel that it was an unfortunate low point in our public life which one should rather forget.
I want to talk about the disunity and the confusion in the ranks of the opposition. I repeat, their disunity is an indictment against them. That disunity is perhaps a greater threat to future stability and peace in this country than any of the direct onslaughts with which we are confronted. It creates too wide a spectrum of expectations of what the end result of a process of reform in this country could possibly be. [Interjections.] Whether we like it or not, our options are not unlimited, and they certainly cannot accommodate the diversity of the opposition. [Interjections.]
Let us have a look at what the CP is now saying. I am not going to argue with them, because the hon members from that party who are sitting in this House, are inconvincible. When it comes to them, one can only despair. [Interjections.] It remains a fact that absolute separation in this country between Black, White, Coloured and Asian is not possible. They are managing, however, to get great numbers of people to pursue this pipe dream. A day will still come when they will be accused of having sidetracked people while the future passed them by. [Interjections.] People will find that when they could have done something about their future they were being confused by those hon members to the point where they just went and sat still. A tragedy is unfolding here.
To the hon members of the PFP I should like to say this.
Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member?
No, Mr Speaker.
It is an easy one.
Last year the PFP tried to win 52 seats in the general election; and they hoped—that is what they publicised—that when that happened at least 30 of us on this side of the House would walk over to them. [Interjections.]
You cannot even answer an easy question. [Interjections.] Muil.
Mr Speaker, the hon member for Overvaal referred to the hon the Chief Whip as a mule (muil).
Order! Did the hon member for Overvaal refer to the hon the Chief Whip in that way?
I called him by his nickname.
That is not the point. Did the hon member refer to him in that way?
If one has to withdraw nicknames, I shall withdraw that.
Order! The hon member is now trifling with the Chair, and I am not going to allow that. The hon member will first of all apologise and, in the second place, withdraw that.
What must I apologise for, Mr Speaker?
Did the hon member call the hon the Chief Whip a mule?
Sir, I did not call him a mule. As far as I know “Muil” is his nickname. [Interjections.]
No, I have given my ruling. Is the hon member going to withdraw that?
I withdraw that, Mr Speaker.
Is the hon member going to apologise?
No, Sir, now hold on a minute…
No, I am not holding on at all.
I apologise, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]
The hon member for Stellenbosch may proceed.
Before I was interrupted, Mr Speaker, I was trying to point out that the hon members of the PFP believed, before the election last year, that they would be placed in a position in which they could govern the country. I do not want to humiliate them, because they have suffered enough, but I am sure they will concede that all their expectations were wrong. They were dreaming and their dreams did not come true. We warned them that that would happen and they did not listen.
Now I should like to ask them please just to heed this warning of mine. They are dreaming about a so-called “non-racial democratic society” and a government that is related to this dream is not going to be realised either, and the longer they cling to it the less relevant they will be in White politics in South Africa and the more confusion they will create for the rest of the population.
The same applies to the Independent Movement, which is not here and the National Democratic Movement. The fact is, South African society, with its physical composition and emotional content, limits our options. All too often the Government is accused of lacking the ability to bring about reform in accordance with one particular model or the other. It is not the Government who should shoulder the blame for that, however. South African society in itself has an inherent inability to be pushed too far in opposition to its own nature, and whoever tries to do that will cause a build-up of tension to breaking point.
There is a lesson in this for the left-wing and the right-wing groups. Their “pushing process” of South African society will lead unavoidably to breaking point and, notwithstanding the fact that it is not their goal, will lead to an autocracy in South Africa and the destruction of democracy.
It is only the NP which has chosen a realistic path and which stands a chance of bringing about peace in this country. Our path is not an easy one. It is not a highway, but, for sure, it has a destination.
It is a dead end street.
Finally, that brings me back to the disunity in the ranks of the opposition. On the side of the right wingers unrealistic expectations are being created amongst especially White South Africans of Afrikaans origin. On the side of the left wingers the same is being done amongst Black South Africans and foreign powers. That is hampering the only realistic possibility of reform. It is damaging our country’s best interests…
Are you suggesting that we should become a one-party state?
… internally and externally. That is why I say it is absurd to conduct a debate here on no confidence in the Government. It is the opposition parties—all of them— who really deserve no confidence. [Interjections.]
Mr Speaker, it is customary for the Official Opposition to move a motion of no-confidence in the Government. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, therefore, made his speech in accordance with the custom that has developed under our system. I do not think anyone can deny him the right to do that, and no one can blame him for actually having done so. Still, I think it is arrogant and presumptuous just to let a motion of no-confidence suffice. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party have another responsibility as well, possibly one which is greater, viz to discuss the alternatives.
In typical fashion the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made a speech which failed to address the key aspects of the problems facing the country. Apart from that, he said more by what he concealed than by what he actually said. I should like to quote just one statement made at a Press conference which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition held on 21 January this year. I am quoting from the report and I should like to couple what I want to say to what I am about to quote:
He goes further, Sir, and this is important:
This statement by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, read together with the speech he made today, is more frightening in its scope and meaning for the development of the country, than any speech I have yet heard. In the first place the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is very clearly referring in this regard to the entrenched provisions of the Constitution, because it is only with regard to the amendment of the entrenched provisions that a majority vote in all three Houses is required. Now we must remember the that hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party do not want to negotiate about the inclusion of other communities in the country in parliamentary and executive authority and the accompanying processes. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party want to negotiate with people who are at the moment functioning within the system on their exclusion from participation in that system.
Of course.
The hon member for Overvaal has just confirmed the point I made. Moreover, they want to negotiate with the leaders of the Black communities—and this is a pertinent issue—on their permanent exclusion from that system.
In accordance with Standing Order No 19, the House adjourned at
Order! I have to announce that Mr Speaker is unavoidably absent and that in terms of section 58 (4) (a) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, he has designated the Chairman of the House of Assembly as Acting Speaker with effect from today to perform Mr Speaker’s functions during his absence.
The ACTING SPEAKER laid upon the Table the Seventh Report, 1987, of the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry, dated 25 November 1987, as follows:
The ACTING SPEAKER laid upon the Table the Fifth Report, 1987, of the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal, dated 12 January 1988, as follows:
With regard to the draft proclamation relating to the Local Authorities Ordinance, 1974, the Committee, mindful of the aspirations of people of colour, recommends that every effort be made by all concerned, including the Natal Executive Committee, to effect equitable and acceptable participation of all races at third-tier level in the shortest possible time.
Mr J DOUW, as Chairman, presented the Seventh Report, 1987, of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 2 December 1987, as follows:
Your Committee further wishes to report that it is of the opinion that clauses 3 and 6 of the Bill should be further investigated with a view to further amendments, and that there should be reported back to the Committee in this regard.
Financial Institutions Second Amendment Bill [B 114C and D—87 (GA)]—[B 32—88 (GA)] to be read a second time.
Mr R O’REILLY, as Chairman, presented the Seventh Report, 1987, of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:
Criminal Law Amendment Bill [B 119A and B— 87 (GA)]—[B 31—88 (GA)] to be read a second time.
Mr I RICHARDS, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development, dated 13 January 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr G N MORKEL, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, dated 1 December 1987, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr G N MORKEL, as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, dated 1 December 1987, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr G N MORKEL, as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, dated 2 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr G N MORKEL, as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, dated 2 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr R O’REILLY, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:
Your Committee recommends that the possibility of dealing with interim judgments in a similar way be investigated.
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr A E POOLE, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs, dated 22 January 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr C A WYNGAARD, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Transport and Communications, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr M R E LEWIS, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Education, dated 2 February 1988, as follows:
The Standing Committee has taken note of representations made, not germane to the Bill under consideration, concerning the application of the principal Act to boxing in South Africa. In particular problems appear to be experienced in the relationship between the Control Board and individual boxers and promoters, etc.
In the light of these representations the Standing Committee recommends that the Department of National Education fully consider these representations and that any further amendments that may be necessary be submitted to Parliament.
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr A WILLIAMS, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Security Services, dated 3 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr J DOUW, on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Fourth Report, 1987, of the Standing Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, dated 2 February 1988, as follows:
- (1) The description of the area mentioned in the schedule, in terms of section 2 (4) of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No 18 of 1936), as amended, as an area in which the State President may declare released areas for the purposes of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
DESCRIPTION OF A CERTAIN AREA OF LAND SITUATED IN THE DISTRICT OF INANDA, PROVINCE OF NATAL
The portion of the farm Groeneberg 844, situated within the following boundary description:
- (2) The description of the area mentioned in the schedule, in terms of section 2 (4) of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No 18 of 1936), as amended, as an area in which the State President may declare released areas for the purposes of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
DESCRIPTION OF A CERTAIN AREA OF LAND SITUATED IN THE DISTRICTS OF WARMBATHS AND CULLINAN, PROVINCE OF TRANSVAAL
Beginning at the north-western beacon of the farm Rietfontein 214 JR; thence north-westwards, northwards and generally north-westwards along the boundaries of the following farms so as to include them in this area: Enkeldoornspoort 207 JR, Zaagkuilfontein 204 JR, Rust der Winter 180 JR, Rust der Winter 178 JR and Tambootie Pan 175 JR, to the northwestern beacon of the said farm Tambootie Pan 175 JR; thence north-eastwards, south-eastwards and generally eastwards along the boundaries of the following farms so as to include them in this area: The said Tambootie Pan 175 JR, La Rochelle 177 JR, the said Rust der Winter 180 JR, Rooikop 181 JR, Leeuwkraal 184 JR and Bezuidenhoutskraal 166 JR, to the north-western beacon of Portion 2 of the said Bezuidenhoutskraal 166 JR (Diagram SG A 959/26); thence southwards along the boundary of the said Portion 2 of Bezuidenhoutskraal 166 JR to the southern beacon (indicatory) thereof; thence southwards along a straight line to the south-eastern beacon of Portion 6 of the said Bezuidenhoutskraal 166 JR (Diagram SG A 3101/25); thence westwards, southwards, south-eastwards, north-eastwards and generally south-westwards along the boundaries of the following farms so as to exclude them from this area: Christiaansrus 191 JR, Ougoed 186 JR, Rietvallei 185 JR and Boschkloof 203 JR, to the southernmost beacon of the farm Melkhoutfontein 183 JR; thence southwestwards along a straight line to the southernmost beacon of the farm Zaagkuilfontein 204 JR; thence further south-westwards along a straight line to the north-western beacon of the farm Rietfontein 214 JR, the point of beginning.
Your Committee begs to report further that the Government is requested to pay attention to the need for housing within and on the boundaries of KwaNdebele for people of colour employed by the industrial sector.
Report to be considered in Committee of the Whole House.
Mr I RICHARDS, on behalf of the Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr I RICHARDS, on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr R O’REILLY, as Chairman, presented the Report, 1987, of the Select Committee on the Marriage and Matrimonial Property Law Amendment Bill [B 120—87 (GA)], dated 19 October 1987, as follows:
Your Committee wishes to report further that it requests the Minister of Justice to consider extending the provisions of section 7(3) of the Divorce Act, No 70 of 1979, to marriages automatically entered into out of community of property, with special reference to marriages entered into outside the Republic.
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr F E PETERS, on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Report, 1987, of the Select Committee on the Electoral Act, 1979, dated 19 January 1988, as follows:
At its last meeting various proposed amendments to the Electoral Act, 1979, were still under consideration, and the Committee was of the opinion that further oral evidence was necessary.
In the circumstances, and because an extensive investigation being undertaken by the Department of Home Affairs at the request of the Committee is still in progress, the Committee has found that it will not be able to complete its enquiry before the prorogation of Parliament, and your Committee accordingly requests the House to appoint a select committee at an early stage in the next session to form part of a joint committee to resume and complete the enquiry.
Mr Chairman, I move:
- (1) it has failed to fulfil the mandate from the electorate in dismantling apartheid and negotiating with the government of the day in establishing a new political, economic and social order for all South Africans; and
- (2) of its insistence in linking the repeal of the Group Areas Act with the proposed postponement of the elections to 1992, thus demonstrating its inability to negotiate.
In view of the fact that the air conditioning is out of order, however, I should like to suggest that the debate be now adjourned.
Agreed to.
Mr Chairman, although I was looking forward to this debate, which of course is going to be a very heated debate, I move:
Agreed to.
The House adjourned at
The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE announced that Mr Speaker was unavoidably absent and that in terms of section 58 (4) (a) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, he had designated the Chairman of the House of Assembly as Acting Speaker with effect from today to perform Mr Speaker’s functions during his absence.
The ACTING SPEAKER laid upon the Table the Seventh Report, 1987, of the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry, dated 25 November 1987, as follows:
The ACTING SPEAKER laid upon the Table the Fifth Report, 1987, of the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal, dated 12 January 1988, as follows:
With regard to the draft proclamation relating to the Local Authorities Ordinance, 1974, the Committee, mindful of the aspirations of people of colour, recommends that every effort be made by all concerned, including the Natal Executive Committee, to effect equitable and acceptable participation of all races at third-tier level in the shortest possible time.
Mr E ABRAMJEE, as Chairman, presented the Seventh Report, 1987, of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 2 December 1987, as follows:
Your Committee further wishes to report that it is of the opinion that clauses 3 and 6 of the Bill should be further investigated with a view to further amendments, and that there should be reported back to the Committee in this regard.
Financial Institutions Second Amendment Bill [B 114C and D—87 (GA)]—[B 32—88 (GA)] to be read a second time.
Mr P C NADASEN, on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Seventh Report, 1987, of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:
Criminal Law Amendment Bill [B 119A and B— 87 (GA)]—[B 31—88 (GA)] to be read a second time.
Mr R S NOWBATH, as Chairman, presented the Report, 1987, of the Select Committee on the Marriage and Matrimonial Property Law Amendment Bill [B 120—87 (GA)], dated 19 October 1987, as follows:
Your Committee wishes to report further that it requests the Minister of Justice to consider extending the provisions of section 7(3) of the Divorce Act, No 70 of 1979, to marriages automatically entered into out of community of property, with special reference to marriages entered into outside the Republic.
Bill to be read a second time.
The MINISTER OF THE BUDGET, as Chairman, presented the Second Report, 1987, of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, dated 21 January 1988, as follows:
Your Committee recommends that legislation relating to township establishment, the registration of title deeds, etc, be consolidated in a single set of laws applicable on the same basis to all population groups.
Black Communities Development Amendment Bill [B 128A and B—87 (GA)]—[B 30—88 (GA)] to be read a second time.
The MINISTER OF THE BUDGET, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, dated 21 January 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr Y I SEEDAT, as Chairman, presented the Report, 1987, of the Select Committee on the Electoral Act, 1979, dated 19 January 1988, as follows:
In the circumstances, and because an extensive investigation being undertaken by the Department of Home Affairs at the request of the Committee is still in progress, the Committee has found that it will not be able to complete its enquiry before the prorogation of Parliament, and your Committee accordingly requests the House to appoint a select committee at an early stage in the next session to form part of a joint committee to resume and complete the enquiry.
Mr M THAVER, on behalf of the Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development, dated 13 January 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr M Y BAIG, on behalf of the Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, dated 1 December 1987, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr M Y BAIG, on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, dated 1 December 1987, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr H RAMPERSADH, as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, dated 2 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr H RAMPERSADH, as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, dated 2 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr R S NOWBATH, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:
Your Committee recommends that the possibility of dealing with interim judgments in a similar way be investigated.
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr I C DASOO, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs, dated 22 January 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr M GOVENDER, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Transport and Communications, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr P C NADASEN, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Education, dated 2 February 1988, as follows:
The Standing Committee has taken note of representations made, not germane to the Bill under consideration, concerning the application of the principal Act to boxing in South Africa. In particular problems appear to be experienced in the relationship between the Control Board and individual boxers and promoters, etc.
In the light of these representations the Standing Committee recommends that the Department of National Education fully consider these representations and that any further amendments that may be necessary be submitted to Parliament.
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr M THAVER, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Security Services, dated 3 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr Y I SEEDAT, as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report, 1987, of the Standing Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, dated 2 February 1988, as follows:
- (1) The description of the area mentioned in the schedule, in terms of section 2 (4) of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No 18 of 1936), as amended, as an area in which the State President may declare released areas for the purposes of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
DESCRIPTION OF A CERTAIN AREA OF LAND SITUATED IN THE DISTRICT OF INANDA, PROVINCE OF NATAL
The portion of the farm Groeneberg 844, situated within the following boundary description:
- (2) The description of the area mentioned in the schedule, in terms of section 2 (4) of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No 18 of 1936), as amended, as an area in which the State President may declare released areas for the purposes of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
DESCRIPTION OF A CERTAIN AREA OF LAND SITUATED IN THE DISTRICTS OF WARMBATHS AND CULLINAN, PROVINCE OF TRANSVAAL
Your Committee begs to report further that the Government is requested to pay attention to the need for housing within and on the boundaries of KwaNdebele for people of colour employed by the industrial sector.
Report to be considered in Committee of the Whole House.
Mr Y I SEEDAT, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr Y I SEEDAT, as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Order! Before I call upon the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition I want to address hon members on a matter that has been a cause for deep concern to me for some time. In my experience no-confidence debates can become rather heated and sometimes harsh words are spoken. In my opinion it is a good thing that hon members have this opportunity to let off steam and throw a few political punches and I have no intention of stopping the fight even before it has started.
However, I do want hon members always to bear in mind that freedom of speech in debate and proceedings is one of the most cherished and significant privileges of Parliament. The privilege allows members great freedom in debating whatever matter is before the House at any particular time, and in their speeches to expose and criticise whatever they think should be exposed or criticised. This freedom cannot be questioned in any court or place outside Parliament.
However, Parliament’s own rules, customs and practices require of hon members not to abuse this right but to use this freedom in such a manner that the dignity and honour of Parliament will be upheld and protected at all times.
Every member of Parliament should therefore under all circumstances temper his speech and his utterances in debate so as to conform to the Parliamentary standards of propriety. Hon members have a duty not to make imputations, insinuations and even accusations of improper conduct on the part of their fellow members or to implicate their fellow members without the matters complained of being clearly stated or the complaints being properly substantiated, if at all. If it is considered at all necessary to make imputations and accusations of improper conduct, this must be done in accordance with the rules, customs and practices of Parliament which, in appropriate cases, require a substantive motion. In doing so, they will uphold not only their own dignity but also the status of Parliament. I appeal to all hon members kindly for their co-operation.
Mr Chairman, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:
I want to refer briefly to the notice of motion proposed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, which refers specifically to one item.
Unfortunately, Mr Chairman, we who are in public office are accountable.
It does not refer to one item. [Interjections.]
What I am saying is that when we enter public office we are under public scrutiny and we are accountable to the public. [Interjections.] I have never pointed a finger at anyone in this House. However, I feel I have a duty as a representative of the electorate to say in this House what my constituents expect me to bring to the attention of hon members seated here.
Moreover, we cannot lose sight of the fact that a tremendous amount of publicity has been given in recent weeks and months to all kinds of accusations. I am not saying that they are either founded or unfounded, but the whole matter has been left dangling in midair and that reflects poorly on all of us whether we are on this side of the House or the other. [Interjections.] I think it is in the interests of all concerned that these matters should be cleared up once and for all.
The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has recently faced a barrage of accusations that would, in any normal situation, have resulted in a commission of inquiry to either prove or disprove once and for all the very serious allegations, not only about the administration of the House of Delegates but also about the involvement of a member of the general Cabinet in the Government of this country in associating his role with such far-reaching accusations. It is not good arguing that the House should pass a motion calling for such a commission. No accused person in any society, even if he is innocent, is given the right to decide whether a trial proving or disproving his innocence should take place. The accusations have acquired disturbing dimensions. Unresolved, they reflect not only on the entire Indian community but also on the integrity of the South African Cabinet. If there is any false accusation, let a commission of honourable and respected judges clear the air once and for all. [Interjections.] Suspicion and rumour are worse than guilt. The innocent need not fear the establishment of their innocence. It is only the guilty that would place obstacles in the path of the purification process. [Interjections.] Allegations of corruption and maladministration ultimately reflect on the body as a whole. Hence the Cabinet itself is unnecessarily stigmatised by the failure to clear the air. It is now the hon the State President’s clear duty to disprove the detractors of a member of his Cabinet. I say respectfully that failure to do so would amount to a vote of no confidence in all of us who share a common ideal with him, namely that of a clean and honest administration. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, I make that statement with all sincerity, because I would like to see an end to this on-going fighting. It will go on amongst public representatives as long as there are things which remain unclear. That is my appeal.
I understand that on Friday afternoon when we left the Chamber certain allegations were levelled against me. We left because the hon the Leader of the House called for the adjournment of business and it was unopposed. Business of the House was adjourned at that point. We demonstrated our protest at the fact that proceedings were allowed to continue. Accusations which were levelled …
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had sought and received permission to congratulate a newly elected member as soon as the Leader of the House stood up and proposed the adjournment of the House. [Interjections.]
Order! That is not a point of order.
Mr Chairman, I once again want to reiterate what I said in 1984 and repeated in 1985. If there is anything which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council or any other hon member of this House holds against me, I give this undertaking to the House: I open myself to an inquiry, which can be submitted to the Attorney-General or the Auditor-General. [Interjections.] What is more, I submit to any inquiry, including the reference of those papers to the Advocate-General, and I do not want to be represented; I do not want to utter a word. The papers will exonerate me and prove that what has been done is all above board. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, all I am saying is this: It is unfair to bring to the floor of the House matters which were dealt with in 1985. If members of the ruling party feel that they have something against me, I am prepared to submit myself to an open inquiry. I have said that over and over again. [Interjections.] What is more, I will walk out of this House and resign if something can be proved against me. [Interjections.] I ask the hon member pointing a finger to accept the challenge and do likewise. I repeat what I said in 1985.
Remember that you are using the word “proof’.
Proof, yes.
You are qualifying it.
No, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council can do whatever he wants to do. [Interjections.]
Order!
Mr Chairman, the newspapers have been full of stories.
Well, this photograph does not come from us. [Interjections.]
Order! I appeal to hon members to give the hon member an opportunity to continue addressing the House.
Mr Chairman, in support of my motion, which is directed against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and his colleagues, I want to say that many things have happened which reflect very poorly on this Administration. Only those who are oblivious to the truth will continue to ignore these matters. When reports appear in the Press, and, as in the Sunday Tribune, affidavits are published, signed by people who are not afraid to reveal who they are, affidavits which are a shocking condemnation…[Interjections]… a reflection on all of us …
Mr Chairman, will the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition take a question?
No, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]
This revelation is a condemnation of all of us who are seated here and who are participating in this House. This is the point I want to make. [Interjections.] No hon member in the House of Delegates is exonerated—we will all be tarred with the same brush for matters of this kind. In the newspaper report it says that a senior official of the Department of the Administration is involved. I cannot see how reasonable men can take umbrage here where we are presented with the opportunity of bringing it to the notice of the party in power across the floor of this House. I cannot understand why people become angry about these things as there is nothing to become angry about. What is stated there is the truth.
We are not angry about that. If it is wrong, it is wrong.
I want to point out again that we all have to carry the stigma on our shoulders. We must all accept responsibility because in the final analysis it refers to the House of Delegates and we are all hon members of this House.
We support you in not condoning wrongs. [Interjections.]
I want to come back to Tongaat. I will be failing in my duty if I did not re-enact the drama that took place in Tongaat during the elections. I cannot see how on earth a lecturer from a teachers’ training college, a headmaster and a whole cavalry of teachers who were supposed to be on duty could be actively engaged on polling day at the polling-booth, receiving voters etc. [Interjections.] I believe this must be examined and an end put to it once and for all because I do not think we can allow such a situation to continue. It is merely the tip of the iceberg. [Interjections.] The question that I want to pose is: What right do these teachers have to leave their schools and the children at a time when the examinations are near and the pupils should be receiving the greatest possible attention and preparation for the exams? Yet one finds the teachers outside, actively working for a political party with all sorts of paraphernalia on their persons.
I guarantee to every member of the teaching fraternity his right to support some political party and his right to political views …
But it is only right to support solidarity!
No, no. [Interjections.] I have said on every occasion that I spoke that we as a political party guarantee to the teacher his right to vote and to identify himself with the political party of his choice. I will only be too pleased and happy to know that a certain teacher supports a party and I guarantee him this right. I guarantee every teacher the right to participate and to vote for whoever he pleases. However, what I am against is when a teacher is used as a means to an end. That is to promote a particular party.
Take your mind back to 1984!
We do not want to go back to 1984. The Tongaat saga happened only two months ago and presents a far clearer picture. [Interjections.] What I am saying is that we cannot afford such a situation. Whether one likes it or not, it looks like and can be called patronage. It places a tremendous onus on the vast majority of the teaching fraternity as to whether they want to be supporters of political parties in order to progress in their particular professions or, on the other hand, if they stayed aloof and carried out their work in accordance with the regulations prescribed, they would be penalised in one form or another.
It is a very serious situation and what I am saying is that education must be removed from the drama of politics. I have said, and my chairman has also warned, that nobody can say that the situation with regard to the party will remain as it is forever. There is bound to be an election shortly. However, if we as members of Solidarity take office—and this is a commitment we are making—we will legislate if necessary in order to redress those wrongs that have been visited on people who depend on the integrity and the impartiality of the administration. That commitment we make from here and we want people to know that that is the way we feel about the matter. At the same time we guarantee to every teacher the right to vote freely for whomsoever he pleases. That is another guarantee.
[Inaudible.]
That has nothing to do with this matter. Please keep it out of this. Show some respect.
You are the dirtiest man in this House.
Order!
Mr Chairman, I request you to ask the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to refrain from making comments which might be an indictment of my religious convictions.
Mr Chairman, if that is his conclusion, it is a conclusion of his mind.
Mr Chairman, the drama of education is also entering other fields and more recently the hon Minister of National Education reminded people that politics must not be introduced into the school arena.
Mr Chairman, I must crave your indulgence. I need to have some water to drink.
I shall see to it. [Interjections.]
Order!
That is sour grapes. [Interjections.]
Order! I think those remarks from hon members are uncalled for and I ask hon members to refrain from uncalled for remarks such as “sour grapes”. What was done here shows a relationship between colleagues. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may continue.
Mr Chairman I appreciate that, these are the kind of qualities we want to come to the fore increasingly in the future. After all as the hon the State President once said to us, one may argue and differ very strongly but when one leaves this Chamber that must be the end of it, because we are all human beings. I think that is a very worthy piece of advice that all of us can adhere to.
When at the outset I talked about the need for a commission of Inquiry to clear the air once and for all, I was not merely doing so for my sake. Here I say that hon members like Mr S Pachai and Mr S Abram also asked the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in a debate last year that a commission of inquiry should be instituted because they felt that the accusations levelled against them were unfair and unfounded. It does not matter that today they sit on the other side. An allegation is an allegation and it does not become any less valid when the members involved cross over to the ruling side. I say this with humility because I believe that what is recorded in Hansard will be held against hon members irrespective of the party to which they belong, or whether they are in Parliament or not. Someone will have to answer for accusations levelled.
In column 81 of the Hansard of 22 May, let me tell you what Mr Pachai said.
The hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government and Housing.
The hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing. I cannot see him at the moment in the House. He said, and I quote:
He goes on to ask questions that need to be answered because they are valid questions. I believe the hon the State President would be doing the community and the country a favour by ensuring that there is an inquiry into the affairs not so much of the whole Ministers’ Council but of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. As far as I am concerned he stands in the dock today accused of bringing about the downfall. I have just referred to this. The Chairman of the Ministers’ Council responded:
That is a very, very serious allegation. That allegation was made against a Deputy Minister. I say this with humility, not to try to score debating points. As long as this statement appears in this edition of Hansard, it is a reflection on that individual. He must be given the opportunity to clear his name on that issue because it has been recorded in Hansard. [Interjections.]
I am not trying to gain any benefit from this or to glorify myself as a result of this statement, but the fact remains and it is a serious indictment. I make this submission because I should like the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to understand why in my opening address I asked for the commission of inquiry I referred to, to be instituted.
Last time he was Mr “Pachay”, and now he is Mr Pachai. [Interjections.]
Order! Would the hon member Mr Thaver withdraw what he has said and apologise.
I withdraw it.
Mr Chairman, I mention the name of Mr S Abram-Mayet. He has also called for an inquiry because his name is also recorded as being somebody disappointed with the kind of references that were made to him in the course of debates in this House.
Take it as read!
He said if you cannot beat them, join them, so he joined them. I now want to come to the speech that had been made by the late hon member for Tongaat. He asked a series of questions when he spoke here. While putting those questions to the House—I want to place this on record—he was interrupted by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Because I want to allege here that those questions that were asked by the hon member for Tongaat—and I cleared this with him—were put to him on the telephone one evening that week, I did not find it strange that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had the following to say:
And that is Windmill Park! That was what I was told. [Interjections.]
Another commission of inquiry will shut them up! [Interjections.]
We are merely reminding the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and this House, without making allegations against anyone, that these statements are on record. Obviously, when it was stated that must have been the truth, I accept that all statements made here and on record, are statements made by responsible people who are aware of this.
The police are aware of it.
They are aware of it. Therefore I am not sucking these words out of the air—I am merely quoting. I wish to quote the hon member Mr S Abram briefly:
Thus I also agree that Mr S Abram would be prepared to subject himself to an inquiry—that is on record here. Are these not compelling reasons as to why we should have an inquiry? It is not only the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Other people holding responsible positions, holding office in terms of the Constitution, are involved.
I just want to end my reference to the record in Hansard by saying that regarding these stands, we have identified four areas. We are interested in Villa Liza. The advertisement did not indicate the boundary on which we had agreed with the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. Why is it that somebody is blocking every other area we examine? Who is doing this? This is the concern of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.
Just dramatise that, please.
They are eating Villa Liza like a lollipop!
They are going beserk! Villa Liza! Villa Loser! Mona Lisa! Nothing but Villa Liza!
The chairman of the management committee of Boksburg told me…
You must repeat it as I said it. [Interjections.]
Quoting the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council he told me that fantastic commissions are being offered to people just to have it declared Indian. We have decided to buy Villa Liza. The hon member Mr S Abram told me: Do not worry about the southern section of 800 ha; worry about the top. He then told me, in my house, that some Indians had bought land in the southern section. The hon member for Natal Midlands confided in me that the person who took the option to buy those properties was none other than the hon member Mr S Abram. [Interjections.] He even said it in the presence of a witness.
Now, I am merely quoting. Since these allegations have been made against responsible individuals in this House…
Hon members.
… against hon members of this House, I believe these must be cleared up, or else they are part of the record. They will one day be cast at these members in any situation they may find themselves in.
I should like to ask you a question when you are finished.
I wish to refer to Windmill Park. In this House all of us have roundly condemned the Group Areas Act, and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, when I was a colleague of his in the Ministers’ Council, decided that whenever land is available for the Indian community, we must buy the land so that we do not experience shortages.
Provided it is affordable and … [Interjections.]
The intention was clear—to try and get as much land as possible for the Indian community. I have no disagreement with that—it is a good thought because people in all socio-economic levels must get land.
However, as far as Windmill Park is concerned my interest is simply that we must not allow the Group Areas Act to prescribe and limit the extent of the land that is made available to us. As many areas as are available should be proclaimed or made available to the Indian community while the Group Areas Act is on the Statute Book.
Not as long as there are middlemen.
I agree with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I said at the hearing on Windmill Park that the administration of the House of Delegates must be responsible for the purchase and development of the land.
An MP of the Assembly whom we had discussions with confirmed that there are middlemen.
It is our view, that the House of Delegates has the responsibility to provide homes and land for a large section of the population which depends on the State for housing. I made it very clear at Windmill Park that the House of Delegates is the body that will have to acquire the land so that they can plan development for the needs of the Indian community. They have the records. Unfortunately, that was opposed by some colleagues of ours here in Parliament. It was negotiated between certain individuals … [Interjections.]
I want to publicly say that I have opposed it for the time being. [Interjections.] I have letters.
It was intended to be Coloured area, but … [Interjections.] On the other hand, we also have an area near Actonville called Apex where two small areas were identified which could provide a reasonable number of stands for the people of Actonville in close proximity to where they are at present. Here again there were objections, but the strange thing was that a gentleman by the name of Mr Badenhorst who happened to be the proprietor of the larger of the two areas… [Interjections.]
An HNP supporter whom we…
He indicated that the hon Mr S Abram had for some time been talking to him with a view to having this land made available for the Indian community. [Interjections.]
Not that small section.
Whatever it is, he was surprised that in respect of the land that was now being made available. There was opposition.
Mr Chairman, I believe that whatever land is made available to us in the Apex area will give us a stake as adjacent to these two areas are large vacant townships which, I think, have been proclaimed to be serviced and which could very well be brought in. In fact, in my submissions to the Chairman of the Board there, I said that I would like to see those townships that fall within the area of Brakpan, examined as part of a larger group area for Actonville. The town clerk of Benoni indicated his willingness to incorporate these areas should they be proclaimed Indian.
Therefore, for the stand we are taking you should have confidence in us.
Indeed? The town clerk of Benoni indicated that his council was not averse to having this land incorporated into the area of Benoni. This would make it possible for people of Actonville to house themselves in close proximity to the existing areas. I think that was a fine gesture on his part, but what surprises me is that we want to block land coming into the hands of the Indian community. I will make it very clear that as long as there is a need for housing for the lower income group, the responsibility for the purchase and development thereof lies with the House of Delegates. Does the House of Delegates feel that they have enough on their hands and would they rather just wish these private developers good luck?
[Inaudible.]
Fair enough. However, other things have subsequently come to my notice which also give rise to great concern. Representations were made to the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning concerning the possible removal of the community of Palm Ridge.
Not from the House of Delegates.
No. However, these representations have been made. [Interjections.] These representations were made by members of Parliament who are members of the House of Delegates. I did not say that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council or his colleagues made those representations.
Well, then this motion should be amended!
No, I do not want to amend my motion. As long as anyone involved is associated with the ruling party, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has to carry the can. [Interjections.]
Oh, I see, that is your motivation. So I have to carry the can! [Interjections.]
How can anyone—and more particularly hon members of this House—make representations designed to move a community which has been thrown out of Germiston and resettled— not entirely to its satisfaction? They are complaining about a whole lot of things, as I am sure the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is aware. [Interjections.] What I am asking, is how we can so eloquently espouse the cause of our community here—the pain and suffering they have experienced as a result of removals under the Group Areas Act—and then initiate moves to resettle our own people from Palm Ridge?
But you concede that no one from the Ministers’ Council or the administration … [Interjections.]
I made that point, but as I said, they were persons associated with the ruling party and therefore the ruling party must carry the can. Politically, it then unfortunately becomes the responsibility of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.
We will take you up on that tomorrow.
I want to say here that if the proclaiming of Villa Liza entails the people of Palm Ridge or anywhere else being led to the sacrificial altar, then it is an act that is so disgusting that no person who claims to be a representative of the Indian community could be a party to such a move. We cannot. I do not want to read those documents, because of the pain that I go through … [Interjections.]
If you have the documents, could you let me have them on a confidential basis? [Interjections.]
Certainly, I will give the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council a copy of the documents. [Interjections.] It pains me that this could happen to our people. We raise hell in this House.
Name the member! [Interjections.]
I could read the document if hon members would like me to read it out. [Interjections.] It reads as follows:
These are the records of the minutes of a municipality, Mr Chairman. I quote further:
[Interjections.] Let me quote from the letter as follows:
- (a) That the Villa Liza area as indicated on map 1 be accepted as a future home for members of the Indian community.
- (b) That occupation and possession be granted by the award of permits in accordance with the group areas law in respect of the portion of the Villa Liza area known as Mapleton Plots and Mapleton Plot Extension 1.
- (c) That private town developers be empowered through permit control to proceed to develop the town for members of the Indian group with private capital (as in the case of Rynsoord) with regard to any land inside the Villa Liza area which has not in accordance with the group areas law been declared White.
- (d) That a permit will be issued to PBRK Investments (Prop) Ltd to develop the proposed Villa Liza towns for Indian occupation and possession on condition—
That the company will sell 700 erfs (dwelling units) to the Department of Local Management, Housing and Agriculture of the Administration of the House of Delegates at production cost plus a reasonable margin for the housing of Indian members in the subeconomic and lower economic groups from the Benoni and Germiston magisterial districts and such other people as the department may deem fit. - (e) That those members of the Indian community residing in Palm Ridge will be provided with replacement housing in the Villa Liza-towns by the Department of Local Management, Housing and Agriculture of the Administration of the House of Delegates.
The letter or the minutes?
The minutes. The letter is an extract of … [Interjections.]
Have you got a copy of the letter?
I will give it to you.
I quote further:
- (f) That the Department concerned will provide housing in the Villa Liza-towns for Indians in the sub-economic and lower economic groups at present residing in Germiston, Boksburg, Brakpan and Benoni Municipal areas and experiencing a housing crisis.
- (g) That Palm Ridge then be made available, preferably to approved private township developers for the extension of Katlehong, Tokoza, Vosloorus Black Townships if it is considered a matter of national interest.
Can you read the letter which your party secretary sent to me, asking me to do a deal with contracting developers?
It reads further:
- (h) That all attempts to acquire portions 35 and 36 of the Modderfontein Farm IR for the occupation and possession of the Indian community will cease.
Messrs S Abram-Mayet, MP and A E Lambat, MP request the Council to support the above-mentioned proposals.
This is an excerpt of the correspondence.
That is the minutes. I will give you the actual letter.
I do not know if I have the actual letter.
But that memorandum you were quoting from is not by the hon member Mr Abram.
No, it is the contents of a letter. It says here, it is “copy of a letter”.
It is a memorandum prepared by a consultant.
It says here, and I quote:
But they never proposed … [Interjections.]
I will give the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council a copy of this. [Interjections.] But these records are floating around, Mr Chairman. It is a serious indictment. Not only that… [Interjections.] This is a serious matter to me and I take it seriously. No hon member of this House should have the temerity to sacrifice the public for his own personal benefit. [Interjections.]
Order!
For too long the working class people have been taken for a ride and this has to come to an end. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, with your protection, I now want to read from an article which appeared in The Sunday Star. These things are wrong. Somebody must come forward and explain these things to us. In the absence of any explanation or refutal of these allegations as they stand, they form the basis for an inquiry.
I read from The Sunday Star, 27 August 1986, and I quote:
Privately sponsored plans to uproot a community and resettle it on land in which at least one Member of Parliament has an interest emerged this week during a Sunday Star investigation into a new Indian township on the East Rand.
Plans to establish the Villa Liza township—on and between Boksburg and Brakpan—have already involved a police investigation into allegations of bribery against members of the Boksburg Town Council Management Committee.
The Sunday Star investigation revealed that attempts were under way to persuade the Government to move the Indian community out of Palm Ridge, Germiston—where they have been living for less than 18 months—to Villa Liza.
The attempt was sponsored by a company called PBRK Investments and has been recommended and endorsed by two House of Delegates MPs.
Palm Ridge residents have reacted angrily, saying it was a form of “forced removals”, dreamed up by private enterprise and “certain individuals” who stood to make millions if the Government approved the scheme.
The plan is now so advanced that it is subject only to final approval by the House of Delegates and the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. A decision on the matter is pending.
Shall we now close our case?
Wait, let me continue quoting. I will give credit to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I continue quoting:
He assured residents that nothing had been finalised yet but warned at the same time that Palm Ridge may have to be moved.
Investigations by The Sunday Star this week revealed:
The report recommended that a new Indian township—Villa Liza—be approved on the East Rand between Brakpan and Boksburg. It would provide an alternative for the residents of Palm Ridge as well as provide additional housing for the Indian community of Actonville, Benoni. A further recommendation was that a permit be granted to PBRK Investments to develop the township.
Mr Rajbansi, Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates, has admitted the Villa Liza concept is under consideration, but said no decision had been taken to move Palm Ridge residents.
Until the PBRK was removed by me.
I quote further:
The town planning report—researched by a Prof Jan Schutte—recommends that the development of Villa Liza be carried out by means of a permit as this would help to avoid the publicity which would “normally surround” the proclamation of a group area near white towns.
Mr Abram-Mayet obtained details of and approval for the use of land owned by the Brakpan Town Council for the establishment of an Indian township. The land for which Mr Abram-Mayet was negotiating was that which the Schutte Report identified as Villa Liza. The Brakpan Town Council said in its letter to Mr Abram-Mayet that the market price of the land was some R3,5 million.
In March of this year, following allegations that members of the Boksburg Town Council had been bribed to approve a new Indian group area outside the town, a complaint was laid with the commercial branch of the Police at John Vorster Square. The investigation is now complete and the docket is presently with the Attorney-General pending a decision on prosecution. No further details were available this week. Council sources said the complaint was linked to Villa Liza.
The Labour Party MP for Actonville, Mr A E Lambat, has been actively involved in the campaign to secure Government approval of Villa Liza to be developed. He and Mr Abram-Mayet wrote a joint letter to the Benoni Town Council last year recommending the Council’s support of the Schutte Report.
Actonville has a chronic housing shortage but a community organisation there, the Actonville Watchdog Committee, says it is opposed to the private development of new Indian group areas, claiming it would cost residents almost twice as much as it would if the State was responsible.
Approached for comment this week, Mr Rajbansi said no area on the East Rand had been finally approved for the development of a new Indian group area. He said that Villa Liza was “one of four different areas” under consideration.
Despite repeated attempts over three days to reach Mr Abram-Mayet, he was not available for comment.
I am not saying that what is in this report finds Mr Salem Abram-Mayet guilty. That would be the last thing that I would say. What I am saying is that if political figures are drawn in this way, I think we have a duty to give them an opportunity to clear their names. The only way in which we can do that is to hold a commission of inquiry because the matter of Villa Liza—I am not making any allegations now—has implications as are indicated in these reports and in the latest developments.
Do you know that there is no stink in Villa Liza but there is one in Windmill Park, and your secretary is involved in the latter? [Interjections.]
This is the second time that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council makes this allegation. I have no interest in Windmill Park. The records of the hearings at Benoni and Boksburg on Windmill Park make the position very clear. The hon the Leader of the PRP advised initially, as I also did, because any land that can be obtained for the Indian community is welcome as somebody could make use of it. However, we made it absolutely clear that in so far as I was concerned it was the responsibility of the House of Delegates to be the party responsible for the purchasing of it and the housing of the people.
Mr Chairman, will the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition take a question? [Interjections.]
No, Sir.
I have brought this to the notice of the House because I have listened to people who have made submissions before these committees and it is clear that they feel a genuine concern for the welfare of the Indian community, the House of Delegates and in so far as our communities and the problems we have are concerned.
We must not add any more stigmas to this institution, because then a finger is pointed at everybody which is totally unfair. I say no individual has the right to take it upon himself to negotiate for this or that land and in the process also to commit himself to certain developments which hurt our people. That pains me and as the Leader of the Official Opposition it is my duty to bring this to the notice of the House. I am doing so without pointing an accusing finger and I want this to be very clearly understood. I am not accusing anybody, I am merely stating the facts and I believe that it is the duty of a commission to investigate these matters and clear the air for all concerned. Such a development can only redound to the good of this House and all of us who serve in it.
Mr Chairman, I think that it is the height of stupidity for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to come along here and submit a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council and especially its Chairman after they have received one of the finest thrashings that they could have hoped for in a by-election by losing a seat which they had held in 1984.
Tell the Chairman how you got the seat.
Sir, I want to tell them how we won the seat. We did not win on special votes, but we won that seat outright as a result of the majority of the voters voting for the NPP on the election day. [Interjections.]
We had 1 438 special votes and the total number of votes cast were 3 368. If one subtracts 1 438…
Order! The hon member for Stanger must contain himself.
Mr Chairman, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the hon member Mr Abram used a word with reference to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition which I think is unparliamentary. He used the word ‘stupid’, obviously referring to the hon Leader. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, if I have said a word which is unparliamentary I withdraw it.
Order! Did the hon member use the word the hon member for Stanger is now referring to, implying that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is stupid?
Mr Chairman, I said that it was the height of stupidity on the part of the Opposition to come along with a motion of this nature. I do not see anything wrong with the statement I am making. [Interjections.]
Order! I would like the hon member to withdraw that.
Fine Sir, I withdraw it.
Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?
Yes, waste my time.
Mr Chairman does the hon member remember everything he said against the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council on 31 May 1987?
Mr Chairman, today is 8 February 1988 and a lot has changed during that period, just as those hon members in 1986 decided to introduce a wishy washy motion before this House in place of the customary motion of no confidence.
Things have changed for them too because there was a question of sour grapes. Many people there were ambitious and did not get where they wanted to get to so they decided to withdraw from the agreement they had made. [Interjections.]
The hon the Leader of the Opposition has made several allegations here today based on information he has gleaned and obtained from irresponsible people on the East Rand. I want to warn the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition of the old adage: One is often judged by the company one keeps. That is the kind of company in which I found the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition last week.
I found it rather strange last week when Mr P J Badenhorst, who is a supporter of the HNP, stood up at a hearing of the Group Areas Board and openly stated that the Indian people wanted separate residential areas. He was loudly applauded by the company the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was in, but not by the company in which I found myself that afternoon. We do not say one thing inside the House and then do something else outside. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was elated—hon members should have seen him—when the hon member of the HNP was speaking… [Interjections.]
Order!
He had no interest other than a passing commercial interest in getting rid of land that was useless to him and to the White community. What is more important is that the land we have been fighting for in that region was owned by this member of the HNP. He made it very clear last week to these hon members that that land was not in question; it was for White development exclusively. It is land that is useless to the Whites that he is keen to palm off onto the Indian community. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not question what the costs would be of development, or whether it is possible to develop the land, whether it is useful or useless. He was led by the nose by those little Solidarity pipsqueaks in that region—and there is no solidarity there in any case—there are no Solidarity members in the Transvaal. I want to give him the assurance that there will not be any in the Transvaal in future.
Order!
Mr Chairman, am I to believe from what the hon member Mr Abram has said …
Is there a question? Please ask. Unlike you I am prepared to answer a question.
Mr Badenhorst said you have been sitting in his office asking for that land for a long, long time.
Shame!
Is that true or not? [Interjections.]
The trouble here is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who always proclaims himself to be a proud South African, does not understand Afrikaans. This is where the difficulty lies. His interpreters who were with him on that day are equally—I do not want to use the word which under normal circumstances I would love to have used—useless because they do not understand Afrikaans either.
When Mr Badenhorst said I had been running to him for this land I immediately stood up and asked him whether it was not true that he had sent members of the Indian community that he knows to ask me whether I would not be interested in looking at land he was proposing to sell for the Indian community. I went to his farm and I got into his motorcar—a silver Toyota Cressida— and he took me around to show me the land he had to offer. I made it very clear to him that the land he was offering was not sufficient for the needs of our community. If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not understand that, I think he should go back to school and learn Afrikaans so that he can at least communicate better.
I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition …
Order!
Mr Chairman, may I be permitted to ask the hon member a very simple question?
Order! Is the hon member prepared to take a question?
Any time, Mr Chairman, unlike hon members on that side of the House.
Will the hon member Mr Abram tell this House whether he had a pecuniary interest in Villa Lisa. [Interjections.]
The hon member for Phoenix is a very upright member and I have a great deal of respect for him. I wish to be placed on record as saying that I am prepared to subject myself to any inquiry or any type of commission. [Interjections.]
If any commission proves that I have a cent’s worth of pecuniary interest in Villa Liza or any other development in that region, I want to give them the assurance that I am prepared to donate whatever I possess to whatever charities that hon member chooses.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? It is a simple one. Will the hon member indicate whether he is prepared to adhere to everything that he has said in this House and that is on record in Hansard?
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Reservoir Hills is supposed to be one of the most intelligent members in this House. After I have spoken, I want to know what more he wants to know from me. I say that if any such independent commission finds that I have had soiled hands, in that I had a pecuniary interest in whatever we have been proposing for the community—let me reiterate this for him, because I know that he is deaf in the one ear and he might not have heard me properly…
Are you denying it?
Order! I should like to remind the hon member Mr Abram that he is not allowed to refer to the disability of any hon member.
Mr Chairman, the hon member is sometimes hard of hearing. I want to reiterate that I am prepared to donate everything I possess to a charity nominated by the hon member for Phoenix if it is found that I have soiled hands. I do not know what more assurance I should give the hon member for Reservoir Hills. [Interjections.] I should love to see whether the hon member for Reservoir Hills would be prepared to subject himself in the same manner as I have done.
Any time!
I want to make it very clear that the whole issue of land acquisition in the Transvaal is not an easy one. Whilst we have had all kinds of allegations being bandied about, I want to make it very clear that traditionally, on the East Rand the Government decided that Indian people were to be settled in the jurisdiction of Benoni, and Coloured people were to be settled in the jurisdiction of Boksburg. Because we in Benoni have no land left, we saw fit to negotiate with the authorities of Boksburg. I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Opposition that we had a great deal of difficulty penetrating the Boksburg council to get them to agree that some land in their area of jurisdiction can be made available to the Indian community. It was not easy going.
After we had done all the dirty work, one had all the Johnny-come-latelies, all the little mushroom committees springing up and trying to jump on the bandwagon, on the hard work put in by us. Nobody gives us credit for the hard work that we have put in. The hon member for Camperdown has already been given the answer as far as commissions of enquiry are concerned. I am not afraid of them because I have nothing to hide. I am absolutely clean and I have nothing to hide.
We welcome that.
Whatever I possess I am prepared to subject to the scrutiny of anyone. I hope that hon member is prepared to subject his pigs on his farm to that scrutiny as well. [Interjections.]
Can the pigs give evidence?
I want to remind the hon Opposition that there was a particular councillor in Boksburg who had originally decided upon a plea that we had made concerning Villa Lisa.
Again, Sir, to some of the people these are only concepts. However, to us who live there and who know the region, there is something tangible in these things.
Our problem on the Reef is that much of the land is subject to various conditions. Mining titles are registered over properties etc etc. Much of the land on which beautiful mealies grow—as Mr Badenhorst said last week—is unfortunately not available for development as townships, because mining rights are registered over this land. We have great difficulties and I have pleaded with everybody against the tendency amongst the authorities to try and placate us by offering us small parcels of land. Hence our problem is resolved for a year or two and then we are back to square one. That is why we suggested that a thousand hectares of land, which is made up of the farms Roodekraal and the ones on which Villa Lisa is supposed to be laid out, would suffice for the reasonable future—not that we are in support of the Group Areas Act. These little patches, namely Apex and others, will fall in automatically because there are no White takers for them. However, if hon members wish to go for little blocks and patches now, I give them the assurance that the White man does not love us enough yet to throw everything open. Therefore, we have difficulty in getting the authorities to accept proposals that are made from time to time. I would like to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition not to be led by those fortune-seekers that are actually rallying behind them in the Benoni area—the failed people. Failed, because it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that those are the very people who have a profit motive. The whole issue of Villa Lisa and Roodekraal has been through various investigations. It has been considered by the Group Areas Board, amongst others. However, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to some documentation in which he purports to portray the message that I myself and my colleague, the hon member for Actonville, are somewhere along the line responsible for the possible removal or uprootment of the people of Palm Ridge. Now, there have been ministerial assurances about permanency of Palm Ridge. I cannot, for the life of me, stop any planning consultant from preparing reports and making recommendations as to how he sees the future. I am not a planner of that magnitude to be in a position to make similar contributions. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is reading from a document prepared by a consultant. Yet what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is not reading to us, is a …
Mr Chairman, what I read from …
Order! Does the hon member have a question?
Mr Chairman, I would like to know from the hon member concerning this document from which I quoted, where Palm Ridge was referred to, if the hon member is not the author thereof?
Of course I am not the author of that document. I am the author of a letter in which we have made it very clear that whilst we agree with the broad principles espoused in that document, namely the report of the town planning consultant, we are not in a position to make any comments on his references to Palm Ridge. That is the prerogative of the people of Palm Ridge. I think that is fair comment and that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will agree with me.
I agree with what you are saying, but I quoted from a letter …
Order! That is not a question.
Is the hon Leader of the Official Opposition prepared to let me have a look at that letter?
Is the hon member prepared to let me have a copy of the letter that he is referring to, the one that he and the hon member for Actonville wrote?
I am quite prepared to let the hon member for Springfield have that copy. It is a very reasonable request. I have nothing to hide.
Now, Mr Chairman, the letter from the Brakpan Town Council which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition refers to is the one I wish to comment on. Here is a letter dated the 14th of November 1985 which I will pass on to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as soon as I have finished quoting from it. Please just let me have it back.
Sir, this local authority owns land.
This local authority owned land in that area and after we had tried to break that local authority down to agree to allow the Indian community some land in that area we tried to tie them down to a figure regarding how much they wanted for their land. We asked them what, in their opinion, the value of their land was. They wrote to us and we submitted this document to the previous Ministry of Housing telling them that this was the land in question and that this was what the local authority was looking for as far as this land was concerned. Unlike the letter which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is supposed to have sent to us and which has not yet reached my desk, I am prepared to send this one to him for his perusal because we have nothing to hide. Could someone just take this to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition?
Could the hon member give me a copy too?
Certainly.
Mr Chairman, I want to make it very clear that what has been happening here is that various people, for a variety of reasons best known to themselves, have been doing all sorts of things in an attempt to deter development in that region. However, who is suffering and paying the price at the end of the day? It is the ordinary man in the street, the ordinary wage-earner, who is living under the most ghastly conditions imaginable.
I now want to turn to Windmill Park. I have here in front of me a document which was submitted by some Indian people to the Boksburg Town Council. I want to know from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—who consorts with those people—whether he agrees with the contents of this document. It has to do with Windmill Park, and this is what they have to say to the Boksburg Town Council:
[Interjections.]
They belong to a luxury party! [Interjections.]
Of course! They state further that they would like the conditions of title of this particular township to be amended so that a minimum figure of R40 000 could be included therein. [Interjections.] Those are the people who have been running around with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition during the past few weeks, and those are the people who told us they would give us such a good thrashing in the Eastern Transvaal that Solidarity would be controlling the Transvaal in the next municipal elections. I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that considering the kind of soldiers he had last week, I feel very sorry for that party. [Interjections.] It has no potential for growth whatsoever.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether I did not hear him say at Windmill Park that if that land were declared Indian, I wanted it to be acquired by the House of Delegates for the provision of housing for working-class people?
Honestly speaking, Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did say that, but the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also said that he could not stand up in Parliament and talk about private enterprise and then not try to implement it elsewhere. Therefore, he is in favour of private enterprise as well.
I now want to come to the sort of private enterprise we are talking about. [Interjections.] I shall tell hon members what this free enterprise entails. This free enterprise works on the following basis. What happens is that a gentleman by the name of …
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware of the fact that the authors of that letter have written to me privately, asking me to deal with certain contractors? Those people are associated with Solidarity. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, I am very much aware of it. [Interjections.] One of the Solidarity party’s top brass in that area, if I may refer to him as such—I wonder whether he will still be a member of their top brass after 2 February—is connected with a construction firm and he is using the plight of the people to further his own commercial interests.
He came to see me privately.
Before I move the amendment, I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition the following. Those people with whom he is associated have engaged the services of an estate agent, and that estate agent has been going around to the owners of property in that region.
He has been getting them to sign documents. I have copies of agreements which they got people to sign. There is a condition contained in the agreement, namely that it is incumbent upon the purchaser to obtain a permit under the Group Areas Act, 1966, as amended, for occupation and ownership of the property within 120 days from date of signature thereto, subject however to the condition that in the event of the property being proclaimed for occupation and ownership by members of the Indian group, this condition will not apply. What happens, however, is that this so-called Rubicon Mining Company buys up the land and homes for x amount and offers it to our people for y amount. In this particular case, serviced stands which were sold to White people at R20 per square meter, have been offered to and bought by our people at R30 per square meter. This is what that side of the House supports. [Interjections.]
The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made great play about some permit issue, but he was a member of a so-called ad hoc committee under the chairmanship of the hon member for Boksburg, Mr Blanché. Again I want to make it quite clear that I accept that perhaps he did not understand what went on, but he attended a meeting with the hon member for Boksburg in Boksburg, and at that meeting he agreed to Villa Lisa being shifted to the long term, in preference to Windmill Park.
No, not at all.
Everything that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said last week at the Group Areas Board hearing is negated by the fact that he agreed, according to the evidence given by a councillor from the Boksburg Town Council, to the fact that the Villa Lisa issue should be left for the long term. The hon member for Boksburg and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition have been calling upon the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning to support the issue of permits for the 203 plots in Windmill Park, which are being sold as a result of this type of blatant exploitation of a community which is land starved and in need. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must not come now with other side-arguments.
Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member Abram whether he has any news that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went to the Deputy Minister in support of the permit application for those exploitations.
Mr Chairman, that is the news we have, namely that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition called on the Deputy Minister to support these permits. [Interjections.] Before my time is up, I would like to move an amendment to the motion.
Mr Chairman, I move:
- (1) the Chairman and all the members of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates work tirelessly to improve the quality of life of the people and that much progress has been made in respect of the provision of services in the various areas under the jurisdiction of the House of Delegates; and
- (2) the image of the House of Delegates has been tremendously enhanced by the performance of the Ministers’ Council, a fact recognized and appreciated also by most of the members of the opposition parties in the House,
and therefore has full confidence in the Chairman and all the members of the Ministers’ Council.”.
Mr Chairman, I still have a few minutes left, and I want to use this time to broach another subject. As I explained earlier, traditionally Boksburg was to have housed the Coloured community and Benoni was to have housed the Indian community. In order to penetrate Boksburg, it was also necessary to seek the co-operation of our Coloured counterparts in that town. When we originally wanted to approach the Boksburg Town Council for its support, we approached our Coloured counterparts as well, and there was a gentleman’s agreement between the hon member for Actonville, the Actonville Management Committee—which, since one of its members has absconded and joined Solidarity, has again changed its mind—and ourselves, with the MP for Reigerpark and the Reigerpark Management Committee, that they would not stand in our way for Villa Lisa and Roodekraal and we would not stand in their way for Windmill Park.
I want to ask whether, where we have the functioning of the Group Areas Act and where there is the possibility that friction can be created because we are negating a gentleman’s agreement, made by leaders on a local level—it is a kind of local option exercise—that side of the House wants to contribute towards creating friction within these two communities or does it want to help towards a harmonious South Africa where we can all live together in peace and harmony? I want to allege that the hon members of the Opposition have lost the will to represent their people. In their entire election campaign in the Eastern Transvaal they were not able to portray the image where they could be seen as an alternative administration.
I attended one of their meetings and the hon member for Stanger told some of my friends that it was wrong of me to come to their meeting which was a public meeting.
I said you are welcome to the meeting. [Interjections.]
I want to have it placed on record that the hon the Leader of the Opposition tried to sell his economic policy etcetera and he did not try to attack on a personal level, but all the hon member for Stanger could do was to talk about certain Bills that had to be referred to the President’s Council. He also told the audience deliberate untruths because when I stood up to question him…
I answered you!
No, he did everything else but answer my question. He skirted around the question.
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member Mr S Abram to allege that the hon member for Stanger told some deliberate untruths?
Mr Chairman, I have not said that the hon member for Stanger spoke an untruth here. I said that the hon member told deliberate untruths at a political party meeting at Kinross, of all places.
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I wish to be advised by you and not by the hon member.
Order! Did the hon member Mr S Abram say that the hon member for Stanger told a lot of untruths at a political meeting?
Mr Chairman, he told deliberate untruths.
Order! I will give a ruling on that at the earliest opportunity.
Mr Chairman, I will abide by your ruling.
I want to remind the Official Opposition that out at Kinross we are very quick to criticise others for so-called “voters fraud”. At Kinross 19 special votes were cast without any identification documents whatsoever. Those persons were all introduced by Solidarity workers. What was the result? The returning officer rejected those 19 votes. I want to ask the Official Opposition that before they point fingers at others, they should examine themselves to see that everything is in order in their own camp. Only then should they point fingers at others.
I want to conclude by repeating an Afrikaans saying: “’n Perd wat trek, kan nie skop nie, en ’n perd wat skop, kan nie trek nie.” This means that the horse that pulls the cart, cannot kick, but the horse that does not pull a cart, kicks. [Interjections.] That is what is happening here. This side of the House has the ultimate political responsibility over this administration and it has to pull the cart. [Interjections.] We now have another pedigreed Arab stallion from the Eastern Transvaal to pull this cart even faster.
Mr Chairman, it is evident beyond any doubt after listening to the last two speakers that no hon member in this House would be left unconvinced that there is every need for a judicial inquiry. I would support the motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council and its chairman for no other reason than the Ministers’ Council and its chairman not supporting the need arising out of absolute wisdom that where there are such contentious matters members should be able to bring documents to this forum and be able to make allegations and counter allegations.
Mr Chairman I would go further. Probably you as Chairman of this House in your wisdom, which God has blessed you with, should also seriously consider writing to the Speaker or to the hon the State President to really institute an commission of inquiry so that there will be peace and sanity in this House.
Mr Chairman, I do not want to go into the rigmarole of citing many individual cases of allegations of corruption, but what I will do for the general good of the House and the ruling party in particular is to make reference to certain broader issues where there are serious flaws and where we find ourselves floundering. Unless it is corrected we will be causing considerable damage to a community which has a history of which this country and other parts of the world can be proud.
In 1984 the hon Mr A Rajbansi who is now Chairman of the Ministers’ Council gave a solemn undertaking to the Indian community that he was going into Parliament to dismantle apartheid. [Interjections.]
In plain terms this implied that he would oppose and fight the NP and its leadership in every possible way and that is our cardinal reason for participating here, is it not? However, what are the facts?
Instead of opposing the NP the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is found to be supporting it and instead of fighting it he is defending it in every possible way. Today there is not a more loyal disciple than the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the commanding guru—the spiritual master—Mr P W Botha.
Why do you not tell them what you tell me in private?
Mr Chairman, there is abundant proof of his support for apartheid elections in a front-page article of the January 1988 issue of Phoenix. This makes hypocrisy of his assurances to the Indian community of coming into Parliament to dismantle apartheid. He is giving all his support to perpetuate apartheid and racial discrimination.
In the same article he claims that the NPP has consistently campaigned for the scrapping of the Group Areas Act. This is not true. I know for a fact that the hon the Chairman told his guru the hon the State President that the Indian community does not want the Group Areas to be scrapped.
Is that a statement of fact?
On whose authority did he do this?
Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?
Mr Chairman, I do not have the time to take a question. [Interjections.] If he sends it to me in writing I will give him a reply.
He went to groups of Indians, Sir, and used the threat that if they wanted the Group Areas Act to be repealed he would tell the hon the State President to do so and that he would repeal the Group Areas Act for the Indian people. Mr Chairman, do you call this leadership? Do we want the Group Areas Act to be repealed only for the Indian community?
You are the super salesman of the Nats.
We want the Group Areas Act to be repealed unconditionally for all people.
That is not what you tell me privately. [Interjections.]
That is why we said especially for the Chairman, because of this kind of… [Interjections.]
For once in your life speak the truth!
The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council finds it convenient to be in the Cabinet when his counterpart in the House of Representatives has vacated his post as a result of this very issue.
What about your Chairman’s swim?
The Ministers’ Council, under the leadership of this hon Chairman, had made a mess of education. This nobody could deny. I am not making any allegations against any individual. I am not making any allegations against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, nor against the hon the Minister, nor against the Director, nor against anybody else. However, there is such strong feeling in the field of education that in order to retrieve the situation and to ensure that education continues in the normal way, there is every need for a judicial commission of inquiry.
Why does the hon the Chairman not really feel concerned about the Indian community and about education in particular, which is such an emotional aspect of the Indian community? Why do they not have the courage or the strength, the wisdom or the foresight, not to allow this? As human beings we might have made some blunders, as might the ruling party, the Official Opposition, and some officials, but let us clear this up. We have read of a case in which an inspector helped a pupil to get top marks. I am sorry to mention that this is a typical case. But these are cases that really should be talked about so that the education body will be able to allay some anxiety and pupils would know where they stood.
Previously promotions, transfers and appointments were made on a democratic basis following a democratic system where the whole inspectorate had a say. What is the position today? It has become exactly the opposite. It has become absolutely autocratic, where one person makes unilateral decisions on the direct instruction of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.
I would like this to be proved and this can be done only if there is a judicial commission of inquiry. Hon members on the other side of the House are not blessed with wisdom. There is a spark of divinity in every one of them. We have our weaknesses but we have the gift of God within every one of us. Let us manifest that to some extent and say let us go ahead.
You are a bitter man because you are not sitting here.
I am not bitter. [Interjections.] This shows how far the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will go to defend his particular interest. Not the community’s interest, but his own. You will not have a commission of inquiry yet you can accept this system in which a single man manipulates the educational system of promotion, transfers and appointments. He is directed to manipulate for party-political gain, not for educational improvement.
The reason for the clash between the Executive Director and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is too obvious. [Interjections.] Noone can deny this. Besides, our department makes external appointments. There is no need for this undue delay in the appointment of the Chief Executive. It is not in the interest of the Indian community nor in the interest of Indian education. Promotions, transfers and even appointments of teachers are not done on merit. I need only ask for evidence as to who those people are that have been advanced to positions of acting principalship this year. It will be a revelation. The teachers’ morale is at an all-time low. Why? Teachers are used as pawns in a game during elections. The conscientious teachers are feeling terribly embarrassed. Those teachers are also supporting the ruling party for petty gains. There are no two ways about it. After all, they are human beings. Promises are given such as: “Give me 15 or 50 votes and I will give you this position.” They are seen visiting schools in advance.
Name the person.
There are many people. The hon member for Isipingo. Is the hon member happy now? If you appoint a judicial commission of inquiry I already have two names. [Interjections.]
Who is the gentleman? Would you welcome the judicial commission of inquiry as my hon colleague did?
Given us the names and we shall support you. [Interjections.]
What do you mean, “cover up”? I am not like you, I do not cover up. Several teachers, for instance, are taking full-time leave. Do you want me to force these people to come here and make allegations? I think a stop must be put to these things.
The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should not consider his personal security in this regard or his party interests.
Can you look me in the eye when you talk to me privately?
He should rather consider the common good. There is blunder upon blunder, and here I refer to 1986 and 1987. I refer to the placing of professional teachers in temporary posts. There were 1000 such cases last year. These teachers have been occupying substantive posts; they should be put on permanent staff after a probationary period. Why this indictment of the Indian Education Department?
Blame the Chairman.
The Chairman is not responsible.
The overall effect of all this is that there is a decline in the standard of education. I am going to explode the myth put about by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in even approaching business firms to advertise the success of this House of Delegates in education. I say that if the members of the House of Delegates are doing their job and we have attained a certain level of, shall we say, achievement, then what need is there to go to X, Y and Z and tell them or pay them to advertise?
Are you getting jealous? [Interjections.]
Are we not going to ridiculous lengths? We are going to shameful lengths, if I may say so. There are also other departments that now do this.
Your speech has now gone to that level.
There is serious indiscipline in schools today. Nobody can deny that. Take random schools in Phoenix. In an article in yesterday’s newspaper a principal says he does not want his name to be mentioned but that there are terrible things happening. There are conflicts and there is violence on an unprecedented scale. This is being compounded by provocation and a decline in morale. Despite this the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council sits here and makes remarks without taking serious note of this crucial situation that has now arisen. The Opposition has been generous enough to bring this to their attention. [Interjections.]
I hope he has appointed somebody to take real note of these things. Then he can have a study group meeting tomorrow, shift the responsibility and blame this on the community.
However they are not interested in the community. They are satisfied where they are. There is massive unemployment …
Will the hon member take a question?
Mr Chairman, my time is running out. I have made it very clear, the hon member may send his question to me in writing.
The Chairman of the Ministers’ Council year after year has boasted about the standard of matric results. The foundations therefore were laid in the lower standards—he must know common psychology. Anybody with some educational background is aware of this fact.
Mr Chairman, will the hon member be prepared to take my advice …
Order! There is no such thing as taking advice. Will the hon member please resume his seat. The hon member for Cavendish may continue and will the hon members please remember that he is not prepared to take any questions at this stage.
Thank, you, Sir. I made reference to newspaper adverts where glowing accounts of these results were given. There is no need for that. We would like these results to be authenticated by an inquiry in that very department. I can tell hon members from my contact with personnel members in that department that there is widespread dissatisfaction about the adjustment of these marks. In 1987, more than in any other year, promotions have been approved of on the lower level, with the result that the percentage pass mark has been boosted. More than that, the percentage by which these marks have been adjusted, is unrealistic. I have that figure right here, but I do not wish to mention it. I am sure the executive director and his department would like to carry out an investigation on an issue as sensitive as this one. I think it was in an article in yesterday’s Herald where a gentleman makes a very sensible observation: ‘It is very unrealistic to have so many A’s in English, when Sastri College, a prestige institution with all the best students in the country—and a small number at that—has so few A’s. ’ In the light of all this information we appear to be changing to the extent that we are descending …
We are progressing. [Interjections.]
Let us review the results of the last ten years, since Indian Education has become a department in its own right. If one considers the statistics and especially compares the 1987 results with those of the previous years, one will see that there is no correlation or consistency. This also reveals how unrealistic the hon members are. At least the hon the Minister of Education behaved in a very dignified way. I did not see him crowing: ‘Look at our results!’ Nor did I ever see the Executive Director of Education doing this. What kind of defence do we want?
I do not think that you read the newspapers properly.
In fact, throughout the White regime they were never satisfied with the results. They said that these could improve. Let us be frank about it—how do our results compare with those of the Whites in regard to quality? Why does the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council not make this demand for a unitary system of education and examinations?
Hear, hear!
If there is no unitary system, do you know who you blame?
Quite often he even boasts that we can give service. Whose grandfather’s money are we using to give service to the community? [Interjections.] They can go to the poor people. I tell you what, if I were to become chairman of the Ministers’ Council I would not don a garland. [Interjections.] I would not put on a garland and make a puppet of myself. He wants to put on a garland and pose for the TV, and it is shameful to see. [Interjections.] Over the past three months this question of housing has come up umpteen times but I ask you: What have we achieved?
We will show you! We will show you in two months’ time. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, I could cite numerous cases. I want to say something else. I have a great deal of respect for the other Ministers, irrespective of their inadequacies. We do not expect every one of them to be a super person. What I would like them to do, is to assert themselves as men.
[Inaudible.]
I respect the divinity in you. Many of your Ministers have said that you do not allow a single person … [Interjections.]
Order!
Mr Chairman, this afternoon we have heard the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition speak on a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council and especially in its Chairman. We have also listened to his counterpart, who said the very same thing. It rather surprised me. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council works 24 hours a day.
Twenty-six hours a day! [Interjections.]
He works 24 hours a day without sleeping because he has the community at heart. What do we get from the Official Opposition, however? Discredit. Why? If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council were tomorrow to become leader of the Official Opposition, he should do the same thing as well. He should discredit the majority party. That is his privilege, but what sort of privilege are they using here? The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the Ministers’ Council itself are doing a wonderful job.
Hear, hear!
What has happened in our community between 1984 and 1987? Look back at the Inanda riots. Look back at what happened there. Where was our opposition then? [Interjections.] Where was our opposition? [Interjections.] Who was there? Who was calling us privately and saying: “Call the Defence Force into the area”? It was not the members of our party, Mr Chairman, but the members of the Opposition.
Where were you?
That is a good question to ask. You go and ask the people of Isipingo where I was. We on this side of the House sacrificed our time while the intellectuals sat in their offices. We do the work. Give us some credit. I am asking for a little credit. Why discredit us? [Interjections.]
There are faults in any human being. We have made a few mistakes and we want to put those mistakes right. [Interjections.] I personally agree that there should be a commission of inquiry.
Hear, hear!
As the hon member Mr Abram-Mayet has said, our hands are clean on this side. They are definitely clean. [Interjections.] When it comes to bribery and corruption, I can stand behind the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. There might be some maladministration. Some favouritism may take place. [Interjections.] We are only a political party and one or two individuals may well be promoted. We are only human beings.
Favouritism does take place.
It does. Look at Mr P W Botha, the Leader of the National Party. Look at that component. Some of those unfortunate people who were promoted do not know anything about politics. Some are in the field. It is a political party running the country, not a private business.
The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a tireless worker.
Hear, hear!
He works. To come back to the Inanda riots, he made sacrifices there. The Ministers’ Council went out of its way to see to it that homeless people were given a home. They went to the camps. We were at the camps. I was in the camp.
Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?
No, Mr Chairman.
When the Natal flood disaster took place, I think I was the last man to leave Durban that night. I left Louis Botha Airport at five o’clock that night and I arrived in Cape Town at two o’clock in the morning. When we received news of the disaster, the hon the Minister of the Budget was the first man out in Natal. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and most of the members of our party were there immediately. I and my counterpart in Solidarity stayed in Cape Town. It was no fault of ours. There were no bookings for us and the airport was closed. It was therefore no fault of ours.
Mr Chairman, I think it is definitely wrong of the Opposition to accuse us. Let us come to our senses. Our people need development, but even before development, they need good leadership, as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says. I agree with him. All these allegations should be completely removed from this Chamber. The only way we can get it out of this Chamber is to call for a commission of inquiry.
Will you support it?
Yes, I will support it. I will support it in my caucus; I will support it outside; I will support it everywhere. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, if hon members know of any man that has stolen anything, they have police stations in their areas. They should go to the police station and open a charge of fraud, theft or whatever and let it be investigated. Such allegations are found in any part of the world. If there is an opposition party in Parliament, such allegations will be made.
Whose ideas are those? They are not yours. Who put them into your head? Tell us. [Interjections.]
With all respect to the hon member for Reservoir Hills, I speak here with sincerity. I do not play with words. I have no time to play with words. If the hon member for Reservoir Hills brings forward enough evidence against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, I will stand by him and support it, whether outside this House or inside. That commission of inquiry must take place in order to clear our name. However, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should be given some credit. Look at the development that is taking place. Look at our housing development. Look at our education development. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a simple question?
Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to take any questions. If the hon member writes to me, I will reply.
I want to plead with the opposition parties to give this side of the House some credit. We are simple, hard-working people. We love our community, and when I say community, I do not mean only the Indian community. We love the various communities in this country. We want to upgrade every community and see them live in peace.
What about Prospecton?
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Stanger speaks of Prospecton. I blame the House of Delegates for that. I want to be quite candid about it: I blame the House of Delegates. It was my party that was represented at the Demarcation Board; it was not Solidarity or the PRP. I want to be sincere. It was my own party’s members that let us down in Prospecton. I am not going to go back on that.
Mr Chairman, looking at problems, I want this House to have full confidence in the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.
Are you appealing?
Yes, I am appealing for that, because I know, and hon members know in their hearts, what calibre man he is. He works hard for the community. During the last five years the poor hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council never left this country. He loves his community and he stayed here. [Interjections.] This side of the House consists of worthy responsible people and I support the amendment of the hon member Mr Abram.
Order! Before the hon member for Camperdown proceeds, I want to refer to the point of order raised by the hon member for Reservoir Hills concerning the statement made by the hon member Mr S Abram. Expressions are only unparliamentary when applied to an hon member or a speech by the hon member in the House and not when applied to policies and speeches made outside the House.
Mr Chairman, I stand up with a heavy heart this afternoon. I am perplexed by the attitude of some hon members in this House. One ought to be reminded that hon members of Parliament are very high office bearers in this country and it is needless to mention that hon members should conduct themselves with some dignity and decorum, rather than behave as though they are sitting in a bar, having a few beers all night long.
That being so, I stand up this afternoon to support the motion moved by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. It is not so much that he has been able to convince me, but the hon member Mr S Abram on 21 May 1987 convinced me beyond any shadow of doubt that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a very nasty man. He has convinced me—it is on record here—together with a senior hon member of the other side who is absent today, namely the hon member for Natal Midlands. Between the two of them, they put up an unassailable case against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Nothing can erase it as it is recorded in Hansard: Delegates, vol 1, 18-22 May 1987. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member for Camperdown? I would like to put it to him that when the defectors from the NPP went to Solidarity they did not like the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. In order to get the approval of Villa Liza, they wanted a Ministers’ Council under the chairmanship of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] My question is that under the leadership of the Opposition they would have approved… [Interjections.]
Order! Will the hon member Mr Thaver please resume his seat?
I would like to quote from Hansard: Delegates, 20 May 1987, col 78. I quote as follows:
The hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture made this statement which must not be disputed.
I have had no personal dealings with the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I have not gone to his office to chat with him and I have had no tea and coffee with him but more than anything else I go by what is debated in this House. I place great value on members’ contributions in this House and members must bear it in mind that when they make statements they make them for the benefit of the public, not for the gallery.
They make them because of the circumstances at the time.
I quote again from Hansard, col 81. [Interjections.]
Order!
Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?
No, Sir, I have a very short time available to me and I want to make my contribution by dealing with the matters I have here. I am not fabricating facts here, I am quoting from the official record of the South African Parliament. If hon members want to dispute me they must dispute the records of Hansard. Do not dispute with me please. If you have to sit with grasshoppers and tortoises. Then do so by all means. I quote from col 81:
I am referring to the Chairman of the Minister’s Council that he is unreliable, not trustworthy and irresponsible. [Interjections.] May I continue Sir?
Order! I think the interjections are getting a little out of hand. May I ask hon members to give members an opportunity to continue their speeches. When hon members reply they will have the opportunity to make the necessary replies.
I want to continue quoting from col 81:
On that statement alone I fully support the motion of no-confidence in the participation of the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council. This is an indictment by his own members, it is not my statement. [Interjections.]
Are you prepared to walk out?
Walk out! All walk out and I shall follow!
Are you prepared to follow him now?
I am not following just anybody. This is on record; it is indisputably there. No member who has spoken has disputed or refuted those allegations. They therefore stand as the truth. [Interjections.] That member is an honourable person. I firmly believe that he spoke the truth in his speech. He poured his heart out. I can accept that. I am of the opinion that in the interests of the whole of South Africa the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should step down. It has been proved by his own party members that he is not a worthy person for that post.
Can you tell them what you told them three weeks ago?
I go to col 83 where Mr S Pachai says:
These are not my allegations. Sir I am sorry to have to state this publicly but they are not my allegations. It is my belief that the hon member for Natal Midlands spoke the truth, otherwise he would not have been elevated to the post of Deputy Minister. I cannot see the reason why when a person makes such statements he is promoted. After he made those allegations, to a Deputy Minister! There must therefore be some truth in the statement. He has been promoted out of fear of further exposure. That is the logical conclusion at which any sane person will arrive. Why is a person who has made such damaging statements in Parliament and in public, which have been placed on record for all time, subsequently promoted? To keep his mouth shut he was given a carrot to chew.
In an anonymous pamphlet in Tongaat the same sentence was used.
If you want to become a Deputy Minister, come to this side!
I would like to go further and address the hon member Mr Abram. In col 156 of Hansard 21 May 1987 he expressed great respect for the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. I too have great respect for him. He is a capable, sincere and dedicated person. I agree fully with what the hon member Mr S Abram said. He said:
However, he immediately goes on to say:
This substantiates the hon the Deputy Minister’s statement that there is interference in the field of education.
Do you know the meaning of the word proxy?
All Ministers are proxies of the hon the State President. [Interjections.]
I advise certain hon members on that side of the House that they have ample time to look at their copies of Hansard. If they do not have copies, I shall lend them mine. They can go through their Hansards and reply in due course. [Interjections.]
Call this recording a lie! Call the recording incorrect and then you are man enough!
Did we come here for reading or a lesson?
This is not a lesson. I am stating my belief and my support for the most important motion before this House. I have reason to support this and I am proving it. I am not afraid to do so.
In col 159 the hon member Mr S Abram said the following:
This motion before the House today is one of no confidence. We hear this from a senior member of the ruling party. We have to believe this because the person in these pages is the Chairman of Committees.
I highly value that statement. The hon member Mr Abram says (Hansard: Delegates, 21 May 1987, col 180):
On the other hand, if that is not the truth I think the hon Mr Abram should not retain his chairmanship of committees. If it was an untruth, if it was a lie, why is that hon member …
Freedom of speech. [Interjections.]
Because of the truth. [Interjections.] They feared further accusations concerning those problems. That information could have repercussions that would affect the entire tricameral Parliament. This reflects on the general Cabinet.
Why do you not comment on what the hon member Mr Abram said today?
It is a pity he ran away. I gave him fair warning that I was going to tackle him, but he left us.
Introduce some new dimensions to the debate.
I am coming to that. If the hon member Mr Thaver will keep quiet I shall come to it. [Interjections.] He interferes, and as soon as there is a problem, he burns his fingers.
Come to this side, and we will give you a Deputy Ministership.
I want to disclose to this House that I have been consulting with a colleague of mine for the past few days. Yesterday in the early hours of the morning, at about six o’clock, a high-ranking public servant telephoned that number. When I answered the telephone it was a certain very high-ranking public servant based in Durban who said that he wanted to speak to Mr So-and-So. I said that that gentleman was in the bathroom. To that he replied that he could speak to me as well. These are the words he used:
That is hearsay evidence, man.
Hearsay evidence recorded in Hansard?
That is hearsay!
Hearsay, and recorded in Hansard? That was reported on the front page of the Sunday Tribune yesterday. The report indicates a high-ranking officer who is alleged to have induced people to act incorrectly. This short article in yesterday’s newspaper fully implicates a high-ranking official in the Department of Education. I have to believe the hon member Mr S Abram-Mayet. That being the question, I was surprised at his attitude today. I think he has gone wrong somewhere, or else he himself is out of touch in the conclusions he draws.
Do you believe sensational items in the newspapers?
Either that hon member stands by what he has sworn to, or else he goes to jail for perjury. That is cut and dried.
Somebody is going to go to jail for perjury.
Introduce a new dimension into the debate. [Interjections.]
I am coming to that. In column 162 the hon member Mr S Abram says the following:
Therefore, these are the words that entice me to support the motion before the House. Having heard the arguments produced by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, coupled with this proof from Hansard, I have no choice.
If you believe in them so much, are you prepared to follow them now? They were brain washed in that room.
The hon Mr Abram said (Hansard: Delegates, 21 May 1987, col 162):
May I quote what the hon member said just a little further on? He said: After what has been happening and the misgivings expressed by many hon members, how they can, with a clear conscience, remain over there.
Mr Chairman, I would like to question the hon Mr Abram about this today. On the 21 May 1987 he begged, pleaded and beseeched the members of the ruling party—after building a very strong case—to cross over. The hon Mr Abram continued on that same page saying that what they are doing by remaining there is politically propping up an individual whose actions show very clearly that his own welfare comes first and not that of the community that he purports to serve. [Interjections.]
Why did you leave Solidarity, yet now you are supporting them?
Mr Chairman, please may I have some injury time here? The hon member Mr Thaver really wants me to react to his purile interjections. They bear no reference to anything! His interjections do not concern any evidence that I have given here, Sir.
It is hurting you.
It is not hurting me, but hon members are wasting my time. [Interjections ] Today I would like to question the hon Mr Abram’s defence of the Ministers’ Council— especially since about a year ago he came here with a very strong indictment against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and against the Ministers’ Council as such. That was a very strong indictment which I just quoted. How can he get up there and say these things today?
He is an honourable man!
It is a dishonourable deed, done by an honourable man.
He is Brutus. Et tu?
I question his sincerity, his loyalty …
Why are you standing upon crutches against me? Please stand on your own two feet.
Mr Chairman, an hon member of the Opposition in an interjection has just referred to an hon member from this side as brutus. This, I submit, is unparliamentary.
Order! Will the hon member please inform me as to exactly who said so?
It was the hon member for Phoenix, Mr Chairman.
Order! Did the hon member for Phoenix make that interjection referring to the hon member as “Brutus”?
Mr Chairman, I said: “Et tu, Brute?”. [Interjections.]
Order! Does the hon member admit that he referred to an hon member?
I admit having said so, Mr Chairman.
Order! Will the hon member withdraw it.
I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]
And apologise!
Order! I must tell the hon member Mr Thaver that the Chair will decide whether or not hon members should apologise.
I want to apologise to you, Sir, but…
Order! Will the hon member resume his seat, please.
Mr Chairman, I was on the point of emphasizing the hon member Mr Abram’s defence of the Ministers’ Council, which was rather shallow and hollow. It had no substance. [Interjections.] He had no reason to attack any individual members on this side of the House.
Furthermore, he did not respond to the motion. He did not address the motion before the House but launched a personal attack. It was a case of the kettle calling the pot black.
Do not use him as a crutch!
I am not using him as a crutch.
Come forward with your own arguments. I will face you.
But those are my arguments. I never run away. I quote further from Hansard as follows:
I do not know what that is, Sir.
Tell us something new, man!
It is not new? [Interjections.] This is something new. This goes to prove …
That sentiment is outdated.
I am coming to something. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must be reasonable. The hon member Mr Abram went on to say:
I do not know where his loyalty lies today— whether he is sincere when he talks about his interest in the welfare of the South African population. Last year he asked for the removal of the Ministers’ Council and today he defends the Ministers’ Council. I suppose that little dance was performed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council something like this: “Villa Lisa!, Villa Lisa!, Villa Lisa!, Villa Lisa!”. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council performed very well there on that day. He rhymed his words, and his tone was very good. [Interjections.] The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said:
Mr Chairman, the hon member says that that is recorded in column 226. Could he show us where the dance is recorded? [Interjections.]
Unfortunately, the dance is missing and so I filled it in for you, Sir. [Interjections.] I learned something new that day. [Interjections.] I am indebted to him for that. I learned something new on 22 May 1987. I quote again from Hansard (Delegates, 22 May 1987, col 226):
That was the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s reply to the hon member Mr Abram. I quote further:
[Interjections.] He goes on to say:
The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council himself—I want to use a word here, but it is unparliamentary, so I will use it in my own thoughts—is submitted to this pressure. Because I could not solve the jigsaw puzzle, I was surprised why, after making such strong statements, the hon member Mr Abram defended the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and in fact launched a wild attack on the Official Opposition, its leader and all its members. He even made a statement to the effect that Solidarity will stop existing in the Transvaal and will never exist there again.
Going back to the reply of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council concerning the naming of persons who were going to go before the commission, I am led to believe that … [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, one could write a thesis on no-confidence motions in this House from its very inception in 1985. When we came here, during the first session in 1985, even before an hon Minister could find his office, there was a no-confidence motion. In 1986 there was a calm …
It is parliamentary convention, you know.
We understand conventions, but I am talking about circumstances.
In 1986 there was a calm, because the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was sitting in the Ministers’ Council. In 1987 we also witnessed a vicious motion against the Ministers’ Council. Coming to 1988, we find the no-confidence motion is now compounded, adding the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and it even goes further. One begins to wonder. Naturally we are approaching the tail end of the five-year session. I am beginning to wonder what motion will be submitted in 1989. Perhaps it will be a motion to say that we have tried and tried, we have come to the end of the road, we might as well submit a motion of no confidence in our own party.
Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question?
Oh yes, the hon member is a good friend of mine.
Mr Chairman, I would like the hon the Minister to tell this House whether it is not parliamentary convention that the opposition parties are afforded an opportunity, immediately after Parliament opens, to assess the shortcomings of the functioning of the ruling party during the previous year, by way of a motion of no confidence. [Interjections.] Secondly, is this motion moved only in this House, or in all three Houses of Parliament?
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Camperdown has answered his own question. He made some utterances here this afternoon with regard to the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, Mr Salem Abram-Mayet, as well as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. We had witnessed, as a result of human nature—no one will deny that—the attitude of the White regime in South Africa and its rigidity towards apartheid and discrimination. However, what happened when they decided to move towards reform? Notwithstanding the utterances of both these colleagues of mine, there has been a change of heart with the passage of time. [Interjections.]
Whatever it was, every day is a new day. Every individual has the right to decide for himself what is good and where he can best serve his community. This House has to understand that we have 45 hon members here representing 800 000 people outside, irrespective of their attitude towards the House of Delegates and whether they subscribe to it or not. Our utterances, behaviour, approach and our debates in this House will have an effect in one way or another on the well-being of these people as a whole.
A detrimental effect!
Whether it is a detrimental effect or not depends on the attitude of individuals and their values in society.
We have no hidden agendas in our whole exercise.
What are you trying to say?
The hon member for Springfield asks me what point I am trying to make. He has to follow up the motion that was put before this House.
Keeping in mind the comments made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as well as the comment of the hon the Chairman of the House about his deep concern with regard to the dignity and decorum in this House, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition could not have said anything more appropriate than that we should for once and for all lay the prevailing attitude to rest. [Interjections.] These issues must be buried for once and for all as it does not auger well for the dignity and the image of the Indian community.
The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council announced on 29 January 1988 that he will request the hon the State President to appoint a judicial committee of inquiry, once the hon member for Reservoir Hills repeats the 1985 allegation … [Interjections.]
I also want to mention another statement made here this afternoon by the hon member Mr S Abram. Can a person be more brave than he was in stating here before hon members in this House that, should there be any reflection on him with regard to his transaction, he would be prepared to surrender whatever he has in life?
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?
No, Mr Chairman.
The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about teachers’ rights and their leave to participate. We should be sensitive in handling this matter and we should give the teaching fraternity the respectability that they deserve. Theirs is a noble profession, and it is not the right of anyone in authority to deprive them of their political rights. Does their belonging to the teaching fraternity necessarily mean that they are not supposed to participate in party politics? No teacher would leave his or her classroom to partake in party political activities without prior consent.
It is unfortunate that the national chairman of the Solidarity Party should say that Solidarity pledges to fire teachers who were promoted for political reasons. I quote:
This appeared in the Sunday Times Extra of 31 January 1988. I ask this with all humility and with all due respect. I mentioned earlier that the teaching profession is a noble one. We are dependent on the teaching fraternity to mold future generations of any nation. However, for the head of a political party to make a statement of this nature is most unbecoming and it is unforgivable. On the other hand, the Teachers’ Association of South Africa—and I want to quote from the Post of November 1987—state:
President of the Teachers’ Association of South Africa, Pat Samuels, said several teachers had complained but they could not act until they had received affidavits.
He confirms that teachers were participating in both political parties, not necessarily only one.
So much for the participation of teachers. As far as the Tongaat by-election is concerned, it has brought about great knowledge within our community. One of the things that appeared in the manifesto of the Solidarity Party was the Greyland fiasco. I would like to know what the Greyland fiasco is all about.
When we reduce anything to a manifesto and state that it is the Greyland fiasco, what does one expect a simple man to understand by that when he is dependent on one as the representative who has to find a solution to the problem? On the one hand you have a housing crisis in a region. The White authority naturally will plan housing within an Indian area on whatever land is available. That is what they will do. On the other hand, they plan to build houses within an agricultural area. We were not responsible for that.
We were in fact taken into Tongaat by our late hon member. We were not the architects of Greylands, but when there was a reaction and when there was such a political rumpus in the community with regard to Greylands we naturally had to take action—and the necessary action—on the basis that we cannot allow the Indian agricultural community to lose any further land. Therefore I, being responsible for agriculture, in communication with the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates said that that land of Greylands is not negotiable. It was not our intention to take the decision which we had taken as far as Greylands is concerned during the election period. [Interjections.]
Because of the vacuum that was being created in that region and because of the concern of those 31 farmers in that area this Ministers’ Council went out of their way to find a solution and in so doing solved the problem leaving the land that belonged to the 31 farmers intact. The problems are created as a result of the circumstances, the shortage of homes for the Indian community.
What does a White authority do? A White authority will not go beyond the parameters of an Indian area to find land. This decision we have taken to see to it that Greylands remains in tact. I therefore cannot understand the reference to the Greylands fiasco which appeared in the manifesto.
Another thing which is very sad—and I want to say this very sincerely—is that here was a news flash in the Tongaat by-election. He wants Tamil, Telegu and Moslem voters to vote for the majority party. [Interjections.]
I want people to search their consciences when this information is distributed in public. [Interjections.] The news flash from Tongaat blatantly brings about language differences that we fight every day in this country. If we have utterances …
Who printed that?
Ask yourselves who printed it. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister a question.
Order! Is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question?
[Inaudible.]
Order! The hon the Minister is not prepared to take a question.
I want to tell the hon member for Stanger that because of the fact that there had been a news flash related to the elections, it was their responsibility …
I dissociated myself from that! [Interjections.]
The hon member for Camperdown also made some statements here with regard the indictment against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Here again no one is guilty unless he is found guilty. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has made his stand very, very clear.
The post box has vanished now.
There has been open-heartedness here and the voluntary calling for certain commissions of inquiry. It is therefore our responsibility, taking into account the needs of the people in this country, to continue the work. This Ministers’ Council works literally seven days a week, doing their utmost in one of the most difficult periods of transition in South Africa. [Interjections.]
When it came to the flood issue the hon member for Isipingo made a strong point. He spoke from the heart here. People should also assess what role they played during the flood disaster in Natal. When the floods struck Natal, they did not take into account party politics, colour or creed; it had a devastating effect on the whole of Natal.
Should we be mixing party politics in an issue like that? [Interjections.]
I want to remind the hon member for Reservoir Hills that disaster does not choose colour, caste or creed.
So should the flood have taken sides?
It is therefore imperative that every person …
… should do his duty.
… should do his utmost. [Interjections.] It is all very well for hon members to make statements here, but they should also get out into the field and feel the heat of the sun. They should go and see for themselves the devastating effects of the floods. [Interjections.] There has been condemnation and a motion of total no-confidence in the Ministers’ Council.
However, those people who require service, who look forward to leadership from every angle to provide their requirements, acknowledge with appreciation and thanks what has been done. We understand that there is recognition in some quarters for the strides that have been made in many facets of life within the Indian community. In Daily News of November 30 1987 they again acknowledge in a message from Tongaat that what is undeniably apparent from the outcome of the Tongaat Parliamentary by-election is that many more people cast their vote than in any other previous election.
Equally apparent, however, is that the voters prefer not to be seen doing it. The extraordinarily high number of special votes—4840—seems to indicate that most people did not want to go to the polling booth in person. The best explanation for this rather unusual feature is that it was caused by the fierce boycott campaign that was waged.
The NPP fought a hard and tough campaign in a sometimes rather unpleasant election battle, and is pleased with the result despite calumniation and opposition from all sides. The fact remains that the NPP candidate, Mr A Hurbans, who lost with 272 votes in August 1984, this time polled 3533 votes, and the percentage poll moved up from 10% to 38,6%. This is a significant increase. It amounts to a snub to the boycott and points clearly to a willingness to participate in the tricameral system.
The Daily News cordially acknowledges, not the person or the names, but the work and the goods that have been delivered. No one can stand up, however much that they want to find fault and say that there has been no work, that the community at large is dissatisfied. Therefore, even insofar as the Opposition is concerned, it is imperative for them to understand the needs of the people. I have always said that our approach to matters must be dependent on the circumstances. Therefore our brand of politics and our approach should percolate right down to the masses, to the poorer section of the population.
That would be absolutely dangerous.
This is what we should be doing.
That is absolutely dangerous if that is your level of politics.
The Leader of the Official Opposition says that that is dangerous. What I am merely trying to point out is that whilst you are looking at ideals and new directions, let us give importance to those people who have been stagnating for 128 years. That is equally important.
However, we cannot afford the luxury of politicising, be it conventional or otherwise. At the end of the day this has a detrimental effect on the people whom we serve in this country. With this I want to say that we are quite satisfied with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is a Trojan at work, who literally works around the clock, who makes every effort possible. He is a human being. Give him the cooperation he needs.
Are you following his example?
Notwithstanding all the utterances, all that is reduced to newspapers and the media. Let there be cooperation and let us look ahead and support the amendment to the motion submitted by my colleague the hon Mr Abram.
Mr Chairman …
Our junior member.
I would rather answer that first, Mr Chairman. I have heard these snide remarks about being a junior member, being a baby, being a kid. I think I must make it very clear that dynamite comes in small packages. [Interjections.]
I will not comment on that now, Mr Chairman, but a little later. I have no Hansard in front of me from which I can quote, because I am disappointed. I would have expected a fiery Motion of No Confidence from the Opposition. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, God gave man two ears and one mouth, so that he can hear twice as much as he can speak. I would like certain hon members to pay attention to that fact.
I go along with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition when he speaks of negative publicity in the news media. He also mentioned certain things which are recorded in Hansard. Being a member of the ruling party of this House—that is the NPP in case there is any doubt in anybody’s mind—if I am not mistaken Hansard also recorded the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as stating last year that his party would boycott Parliament this year. We are waiting. This is February. Furthermore, I have noticed in the Press certain sensational headlines about the so-called swim by the National Chairman of Solidarity. That swim also swam away. [Interjections.] The National Peoples Party does not believe in sensational headlines. It is consistent in its thinking in approaching its local, provincial and national goals. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, one notes that this is the first major speech being made by the hon member and I think it is traditional for other members to pay attention. [Interjections.]
Order! The hon member may continue.
Mr Chairman, it would appear as if the Opposition has based its arguments on appeasement combined with an obsession to gain control of the administration of the House of Delegates. This is the impression I get.
That is your impression.
That is the correct impression. When officials of a political party cannot correctly fill in a prescribed nomination form, much is left to be desired. [Interjections.]
They talk lies!
I am of the opinion …
Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has just used the words: “They talk lies”.
The officials of the party—the Transvaal officials—they spoke lies. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, I am of the opinion that the Transvaal Secretary of Solidarity has intentionally misled the public and the Nomination Court by incorrectly filling in section B4 of the prescribed Nomination Form in terms of Act 42 of 1979, an Act …
Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member why he is talking about someone who is not present. Would he be prepared to repeat this outside so that this man can deal with it adequately? Please repeat those names that you are using here under the privilege of Parliament outside.
Mr Chairman, I did not call anyone names. I merely stated, that the forms were incorrectly filled in.
Lots of people make mistakes.
One cannot make a mistake like that.
In terms of Act 42 of 1979 and the amended Electoral Act, Act 45 of 1984, that particular section ought to have been filled in by a sitting member of Parliament. [Interjections.]
How can you pass judgment when the magistrate was there? [Interjections.]
The magistrate was acting merely as a presiding officer. He was designated by the Department of Home Affairs to act as such. [Interjections.] Why we did not go to court is another matter. We took senior counsel’s opinion, but the NPP decided to demonstrate a measure of dignity and to contest that election by the ballot-box.
This is the dignity! We have contested that election via the ballot box and we have proved that we have the support and confidence of the electorate in the Eastern Transvaal. [Interjections.]
The hon member for Camperdown referred to the appointment of the hon the Deputy Minister, but no one has referred to the appointment of a member of the Official Opposition as an MEC in the Transvaal, something which was done purely on merit. [Interjections.] That was done purely on merit. However, nobody commends the Ministers’ Council. Whether the Official Opposition likes it or not every hon Minister seated on the Ministers’ Council is as much our Minister as theirs. [Interjections.] They are their Ministers as well.
That is why we have a say.
You have a say if you use the proper channels. [Interjections.]
The National Peoples Party does not waffle and does not backtrack. We believe we must be consistent in our thinking.
That is exactly what we are asking you for!
I agree with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that we must not have adverse publicity which gives this House a negative attitude.
But who deliberately flogs that horse?
We could talk about this until the cows come home. However, I shall limit myself to the time I have allocated to me and debate this particular aspect. I was rather disturbed at people quoting extensively from Hansard. I can appreciate that the results of the Eastern Transvaal by-election may be a bitter pill for Solidarity to swallow. [Interjections.]
The hon member Mr Akoob did very well. All his family is there.
You helped him privately.
Yes, I helped him. What does that have to do with you? [Interjections.]
I also want to take a look at the track record of the NPP. We must give credit where it is due. Let us look at the housing sphere. We have made great strides in housing during the past year.
Grave strides!
I said great strides. [Interjections.] We have made great strides in education despite the cries that there are crises in education.
Agriculture is another area we could look at.
Under this Minister, we have produced.
We have produced! [Interjections.] We have made great strides in respect of health and welfare and pension services. All these serve as proof of the NPP’s solid track record. [Interjections.] Surely some credit must be given for the positive initiatives that have been taken by the NPP.
A colleague of mine mentioned earlier that we are human, and we are. I want to endorse that. We are only human, and we do err. I want to mention that both my primary school and high school teachers are seated in the opposition party and I have great respect for those gentlemen.
What you are saying must be the truth, because they taught you to say that. [Interjections.]
What I am saying, is that the NPP can be compared …
To the National Party!
No, it can be compared to the milk powder that is advertised on TV because we are always on top. We are not inside our offices. In fact, during our election campaign we were compared to a giant chain store because a promise we make is a promise we keep, too.
Just do not get checkmated, that is all. [Interjections.]
The NPP has been producing results. As much as we dislike the tricameral system, the NPP’s policy has always been to use and exploit every avenue and every forum to air our grievances, and this is exactly what we are doing because we believe that this is the highest level at which one can debate. It is no good our making a noise outside and shouting slogans, like the extraparliamentary forces.
And running to the Press.
Yes, and running to the Press. [Interjections.] We want to come here and say to everyone who wants to debate with us: “Please come here. This is the highest forum for debate. Sit opposite us and talk. Let us debate it here because this is the place on which the world focuses its attention”. [Interjections.]
I want to talk about the role played by the extra-parliamentary forces in the recent by-election. They have come out with very strongly-worded pamphlets against the tricameral Parliament. I simply want to say that we do not believe in just going to the communities during election time. I want to give the opposition its due credit also, because they have also done some work in their constituencies. However, the extra-parliamentary forces only go to the electorate when there is an election in an area. Other than that, they do not go there. That is the time they expect to gain support from the communities they purport to represent. The Eastern Transvaal byelection stretches over some 17 000 square kilometres covering 33 towns and we have had the opportunity of addressing public meetings in about 19 of these. These were open public meetings, they were not closed, and we allowed question times. The hon member for Stanger must take note the fact that we allowed question time for anybody, including the extra-parliamentary forces, to come forward and put their questions to us.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware of the fact that we also allow question time. Why this reference? [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, I am specifically referring to a meeting held in Kinross. This was a public meeting which members of the National Peoples Party attended. I will demonstrate what was done. All the papers were picked up, the time was looked at and the meeting was declared closed. That is what happened in Kinross and what I am referring to. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, all I am saying, is that most of the hon members seated in this House support the National Peoples Party and this motion which appears on the Order Paper appears to single out the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.] It does. It does appear to single him out, otherwise it would not have said “especially the Chairman”. However, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who has headed the NPP all these years has produced results. If anybody has any illusions that they will try and throw a spanner in the works, or try to tear members from the NPP, I think they have a wrong conception, or they have miscalculated their arguments.
We have no intention of that. [Interjections.]
Oh yes, they have. They have miscalculated this whole thing, because the NPP is a party that is not based on opportunism. [Interjections.] It is a party that has vision, direction and is pragmatic. The NPP, as I indicated earlier on, has a positive track record of achievements. We do not have to go and look at Hansard and say: “Listen, this is what has been said last year, or the year before.”
You cannot find it there.
It is there. The evidence is there in reality. All hon members have to do is go and have a look at it. It is there, and it will always be there, because those monuments are built by virtue of the efforts put in by this Ministers’ Council, as much as members of the opposition parties would not like to admit it. It is all very well taking one’s stand here, but privately members of the opposition parties adopt different stances and go to our Ministers’ offices and play a different tune altogether.
Our Ministers or State Ministers?
I said “our Ministers”.
You are talking about opposition members and “our Ministers”. How do you reconcile that?
The members of the opposition parties have been going to the Ministers’ Council and to individual hon Ministers with their requests. [Interjections.]
Order!
Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member whether he believes that hon Ministers on the other side, who happen to be members of the National Peoples Party, are only to serve members of that party. Have we not got the same right, because the taxpayers’ money is being used to serve the community? What does he mean by saying that hon members from this side have been going to hon Ministers on that side? We will continue going. [Interjections.]
That is an observation, not a question. I am not saying that hon members of the Opposition should not go. I qualified that initially when I started speaking and I said that as much as hon members of the Opposition do not want to admit it, they are their hon Ministers as well. [Interjections.] That is what I said in my opening statement. [Interjections.] They are welcome to go to the hon the Ministers, because they are their Ministers as well. I am not denying them that.
It is not a privilege, it is our right.
It is not your money.
An MP’s salary consists of the taxpayers’ money as well.
In closing I want to say that the Ministers’ Council, consisting of hon NPP members, enjoys the full support in this House and also outside, because the electorate in the Eastern Transvaal has proven it. An increase of 519% from the 1984 results is no mean feat by any measure.
Mr Chairman, I rise to speak at a very awkward time. It is the last hour of today’s debate, and I was sitting here hoping that there would be another speaker from the Opposition benches but I am now told that they have run out of hot air. [Interjections.]
This is the start of the fourth year that we are here. For the past three years we have traversed the same ground basically of internecine strife, of political point scoring, and of allegations and counter-allegations. I know that there are many political idiots in the Opposition benches but they do not have to prove it by opening their mouths. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member referred to the political idiots of the Opposition benches. Is that not unparliamentary?
Order! Did the hon member Mr Nowbath make the statement as alleged by the hon member for Stanger?
Mr Chairman, I made the statement that they are political idiots, not simply idiots. In that I am quoting Lenin. He himself referred to people who are not idiots, but political idiots. There is a big difference.
Order! So the hon member did refer to the hon members of the Opposition as political idiots?
Yes, Sir.
Order! The hon member must please withdraw that.
Mr Chairman, I will have to submit to your ruling. I withdraw it.
There are many hon members in the Opposition benches who do not have sufficient political know-how. They cannot think in political terms but only in terms of local parochial interest and nothing more than that. That is why they are not capable of carrying any constituency with them. [Interjections.]
I would like to clear up a certain matter. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has had a long and chequered career in the history of our people.
I have known him for possibly 20 years or more, during which time he was active in politics in the South African Indian Council. I knew him when he was a junior schoolboy, junior to me at school. I knew him in the days when, by his own admission, he grew up the hard way. He told me that as a young man, he did carry the bhanga and he did sell bananas. He did not, in fact, push any wheelbarrows. The bhanga belonged to the family and the bananas grew on the family farm, and he worked hard for it.
As a result of that background, he developed an interest in the question of jobs for our young people. There are two achievements that I should like to recall to this House.
Firstly, he was responsible for opening up the Transvaal as far as job opportunities for our young people are concerned. The fact that there are today possibly several possibilities for young men and young women with their families in the Transvaal, is due to him. The fact that today there are several hundred people in employment in the new Republic Bank is due to him. He is the man who pushed for this new Republic Bank— the man who pushed for an Indian bank. Granted, he speaks in terms of what you call macro economics.
The new Republic Bank was taken over by the Whites; it is now under the control of the Standard Bank. However, it is an avenue of work. Towards the early part of the seventies he left politics on a crest of glory.
Despite that, he made a mistake in returning. He should never have returned to politics, for the simple reason that his heart is not in it. With the hon the Chairman, he is genuinely concerned for the community. However, he has been hijacked by people who have their own interests at heart. I must draw attention to this fact. He is, and has become, unfortunately, like a heavyweight boxer who seeks to make a comeback. When heavyweight boxers make a comeback they are battered and bruised. I say so having considered his motions of no-confidence over the past few years. They have never been the same. They have been adjusted to suit his needs and possibly he himself has had to concede to his colleagues.
Thus, the motion of no confidence at the beginning of 1985 was such a motion. He has been riding two horses at the same time. As I said, he made the mistake of coming back into politics, although his heart is not in it.
That is why we find that he does not really come across when he makes a speech, except at one point this afternoon when in a situation of emotional crisis he said: “My heart bleeds for the Indians”
That was a cry from the heart. Unfortunately, as I said, however, politics is not a game to be played by the faint-hearted, particularly people who have retired. It would have been better had he stayed in retirement.
There has been a very vigorous call by members of the Opposition for a judicial commission of inquiry.
Two of your Ministers asked for that.
If the hon member for Reservoir Hills had noted very carefully, he would have known that our members had asked for a judicial commission subject to the repetition outside of Parliament of what was said in the House in 1985 by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. If he repeats that, our side will support a call for a judicial commission of inquiry.
Why do you not have a commission? Clear the air once and for all. [Interjections.]
I submit with all due respect…
Mr Chairman, will the hon member Mr Nowbath take a question?
Certainly.
Will the hon member Mr Nowbath agree that wriggling does not become him? My question was his Ministers in 1987—those who are Ministers now—demanded a commission of inquiry and they made no conditions.
They demanded a commission of inquiry when they were sitting on the other side of the House. Now, they have changed sides. They can speak for themselves.
Are you going to change their clothes?
Let us get this right, this rather remarkable exercise to which reference is now being made once again. It was not my intention to deal with this but there was this scheme to break up the National Peoples Party and to put Solidarity into power. I have been told—I cannot vouch for the accuracy of what I have been told—that the whole scheme was planned, initiated and executed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this House. He had his reasons for doing so. On this side there were two very ambitious people. One did hold a Ministerial position, but he was trying for the post of Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and there was one crossover from the other side who had been engaged in hopping for a long time—from this side to that side and back again. He, too, had great ambitions. He wanted to be Minister of Education. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, being the kind of politician he is, gathered his loyal supporters and arranged for them to take these two members to the other side, dump them there and come back! That has been done. They were left there and these people came back, and if they were rewarded it shows what clever politicians they are. You have to be clever in this game. You cannot be intelligent in this game.
Our side has undertaken to concede that a judicial commission of inquiry is necessary provided allegations are repeated outside this House. Unfortunately, however, my training as an academic politician, in the laws of Hindu logic and as a lawyer tell me that so far there is not a tittle of evidence to warrant a judicial commission of inquiry.
Can you use a word like that here?
A tittle. Not the kind of tittle the hon member for Reservoir Hills is thinking of. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, by way of personal explanation I thought the hon member Mr Nowbath was using, he and I know quite well, tipple, not tittle.
Having tippled many, many short ones and bada pegs and chota pegs with the hon member for Reservoir Hills, I fully understand the meaning of tipple. In fact, I taught him to stop tippling and to start drinking properly. He will not deny that. He has already admitted it to several members of this House.
As far as a judicial commission of inquiry is concerned, I am not pursuing the matter as at this stage there is no evidence to warrant one.
One of these days we might well hear that just because the Chairman of the Minister’s Council has blown a sphincter we need a judicial commission of inquiry. For any reason, at the drop of a hat, we get a call for a judicial commission of inquiry. I am beginning to wonder whether those who mouth the term loudest even know what a judicial commission of inquiry is, or whether they picked it up from somewhere and are repeating it time and again without even understanding it.
[Inaudible.]
There is also the very vigorous attack by the hon member for Cavendish on the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and his manhandling of Indian education. He has sent out a very pathetic cry in this House in past years: “Please, let me have my White oppressors back.” He wanted his White oppressors back. I am quoting him. [Interjection.] Of course, I grew up in a…
May I make an observation so that it reaches Hansard. I said: “This is what principals of schools have said.”
You referred to informers.
He referred to informers. [Interjections.] Yes, I had more brains than to contest an election. [Interjections.] I am not a political… [Interjections.] The hon member for Cavendish is totally frivolous, for the simple reason that in 1970, on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Republican festival, there was a solid call by the community: No participation in these celebrations.
He participated, yes.
However, what did he do?
He participated.
He created a committee for the purpose; he got an inspector to attend that, and departmental officials; he got his photograph in the paper. These days, however, as well as last year and the year before, he complains so much. He used those things, and he laid the ground for a subsequent promotion which, you recall, was held up for exactly one year. He received the promotion directly from a primary school to a high school—one of those unequalled records in the history of Indian education. He went from a primary school, never having taught one day in a high school. [Interjections.]
Is that your level of debate? God help you, my friend. [Interjections.]
That was the pay-off he received for being the White man’s ‘good boy’.
Have you been tippling?
Not today, because the hon member for Reservoir Hills has not invited me. [Interjections.] I shall be willing to tipple this evening. [Interjections.]
Having retired as school inspector, or what these days would be called an ‘educator’—the terms change so fast and so often that one does not know whether one is a teacher, an educator or whatever it may be—what happens? He joins the SAIC and supports the man who was then chairman of the…
He is out of the party, and at that stage you were here. [Interjections.]
… executive committee at the time. In addition, he appeared before the Chairman of the Executive Committee with a list of 22 teachers to be promoted.
He was turned down. That is a fact, Mr Chairman. He was turned down, and what did he do? He ran off like a scalded cat, to quote the hon member for Reservoir Hills in another document—saying all kinds of nasty things about the hon the Minister and about the chairman of the executive committee. [Interjections.]
He next surfaced as a member of Solidarity. He contested an election on a Solidarity ticket and then, having no scruples about it, abandoned Solidarity when a carrot was dangled on this side of the House. [Interjections.] So he knows what carrots are.
Are you admitting that a bribe was offered by your side? [Interjections.]
I said that carrots were dangled.
Carrots!
Do you understand Afrikaans? I am talking about carrots! [Interjections.]
You are doing well. Make those admissions! [Interjections.]
Any compliment from the hon the member for Stanger is not material to me. It has to come from people of political substance. [Interjections.]
I do not talk through my posterior.
That is the kind of language I would expect from a man like the hon member for Stanger. He can do no better. He has no thinking ability. He has no appreciation of what politics is, save that I do think he has given this House a lesson on the biology of cockroaches. [Interjections.] In fact, he has told me personally that he does not mind being called a cockroach. He says that as a student of biology, at least restricted to Std 8—I do not know whether he passed Std 8 or Std 10—he discovered that millions of years ago there were cockroaches. There were also dinosaurs and many other kinds of creatures. He said to me: “Where are those dinosaurs? They are extinct, but those little cockroaches still survive.” He said to me: “So if you call me a cockroach, that is a compliment.” I am not calling him a cockroach, Mr Chairman. That is what he told me. Therefore, as I was saying, when the hon member for Stanger proceeds to pay me what may be considered a left handed compliment, I understand fully that he can do no better. [Interjections.]
Since I have been talking about the political “hoppings” of the hon member for Cavendish, I should like at this stage to make it clear that he and I are very good friends outside this House. There is no question of that. I have known him since the days when he came from Cavendish in 1937 when I first met him. I do not know whether or not he has benefited from my knowledge. [Interjections.]
He didn’t; he is still on the other side of the House.
No, he will come back again one of these days if the carrot is big enough. [Interjections.] He was a member of Solidarity. He made use of the Solidarity ticket. He called the now the hon the Minister of the Ministers’ Council all kinds of names when he left Solidarity. He came over to this side, and I should like to tell hon members about something which happened to me personally. At that time I was chairman of this House’s Standing Select Committee on Education. Sure enough, the record shows that he became the chairman. I was pushed out. [Interjections.] That shows his “push ability”. He pushed me out of that position.
Is that why you are against him? [Interjections.]
He then found that there appeared to be greener pastures to feed on on the other side.
Did you offer the Minister
Did you offer the Minister
I did not, but my leader, I believe, did. I had no part in it. [Interjections.] When it comes to this kind of horse trading, I have no part in it. I only have to keep my ears open and receive messages, possibly by means of pigeons and cockroaches travelling from this side of the House to that side. They bring me the messages. [Interjections.]
During the course of his speech he also made certain allegations about promotions and transfers. However, instead of making those allegations, all he need do is what the leader of the PRP has done, namely to call the man in and get him to give him a sworn affidavit and then release it in this House or take it to the Police. However, there is not a single specific allegation. He talks about his ‘contacts’ with the people in the Department of Education. So, in addition to his ‘jumpability’ and his ‘pushability’ he now has ‘contactability’. He has contacts in the Department of Education. However, I should be very happy to support his call for any kind of inquiry, provided he produces those affidavits and produces those men concerned who are making the allegations. I will take down the affidavits, Mr Chairman, and I will attest to them in his presence. All he has to do is to bring them to me. Then, when he has done that, I will say: ‘Yes, now I ditch my leader, and I support a call for a judicial commission of inquiry’. I am not prepared, however, to call for judicial commissions of inquiry just because someone has possibly blown a sphincter.
We have been sitting here this afternoon for almost four hours now, talking about ourselves— about what one wants and what the allegations are—totally ignoring the fact that outside this House there is a community that is embattled, that is beleaguered, and that is reaching the point of irrelevancy in the South African context. It is embattled.
It is also retching after seeing what is happening.
Having taken a look at your face first thing in the morning, it induces that kind of feeling. [Interjections.]
All of us here—on both sides of the House—are engaged in a little local strife, but outside bigger things are happening. Moreover, and even outside, the extra-Parliamentary political forces are engaged in their own internecine strife. They hold themselves forth as leaders of the community but they have no constituencies. They themselves claim to be Gandhian in their outlook. They base their premises on Gandhian principles, yet what do they do? They hold their meetings in secret. Gandhi did not hold his meetings in secret. Nor did he plead ‘not guilty’ in a court of law. He always made a public announcement to the effect that he would break a certain law at a particular time on a certain date and invited the Police to arrest him. When he appeared before a magistrate—the first of these was the magistrate at Volksrust in the first passive resistance campaign in the country—he said:
Unfortunately for me, and I presume fortunately for hon members of the Opposition, my time has expired.
Mr Chairman, I move:
Agreed to.
Mr Chairman, I move:
Agreed to.
The House adjourned at