Hear, hear!

It is expected that the amount which will end up in the consumer’s pocket in this way will have a relatively modest, yet positive effect on both spending as well as saving, and will in that way have an accelerated effect on economic activities, and therefore, too, on the provision of employment.

Where is Harry Schwarz?

This task group will be assisted by a small secretariat consisting of officials from appropriate departments. I should like to thank these people for their willingness to render a service in this way.

Mr Speaker, I think the much vaunted package of the hon the Minister of Finance is like the curate’s egg— it is good in parts but certainly not enough for a healthy meal. Unfortunately I do not think it is enough to get the economy going once again.

It is significant that this is the third year running that within a relatively short time after the presentation of the Budget there has been an admission by the Government of the failure of its Budget and its Budget objectives. In 1984 there was a disaster and we had the application of so-called remedial measures which have been a major contributory factor to the instability in South Africa and which have caused unbelievable havoc in the country. In 1985 they failed to realise the impact of the unemployment which had been created by the Government’s policies until it was too late, and within months relief measures had to be instituted in order to deal with an unemployment problem about which the Government had been warned repeatedly.

In 1986 we have seen a Budget designed, as the hon the Minister himself stated, to stimulate the economy. It has failed miserably in that objective.

Wherever we look in the fields of fiscal and monetary policy, administration and management, we find the application of incorrect policy and an overreaction to remedies on the one hand and a timidity to get to grips with problems on the other. To substantiate this I simply have to refer to the Government’s abolition of exchange control for non-residents. They were warned against it, and they had to reimpose it after the horse had bolted. We also warned the Government not to abolish the financial rand, but they did so and had to reinstitute it too when problems had occurred. The Government promised to monitor foreign debt, but we found out that one could not rely on the promises of the Government to take this kind of action. Only when it was too late did they find out that they had not been monitoring foreign debt adequately.

They allowed our international short-term debt to reach utterly unacceptable levels. In many ways, in fact, they directly and indirectly encouraged people to borrow overseas when they should not have.

That is rubbish!

The hon the Minister interjects “rubbish”. I challenge him to have an inquiry made by an independent body, and I shall produce evidence of how people were encouraged.

Why don’t you rather prove your case?

Does the hon the Minister want to take up my challenge?

No.

The hon the Minister says “no”. The hon the Minister not only has no guts, but he has no ability and is impertinent. [Interjections.] That is the reality. When the Government has made a mess year after year, they seek to escape by this kind of pretence and by remarks like the one made by the hon the Minister.

The hon the Minister cannot pretend to the people of South Africa about the kind of mess he has landed them in. He should also not pretend that it is something which has only happened recently and is entirely due to outside factors.

Allow me to quote the words of an eminent economist who works for one of the major South African banks, as follows:

Is that all due to outside pressure? He goes on to say that we have been steadily walking backwards in real per capita growth terms over the past 15 years. Has this prominent economist sucked this out of the air? Is it a figment of his imagination? The truth of the matter is that this Government has made an unholy mess of the politics and the economy of South Africa, and any self-respecting Government would resign and let someone else take over. [Interjections.]

Hear, hear!

It is regrettable that they cling to power in South Africa and demonstrate their incompetence in virtually everything they touch. The tragedy is that the whole country, and not just the Government, suffers because of their incompetence and lack of efficient administration.

One can give examples. The hon the Minister himself had to begin his speech today with a tale of unbelievable woe. He says it is everybody else’s fault, not his own, his party’s or his Government’s. Who has been in power in South Africa for the past few decades?

It has been mismanaged!

Who has created the situation in which we are? It is no use pretending. I half expected the hon the Minister to say it was the fault of the United Party administration prior to 1948 that we are now in a mess. That is about all the hon the Minister did not claim, but that was what the NP Government did until about 10 years after coming to power. Now it is apparently everybody else’s fault but not that of the incompetents who govern South Africa today. That is the reality. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the Budget as he presented it. We warned then that this Budget had no credibility, that it would not work and that there was a major credibility gap. Let us take a simple example like the 2% cut which was an arbitrary cut. In his reply to this debate I should like the hon the Minister to tell us whether he still thinks that the 2% cut is a realistic approach.

I told you yesterday but you did not listen!

Yes, he said so, but let me tell him that I think that that is unutterable nonsense. Why is it nonsense? I ask anybody in South Africa today to tell us whether it is logical to cut the Law and Order Vote by 2%. Let us go back to the Foreign Affairs Vote about which we argued before.

At that time the hon the Minister said the following—I want to quote him and he can check it in Hansard, col 3274—when he referred to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs:

Of course there is. What is the value of the rand today? He told us what it was, and it is nowhere near 50 American cents. I want him to get up and say now whether he is budgeting this year for a rand worth 50 American cents on average. If he is, he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. That is the reality.

So, how can he possibly expect that there will be credibility in regard to his figures and the Budget that he presents? With great respect, after all the chances we have given him he is becoming no better than his predecessor; on the contrary, it looks to me now as if he is becoming even worse. He is using honeyed words and fancy phrases in order to cover up a situation which is actually a tragic one for South Africa in its present position.

The trouble is that he will not understand and that this Government will not understand that it is their economic policies which have been a major contributor towards unrest in South Africa. [Interjections.] They are responsible. It is not enough to say it is the agitators and that there are people who are trying to stir up a revolution. The Government has created an economic climate in South Africa which has made the work of the agitator easy. The incompetent administration of this Government has prepared fertile ground for agitators.

I want to talk about the AA Mutual, seeing that the hon the Minister raised the issue.

[Inaudible.]

What are you muttering about, old man?

Why don’t you shut up? [Interjections.]

Listen to that, Sir! He said: “Why don’t you shut up”, Sir. Have you ever heard a senior—no, the word “senior” is not correct; senile would be better … [Interjections.] The hon member can sit down, he has his job …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition to refer to an hon member as “old man”? [Interjections.]

Order! The ordinary parlance is “hon member” or “the hon the Minister”.

Yes, Sir, the hon the Minister is an old man, a senile old man. [Interjections.] I want to go on to refer to the AA Mutual. I know the hon the Minister is touchy about it, and I can understand why. [Interjections.]

The affairs of the AA Mutual are giving many South Africans grave cause for concern. There is a tendency among the public to regard financial institutions in a different light to ordinary commercial concerns. This is so not only because these concerns are controlled by legislation but also because they are supervised by the office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions. So, in this case there are not only disappointment and frustration but also financial loss. There are also many unanswered questions.

The hon the Minister said that the same provisions applied to the liquidation of an insurance business as to the liquidation of a company.

That is not what I said.

That is what he said, and I have it here. He then said that the liquidator would carry on an inquiry. I want to know why the company is not in liquidation. [Interjections.] I want to know why. I want to know the reason because there are consequences in respect of the liquidation of a company which in my opinion do not exist in respect of the liquidation of an insurance business. I want to know the reason because the company is said to have no other assets except the insurance business, and yet we only put the insurance business into liquidation.

You are showing gross incompetence!

I am showing gross incompetence but I am saying to the hon the Minister that I want to know why the company is not in liquidation. Section 32 of the Insurance Act allows one to liquidate an insurance business, but I want to know why the company was not liquidated. The reason why I want to know why it was not done is because there are some actions which can be taken if the company is put into liquidation. I want to know why those actions are not being taken.

I want the hon the Minister to understand quite clearly that I have no complaint about the action of the Registrar in having applied for liquidation. However, I want to know why the company is not in liquidation. I want there to be an inquiry in which the people concerned are interrogated. I want an explanation for what has happened, because it is quite clear even from the newspapers that there was a time when people knew this company was being investigated and yet the innocent members of the public were still being allowed to pay premiums. I want to know why those premiums are not going to be paid back, and I want to know who is going to pay them back. There are thousands of innocent people who paid those premiums at a time when they believed those in authority knew that the company was in difficulty. If that is so, we want this investigated. If I am wrong, there is no harm in an inquiry, but if I am right, justice must be done.

Mr Chairman, you know perhaps a little more about the law than some other hon members of the House who are vested with financial responsibility in the Government. You know that when there is a compromise, that puts an end to the inquiry. If there is no inquiry, then no action is possible in order to deal with people who have done wrong in a company. I am not saying anybody has done wrong, but I am saying that the public of South Africa wants to know whether there is no action that should be taken. I must tell hon members if there is not going to be an inquiry brought about as a result of the ordinary mechanisms which exist in terms of the statute, whether it is the Insurance Act or the Companies Act, then Parliament should have such an inquiry and there should be a select committee of Parliament to investigate it. If the hon the Minister does not want such an inquiry, I want to know from him why he does not want it.

Read my speech.

I have read it and I have listened to it and I am saying that it is essential that that be done.

I want to go a step further. If the AA wants a new insurance company, let it start one. In South Africa, if people want to use a name for a company, the name should have some resemblance to the people who actually own it. If people want to use the word “mutual” in the name of their company, it has to be a mutual company. However, people in South Africa must not be brought to believe that the AA is a mutual company when it turns out that the company is neither completely owned by the AA nor is it mutual. These are things which, with great respect, need attention.

As far as the Registrar’s office is concerned I want to say just one thing: It is true that the Act needs amendment, but there is another factor involved here. The Registrar has not got the staff necessary in order to do all the work expected of him. The fact that he does not have the staff is the responsibility of this hon Minister. He has to see to it that the Registrar has the staff to deal with these matters.

Let me deal with some of the things he announced regarding his package because I think it is only fair to react to them.

In so far as the loan levy is concerned, the repayment of the loan levy is only an anticipation of what is due in any case. It has to be paid back in the same financial year and that loan levy is not going to the people in South Africa who need it most, namely the poor and those who fall in the low income group.

In so far as the export levy is concerned, the hon the Minister has done precisely what we asked him some time ago to do and I thank him for doing that, namely that we wanted the import levy removed on the articles that were used in the process of manufacture. Those were the exact words which I used previously. However, I want to make it clear that I am not asking for the import levy to be removed from other articles, particularly not from anything related to consumption. I believe that what South Africa needs is that people should buy South African products so that South African people may be employed. That is why I have continuously, year after year, appealed for a “Buy South African campaign”, but it appears that the Government is not interested in such a campaign.

In so far as the motor industry is concerned, I believe that it does need assistance. I am not sure whether this is adequate assistance, as it is somewhat vague. The fringe benefits issue is still vague, and I would like to point out to the hon the Minister in so far as the commission is concerned that in this very commission I raised the issue—and members of the commission may remember that it was not acceptable—that the value on which we were basing the fringe benefit, as opposed to cost, did not appear to be a realistic one. I therefore hope that we will look at that issue.

As for toll roads, I must say that this is an issue which is not going to solve anything in the short term. As a long-term proposition, it is another matter, but one thing is very clear. If the hon the Minister will look at the accounts relating to toll roads, he will see that unless one charges exorbitant fees by way of tolls, the only alternative is to give interest-free loans, because that is the only way in which toll roads are functioning reasonably at the present moment. Therefore, to talk about the privatisation of toll roads as being part of a current package for economic revival, is to my mind unrealistic as it does not relate to real issues. [Interjections.]

I turn now to the job creation programme. I know that the hon the Minister is not exactly pleased with me and the purpose of this speech is not to make him pleased with me at all.

You do not feel well…

I do not feel that bad at all. I have no such intention.

We will try to find you a job next time as well. We will announce something for you. [Interjections.]

Find me a job? [Interjections.] I think that hon Minister should think about what he has said and about whether he wants to perpetuate that statement. I have spent many hours in the service of finance without receiving any payment for it. I have never asked for any payment for it; I have never wanted any payment for it; I do not need his payment for it, and I do not want to take it. Furthermore, I think that to make that snide remark, illbefits the hon the Minister of Finance of this country. [Interjections.] I think it is a despicable remark, but I want to tell him that if that is the way he wants to conduct this debate, then that is fair enough. Let him conduct the debate on the basis that he will find me a job. There is no job in South Africa that he can offer me, and it is possibly only because I respect confidentiality and never break my word that I am unable to reply to him adequately today. [Interjections.]

Allow me to say something else. It is in fact what I was about to say, and I now want to go back to it. We have a concept—a concept that I have put forward on the Budget and on numerous other occasions—called work to improve the quality of life. What has happened now—and I am pleased about it—is that the hon the Minister is talking about upliftment by way of job creation and the upgrading of skills on the one hand, and on the other hand the provision of the physical and other infrastructures that make for a better quality of life. If that is what he intends to do then, despite all his meanness, we will support him in it, because that is what is necessary for South Africa and what is required under the present circumstances. Furthermore, that is in fact what we intend to do.

I now have very little time left, having been distracted by other things, and so lastly I just want to touch very briefly on the politics of South Africa. One of the tragedies of South Africa to which the hon the Minister is a party, is that there has in fact been change in South Africa—change of a real nature, but which people have not been prepared to recognise. The change may be incomplete; it may not be in quite the right direction and it may not be everything that everybody wants, but on an objective analysis anyone has to admit that there has been change in South Africa. The question, then, is why there has been inadequate recognition both at home and abroad of the change that has taken place in South Africa? I think there is a very clear example of this.

Yesterday we dealt with the question of the repeal of the influx control measures, and there is inadequate recognition of it. The reason for this is that we are engaging in double-speak. Those Whites whom the Government believe are fearful and reactionary are assured that there is not going to be any change and that life is not really going to be any different, while to the Blacks and to the outside world, the Government seeks to portray the message that meaningful change is taking place. Two faces are thus in fact being portrayed to the public.

The result of this double-speak and all this hedging is that the wrong message goes to the wrong audience! The fearful Whites—for instance my hon colleagues who are sitting on my left here but who are actually on the right—see this as a threat to them. However, the Blacks see it as a cosmetic thing. The wrong message is thus going to the wrong people! As a result of this Huntington theory, of this reform by stealth and this way of presenting a double face, the wrong message is being conveyed to the wrong people.

The tragedy is—I want to end by saying this—that in the world outside those who created apartheid are not seen as being the people who really can dismantle apartheid. The question which we will have to answer for ourselves in South Africa is whether the people who created apartheid can be perceived to be those who can demolish it. If they are not seen to be those people, then their task is, in fact, in vain. The path on which they are going is then unfortunately not going to result in the kind of South Africa we want. It may well be that in order to really change South Africa, we shall have to rely on the people in the centre of the politics in South Africa, irrespective of their race and party, to put South Africa on the right road to change. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on the comprehensive package to the value of R1 505 million for the further stimulation of the economy which he announced here this afternoon. I do not doubt its impact for a moment. The hon member for Yeoville, however, dismissed it as being meaningless, ineffective, too little and too late. He made wild statements here without substantiating them in any way. He really launched an unjustified attack on the hon the Minister, which in my opinion was a disgrace.

You do not perhaps think what the hon the Minister said was a disgrace?

No, wait, give me a chance! I shall come to the hon member for Yeoville later!

In addition he is not consistent in what he says. According to The Argus of 4 June 1986, the hon member for Yeoville made the following comment:

A week later, according to The Argus of 11 June 1986, under the heading “Plan to boost South African economy mistimed”, the hon member for Yeoville said:

This is the old hackneyed slogan used by the hon members of the PFP when they cannot advance meaningful arguments, viz “too little, too late”.

The hon the Minister gave the hon member an adequate reply about the so-called poor timing and the decrease of 2% to which he referred here this afternoon. In fact, I do not think the hon member for Yeoville would regard any time as being the right time. On 7 April 1986, during the Second Reading debate about the Appropriation…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Smithfield, in view of his regarding the hon member for Yeoville as so incompetent on the basis of his standpoints, whether it is desirable for him to remain the deputy chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance?

No, after all, I did not describe the hon member for Yeoville as being incompetent; I merely said he was not consistent in what he said. This applies to the hon member for Kuruman to a much greater extent! [Interjections.] On 7 April 1986, during the Second Reading appropriation debate, the hon member for Yeoville asked, and I quote from Hansard: House of Assembly, 1986, col 2729:

The hon member is good at putting many questions. Indeed, he is an expert in doing so, although he did not do so much this afternoon.

The real tragedy, however, is that the hon member did not tell us either in that speech or this afternoon how he and his party see South Africa in the year 2000. I understand why the hon member merely puts questions and says nothing further, because the hon member is staggering along with the Official Opposition as a powerless person in an ineffectual party. It is a party whose great dream of a national convention turns to dust time after time and a party which merely hides behind the hollow cliché of “away with all apartheid”. The Official Opposition and the hon member make a pathetic show because they are still saddled with their former leaders.

The week before last, during the Third Reading of the own affairs Appropriation Bill, I read those hon members the standpoints their former leaders, Drs Slabbert and Boraine, hold now. I asked those hon members, and specifically the hon member for Yeoville, whether they agreed with the conduct of their former leaders. I asked whether they were still members of the PFP and what the PFP was going to do about their membership. [Interjections.] I have received no reply from them—nor from the hon member for Yeoville. In the meantime Dr Boraine has once again taken part in a UDF meeting. Once again, therefore, I want to ask the hon member for Yeoville and other hon members of the PFP whether Drs Slabbert and Boraine are still members of the PFP and whether they are going to remain members. [Interjections.]

Not until the PFP gets rid of members who side with the UDF like their former leaders as well as other members of the UDF who are sitting there, will the party be able to play a meaningful part in the future of the country and it is very doubtful whether they will even remain the Official Opposition.

The hon member for Yeoville reproaches the Government in season and out for not making provision for long-term planning. I want to refer him and other hon members to the Central Economic Advisory Service’s annual report. The activities of this service extend over a wide field and as far as macro-economic policy is concerned, good progress is being made in the formulation of a national economic strategy which is also receiving the attention of the new Economic Advisory Council. This advisory service acts as the specialist secretariat of the Committee of the State President on National Priorities and also makes expert inputs to the Building Industries Advisory Council, the Civil Engineering Council and the Works Committee of the Cabinet Committees.

Other activities include inter alia inquiries, guidance and participation in policy formulation in the sphere of the national economy, in which the further development of the process of priority determinations requires particular attention. Additional activities include international economic matters, regional economic matters in South and Southern Africa, special employment creation programmes, socioeconomic matters, prices, wages, price stability, macro-analysis and the development and use of quantitative training instruments.

If only the hon member for Yeoville would make an in-depth of the activities of the Central Economic Advisory Service, he would not say such absurd things in the House.

For the past 20 years the State President has been warning the country on various occasions against the total onslaught that is being made on South Africa. [Interjections.] The Official Opposition disregards these warnings and the CP, after deserting from the NP, regards this as scare-mongering. In order to counter this onslaught on the economic, social and diplomatic spheres, I want to quote from the most important statements in the State President’s address at the opening of Parliament on 31 January 1986. He said (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1986, col 9):

Secondly (col 12):

In analysing this year’s Main Budget—even now in this Third Reading debate—it is very clear that the State President’s opening address has an effect on the Budget, in that it is an imaginative upliftment effort, aimed at improving the social and economic conditions of the lower income groups, the unemployed and older people, to diminish the inequality in education and in social services for the respective population groups, to promote the creation of employment and to increase the abilities, capacity for work and quality of life of our communities. Yet the hon member still maintains that nothing is being done for the people in these groups.

A record amount of more than R6 billion is being spent on education—the largest single allocation in the Budget. This amounts to an increase of 27,6% in expenditure on Black education, which indicates the Government’s sincerity in its ideal to establish equal educational opportunities for all groups.

What about the schools that are burnt down?

It is general knowledge that certain people and organisations are intent upon disrupting Black education and on abusing schoolchildren for political purposes. Nevertheless we still sometimes hear about so-called gutter education. What are the facts, however? The budget amount for the Department of Education and Training rose from R143 million in 1978-79 to R1 148 million for the 1986-87 financial year—an increase of 710%. Since 1982 89 new primary and 45 new secondary schools have been completed. During the same period, more than 9 000 classrooms have been added to existing schools, while a further 33 new primary and 45 new secondary schools are being planned for the immediate future.

Parity in salaries has been reached in respect of all teachers with at least three years’ training after matric, while substantial improvements have been effected in the salary scales of teachers with lower qualifications. Free textbooks have been supplied since 1979, and free stationery as from this year. In addition the department intends to train an additional 6 900 teachers up to and including the year 2002, while R4,5 million has been made available for 7 500 bursaries for the training of teachers—an increase of 600% over the last five years. Is that not a massive effort in the direction of equal education?

In addition the Budget makes provision for R1 131 million for housing, R2 799 million for health services, and R3 228 million for pensions and the promotion of welfare. All these amounts are aimed at the socioeconomic upliftment of our needy and older people. These amounts are also accompanied by the other allocations, however, for example the R600 million to which the hon the Minister referred, which comprises one of the largest and most imaginative campaigns established to combat unemployment and poverty.

Approximately 300 000 people have been trained during the nine months since June last year. With the 550 000 unemployed people who will be trained this year, it means that by February 1987 there will be 850 000 trained workers who had little or no training of any kind previously.

Where are they going to find employment?

Listen here, my friend! By means of contracts through the Department of Manpower alone, 4 000 people are being used as inspectors in training centres. Most of those people are artisans, and all were unemployed. In March this year alone more than 20 million days’ work was performed by people who had been unemployed before. The scope of this project is constantly expanding. It is clear, therefore, that the hon member for Bezuidenhout does not know what he is talking about, Sir. There are 230 places where unemployed people are being trained country-wide. Since the matter was too extensive and too urgent, however, for the State to undertake it on its own, 157 training contracts were granted to private organisations country-wide. All races are involved in this. The training is completely voluntary, and includes 180 employment categories.

Still the hon member for Yeoville—and now also the hon member for Bezuidenhout—makes the ridiculous assertion that operation provision of employment should be launched with a view to improving to people’s quality of life. The poor hon members are living in a dream world. They do not know what is going on and, as usual, are trying to play at cheap politics.

In addition the hon member made derogatory remarks to the hon the Minister. I want to conclude by quoting from an article written by Prof A S De Beer, head of the Department of Communication Science at the University of the Orange Free State. The article appeared in Volksblad of 26 April 1986. Prof De Beer acted as a media adviser to the hon the Minister of Finance for a period of seven months. I quote from the article:

The hon the Minister, his chief officials and the Department of Finance could scarcely be given a better testimonial. In conclusion I address a word of great thanks and appreciation to them from this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Smithfield must pardon me if I do not react to his speech. I have only ten minutes in which to speak. [Interjections.]

On Monday, 14 April 1986, the hon the Minister of Finance replied to the Second Reading debate. He spoke much longer than an hour, but within his first two minutes he looked at the hon member for Waterberg and said he wanted to thank a few of the hon members. I quote him from Hansard: House of Assembly, 1986, col 3263:

This makes me wonder whether I should not ask the hon the Minister, before I carry on, whether he is not a thief, since that is the kind of question the hon the Minister put to the hon member for Waterberg at the time. The hon member for Waterberg did not say a word. He had not taken part in the debate; yet the hon the Minister put that question to him.

Quote a little further.

Very well, I shall. In the same column we read:

Thank you very much. [Interjections.]

In addition, Sir, the hon member for Lichtenburg also made a speech during that debate. This hon Minister came along later and attacked the hon member drastically. He referred to a section of the speech made by the hon member for Lichtenburg as the most shocking thing that could have happened in this House. I quote from where he referred to the hon member for Lichtenburg (col 3265):

The hon the Minister of Finance threatened officials who could not defend themselves in the House. The hon the Minister went so far as to tell a lie, an absolute untruth, in this House. He mentioned a figure of R1 182 million whereas that had not been mentioned in the House.

I now want to put it to the hon the Minister that I am the man who advised the hon member for Lichtenburg. [Interjections.] It says here I advised him on the basis of the Reserve Bank. He must tell the people at the Reserve Bank they are a lot of rotten advisers, and they are hopeless, miserable and wretched. [Interjections.]

I read to the hon member for Lichtenburg from the report. In the report I added in my own handwriting: “Point out fact of bank credit to Ferdie.” The hon member for Durban Point next to me, can take a look at where I wrote it. [Interjections.] It is on page 34 of the Reserve Bank’s report. The hon member for Lichtenburg never referred to this figure, but the hon the Minister gave a figure and said the hon member had referred to it. It is very clear to me now that when the hon the Minister was abroad last year and the Americans, English and all the other bankers had discussions with him, they decided to end their loans because that is the kind of Minister we have. [Interjections.]

He did not even have the elementary decency to apologise to the hon member for Lichtenburg. He did the same thing to me on a prior occasion when he said he would apologise if I submitted proof that I was only absent during the second meeting. I submitted the proof, but in the House he merely said everything was in order because I had proved that I had been absent during two of the meetings. The hon the Minister does not know the most elementary form of decency, courtesy and breeding.

He is too arrogant for that. [Interjections.]

I listened to the hon the Minister’s speech this afternoon. I thank him for the good things he announced. An amount of R1 205 million will now be spent. It is exactly three months today since the Budget Speech was made. We are busy with the second Supplementary Appropriation today, after all. He said this would be financed from the proceeds of certain assets of the Central Energy Fund and the IDC. He is not only making use of bank credit, therefore, but is also selling assets to pay for current expenditure. I may as well sell my house to pay my liquor store.

You are talking nonsense!

What does that hon member know? The hon the Minister is using assets to pay current expenses. Assets and other things are going to be sold. [Interjections.] The question is how far this Appropriation will get us.

Why is South Africa in such a poor condition? There is a complete lack of confidence in the Government. The Government has failed completely with its political system and cannot tell us where we are heading.

We have just won two by-elections.

We are experiencing these circumstances today because of the high cost of reform and because of uncertainty because what is going to be done is not spelt out. There are labour unrest, strikes and low productivity in respect of labour and capital. The inflation rate cannot be kept in check; it is approximately 19%. We read in the Press today that England’s inflation rate is 2,8%.

The Government completely lacks an economic policy. The NP’s purpose and endeavour is the destruction of the White Afrikanerdom’s spiritual assets and economic power. The Government wants to make a “jelly-people” of the Whites, which will always simply say “yes, boss”. Within one nation we must be a people without a pride and without a purposeful ideal to strive for in future. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning must stay here so that he can hear this. With the Government’s assistance, interest rates have rocketed without achieving any good.

Let us look at the situation we are experiencing today. I have documents not only from the Reserve Bank, but also from the Central Statistic Service, three universities and four banks. I use these documents to advise my people. [Interjections.] I wish the hon the Minister would take cognisance of that.

In January and February 1986, insolvencies in South Africa increased by 56% as against the figures for January and February 1985. I quote the Reserve Bank in saying that production in the primary sector, specifically in agriculture, has grown by 15% despite drought, locust plagues, high interest rates, a high inflation rate and the NP Government. Mining has grown by only 0,5%.

What is the situation in the non-primary sector? The manufacturing industry has dropped by 5,5% and trade by 0,5%. Our national supplies for 1985 dropped by R2 442 million. It is clear that things are deteriorating and not going well.

We have an enormous population growth in this country. According to the census figures, the growth of the Whites is 16,3% per 1 000, for the Coloureds it is 28,6% and for the Asians 22,5%. I do not have the figures for the Blacks here. What are the Government and the Budget going to contribute to promote family planning among the other population groups? The Government simply talks about a redistribution of revenue and of resources. They merely want to pump money in without getting any productivity in return.

Unisa’s Bureau for Market Research says that a decrease in the gross real personal spendable income of approximately 2% is expected in 1986. On the one hand this is the result of the further drop in the real remuneration of employees, and on the other the result of maintaining a high level of personal income tax. The White individual pays a lot of tax, but I am afraid the Government will not be able to get much further, despite everything it is doing.

In addition, South Africa’s brain power is leaving the country. The figures for emigrants leaving the country have risen from 8 247 in 1983 to 11 401 in 1985. This represents an increase of 38%. In contrast with this, the number of immigrants to South Africa has decreased from 30 483 in 1983 to 17 284 in 1985. This represents a decrease of 43%.

What must we do in South Africa? The Government must stop saying and doing contradictory things and it must stop creating false expectations. We know that when the hon the Minister of Finance says “good morning”, one must make sure what time it is. [Interjections.] Yes, that is the truth. If he does not have the decency to apologise when he has accused people falsely and submitted false figures, I cannot take any notice of him. [Interjections.]

I rather want to talk to the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, because he always answers decently and politely. [Interjections.] To him I want to say the Government must stop predicting a real growth rate of 3% if that is not attainable. That creates expectations which cannot be fulfilled. I also want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that the taxes on individuals are too high and this will have to be considered.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member said unequivocally that the hon the Minister of Finance had submitted false figures to this House. Is that parliamentary?

Order! I did not hear that. What did the hon member say?

I pay no heed to it.

Mr Chairman, I said it a while ago—probably seven minutes ago. I said the hon the Minister had submitted incorrect figures to the House. Mr Chairman, my time has almost expired.

Order! Did the hon member say the hon the Minister had submitted false figures?

Yes, Sir. I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Unfortunately my time has expired, but other financial Bills are still going to be discussed and I shall go into further detail then.

Mr Chairman, it is difficult to follow the hon member for Sunnyside. He usually illustrates very interesting figures and concepts which indicates that he has the basic skill to do this research but then he unfortunately falls into the same trap as the hon member for Yeoville did today. I shall return to the hon member for Yeoville later.

Whereas the hon member for Sunnyside had a splendid opportunity today of contributing to the national economy and the future and survival of the country, he did not make a single contribution but expressed only negative criticism. This is a great pity.

The hon member mentioned a series of negative facts to us here. I wish to put only one question to him: Would he agree with me that the entire message of the congress of the Handelsinstituut was the same as that of the hon Minister, which was that the economy should be stimulated? Surely I am right.

What do you have to say now, Jan?

I have another question. If I am right, why did he not dispute it in the two or three days he was sitting there? That is what the hon Minister did today. That is why I consider it a pity that we permit opportunities to slip by in the House of Assembly and do not make contributions we could have done.

I wish to thank the hon the Minister for the announcements he made. I also want to congratulate the hon members for Amanzimtoti, Paarl and Waterkloof on their appointment and wish them luck. It is a great challenge and I am particularly pleased that the hon the Minister saw his way clear to appointing members of Parliament to this task group as I think that interaction can have a positive effect.

While thanking the hon the Minister for his announcement, I wish to add that it struck me that R5 million had been allocated for the development of technology. Although I accept this and utter no criticism on it, I consider it a pity it could not have been more. Technology will be one of our greatest shortcomings from now to the year 2000, especially if one bears possible boycotts in mind. Consequently, technology is one factor we shall have to watch and attempt expanding.

As regards the other items, fantastic results may arise from them. I should like to mention one in particular—the further allocation to the SBDC—and raise just one point on that. Its training centre went under a few years ago and I think the time has come for it to come on stream and be expanded once more.

So much good can arise from these announcements that I do not wish to go into them in further detail. I shall refer to them again later.

I wish to take the opportunity of responding to the hon member for Yeoville’s speech for a few minutes. I asked him to be present but I assume he has not yet received the message. What I said to the hon member for Sunnyside is particularly true in the case of the hon member for Yeoville. On certain occasions he has made an indelible impression on me that he is a loyal son of South Africa but God knows he permitted a golden opportunity to slip away today when he was called to contribute. This will be recorded against him. I cannot in truth understand why he always permits his bad manners to cloud his intellect. This chap has an excellent, above-average brain but his manners do not belong here.

Let us examine what he said here today. Except for shouting at the hon the Minister and insulting him, what did he actually say? I shall first refer to the argument he used about the AA Mutual. He said the hon the Minister should have acted in terms of some section or other and asked why the hon the Minister had not done so. The hon member made certain allegations in doing this.

Nevertheless we know well that, if the hon the Minister had dared to act in that way, the hon member would have been the first to ask here today why the hon the Minister had not permitted the court to do its work. He would have asked where the hon the Minister had obtained the right to interfere in court procedure. I know exactly what words he would have used. He would have said: “This is an impartial court situation and who are you to interfere as a politician and a minister—what audacity!” I know what climaxes and anti-climaxes he would have reached.

He would just have shouted a little.

That is why the hon the Minister let justice take its course. The case is in the hands of the court and, before a final judgment is handed down, I believe in all modesty the hon the Minister should not involve himself in this at all. The monitoring done by the registrar is up to date. The hon the Minister has already confirmed this. That is the type of argument the hon member uses and that is the reason he will never reach any peaks in South African politics.

Except in his tone of voice.

Yes, but what grieves me in this remark of his to the hon the Minister: “There is no job you can offer me in South Africa.” One has to read this in conjunction with what he said in the second paragraph after this: “Can the people who created apartheid be seen to dismantle it? No!” No, only the great Harry is the man to save South Africa on his own—not that little group round him. Incidentally, they are irrelevant to him in any case. He tolerates them and they have to put up with him because only Harry is the man who can do something about it and something about South Africa.

That is why I want to say something to the hon member for Kuruman. He asked the hon member for Smithfield whether the hon member would retain him as the deputy chairman of the standing committee and whether he thought he should still be there. All I want to say is that, as Mr Speaker appointed him, I shall respect him but I would honestly not appoint him. Let us have clarity on this now.

Are you going to move a motion of no confidence in him?

No, I am not moving a motion of no confidence; the hon member should listen to the statement I am making. I said I would respect him in his position as the Speaker had appointed him but I would honestly not appoint him.

I appreciate your honesty. [Interjections.]

If we examine the current situation, to my mind we have seven great problems in this country at present. Firstly, there was a growing perception, internally and externally, that our enemies were on the winning side. There are advantages and disadvantages attached to any occurrences and therefore the declaration of the state of emergency, which is a very unfortunate event, also has a positive side. I do not wish to go into statistics indicating the decline in disturbances, etc but I think a turning point has set in. The unrest has been stopped.

As the state of emergency has now been declared, strong action should be taken because the decline we recorded on the Barry scale over the past year was disturbing. The high incidence we experienced recently in the failure to maintain law and order was greatly impairing foreign—this is more important to me—as well as domestic confidence.

I find the lack of confidence among the private sector in the internal situation more important than the international situation. It happens today that, just as one finds a CP farmer up in Barberton whose assets remain liquid and who does not want to invest, similarly there are also the PFP millionaires, the ordinary Nationalist and the Afrikaans businessman who retain liquidity and sit and wait. Consequently we have reached a situation in which we have to put peace, order, quiet and stability at the top of our priority list so that we may resume building up this country.

After the Carlton and Good Hope conferences we saw a certain degree of estrangement between the private sector, especially the business sector, and the Government. That is why I am very pleased that the hon the Minister made certain announcements here today. He spoke about the task group which had been appointed and announced the names of its members but he also mentioned a few other points of communication as well as requesting co-operation between the private and public sectors. I am particularly pleased about this because I believe this will be the bridge to rebuilding confidence and communication. To my mind, communication remains point number one in this situation in which we find ourselves at present. I want to wish the hon the Minister every success and good luck in this.

As we are at the point today where we may also be faced with boycotts, I wish to put a question. The hon the Minister announced a fine package here this afternoon but one of our problems in the immediate future, if we were to be further affected by lack of confidence at international levels, is the shortage of capital. In South Africa we do not yet use our capital investment to the full level of productivity which is possible and desirable. I should like to cite a few examples in this regard. On the question of capital investment in manufacturing, I understand the problem the hon member for Sunnyside raised here. I actually share his concern in this respect. The hon the Minister is altogether aware of this, however, and he is doing his duty in this connection; the package announced is certainly proof of this.

For the sake of argument, the site and equipment of a specific undertaking are used for perhaps only eight hours every day. Why is it not possible for us to use it to its full potential round the clock? By means of proper planning, synchronisation and co-ordination, we could probably make it possible to use those existing facilities for at least 12 hours every day instead of only eight, especially for the purpose of training people who are not properly qualified to compete in the labour market. The ideal would be 24 hours a day but I do not believe this would ever really be possible. If we could realise the objective of only 12 hours, however, we should already have made great progress to generating capital from own ranks particularly with a view to partial production of capital we require in other fields of the economy from own resources.

I believe one of the most important statements made by Ludwig von Mises is to be found in his well-known book Human Action. I quote:

In acknowledging what has already been done and is still being done by the Government, I wish to request that a concentrated task force should also work on this with increasing urgency in order to eliminate delays and red tape in this sphere. After all, we have all realised one important point, which is that we are saddled with both the rules and regulations of the White as well as exploitation possibilities of the Third World that has to be developed from square one. In the light of this we therefore have to concede that the Third World cannot understand or accept all these rules and regulations. To have to approach 33 organisations when one wishes to obtain a meat trader’s licence or to wait three months for acknowledgement of receipt of an application for the subdivision of a property—this was actually always the case earlier—are only two examples of matters which are totally unacceptable to Third World people.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is also present in the House at the moment. Incidentally, I know he is a great proponent of the abolition of all these unnecessary delaying practices. In this respect we shall have to start making a concerted effort and honestly begin doing something drastic about it. I know that hon Minister is able to do this; in fact, he likes work more than I do. That is why I do not believe it is necessary for me to attempt motivating him. The great difficulty with him is attempting to curb him once he has the bit between his teeth. Whatever the case, we shall have to make a start now on abolishing these so-called White man’s rules and regulations. We shall have to start making conditions acceptable and accessible to other population groups so that the benefits of capitalism may also become clear to them. We shall simply never be able to accomplish this with the current piles and piles of unnecessary sets of rules.

We have certainly made mistakes this year. I wish to put it honestly to the hon the Minister of Finance that I do not agree with the prohibition on a minimum price for petrol. I do not believe in that. As far as I am concerned, I accept the reasons put forward for this by the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. As an individual, however, I cannot agree on this. I believe we should throw the system open to enable the free-market mechanism to play its part fully here as well. [Interjections.] All right, there are members here who disagree with me but I cannot help it if I am the only one in the right. [Interjections.]

I should like to make a last statement on the Press release concerning the Director-General of Finance and the matter involving import control on goods from Sweden. I know this may perhaps not altogether accord with the theme of the debate at present but I nevertheless consider it important that I raise it here. I know we do not deliberately apply control on imports from Sweden but I wish to be honest. I do not have much against its being done. [Time expired.]

Order! Before the hon member for Vasco resumes his seat, I first wish to raise an aspect of his speech. He said that since Mr Speaker had appointed the hon member for Yeoville, he would respect him although he would not have appointed him himself.

That is right, Mr Chairman.

I accept that the hon member intended no disrespect whatever toward the appointment made by Mr Speaker.

On the contrary, Sir. I have great respect for the appointment made by Mr Speaker.

Order! I accept the hon member’s explanation and I appreciate his attitude. I believe he has furnished an adequate explanation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Vasco will excuse me if I do not follow on what he was saying. I do agree with a certain amount of what he said, although not all of it.

We seem to be in a classical “catch 22” or “chicken and egg” situation, or whatever one may wish to call it. There is no gainsaying the fact that our economic situation is certainly most unhealthy. There is no question about that, and the hon the Minister himself has conceded the point by realising that certain stimulation is necessary. However, one also finds an odd position developing in that experts are divided as to what and how things should be done.

There are some who believe that we will never resolve our economic problems until we have resolved our political problems and, conversely, there are others who have the opposite idea. As far as I am concerned, the solution to our economic problems is perhaps of greater importance as a priority than solving the political problems, although the two are interrelated.

It is all very well to say: “Give us the political world and the rest belongs to us.” This is the sort of slogan one gets from the communists, socialists and various other factions. However, if we were in fact to solve our political problems to the satisfaction of those who are considered to be the disadvantaged, we would never be able to give them anything like their expectations in the economic field, and so we would have achieved nothing. I therefore believe it is important that we make a serious attempt to resolve our economic problems.

We have a situation in which we are forever crying over and bemoaning our fate because of threats of disinvestment. Of course the import of foreign money is of assistance to South Africa. It is important for development and it will assist in speeding things up. I am thoroughly convinced, however, that the biggest sinners on the disinvestment side are not outside South Africa but inside. In other words, there is a great deal of money in South Africa which is not being properly used for development purposes. There is money which is available for borrowing, for example, which is not being borrowed. There is money which is just lying in banks, building societies and the like and not producing the sort of returns that it could—not only in terms of interest to the owners of that money, but the returns which we as a country need for development purposes. I believe that this is one of our major problems. Here again, however, why is that situation as it is?

I believe there are a number of reasons for it. One of these is that we have talked ourselves into the miseries—my mother used to refer to me as being a miserable little so-and-so when I was small! [Interjections.]

And now?

No, nobody calls me that now. [Interjections.] Apart from that, we have a situation in which businessmen feel that the risk and the labour involved in running a business are not worth the profits they are getting.

I should just like to give hon members a small example of what a businessman has to contend with in business today, as compared to a few years ago. They have always had these things, but first of all if one wanted to start a business some years ago, one had to obtain a licence. A licence was a control measure and it cost a relatively modest sum. In a business with which I was associated, the licence cost R20,00. That was a control measure. Today the licence for that same business costs R2 500. It is no longer solely a control measure; it is a measure of additional taxation which the local authority is imposing. That is tax grab number one.

On that same building a number of years ago the rates were R100 per year. At the present moment the rates on that same building—there is not a scrap of difference to it—are over R3 000 and some hundred per year. One can thus see that before the businessman has even started he has had those two bites from the local authorities. In addition, he has to pay company tax which is far higher than it was some years ago, as is income tax. The certain little perks benefits which he had have also all been taken away.

In addition to that, further demands are likely to be made of the businessman. Regional services levies are on the board and will come in effect any minute from now, and I believe they are going to be material and will hurt especially those businesses which have a high turnover and a low profit margin. The businessman has, for example, also to collect money for GST. Hon members may argue that he has collected it from the public but in many instances that has not been the case. This is part of the practical knowledge of business which some people perhaps do not have. When one sells something, one debits the customer’s account. However, he may take three months to pay and, in the meantime, one has to pay within 45 days—I am somewhat out of touch with that but I think that is the figure; it is in any case something of that order. In many businesses the amount of GST which has to be paid runs into many thousands of rand. This wrecks their cash flow completely. I just wanted to give an illustration of half a dozen of the impositions a businessman has to deal with before he can in fact start making any money at all.

In South Africa we have plenty of labour. I believe most firms have excess plant capacity. I also believe that there is a very, very great need of much which we can produce, internally. Of course, in so far as exportation is concerned, we have a very low rand which must be of assistance to us with regard to exports in spite of the antipathy many parts of the world have for South Africa. It is quite obvious, generally, that businessmen overseas may talk big about high morality and about the good of the community but, throughout most of the world, they are in business to make a profit. Therefore, unless there is a ban on imports from this country, they will buy if the price is right and the quality is reasonable. In this regard I believe we have not done nearly enough to stimulate our export business.

As I said earlier, we have very largely talked ourselves into these miseries and into a depression. Just as easily, it is possible to talk one’s way out of a depression. This is important to bear in mind. However, I believe we have to ensure that all South Africans feel that this is a worthwhile country in which to five, that there is hope for the future and, from a businessman’s point of view, that there will be an opportunity to make money commensurate with the investment risk and the work which has to be done. [Interjections.]

However, I am firmly convinced that, at this stage, the impositions upon businessman are excessive. It is almost impossible for a businessman today, if not totally so, to generate his own capital for development as businessmen have done in the past. What is the result? If one wants to develop one has to borrow money at high interest rates. If there is a downward trend in business while one is stuck with that heavy loan, then one goes under. The situation at the present moment is that it is estimated that this very year something of the order of 20 000 businesses in South Africa will close their doors. Last year the figure was somewhat similar, possibly a little higher. All of these businesses have closed down. Taking the average as 20 000 businesses per year, that means 40 000 businesses closed down in a period of two years. If they only employed an average of 10 people per business, look how much unemployment has been created. That means 400 000 people would be out of jobs with these businesses closing. Only a relatively small percentage of those are through bankruptcies or liquidations of one sort or another. Many of them are closing not because they have gone broke or have been pushed into liquidation; they are closing because it is not worth the candle running a business anymore. That is the crux of the thing. I have been saying in this House for some considerable time that business life has been made too difficult.

When one has a situation that businesses are prepared to keep going, one finds that there is inadequate assistance for them. When the agricultural industry gets into trouble, the Government steps in and assists the industry. I do not quarrel with that; I think it is absolutely essential that that industry should be assisted.

That was the position a very long time ago.

Yes, as I say, it should be assisted. Food is a basic essential for South Africa, and therefore one must ensure that the stage is not reached where the industry becomes totally moribund. Therefore one must assist those people.

When the mines have problems and become marginal mines, they are given certain tax concessions to keep them operating and producing. I do not quarrel with that either. I believe that our foreign valuta earned by gold and the like in particular is vitally important for South Africa, but those two elements are two of the three major wealth-producing elements in South Africa—agriculture and the mines, or the extractive industries. However, the third leg, and possibly in its own way the biggest leg, is the industrial/commercial sector. I am afraid that the assistance given in that direction is totally inadequate.

I noticed in the hon the Minister’s speech that he gave an indication that a further R50 million had been made available to assist certain of the small businesses in the rural areas and one or two other areas. I am aware of that, but at a time such as this that sort of assistance is totally inadequate. I am sorry that there are these businesses that have gone broke, not because they were bad businesses as such, since the businessmen involved were good businessmen, but because others who were not as good have wrecked their cash flow; they have gone under and they have, as a consequence, dragged half a dozen other businesses under as well. This is what one has to contend with and this is what I believe the hon the Minister must give serious attention to if he believes, as I do, that we can build up prosperity.

The hon the Minister’s concession of R700 million additional for housing is, I believe, a very, very positive step. This, I believe, should be wholeheartedly supported, but I would address just a few words to the hon the Minister in respect of how that R700 million is to be used.

If that R700 million is used correctly, it can be an enormous boost to the whole economy of South Africa, because once people have houses, they need furniture, curtains, carpets, etc. So, it is a stimulus to a wide variety of trades. The people who build those houses will want to buy those houses with the money they earned in building them. So it goes on; one gets money turning over at a terrific rate, and this is a good thing. I would, however, appeal to the Government departments that are handling this to ensure that it is used to best advantage and that a large amount is put out to small builders to do very small blocks of houses, and that it is not spent on three, four or five huge contracts. Those are not people who use much labour. They will not create a great deal of employment because the profit margin is the only thing that counts as far as those people are concerned. One wants to get owner-builder type of operations and builders on a small scale to do a fairly substantial quantity of this. I am perfectly well aware that it will cost slightly more to build those houses that way than through these huge schemes, but it is a good investment doing it this way. That way more people will be employed who will be earning more money, who will be wanting to buy more things so that more people can be employed. I think this is where one has to be very careful of how one handles the situation.

There was one thing that disappointed me very much, namely that the hon member for Yeoville was not included in the task group appointed to assist in the evaluating of the Budget. I have sat on the Finance Committee—admittedly I have had to miss a few meetings because I had to attend meetings of other standing committees—but it is obvious to me that the hon member for Yeoville is an extremely knowledgeable person on finance, and particularly the type of finance involved in the Budget. I have no quarrel with the hon members who have been appointed to that task group, but I do think that it was a mistake not to include the hon member for Yeoville. I can appreciate that the chairman of the standing committee has not been appointed to the task group because he already has an onerous job having to deal with public accounts and finance. The hon member for Yeoville, however, is a man who I would have thought would have been an obvious choice for this position owing to his enormous depth of knowledge and experience in this field.

In conclusion I wish to say that I believe that the stimulation of the economy as announced by the hon the Minister is helpful. I would say it is just a fraction more helpful than trying to stimulate a rhino with a feather up his tail! However, the point is that it is a stimulation of the economy and, if it is used correctly, it will help to get the economy moving.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umbilo invariably makes a very constructive contribution to debates. I am quite sure the hon the Minister will take note of the comments he made concerning the difficulties which the small businessmen are having to put up with today. I agree with the hon member for Umbilo and I sincerely hope that in due course when deregulation really gets under way it will possibly assist the businessmen along the lines the hon member has mentioned regarding the extra-heavy costs involved in the running of a business.

I am quite sure the hon member for Umbilo will agree with me that at present South Africa is undergoing a major structural change in the socioeconomic field as well as the political field. I am quite sure that he, as a man who has had vast experience of local government and provincial government, must be aware, when looking at these budgets, that there is a change of emphasis to be seen as to where money is being spent. For example, much money is being spent on Black housing at present. I think the hon member made a very positive contribution in that connection and I am quite sure the hon Minister will take note of what he said. I would like to think that the hon the Minister will agree with me when I say that, in this major restructuring of South Africa that is taking place, the Government and the local authorities must first of all increase the supply of suitable township land for Black housing. In fact, I believe that home construction should be deregulated completely to just the site and service scheme. I believe this has already been accepted by the Government.

As we move into the era of the new South Africa we have to stimulate an entirely new economy. Let us call it the Third World economy that is dormant in South Africa but which is just waiting to be stimulated. There is a tremendous potential market out there which can be developed to meet the needs and aspirations of the Third World sector of our population. I regret to say, however, that up to now our economy as a whole has tended to cater far more to the needs of the First World segment of our population, and I believe this has been a mistake. As urbanisation takes place, there is a great need for the owner-builder to build not the sort of homes the hon member for Umbilo envisages but rather the sort of homes that person would have built in the homeland from whence he comes.

“Pondokkies”, yes.

“Pondokkies”, the hon member says. Yes, they could build “pondokkies”. We can see what has been happening all around the greater Durban area with the shacks that have been going up, and also what has been happening at Crossroads and elsewhere. People want homes, and they have to be provided with the appropriate materials. It is in this sphere, I believe, that there is a tremendous opportunity for businessmen to start supplying the materials that will meet those particular needs of those people. The sort of thing I have in mind is the supply of ordinary creosoted or treated poles for the construction of these homes. Even the off-cuts from our sawmills could be used in the construction of these homes. There is a tremendous market, I believe, in the provision of cooking utensils for this new development that is to come. So, too, is there a tremendous market in meeting the needs of the people as far as clothing, blankets and furniture are concerned.

I was speaking recently to someone who is active in the building industry. While we were discussing this matter of housing for Blacks, he said that the figure of R4 000 quoted by some people as the amount for which a house could be built, was too high. I agree with him. I believe, and I put it to the hon the Minister, that somehow we have got to create a market for the supply of materials which will enable a Black coming from his homeland into an urban area to put up a structure at a cost of approximately R1 000. After all, that is what they do in their normal places of living. We have to realise that there is a potential market in this regard, and it must be developed to meet the needs of the people.

I believe we should also encourage the development of a “township economy”, if I may use that term, the development of an informal sector which makes available to the people those things which I have said they need. Therefore, we need central or village or town market areas. When one travels the world, be it the developed Western World in Britain, or the Far East, or South America, one sees that market areas have been set aside in order to allow this informal and Third World type of economy to operate. I concede that this is not so much the trend in Western Europe today, but even in Western Europe they have their market squares where on certain days of the week one sees the informal sector operating. So I appeal to the hon the Minister and his colleagues to ensure that top priority is given to these things as they represent the immediate needs of many people in South Africa today.

As I have said, we are in a period of great change, and so I was very pleased that the hon member for Yeoville—I am very glad that he is here at the moment—at least acknowledged, if I quote him correctly, “that there has been change of a real nature”. I was very pleased to hear him say that. Too few people are willing to acknowledge that today, especially the hon members of the PFP.

The hon member for Yeoville went on, however, to criticise the Government on the way it is handling this process of change. So I want to ask that hon member whether he really appreciates and understands the real difficulties in handling the politics of change. I want to ask him whether he understands the real difficulties in handling a reform movement. Does that hon member really appreciate what is involved? Certainly, from the way he talks, he gives one the impression that he has not learnt a thing from his own experience and history. How would he manage the reform movement in South Africa, for instance? How would he manage the politics of change in South Africa? [Interjections.]

Not the bloody way you would!

You see, Sir, the man curses at me. He says he would not manage it “the bloody way (I) would”. That is what that hon member says. His record as a reformer is dismal indeed, however. As a provincial leader of the old United Party, he came in as a reformist determined to change things in the official opposition, and within three years, as a result of his actions when he broke away as a reformist, the United Party ended up as a totally broken party.

Why?

That is the way he handles change.

Why? Have you ever heard of John Wiley?

The hon member for Yeoville was a reformist, and he fluffed his task. [Interjections.] I would like to know how the PFP would handle change in South Africa if they were the party in power? We have seen their performance over the past five years. They have been a party of boycotts and of negativism and they are a party which is the mouthpiece for the ANC. [Interjections.] In fact I say the hon member for Sandton is the Lord Haw-Haw of the ANC.

Order! The hon member must withdraw the words “the mouthpiece for the ANC”.

I withdraw that, Mr Chairman. That party cannot criticise the Government. One need just look at their record. Their leader and the chairman of their federal council resigned in frustration because they could not stand the pace. If that party had been in control South Africa would indeed have been in “an unholy mess”, in the words of the hon member for Yeoville.

Are we not in a mess? What are we in then?

No, I do not think that we are in a totally unholy mess. We are struggling with the politics of change and that party is doing nothing whatsoever to assist us in this period of change. Instead they are putting stumbling blocks in the path of change and they are encouraging people who are preventing change from happening in South Africa.

If you could also declare a state of emergency in the economy you would do so.

According to that hon member an eminent economist has recently stated that South Africa’s economic performance was shocking and had been going backwards. Has the hon member not studied the performance of some of our private sector industries in recent times? The hon member for Vasco—a member of this party—mentioned earlier on that he was prepared to say that the hon the Minister may be wrong with a certain policy. We on these benches do not claim to be perfect and neither, I submit, can the private sector claim to be perfect. [Interjections.] However, those hon members believe they are perfect.

Has the hon member studied the productivity figures of industry and commerce in South Africa over the past 15 years?

Why are they like that?

Why are they like that?

Your policies caused it.

He blames everything on the Government. Why has there been a negative productivity growth in for instance the mining industry? Both capital and labour productivity has decreased regularly for the past 14 years on the mines. Is the Government responsible for the training and employment of Blacks on the mines? [Interjections.] I regret to say that that hon member shoots his mouth off, he is an insulting member and I do not believe he is really contributing constructively to the debates of this House. The hon member for Yeoville—I agree with the hon member for Umbilo on this point—has tremendous potential. However, I do not know what it is in his personality that really messes up that potential.

The other day he said we had to look at the fundamental problems of unemployment. I agree with him that we have to look at some aspects of “the structural unemployment in South Africa”, as he called it. I want to say to him that we have to look at our total economy and the Third World sector of it that we must start developing. In this process of changing from our past economy to the new South African economy that is developing there are going to be some major changes in the attitudes of people. Is the hon member for Yeoville prepared to tell the Whites of South Africa, the voters, the truth of the future of South Africa namely, that they are going to have to change their attitudes?

Your party is not. Your party has been bluffing the voters for 34 years!

That hon member makes such wild statements at times! I would like to see him tell the Whites of South Africa that a new South Africa is coming about where democracy is going to be broadened, where more people will be brought into the economy and where equalised education will be brought about. He must tell them that this is going to require certain sacrifices on the part of the people of South Africa.

Regrettably my time is up but I just wish that hon member would make truly constructive speeches in future instead of insulting hon members on this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, I can understand the hon member for Amanzimtoti’s need to sing for his supper. [Interjections.] I think his speech this afternoon was rather like his political career. It started fairly promisingly when he spoke of self-help for housing and the development of the informal business sector, but from thereon it deteriorated sharply.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon member for Umbilo for his generous compliment to the hon member for Yeoville in suggesting that he should be appointed to the task committee and that his expertise would be valuable there. I agree with the hon member and I think it was in a political context a generous gesture on his part to make those remarks this afternoon.

This is the last wide-ranging debate which we will have this session. It is interesting to note that we started this year with the State President making a speech and publishing advertisements when we were in a state of emergency. Now, months later, we are in another state of emergency and unfortunately the spirit of the State President’s speech and advertisements has disappeared almost entirely from the political scene.

After 38 years of NP rule South Africa is in the biggest mess it has ever been in. I do not think there is any need to bother to detail it, as even most of the hon NP members agree on that when one speaks to them. The problem is that the Government learns little and, when it does learn, it learns very slowly.

When one looks at conflict management, there are generally two ways in which one can try to handle conflict. The one way is that of negotiation and compromise and the alternative is repression. When the pressure has been on, the NP has invariably resorted to repression to try to contain the conflict. However, this has not worked in the past and it will not work now. In a society that has a substantially integrated economy, it will remain impossible to govern peacefully against the will of 85% of the population, and in due course it will become impossible to govern at all.

The NP has done everything in its power to control South Africa by using repressive measures, but it has failed lamentably. Bannings, house-arrests, detentions without trial, trumped-up charges and massive intimidation have been used on a wide scale for decades, but we are worse off now than ever before.

Let us take the ANC for example. Banning it in 1960 was the Government’s announcement that the NP rejected peaceful political change in South Africa unless it took place on terms dictated unilaterally by the NP. What happened? Was the effect to cripple the ANC and make the Black population more docile or compliant than it had been? On the contrary: The ANC committed itself to a violent strategy. It is as popular today as it has ever been and its support is growing. There is more violence in South Africa than ever before. That or any other violence gives me no pleasure whatsoever but it is stupid to ignore its existence.

Was the lesson learnt? No, again this Government failed to learn the lesson. After 26 years of hammering the ANC in every possible way, the Government finds that it is faced with a graver crisis, a more popular ANC, more violence and less control than it started with. What does it then do? It decides to try to hammer the ANC and other opposition organisations even more viciously.

The state of emergency will not succeed, even if in the short term a facade of relative calm is projected to the public by Government propaganda. It has started already and we have had evidence of that facade.

Take the flow of news for example. Mr Leon Mellet, spokesman for the Bureau for Information, has denied that the Bureau was withholding news. He said they were reflecting the factual situation in the country and suggestions to the contrary were false. Yesterday the Bureau reported that incidents of public violence were limited to a minimum Today the Bureau announced that 11 people died in the 24 hours up to 6h00 this morning. That is public violence limited to a minimum according to their reports. I think we can accept that the numbers given are the absolute minimum because they were not going to include people dying who were not yet dead. I am sure there are many other deaths that have not yet been discovered or reported.

You are talking absolute nonsense!

Hon members of the NP claim that the state of emergency will calm things down, but 42 people are officially confirmed to have died in the first five days of the emergency.

I do not believe the state of emergency will succeed. What is required is urgent political action which is not and will not be forthcoming under this Government. The simple truth is well expressed in a recent article by Allister Sparks, from which I would like to quote a couple of extracts:

So we are stuck with repression, and it is now worse than ever. One just has to look at the emergency regulations, which are wide-ranging, vague and arbitrary and comprise a perfect recipe for a police state in which legal organisations are prevented from pursuing legitimate objectives. These regulations are a fundamental onslaught on some of the few remaining aspects of democracy that survive in South Africa. They are unjust and unwise and will result in fostering extremism born of despair as the avenues for peaceful expression and change are increasingly closed.

Whether one agrees with them or not, the UDF, Azapo, the ECC, the AWB and others are entitled to function within the law. They should be charged if they do not, but there is no justification for the detention of their officials and the banning of their meetings.

Even the Official Opposition in Parliament is now being threatened. Emergency regulations 7 and 10, for example, give the Police carte blanche to interfere with the legitimate activities of the PFP, and this has already happened. The definition of a subversive statement in the first regulation is so vague and wide that it can be applied in a variety of circumstances. For example, a “subversive statement” means a statement which, among other things, has the effect “of inciting the public or any person or category of persons to … discredit or undermine the system of compulsory military service.” Allow me to quote PFP policy on this matter:

The PFP believes the following:

Every person and organisation should have the right to campaign peacefully for a change in a law, and that right should not be subject to arbitrary or vague regulations, especially when they are applied by junior Police officers.

Another example of the vague and arbitrary nature of these regulations is how they affect public meetings. The PFP planned to hold a public meeting at lunchtime yesterday. On Saturday evening the Police interfered with our workers when they were putting up posters in the centre of Cape Town. The Police eventually left, and we continued putting up the posters. When we returned an hour and a half later, all the posters had gone.

On Monday morning our workers who were legitimately distributing leaflets were arrested by the Police. When I eventually discovered what had happened to them I asked the station commander what they had been arrested for. He told me they had been arrested for distributing leaflets. When I asked him in terms of what law this action had been taken, he told me they had been arrested under the emergency regulations. I told him we had not intended to break the law and asked him what regulation we had contravened. His reply was: “I haven’t got them in front of me now, but I’ll phone you back.” He never did.

The Police then proceeded to ban our meeting. A few minutes later they unbanned it, and our officials were eventually released.

If that is what happens today to people organising a public meeting to be addressed by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in Parliament, we can just imagine what is happening to the tens of thousands of people all around South Africa who have no hope of being afforded any protection.

Mr Speaker, the general economic position in which the country finds itself must be ascribed to several factors and is not as simplistic a matter as the hon member for Cape Town Gardens would have us believe. The fact that the unrest in South Africa is a decisive factor, having an effect on the recovery and development of the economy, surely cannot be explained away. We understand this and want to give it our attention.

The question, however, is what the hon member for Cape Town Gardens and the PFP in general have done towards having the unrest in South Africa level off. I wish to contend that they have made absolutely no contribution towards defusing the situation of unrest in South Africa. [Interjections.] They shall go down in history as the party that boycotted the measures that we have been discussing in this House over the past week or two. [Interjections.] They opposed legislation that we wanted to pilot through Parliament so as to enable us to handle the security situation in South Africa satisfactorily. They did absolutely nothing, but today the hon member for Cape Town Gardens wants to present that party as the party that speaks for peace in South Africa. The contributions they have made towards stirring up unrest must be examined and a large question mark placed over their contributions towards controlling unrest.

Provisionally I want to leave the hon member at that and continue with my speech. The prolonged recession in which we are caught up—we do not deny that there is such a recession—makes it necessary for each of us to reassess his financial position. It is true that everyone’s financial capabilities have changed in recent times. A few have probably improved their positions, but I think they are the exceptions. The truth of the matter is that the financial positions of the majority are worse, particularly in regard to their spending power and ability to save. The position in which some people find themselves has worsened dramatically. This means that everyone, individuals, businessmen, every undertaking and company, will have to reassess its financial position. Such a self-evaluation will mean looking anew at everyone’s financial position and will necessitate greater financial responsibility.

This brings me to a general statement, which is that all of us ought to show greater financial responsibility towards ourselves and towards others. All of us, to a greater or lesser extent, have a financial responsibility—children towards themselves and the family, the housewife towards herself and her family and the community, and so too the breadwinner, the consumer, the employee, the employer, the trader, the producer, the marketer, the manufacturer, the private sector, the public sector and the Government—so we can go on enumerating them. Each of these groups has a responsibility in regard to the financial activities in South Africa. The reality of the situation is that we cannot wish this responsibility away. This applies not only to our responsibility to ourselves, but also to the overall responsibility we have to everyone in South Africa.

Let us just look for a moment at the nature of the financial responsibility we have to address. Firstly everyone has a financial responsibility to South Africa. One of the responsibilities surely involves making more responsible purchases in future. An important facet of this involves the kind of product that is purchased. The slogan “Buy South African” will again, in future, be of fundamental importance in the decision we make about what to purchase.

The threatening sanctions and boycotts, which we hear about every day, are becoming more and more of a reality. Countries pleading for the imposition of sanctions against us do not deserve to have us purchase their goods here in South Africa. If they propagate the imposition of sanctions against South Africa we, as the consumers of those goods, are surely entitled to decide selectively on what trademarks we should purchase. If, during the next year or two, we make a unified effort to confine our purchases primarily to South African products and then also purchase selectively when we purchase imported goods, we as individual South Africans will really have dealt a blow to the mounting sanctions against us.

A second facet that will need our attention involves our present level of productivity and our concerted will and efforts to improve it. It is necessary to increase the productivity capacity, however, to make it possible to take the next very essential step, that of increased remuneration for the work that is furnished. To give employees a fundamental remuneration package would be counterproductive if it did not go hand in hand with harder work and with increased productivity. We accept the fact that salaries and wages have not kept pace with changed circumstances. The prolonged high rate of inflation has definitely taken its toll in this regard. It is, however, only possible to bring about a fundamental increase in the remuneration package if productivity is fundamentally increased. Then a favourable salary increase would not have as much of an inflationary effect as it would now have.

Next I want to dwell for a moment on the deteriorating position of the small businessman, something which is a cause for concern at present. Here I should like to associate myself with what previous speakers have said in this connection. Sequestrations in this sector are increasing by the month. I really do wish to lodge a plea for this group of people today. Over the past few years the Government has, in a dramatic fashion, granted assistance to the farmers to keep them on their farms during the crisis brought about by the drought. This assistance is welcomed in all quarters and there is no argument about that whatsoever; on the contrary, the assistance was vitally necessary.

There is an ever-increasing tendency, however, for the established small businessman, the real backbone of the commercial sector, the small manufacturing sector and the service sector to have to make a last-ditch stand for survival. Many have already been brought to their knees and others are in the process of succumbing. I am not speaking about the casual businessman, about those who, in times of prosperity, have left their jobs to start their own business undertakings. I am speaking of those who, throughout the years, have been active and progressive participants in this sector and who have now, like the farmers, been brought to their knees because of circumstances beyond their control.

The question we have to address is whether those people do not also have a claim to at least a sympathetic consideration of their position. I am aware that the SBDC is there to be of assistance to them. This corporation does good work. The R50 million now being made available to the SBDC is welcomed. It cannot, however, merely be employed for the rural areas. The urban small businessman has also been hurt in the process and assistance will also have to be granted to him.

The question that must be asked is what role the private sector is playing in the financing of small business undertakings. What is their capital contribution to the SBDC? There will have to be greater accessibility as far as available assistance is concerned. There must also be a greater willingness to take early remedial action and there must be a greater willingness on the part of businessmen to acknowledge their worsening position.

We shall therefore have to take more coordinated action in the early identification of these problems. The respective chambers of commerce will have to come to the fore and, as the SA Agricultural Union has put in a word for the farmers, put in a word for these people and give them the relevant guidance.

I am therefore advocating a responsible campaign to give the small businessman an opportunity to acknowledge his deteriorating position at an early stage. Once liquidation comes into the picture, any assistance that can be granted, if any, is extremely limited. If such a campaign were to be organised, it would enable the State and the Government, as in the case of the farmers, to accept some responsibility in this regard. That is a responsibility I want to advocate today.

I want to conclude by saying that this financial responsibility does not end there. There is an overall responsibility that everyone in South Africa must accept, and that is the responsibility for survival. This will only be possible if everyone is more willing to accept this financial responsibility. To make this possible, the NP has irrevocably adopted a course aimed at reform—not only to satisfy political aspirations, but also to place everyone in a better financial position. The masses must also have an opportunity to become part of a more dignified and, broadly speaking, a more economically active group in South Africa.

Protest, boycotts, stay-aways, strikes, unrest, murder and arson have no contribution whatsoever to make to prosperity in South Africa. On the contrary, such action results in nothing but stagnation, deterioration and negativism, in thought and deed, and is totally counterproductive. We all accept the responsibility for creating a sound and happy future in South Africa. If we do so, we can get South Africa safely over its difficulties. This is not merely the responsibility of any one person; it is the responsibility of all of us in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Gezina covered a wide field. I am not going to follow up on what he said, except to say that if the emergency measures that have been taken can bring us any stability in South Africa, they will have served their purpose. I think that the eyes of the world are on South Africa and that what the world expects of South Africa is that there should be order and stability here and not chaos. I therefore trust that the Government—although it has dragged its feet for a long time now—will this time achieve the stability that the world wants us to achieve.

The world is afraid that we in the Republic of South Africa are going the same way that some of the countries of Africa have gone and they want to know whether their investments are safe. They want to know how far the South African Government is prepared to go to protect their investments here. That is why I am saying that these emergency measures were vital.

The question that is often asked is what has happened to the leaders of the NP to cause one and the same party, in a period of four years, to reject separate development. They have relinquished separate development and, in its place, come to light with the very opposite, ie integration. [Interjections.]

During this period separate development has been questioned. This has been done during the past four years because the public questions a policy that is not purposefully implemented.

When one looks back on history, it is interesting to note the role played by Sprocas to prepare the way for these new thinkers in the NP. Sprocas was a research undertaking. Who established it? The South African Council of Churches, the then Christian Institute and other associations, including foreign big business interests were behind this undertaking. The aim of this organisation was research—research with a special objective, ie that of making proposals for what they called a new South Africa.

The keyword was change. Lectures, seminars, deliberations, conferences and meetings were held both locally and internationally. At the time there was also no shortage of money for these leftist organisations. The media were only too eager to convey this idea of a new South Africa.

The South African Council of Churches and the Christian Institute then came to light with Sprocas 2. Sprocas 2 was to promote the recommendations of the initial organisation, Sprocas 1. Let us have a look at who the erstwhile leaders were whose ideas are today being accepted by the NP leaders. Amongst the executive officials there were well-known leftists such as Horst Kleinschmidt, Rick Turner, Neville Curtis and Steve Biko. Those are the spiritual forefathers of this new movement in the NP. Interestingly enough, at some or other stage all of these people came into conflict with security measures.

Sprocas 2’s documents were banned, but its conceptions, ideas and ideals live on and have taken root in the minds of certain people in the NP. [Interjections.] The coworkers of Sprocas gradually ousted the advocates of separate development in the Government. Dr Dennis Worrall, a well-known Sprocas co-worker, became chairman of the President’s Council committee on constitutional affairs. He also became the NP’s key adviser on constitutional change. There is also another Sprocas adviser in that council, Mr Japie Basson, whom I believe is a member of the NP these days.

This takeover of Sprocas thinking by the leaders of the NP has already taken place. That is the problem the governing party is now faced with. The advocates of separate development have been completely ousted from Government ranks. They had to make way for the co-workers, advisers and supporters of the Sprocas way of thinking.

It is interesting that these trends of thought have also got through to a group of Government advisers. Let us take a brief look at the HSRC’s investigation into intergroup relations. Five leading Sprocas coworkers participated, as members or advisers, in the investigation. They were Professors L Schlemmer, H W van der Merwe, S P Cilliers, W D Hammondtoake and N J Roodie. The chairman of the Wiehahn Commission and Professor S M Swart were also members of both this committee and of the Anglo American group which gave abundant financial support to this organisation. [Interjections.]

The solutions suggested by Sprocas are today being accepted by this coalition government of the leader of the NP. Let us take a brief look at a few of the recommendations made by Sprocas. According to them there ought to be freedom of association in one and the same State. The Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions consequently advocated that job reservation be done away with; ethnic ties and foreign citizenship should be disregarded; Black workers must lawfully be able to establish trade unions until eventually there is complete integration in the labour field.

As far as points of departure and principles are concerned, the “new South Africa” advocated by Sprocas and that advocated by the Government do not differ, the only difference lying in the speed at which the process should be implemented. The following Sprocas principles have been accepted by the Government: Firstly, an undivided land area where one nation and one mixed society live, one State with an indivisible economy, one citizenship and one mixed government. There is also the question of equal rights, equal participation in the government and the principle of the freedom of association. [Interjections.]

This leads to the rejection of apartheid and guardianship, the acceptance of power-sharing, the redistribution of income and the abolishing of laws designed to draw a distinction between races and peoples. I have in mind, for example, the abolition of or amendments to job reservation and mixed trade unions, the admission of various races to universities, the repeal of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the changes to the Immorality Act, the abolition of the influx control measures, which we are dealing with at the moment, and the proposed participation of Black people at all levels of government.

There is also the acceptance of one controlling body for education, a uniform education policy, equal education and also the acceptance of the principle that each group is not solely responsible for its own education.

In the inner circles of the NP the Afrikaner’s Christian National philosophy of life has had to make way for humanism. [Interjections.] We heard that very clearly yesterday evening from the hon member for Innesdal. The word “people” has been replaced by the word “group”. [Interjections.]

Resistance to this change amongst the Whites has gradually been eroded. Power-sharing is first extended to the Indians, Coloureds and minorities. Influx control was implemented until the State President said last year that it had become outdated and expensive. As far as the right of Blacks to own land in White areas is concerned, the Whites were first softened up by way of the leasehold concept. First there were works committees and then trade unions. At university level, too, integration was initially implemented where it was least perceptible. Thus voters are separated from the Constitution, whilst a carrot is dangled in front of the Indians and Coloureds, only to introduce a new form of government at regional and local level two or three years later.

The NP has joined the Progs in choosing a course bent on integration. The CP is still adhering to the course of separate development. With the policy of partition we shall meet our obligations to our forefathers and also to our descendants, and we shall survive as a people. [Interjections.] The policy of partition gives us our own fatherland, a fatherland which will be ours personally and which will be controlled by us, a fatherland which will be a sovereign State and which will be governed by Whites. [Interjections.] Nor do we begrudge each people its own State, a people that must be able to govern itself. It is only in that way that peace can prevail in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I first wish to thank the hon the Minister of Finance for his announcements today on the motor industry. This industry is one of the basic operations in South Africa. It involves not only the steel industry but its ramifications reach to the point at which we purchase the final product from the retailer. Our motor industry has seen hard times over the past few years. This has not always been the fault of the economy as I think we had too many models to the extent that a degree of rationalisation had to take place. I nevertheless think the time has come to assist that industry. Consequently I thank the hon the Minister and also the hon the Deputy Minister because I know how much trouble the hon the Deputy Minister also took to assist this industry.

Sanctions against South Africa were discussed in London and Washington yesterday and today. If I think of what was discussed there and listen to the hon member for De Aar, my hair stands on end. [Interjections.] One hears those unrealistic fantasies while, I almost want to say, Rome is burning. [Interjections.]

At the moment the problem of SAA landing rights are being discussed by the American Congress. In addition, there is the possible refusal of loans to the private sector and the State. The Bank of America announced yesterday that it would grant us no further loans. [Interjections.] There is also talk of a possible prohibition on the import of our coal and steel by America. Directives have already been issued to American companies involved in our trade unions and our labour. Some companies with American subsidiaries in South Africa have been forced to accede to demands by trade unions for higher salaries which in turn influences the cost of living in South Africa. There is talk of suspending double tax agreements. Over the past 16 months, 12% of American companies have withdrawn from South Africa. There is talk of total disinvestment. The source of my concern is that at present there are more boycotts and sanctions against us in the USA than are applied against most communist countries. Nor does it remain at talk. Denmark and Sweden are actually already applying a total import prohibition against us. The wise men of the Commonwealth recommended total sanctions and total boycotts against us. What arguments do those people put forward? They suggest that the application of sanctions will prevent a bloodbath, They say moral disapproval of racism should be clearly indicated. They say apartheid should be destroyed. Nevertheless a very important aspect is that a struggle is in progress in the USA between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party for Black votes in that country. We also have to add that in the recent past the Black man in America has not fared well. Since 1969, the number of Black people in employment has decreased from 73% to 59%; the last figure is that for 1984. I therefore believe that, in spite of all our difficulties and problems, we can still point to a better list of achievements.

According to them, the last reason they give for the application of sanctions is to put a liberal government in power in South Africa. The arguments in favour of sanctions rest on erroneous assumptions, however. A large percentage of our Black people five on or below the breadline. Those people will be hurt; unemployment among our Black people will increase enormously. Even Dr Meer says that 64% of the Black people of this country are opposed to the application of sanctions.

There is also a covert attack on the Afrikaner. They speak of the Afrikaners (Boere) who are supposedly divided among themselves and say they will break us. Then there is also the so-called A-Team argument that apartheid should be shot away to allow the sun to shine. There are Blacks in South Africa who argue that, when sanctions are applied, they will no longer need to negotiate with the White man. They do not realise that Southern Africa will degenerate into total chaos if sanctions are applied successfully. They forget that private investment will not recover if the application of sanctions against us proceeds successfully. They forget that reform can only take place in a growing economy. We can continue pointing out numerous examples of their fallacious thinking to them. They do not realise, for example, in expecting a liberal government to take over here, that matters may proceed as in the Philippines or in Iran where either a communist or another form of totally autocratic government took over control.

In addition, sanctions cannot be completely successful; we have to be honest about this. In the first place, all countries have to participate. I do not believe they will succeed in this. Fifty-five per cent of South African exports consist of gold, diamonds and platinum, all of which commodities we can sell reasonably easily everywhere. Chrome and manganese are among our greatest export commodities and the world simply cannot manage without them.

Sanctions will obviously also harm our best trading partners. Mrs Thatcher said they would cause 130 000 people in Britain to become unemployed. Southern Africa cannot manage without us either. They are dependent on imports from South Africa, on services we furnish them and transport we supply to them. Besides this, we have a further powerful weapon. We can always manipulate certain categories of imports and use this as a lever in negotiation.

Partial sanctions will have a negative effect on us of course. They will affect our standard of living as well as our choice of products, the growth of our economy and the utilisation of our natural resources.

What does the world actually want now, however? The American Chamber of Commerce (South Africa) demands full political rights of us for all in the country and negotiation with all recognised leaders on power-sharing. Who are those recognised leaders? Mandela? In addition, they demand a lifting of the prohibition on certain political organisations. Does this include the ANC and the SA Communist Party among others? They also want us to abolish the population register and obviously also the Group Areas Act. They demand the withdrawal of the Police and the military from our Black towns. When I read these items, I nevertheless see the PFP policy in them. These are obviously aspects they sell the Western World; these are exactly the demands the Western World is currently putting to us. When one asks those people what they actually regard as a solution—Mrs Thatcher mentioned this the other evening on television—they reply that we should determine our own solution on condition that there is a democracy and the rights of the individual are guaranteed. The West has never clearly indicated to us that they agree that a system of one-man-one-vote in a unitary state will not work. Nor have they told us yet that they will support a system in which one minority group will not dominate another such group. They have not asked all minority groups to participate in the discussions of the National Statutory Council either in an attempt to work out a solution to South African problems. I can do no other than quote President Paul Kruger’s words to them:

All they insist upon is an ANC government with Nelson Mandela as the head of state. Of course, the PFP would also like this so we have to give a very decided answer to it. We cannot and will not accede to this. That is why selective sanctions were imposed against us yesterday and will be imposed against us today and tomorrow. Nevertheless we know there are many Black people supporting us; we know we have the infrastructure; in addition, we also have resources. We know that we shall take our people with us through our reforms. We know that we shall have economic growth again by means of the measures announced by the hon the Minister of Finance today.

If we think back, however, we will realise we have to be careful because selective sanctions will be applied to us. Nevertheless we should guard against permitting the threat and the fear of sanctions to become a canker to us. Let us accept the thought of selective sanctions and plan for them.

I wish to refer to what Dr Peet Strydom said. Let us accept that selective sanctions will be applied against us—and we do accept this. Many people will then say: “They are diplomatic signals.” Many people will say, “When the American elections in November are over, you will fare much better again.” Two years later they will be holding elections again, however. Chances are reasonably good that a Democratic Senate will come in; the Senate and Congress will then be the same. In addition, we do not know how much longer Mrs Thatcher will remain in power nor do we know how long Mr Kohl will remain at the helm. That is why we have to look into the future. It is in this respect that I actually wish to quote Dr Strydom. He said:

That is why we have to stimulate our exports as the hon the Minister has already announced; perhaps we should even subsidise exports further. As regards our imports, I do not request import control but the manipulation of imports. We should use our power because we are one of the largest importers in the world; I think we are among the first 20. Germany, for instance, exports goods to the value of R8 billion to us and Britain goods running to R6 billion; this gives us certain power.

I actually wish to close with the ANC slogan: “We shall overcome.”

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon member for Waterkloof and I can honestly not understand how an intelligent hon member such as he is does not know what the PFP policy is yet. He then comes here with misrepresentations which he should know are not a correct reflection of PFP policy. I should like to inform the hon member on another occasion.

Before reverting to this subject, however, I should like to turn to a few points in the hon the Minister’s speech. In the first place, I wish to refer to the unfortunate and absolutely shocking comment which the hon the Minister directed at the hon member for Yeoville. Perhaps the hon the Minister did not intend it like that but the implication of what he said was that the hon member for Yeoville’s criticism of him could be attributed to the fact that he had not offered the hon member for Yeoville some position or other. This is clearly what that remark implied. I wish to say that, if that interpretation is right, that remark is shocking coming from a Minister. [Interjections.] I wish to tell the hon the hon the Minister he will have to withdraw that remark. The implication contained in the remark is very clear to me. I have the hon the Minister’s Hansard in front of me and I quote from it. He said: “We will try and find you a job next time as well, all right?” That is a reflection, Mr Speaker, on the three members the hon the Minister appointed to the task group because it implies that he appointed them because they echo his words. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

That is the implication. [Interjections.]

The matter was then aggravated further by the hon member for Vasco. [Interjections.] It is a pity the hon member for Vasco is not present. What did the hon member say? Basically the hon member for Vasco said—if I understood him correctly—if it had been his choice, he would not have appointed the hon member for Yeoville as the Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance. I cannot imagine how an hon member of this House could make such an absolutely shocking comment. Every hon member in this House is aware of the hon member for Yeoville’s contribution. I need not defend him but every hon member knows about his insight and his contribution on the standing committee, within and outside this House, also concerning the pressure to which the hon the Minister and the hon member for Waterkloof referred and the entire question of disinvestment.

What does this have to do with it?

The hon the Minister asks me what this has to do with it! An hon member of this House in truth cast reflections on the work of the hon member for Yeoville as the Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance. I shall leave it at that but I wish to say I found it one of the most shocking episodes in this House toward a valued hon member, not only of my party, but also of this House on the basis of the contributions he furnishes consistently in this House.

That is a sign of bankruptcy.

The hon member for Vasco, who is not present now, also said the hon member for Yeoville purported to be the only one who wished to abolish apartheid. That is not what the hon member for Yeoville said. He said the problem facing us was that people outside and within our country could not believe that the same Government which had introduced apartheid would actually be prepared to abolish and capable of abolishing that apartheid effectively. Unfortunately that perception exists overseas as well as in South Africa. That is why I have frequently said that the lack of confidence is so great that the Government’s first task should be to allay that mistrust. Other people will only be able to believe in the good faith and goodwill of the Government after that.

I wish to say immediately that I am grateful for the hon the Minister’s announcement on the question of the additional amount for housing. I could comment in detail on this but I merely wish to say that it is undoubtedly the case that the building industry, more than any other, can provide employment opportunities in a large number of spheres— something no other industry is capable of. Consequently I am grateful that provision is being made in this way for housing.

I wish to revert to the hon the Minister’s speech. He referred to the state of emergency and the deterioration in our domestic and international position. The hon member for Waterkloof also admitted this in his speech. The Government’s reply to that was the declaration of a state of emergency. I do not wish to express judgement on the reasons for the Government’s declaration of the state of emergency. Nevertheless it is a fact that the deterioration in our domestic condition which led to this state of emergency was the direct consequence of the policy pursued over the past 35 years. No one in his right mind in this House will deny this. I do not claim this is the only factor giving rise to this but the policy pursued is the principal factor why relations between White and Black and relations between the Government and the Black people have deteriorated increasingly over the years. This cannot be denied. For years the PFP as a party and we as individuals have told the Government that, if it continued along this way, it would lead to conflict, clashes and greater estrangement. We warned that it would lead to the type of experiences we are now having. Many of us were abused when we told the Government this. Hon members need only look at how the hon member for Rissik referred to me and my conduct in the past to see what I mean.

I still maintain that.

He still maintains that. We told the Government for years we could not continue like this but we and other people were then branded as traitors to our people. Over the past week we were again reviled as people who certainly did not have the interests of this country at heart. [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir, I am sorry but I have only three or four minutes left. I reject that allegation with the greatest contempt. If there is a group of people which has warned the Government time and again not to continue like this, it is this one. To attempt covering up the Government’s past by accusing us of all kinds of ulterior motives is an absolutely unworthy reaction from the side of the Government.

And now the hon member for Amanzimtoti has the audacity to ask: “How will the PFP manage the politics of change?” What a ridiculous question to put!

What are we going to accomplish with this state of emergency? One of the problems pointed out by the hon member for Yeoville was the double talk. I regret having to say it but, as we are sitting here, there is perpetual double talk from the side of the Government. Some of the hon NP members say they admit they were wrong, that they are now taking another road and that they realise they have to forge ahead. Other NP members, however, remain attached to the policy of the past 35 years and cannot bring themselves to dissociate themselves from it. As we are sitting here, it is very clear that this is exactly what is happening. The hon member for Yeoville is therefore right in referring to double talk because that is taking place.

I asked what we could achieve with this state of emergency. There is one way in which we cannot achieve anything and that is by answering confrontation with confrontation; this will not solve our problem. I want to say this to the Government in all seriousness. We cannot find an answer to our fundamental problems by a policy of confrontation. The solution does not lie along the way of violence and counterviolence, no matter who perpetrates this.

I myself and others have frequently said that we shall not have peace in this country before creating a political system which will offer all the people in the country the opportunity for political participation in the decision-making process.

And that is not the solution of the tricameral system!

We may differ on the matter but, as a South African, as someone who is concerned about the future of the country and as someone who does not want violence or confrontation, I want to say that, whether we like it or not, we shall not attain any stability while Mr Mandela remains where he is. I am saying this objectively and in all sincerity. I wish to go further and add we shall not achieve that stability before we lift the ban on the ANC as regards its internal action. I cannot understand why we cannot treat the ANC here as we treated Swapo in South West. There we recognised the internal wing of Swapo and from that moment the actual deeds of terror and sabotage within South West were curbed to the best of my knowledge.

I wish to go further and say we shall not be able to succeed before the Government goes over to actual meetings with people, regardless of whether it agrees with them politically or not. I therefore appreciate the discussion which took place between the State President and Bishop Tutu the other day. That should be the start of the process, not only an isolated incident. We should proceed with it. If we could at least learn this primary lesson from this state of emergency of what has to be done, perhaps it will not be in vain.

Mr Speaker, the hon member Prof Olivier broached two matters in particular. The one dealt with the hon member for Yeoville and the other with the effect of the state of emergency. I personally have the highest regard for the hon member for Yeoville; I think he is a patriot. I know from experience that he contributes excellently on the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Nevertheless I want to tell the hon member for Yeoville with affection that he is a wilful man and inclined to get a little under people’s skins.

I am not looking for a job! [Interjections.]

I think one should accept the hon member for Yeoville’s good points and simply ignore the rest. I should like to let those words suffice.

The hon member Prof Olivier asked what we wanted to achieve with the state of emergency. Surely it is clear that we are fighting on two fronts in South Africa; we are fighting against a visible enemy on our borders but also fighting within South Africa. We are fighting on two fronts within South Africa as well. On the one hand we are dealing with people who have a just claim in South Africa but on the other hand we are fighting against people making use of those with rightful demands to create an impossible position within the country. I should very much like to say something on this subject this evening.

In the first Parliamentary debate of the year, the no-confidence debate, I referred to the Kairos document and liberation theology as such and I attempted to point out the danger this could represent to stability in South Africa. I do not have the least doubt that liberation theology as such played an important role in the unrest situation in South Africa over the past 18 months and it was intended to reach a climax yesterday—16 June.

In that debate I attempted analysing how the Kairos document divided theology in South Africa into three compartments, State theology, church theology and, in the third place, prophetic or liberation theology. The last is presented as the only practicable solution for South Africa.

One of the results arising from the gathering in Harare at the end of last year, where the Kairos document was discussed, was the decision then taken to hold days of prayer throughout the world for the fall of the South African Government. This had to culminate on 16 June this year. Recently three international church bodies—the World Council of Churches, the Lutheran World Federation and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches—drew up a joint liturgy to be used specifically on 16 June. I have a copy of this with me. In conjunction with this, a call to action was issued to aggravate the conflict in South Africa. Can one imagine anything more disloyal or unpatriotic?

It was drawn up in various languages, inter alia French, German, Spanish and English, and included the following words among others:

As I said a while ago, this type of liturgy resulted from the Harare meeting which was attended by the ANC and the PAC in addition to leaders of the World Council of Churches and the South African Council of Churches.

The day of prayer for the fall of South Africa is a typical example of applied liberation theology. This is a new political and not spiritual gospel. It is person-orientated and not Christ-orientated, it is humanistic and not Christian and has its origin in Marxism instead of in the Bible.

Liberation theology is not theology in the true sense of the word; it is political ideology based on Marxist thinking. Christianity, as we are sitting here today, had its origins in the truth of Christ revealed, whereas liberation theology had its origin in a human situation.

According to Marxist social analysis, the ordinary man is caught up in a situation of oppression. The Marxist sees conflict between the oppressor and the oppressed, between rich and poor and between Black and White. The liberation theologian does not regard man’s greatest need as salvation from sin but rather focuses on the structures sinning against him.

The World Council of Churches, which is the greatest promoter of Christian-Marxism, says Biblical salvation means liberation from political, economic, racist and social oppression. The South African Council of Churches says in the words of a very well-known person in the country, whose name I would rather not mention, that Jesus Christ was a revolutionary and that is why every Christian in the country and in the world should be a revolutionary. This sounds really suspect. Rev Canaan Banana, the President of Zimbabwe says: “Whenever I see a guerrilla fighter, I see Jesus Christ.” That is the background to liberation theology. These are people who were officials of the World Council of Churches—officials of an organisation which gave R6,5 million to organisations including the ANC and the PAC.

The crux of Marxism is militant atheism but they use this smoke screen to twist people in our country who really have hardly anything to defend or to lose around their little fingers for their purpose. In their struggle against apartheid, regardless of the Government’s expressed objectives in this regard and the purposeful reform efforts of the Government toward broadening democracy, the South African Council of Churches and the Council of Churches of the Western Cape, as arms of the World Council of Churches, encourage civil disobedience as well as school and consumer boycotts, strikes, disinvestment, sanctions and the matters we are experiencing now.

I should very much like to ask some hon members of the Official Opposition what their position and their role is in this regard. Are they on an intimate footing with some of these people? [Interjections.] Are they not aware who these people’s bedfellows are? Do they not realise that the very people pulling the strings in Moscow to cause a motor bomb to explode in Durban are planning all these acts against peace and order in South Africa?

Do you believe in democracy?

Obviously peace and order should not be propagated for selfish ends. We should be careful not to pray for peace and order from a selfish point of view. We should make it possible for all to enjoy that peace and order; it is the very thing we need to bring about reform in the country. We may and dare not replace apartheid in this country with anarchy.

Do some hon members of the PFP not realise that Marxism has long since infiltrated world media? I stand for reform; I stand for a fair, just dispensation for all in South Africa and I stand for caring for everyone in South Africa as the best way to care for the White in this country. I also stand for order but my stand is definitely against Marxism and the machinations of liberation theology.

Sometimes I gain the impression that some people in the country and in this House accept it as inevitable that South Africa will ultimately fall into the hands of the ANC and that they are now flirting sheepishly with some of these people to save their own skins. What better proof do we have of this than events of the past few weeks in this House when people employed delaying tactics in the full knowledge of their consequences? I venture to say I think some people in this House must have been very disappointed at Mrs Thatcher’s remarks on television the night before last.

I wish to revert quickly to liberation theology and the matters for which they do not hesitate to press even Jesus Christ into service. As a layman I should like to say in this House today that Christ did not stand for revolution. He did not hate, intimidate, hurl petrol bombs, organise school and consumer boycotts, advocate sanctions or overthrow governments. He was never involved in politics and never sought worldly power.

Some liberation theologians contend that it is right and proper to be a rebel because Jesus supposedly was a rebel. That is definitely not true. He did not die on the Cross as a rebel or a political martyr; he wanted nothing to do with revolutionary politics. We shall have to realise in South Africa that the Kingdom of God cannot be established by people and especially not by liberation theologians.

In conclusion, I wish to say that many of our members received letters in our post-boxes from a Black man in Pretoria. These letters were a refreshing breeze. His letter was also a call to prayer nationwide but it was a call of a different kind. This man also propagated a different kind of prayer. He had the following to say:

I wish to close with the following comment by this man in saying:

Mr Chairman, I read the letter the hon member for Paarl mentioned, and I too was touched by it. That is particularly so because this last general debate of the year takes place in the shadow of dark storm clouds over our country.

Because it had happened in my constituency, my mind went back to the bomb blast that occurred on Saturday night when three innocent lives were lost. Those three innocent young women left families behind to whom I extended my sympathy then, and I do so now again. Why did it happen? Some mindless terrorist, some human animal whom I would happily treat as one would treat vermin, set off a bomb to destroy innocent lives in a residential and holiday area. Why did he do it? This is the situation we find ourselves in in South Africa. I believe that every thinking and decent South African hopes that people who engage in activities such as these attacks on innocent people will be found and destroyed.

Last night there were literally storm clouds over this city. I wonder how many people thought of our Security Forces out there in the wet and the cold doing their duty towards the country. The same applies to the homeless and the jobless and the hungry, or the people without shelter, for whatever reason. They all form part of this problem that we face today. The marker that this Parliament and the Government leave on the road of our nation’s pilgrimage through history will show how we reacted to this situation and to the problems that faced us.

One can so easily talk of the things that might have been, the mistakes, the blunders and the missed opportunities. I remember saying once to the then Prime Minister in this House: “Remember that there comes a time and tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune”. That time, however, it passed us by, and in the end South Africa got bogged down in hesitation—and reaction perhaps to unreasonable demands made of us. Nonetheless, I do not believe that we can afford the luxury of exploiting those mistakes, of recrimination and accusation and suspicion-mongering at this time. Things are too serious for that. They are also too serious for us to live in fear of the road ahead and to conceal that fear behind bluster and bravado as I fear my friends in the Conservative Party do. What motivates them is fear of facing the reality of the evolution of South Africa into the future, and behind their bluster it is that fear which motivates them. [Interjections.]

Rather should this be a time for calm determination to move firmly forward on the evolutionary road to a new republic in this country, building as we go forward and looking to what lies ahead instead of looking back at what has passed. I do not think that we in this Parliament can afford to spend our time nitpicking and scoring political points about what happened in the past.

We face a three-pronged problem in South Africa—social, economic and political—and the hon member for Paarl dealt with some of the challenges. It is a three-pronged attack; a revolutionary attack from outside South Africa as well as an economic and a political attack. Obviously we must all concede that the first is externally based, but it is internally executed and manipulated and exploited within South Africa. We have to guard against becoming like those people who lend credibility, recognition and acceptance to the revolutionaries. I agree that we cannot be dictated to from outside but we must also be careful not to help our enemies in the things we do or to make it harder for our friends to support us by weakening their hand in trying to help us.

In the few minutes left at my disposal this afternoon I have only the time to look at one of the three prongs of the problem. We as a party have always tried to put forward positive ideas in this House and I want to deal with the political problem. Our philosophy is based on three interacting ideas. The first of these is pluralism in an institutionalised political context. The second incorporates federal and confederal linking mechanisms and the third incorporates community option or choice at community level. Our philosophy is thus clear and specific, and this is the philosophy which we have always put forward in this House. Let me quote:

All three of those elements are contained in our policy. I shall now quote further from that speech which I made here on 30 January 1978, when I concluded my speech with the following (Hansard: Assembly, vol 72, col 100):

I want to conclude by quoting one sentence from a speech made in one of the other Houses by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning when introducing the Joint Executive Authority for kwaZulu and Natal Bill. He said the following:

That is what he said today. The other quotation was from what I said in January 1978, and that still remains the political course we have to follow if we are to get out from underneath the shadow of the dark clouds which hang over this debate. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Point remains a patriot. His only problem—no, I do not think it his only problem but it is one of the reasons why his party continues to die quietly—is that he does not understand the difference between “local option” and “the devolution of power” which means that one has to take the Government as close as possible to the people. [Interjections.] I have no intention, however, of enlarging further on the hon member for Durban Point’s opinions. If a little time remains, I should like to refer to the speech of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, the chief PFP spokesman on extraparliamentary action.

Permit me to thank the hon the Minister of Finance for the announcements he made this afternoon concerning the agricultural industry. In the first place, I wish to thank him heartily for the abolition of the surcharge on production goods. This will obviate to an appreciable degree a very pressing problem we experience in the agricultural industry.

Earlier this year there was reference in debates in the House to the fact that, although the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply had announced certain long-term strategies for agriculture, a short-term strategy was lacking to alleviate the crisis situation—I want to call it a crisis situation— we are faced with in this industry at the moment. The hon member for Mooi River was one of those referring to this.

The hon the Minister of Finance announced today—the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply mentioned this a week ago—that he had made an additional amount of R91 million available for this financial year to subsidise interest rates in the agricultural industry. The total amount appropriated for the entire term is therefore an additional R262 million.

I should like to refer briefly to long-term planning. We are all conversant with the national grazing strategy of the Government, with the hon the Minister’s announcements on the financing strategy aimed at long-term objectives, with the approach of optimal utilisation of land and the marketing strategy which followed and is to be put into operation.

I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Waterkloof in saying that we are definitely faced with sanctions, however selective they may be. [Interjections.] I believe the agricultural industry can make a very important contribution in combating sanctions against South Africa. [Interjections.] Food is one of the products which may very easily be marketed overseas without a label. In these times of imminent and existing sanctions, I believe we should give far more thought than in the past to concentrating on barter transactions as well in which money is not involved but that is a discussion for a different occasion.

I further wish to refer to a few of the short-term relief measures announced for agriculture. It was announced that carryover debts would be subsidised down to 4%. I think that is the cheapest rate of interest one could find in South Africa today. In conjuction with this comes the positive development that extension from the side of the cooperatives carrying these debts will take place within the framework of a co-ordinated extension programme for a specific region. The positive aspect is therefore that the money is not merely being lent for carryover debts but care will also be taken that farmers receive the necessary guidance on extension to farm in accordance with the potential of the region concerned. The term for repayment of carry-over debt has been extended from six to ten years too.

Production loans of the Agricultural Credit Board are also being subsidised down to 4%. We immediately admit by this that none of these actions is economically justifiable. We say this to hon members immediately because it was not the intention to implement this by legal measures regulating the economy. This is a social action and is also security-orientated because very substantial relief measures were announced for farmers in border areas of the Northern and North-Western Transvaal. I do not wish to repeat this but want to say that the South African taxpayer will be many millions of rands out of pocket for this. Nevertheless we think this action will succeed in the interests of the future of our country, its economic rebuilding and the fact that we shall also keep the agricultural industry sound through them. We believe they will lift agriculture out of its present short-term situation as well.

I believe too that the relief measures announced may possibly be advantageously reflected in land prices. In the past this was possibly not always for the best but at this stage, when a strong decline in land prices may take place in various regions and affect the creditworthiness of farmers very drastically, we know that the measures reflected in this will contribute to preventing extreme drops in land prices in these areas.

It remains essential for us not to examine agriculture in the short term only but in the long term as well so that we may assist agriculture to remain competitive with other sectors of the economy by means of fiscal and monetary measures. This short-term planning is only an anodyne for the tension headache. Medical practitioners would recommend a holiday to a person to get rid of the tension syndrome or refer one to a psychiatrist to find long-term solutions; the anodyne is merely a short-term method.

It is imperative that the agricultural industry be enabled to build up reserve and capital funds to tide it over in times of fluctuations such as these. I am afraid short-term relief measures such as these have already been built into the planning of many South African farmers. This is unfortunately true but we have to escape this syndrome nonetheless. Consequently I believe that it should be made possible for the agriculturalist to institute a reserve fund for use in emergencies.

There was also reference in the past to estate duty and the hon the Minister has already taken the first steps in this regard. We thank him very heartily for this as well.

I wish to close by referring very briefly to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. He is the young lion of the PFP. He is disappointed in democracy and demonstrated it this evening. The hon member said that the NP had already governed for 38 years.

[Inaudible.]

This best illustrates the futility of the PFP Opposition in the House. That is why the hon member for Cape Town Gardens also believes that extraparliamentary action is the only way in which the PFP will be able to force its will on our population. Why is the hon member present at ANC funerals so frequently and so regularly? Why does he plead for the fate of the “comrades” but makes no mention of what befalls the “witdoeke” and their allies? Why does he not refer to this? That hon member will go the same way as the Boraines and the Van Zyl Slabberts. He is merely waiting for a small pension after which he will leave the House to pursue his extraparliamentary activities on behalf of the PFP. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member Dr Odendaal, who can lay no other claim to being in this House than having been nominated, forgot one point when he continued talking of sanctions which would come. He forgot that this country was already saddled with sanctions; we need refer only to the armaments sanctions applied against us. When the world recently suggested total sanctions against us, President Reagan intercepted this by applying sanctions regarding only certain measures.

In the short time at my disposal I wish to refer to this year’s Budget speech of the hon the Minister of Finance and particularly to the introduction in which he said inter alia that the object of his Budget was the promotion of the constitutional reform initiatives of the Government.

Order! The hon member may refer to that after dinner.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, before business was suspended, I pointed out that the hon the Minister of Finance had declared in the introduction to his Budget Speech that the object of his Budget was inter alia the promotion of the constitutional reform initiatives of the Government.

Reform is the term the State President and the Government use in describing the political and constitutional changes they are in the process of accomplishing. Up to the present this reform has resulted in the Republic of South Africa as one undivided state, one racially mixed state and one racially mixed Central Government structure of authority, which is one racially mixed Parliament and one racially mixed coalition Cabinet with a racially mixed provincial authority, with racially mixed regional services councils at local government level, with one citizenship including the regranting of South African citizenship to millions of Blacks from the TBVC countries, with open business districts, with the lifting of influx control, with a physically open community in South Africa, with the emasculation of the Group Areas Act and so on.

Wasn’t South Africa always a multiracial country?

All this and much more has already resulted from the Government’s new policy of power-sharing, of political integration between Whites, Coloureds, Indians and millions of Blacks and the Government calls this reform! The Government describes this as building a new South Africa, as the restoration of ethnic relations, as the recipe for peace and prosperity.

Who placed the various peoples in this country? The National Party?

This obviously comes down fundamentally, physically and ideologically to the total dismantling and destruction of the old, tried policy of the old National Party—the policy of apartheid, of division among races and peoples, of separate development and of partition. Of course, this was initially stated very quietly. It was whispered until it ultimately erupted in the triumphal cries of “apartheid is dead and now has to be buried”. The Government therefore regards reform as the burial of apartheid. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, surely this is not reform! This is definitely not reformation! It is deformation! This is transformation of the political and constitutional dispensation in South Africa!

Political and constitutional distortion!

Surely it is an irrevocable fact that the policy of apartheid, formulated in 1948 and subsequently instituted gradually toward the building of a new Southern Africa, of separate and independent states for the various peoples, of the liberation of peoples within their own fatherland, of the institution of a White Republic of South Africa, of the creation of a sovereign White Parliament, of White self-determination and of separate business and residential areas and separate educational institutions, a distinctive community life and so on—everything which formed the fruits of apartheid, of separate development—in fact came down to reform. That was reform in truth. That was reformation in truth. Apartheid, separate development, division, partition—that was change; that was reform! That is exactly as stated by Prof F A van Jaarsveld in his book Afrikaner: Quo vadis? and I quote again:

In which year did he write it?

What difference does that make?

Mr Chairman, it is not only an historical fact but remains a reality today. I quote Prof van Jaarsveld as follows:

To do what, Sir? Let us pay attention to what this learned gentleman says. To do what? I shall continue quoting:

Apartheid was the policy by which a new ethnic relationship was to be accomplished in South Africa. That was reformation! That was reform of the confusion we had experienced in the years prior to 1948. I do not have the time to give a detailed version of the confusion surrounding our lives before 1948 within that unitary state in which the Coloureds had the vote in this Parliament and in which there were mixed residential areas, etc. The policy of apartheid was the recipe for reform, however, for the new regulation of the ethnic relationship of South Africa, for freedoms for every people and for prosperity and peace at the southern tip of Africa. This was all realised because the policy of separate development was instituted.

Consequently the Government policy of power-sharing and political integration, which is the opposite pole, the antithesis of apartheid and therefore of separate development, is nothing but counterreformation— deformation. Consequently the CP rejects the Government together with its policy of deformation and fights for the restoration and continuation of true reform—apartheid, division and partition—which brings freedoms to every population group! [Interjections.]

That is why we are fighting inter alia for the restoration of an own White fatherland. Of course, the NP laughs about this but the object of its members’ laughter is sacred intent to us. The object of their laughter is the object of our striving because we believe it holds salvation for the White and every other people in this country. We shall attempt realising it with all the power at our disposal because we also believe in this conviction which was once recognised by one of the current Cabinet members as well when he said in this book:

Hon members should note what he says, “of a nation”, the Whites—

This is what this hon Minister had to say in his day:

I wish to close with another quotation.

Tell them who wrote the booklet.

Sir, this booklet was written by Dr Gerrit Viljoen, the current hon Minister of Education and Development Aid, in his day. [Interjections.]

I wish to close by quoting our endeavour and what we in the CP will fight to prevent. We take cognisance of the warning issued by the late Dr Malan in saying:

The CP will fight with everything at its disposal to convince the White voters of South Africa that the policy of separate development is the only one which offers salvation to the Whites and every people. It is the only way in which we can prevent this warning of Dr Malan’s from becoming reality. This is the only way in which Whites can avoid disappearing into the sea of the nonWhite peoples of this country!

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Koedoespoort. I want to tell hon members that the hon member for Koedoespoort and I were in matric together in the “big” school at Utrecht. There were nine pupils in our class—six boys and three girls. [Interjections.]

During a previous debate the hon member for Koedoespoort said I was afraid, had no courage and was indifferent to these affairs. I take those things as they come, because, like all of us, I am a little timid.

While I am speaking of being afraid, hon members should just look at the hon member for Koedoespoort. When we were together in matric, we frightened him with a white sheet one night. [Interjections.] He cannot actually run but that night he certainly did. The fastest boy in the school could not get near him. That night the wind of his passage flattened his mop of curls and opened his parting! [Interjections.] People say cowboys do not cry. I know the hon member well and he cried at school and is still doing so in the House today as well. People say cowboys do not run but he ran at school and is still running today; one need only give him a fright. [Interjections.] People say cowboys talk first and then shoot. He does not even talk but just shoots.

My hon friend hails from Pretoria, from the Transvaal, and speaks at meetings of “Aksie Blank Natal” about those of us who are involved in the kwaNatal Indaba. He says we should not be involved in this because Natal, according to him and “Aksie Blank Natal”, belongs to the Afrikaners. Hon members should judge whether they are right in saying Natal belongs to the Afrikaners. He comes preaching in Vryheid that we should take what is ours now.

You know I did not say that.

They wanted to amalgamate the old Transvaal and Free State Boer Republics but then saw they did not have a harbour and simply wanted to claim a corridor of land to the sea for themselves. That is the area to the east of the Tugela River, the traditional heartland of the Zulus where Chaka and Dingaan lived. They want to annex the whole of Zululand, including Ulundi and Nongoma for instance, right up to Kosi Bay. Traditionally this area belongs to 3 million Blacks but they say it is theirs now and they are going to move the Blacks.

What are they going to do with the Black people?

I do not know; the hon member should ask the hon member for Koedoespoort what they propose doing with the Black people.

At the outset, CP policy was that of the HNP. The CP then hijacked Mr Jaap Marais and adopted his policy. Subsequently Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche appeared on the scene and took them over entirely, including Driesie Partisie.

The Natal population consists of 78% Black people, 11% Indians, 9% Whites and 2% Coloureds. According to these hon members’ new policy, they are going to claim half of this province for the “boerestaat”. At the moment we are busy with the kwaNatal Indaba in Durban at which the NP has observer status. Discussions are in progress and the Government has already approved administrative co-operation between kwaZulu and the Natal Provincial Administration. I think this is a step in the right direction if we are striving for peace.

At the moment the kwaZulu Government says on the subject of second-tier government that its members wish to bring about peace in Natal and talk to us. They want us to listen to their plans and they will give us a hearing too. They want our comments on the idea of the creation of a legislative body on the second tier of government in which we may govern jointly for the sake of peace in Natal. We are listening to them.

Now the hon member for Koedoespoort comes to my people and, like the three monkeys, says they see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing. In the times in which we live, however, we should listen a little. One can no longer command other people just to listen while one does the talking. We should listen to other people too. The hon member for Koedoespoort will plunge over an abyss in Natal if he tells us not to listen to other people.

Let us examine what they have to say about the “Boerestaat”. Next Thursday we shall see some fun in Durban because the leftist radicals—that is the ANC, the UDF and so on—say they want nothing to do with the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba and they will not speak there. The rightist radicals—that is the HNP, the CP and AWB—say they want nothing to do with the Indaba and do not want to listen.

Who will ultimately speak to one another? It will be the moderate Coloureds, Indians and Whites. They say they will have to put their heads together, whether the Government approves or not, so that there may be dialogue with one another. I consider this a very good thing.

Now the hon member for Koedoespoort says people should not talk to one another and he will tell them what to do. I shall not prescribe to the CP but I want to ask its members something. I have put up a map of South Africa for the House showing the “Boerestaat” planned by the AWB and the CP. Unfortunately the map is too small to give hon members a good view. According to the pamphlet, they say Black, Brown and White may have the rest of Natal west of the Tugela River as they propose establishing the “Boerestaat” in the heartland of Zululand, the Transvaal and the Free State.

They add that the Afrikaners are the hated “Herrenvolk”. They say at the time of the Boer War we were the darlings of the world but are the abhorred “Herrenvolk” now.

All the old UP men have spoken about the Boer War!

No, I shall tell the hon member!

You were an old UP man!

I tell the hon member for Koedoespoort I have never been a UP man in my life. The old UP men are sitting over there! The hon member for Rissik is one of them! [Interjections.] I have never been a UP man!

You were a UP man! Are you ashamed of your past?

I challenge that member for all I possess to prove that I have ever belonged to a party other than the NP. He is a downright liar! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw the words “downright liar”.

All right, Mr Chairman, I withdraw them. I do not wish to waste my time. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Koedoespoort told the hon member for Barberton, who is very red in the face at the moment, that I was in the Home Guard. I have never been a member of the Home Guard! Just say I was too frightened to fight.

You are a “Smelter”!

I am not a “Smelter”! I drive about openly with a Black man in my LDV—unlike that hon member. [Interjections.]

In this pamphlet they say the British do not form part of our people. Next Thursday the members of the “Boerestaat” propose presenting this pamphlet at the Indaba. They said they would not talk to those people but they propose presenting that pamphlet there.

It is stated in it that the British are not part of our people. Now I want to know of the hon member for Rissik where Mr Derby-Lewis fits in? Is he British or what is his nationality? Is he suddenly a Boer?

I would rather have a good Englishman than a quitter (hensopper) or a joiner! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Vryheid is a quitter!

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must withdraw those words.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the words. He sticks up his hands!

Order! I did not request you to say anything else; you have withdrawn the words. The hon member may proceed.

I have information on that hon member’s antecedents. I do not know why but my name does not appear in Heese’s book! [Interjections.] If a person is guilty, he is quick to point a finger.

In this pamphlet of the “Boerestaat” committee they ask whether a person has ever tried speaking South African. They say their future language will be only Afrikaans. They say the Boer people should be free. They add they are taking the Transvaal and the Free State to reinstate the Boer Republic. I now want to know of the hon member for Kuruman how and from whom they will do the taking.

I do not talk to a bloke like you!

I am speaking to that hon member but we are not on the same level and he will not understand what I am saying.

They are no longer interested in partition according to this pamphlet.

Go and rub your snout in the mud!

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must withdraw those words and apologise.

I am very sorry, Sir, but, after what that hon member said, I am not prepared to withdraw my words.

Order! Did the hon member for Kuruman say the hon member for Vryheid rooted around with his snout in the mud?

I said he was rooting around in the mud with his snout, Sir.

Order! If the hon member for Kuruman is not prepared to abide by my ruling, he is disregarding the authority of the Chair and must withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting. [Interjections.]

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

That happened because of the hon member for Vryheid’s poor conduct!

It was not poor conduct; they say in the document in front of me that the rest of the Cape had better go to the multicoloured lot. The people of the hon member who has just walked out say they will perhaps take the Northern Cape.

They also say in this document that they intend awarding a family allowance in the “Boerestaat” to encourage Afrikaners to increase their numbers rapidly. They are to encourage White immigration; they will provide housing allowances and permit development in Vryheid to make themselves acceptable to us. The area from Richards Bay to Kosi Bay gives them a short border and they have no hostile borders. They will bring about domination for the Whites in the “Boerestaat” and only Afrikaners will be welcome there.

You will pay for that speech of yours!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Vryheid is an entertaining speaker and I enjoy listening to him. One can see his UP past coming to the fore continually.

It seems somewhat strange for me to say this but I think we should set politics aside for awhile. The hon the Minister himself would perhaps appreciate our reverting to the Budget and the economy a little. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister chose to start his connection with the HNP by making a fairly drastic comment about us at the beginning of the year in that certain statements in our pamphlets at Sasolburg were supposedly untrue. Subsequently the hon the Minister told NP students in the Free State that the invitation had been extended to me to reply and I had not done so which is also untrue as I responded on more than one occasion. On 16 April in particular I took one statement and re-emphasised that, of the peoples in South Africa, only the Whites were being impoverished. That was one of the statements against which the hon the Minister raised serious objections at the beginning of the year.

My information apparently did not lack effect. On 5 May the hon member for Heilbron had the following to say at an ASB current affairs conference in Bloemfontein according to a report in Die Volksblad:

That is not altogether as we put it but it is very close. In addition, the leader of the HNP wrote a letter to the hon the Minister of Finance on 17 February in which invited the hon the Minister to appear with him on one platform to debate all the statements contained in our pamphlets. The hon the Minister acknowledged receipt of the letter but to date has shown no further reaction to the invitation to debate these matters in public with our leader. To our minds this does not testify to very great confidence on the side of the hon the Minister as regards his drastic statements about the HNP.

The hon the Minister’s reaction and conduct in this regard therefore indicate that, when he told me on 16 April he would get back to the hon member for Sasolburg at a later occasion, hopefully he will still be able to do so in this debate.

Tomorrow afternoon!

The hon Minister says: “Tomorrow afternoon.” If he does not do this, it is obvious he has thrown in the towel. If he does it, depending on what he says, he may obviously assume that the struggle between him and us will continue!

The economy keeps deteriorating at a surprising tempo under the administration—if one may put it like that—of this hon Minister. Unemployment is assuming increasing dimensions. There is an article in today’s Cape Times under the headline “Unemployment may get worse”. According to our statistics there are four million unemployed families in South Africa already.

As regards the property market…

Do Blacks form the majority of the four million?

No, I am mentioning only the total figure.

Oh?

That is the total number of unemployed families in South Africa according to our information. We do not have more detailed statistics than these. [Interjections.]

The Port Elizabeth property market is so weak that the Sunday Tribune of 25 May reported as follows:

On 9 June a report appeared on the front page of Die Volksblad in which it was stated that the slackness in the building industry in Bloemfontein was assuming such proportions that conditions there were worse than in Port Elizabeth. Consequently there is no doubt that the situation is deteriorating increasingly as regards these sectors. That is also the case concerning debt and bankruptcies. On 27 May Beeld reported that South Africans’ bad debts had come to light in Johannesburg the day before. I quote:

Beeld further stated on 14 June that the tempo of bankrupcies had increased by 56% in the first three months of this year compared with the same period last year. It is therefore going from bad to worse in that sphere as well.

According to a parliamentary report in Die Burger of 27 May, the hon the Minister himself said that prospects of attaining a growth rate of 3% had declined since the Budget. Hon members should note he said it had declined. That is an incontrovertible statement according to this report in Die Burger. We should appreciate it if he would say something about this tonight or tomorrow when he replies to the debate. Furthermore, the hon the Minister said in his speech today:

This is an appreciably lower note. Can the hon the Minister still tell us in this debate why he has struck a lower note within such a short period? [Interjections.] I beg your pardon, today he said “at least 3%” but on 27 May he said chances were even slimmer. Does the hon the Minister stand by his statement that the prospects he initially envisaged will not be realised?

As regards State expenditure, Die Burger of 20 May reported as follows:

In spite of—or probably in consequence of— this enormous overexpenditure, again by the hon the Minister—he does not keep to the amounts projected in his Budget—according to a headline in Beeld of 23 May, the inflation rate is “steeds ontstellend hoog”. The Daily News of 27 May reported as follows:

This is what we cannot understand in South Africa. How can South Africa with its diversified economy, which was originally sound to the core, not even succeed in reducing the rate of inflation whereas there was an average decline from 4,1% to 4,7% in Europe— within a very short while? The hon the Minister will have to explain and clarify these matters to us because it remains a charge against him and the Government, as well as against his administration, that this battle against inflation, as the Government puts it, simply bears no fruit.

According to the Weekend Argus of 29 March, Dr De Kock said of the position of the rand: “Firmer rand possible soon.” On 16 June Sakebeeld reported as follows:

This censure is drastic and sharp and represents lack of confidence in the rand. It is as sharp as a government mouthpiece could express it on 16 June. I am afraid the hon the Minister will not succeed in assisting to restore confidence in the rand when his own mouthpiece makes such comments. In short, the economy is proceeding at a snail’s pace in nearly every sphere.

The way in which the Budget itself is drawn up and the manner in which the hon the Minister handles the Budget compared with his predecessors are also the cause of serious complaint and objection and we have a question to which we hope the hon the Minister will give us a clear, straight answer. If he does not do this, the struggle will simply continue. State debt, which originated in consequence of currency transactions for which cover was taken out by enterprises, is not mentioned anywhere in the Budget. Losses suffered over the past two years amounted to at least R2,5 billion and should by rights have been reflected in the Budget. One deduces from speeches of officials of the Department of Finance that a loss amounting to almost R2 billion had already been admitted to. At least, this was the case eight months ago. Consequently it is clear that the Budget was deliberately underestimated by R2,5 billion.

We object to this and we have to ask the hon the Minister to indicate to us, if he is able, why these losses are not reflected in the Budget.

Mr Chairman, it is rather surprising that the hon member for Sasolburg suddenly decided rather not to talk politics this evening. It seems to me the hon member is gradually being broken in, the longer he is a member of this House. [Interjections.] Of course the hon member for Sasolburg has not yet assimilated the thrashing he got from the hon the Minister of Finance regarding his party’s futile argument that the Whites in South Africa are paying for the education of the Blacks. [Interjections.] But we are not yet finished with the hon member and that matter must still be disposed of.

The hon member spoke about unemployment in South Africa. Of course no one is denying that we are experiencing abnormal unemployment in South Africa. The hon member will also admit that this country is experiencing one of its worst periods of recession in its history. We had an oil crisis, and we experienced boycotts. What is more there are threats of sanctions. We are in a position in which more than 70% of our population is part of the Third World. The rand-dollar exchange rate caused us problems. In spite of this the Government is making every effort to stimulate the economy, as was announced by the hon the Minister of Finance this afternoon. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member for Sasolburg whether he has looked at the unemployment position in the developed industrial countries of the world.

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

No, Mr Chairman, I do not want to answer questions now, because I have just as little time as that hon member had.

Did the hon member look at the inflation rate of other countries in which the population also has a Third World component of 70%, or sometimes smaller or larger than that of South Africa? The hon member must look at the conditions in those countries, and then come back to South Africa.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that we are proud of him. We are proud of the Appropriation he submitted, as well as the way in which he is handling South Africa’s finances. He must not pay any attention to the arguments of the HNP. [Interjections.]

But I want to get back to politics. At the end of this part of the session we can surely evaluate the contributions of each political party in this House. I am talking about contributions which were not destructive, but which tried to offer solutions to the problems of South Africa. The question we must ask is what contribution the CP, the HNP and the PFP made to solving the problems of South Africa.

This evening I want to say that while the Government is wrestling with South Africa’s problems, we are looking with absolute amazement at the new right-wing alliance and at all the feverish activities in right-wing politics in South Africa. The question we can ask another is who is really in control of the right-wing alliance in South Africa. [Interjections.]

We are told that the NP is losing so many votes, but I want to say that the NP is not losing votes. It lost a number of people when the CP walked out, but since then there has not been a shift from the NP to the right-wing alliance. A shift simply took place as far as the loyalty of those right-wing people was concerned, among the HNP, the CP, the Afrikanervolkswag and eventually that loyalty ended up with Eugène Terre’Blanche and the AWB. [Interjections.]

Let us look at a striking example at what is happening in right-wing politics in South Africa. We were informed by the hon member for Langlaagte with a great fanfare that nothing on earth would keep him away from Monument Koppie because 100 000 people would be there to demonstrate the right-wing resistance against the NP. There were not even 20 000 people at Monument Koppie.

[Inaudible.]

Let me ask the hon member: Who is in control of the right-wing alliance in South Africa?

I am! [Interjections.]

After all an agreement was reached just before the Monument Koppie meeting. It was agreed that the hon member for Waterberg, Mr Jaap Marais, Dr Boshoff and Mr Terre’Blanche would meet at Dr Boshoff’s house. What happened then? Only three of the four arrived there and Mr Terre’Blanche was missing. [Interjections.] A further agreement was also reached. The agreement was that those four gentlemen would arrive at Monument Koppie together. When it was time for them to leave, there were still only three of them and the other man was still missing. [Interjections.]

Order! There are hon members who are constantly making interjections. The hon member may proceed.

Then we came to the real action. An agreement was also reached that there would be no fanfare, flags and banners. After the other three gentlemen had arrived there, Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche arrived with all his fanfare, flags and banners. Worst of all was what happened at the end. The hon member for Waterberg spoke and received a little lukewarm applause. Then Mr Jaap Marais spoke and also received a little lukewarm applause. [Interjections.] Then Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche spoke to tumultuous applause, and when it was poor Dr Boshoff’s turn to speak, the people got up and went home. [Interjections.]

I am looking at the hon member for Sasolburg now. I have always thought that if there was one group in the right-wing alliance which at least stood by its standpoint it was the HNP. [Interjections.] I want to tell hon members that that hon member has also capitulated. He has also capitulated to Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche and consequently he no longer has a place in the politics of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Stoffie, why are you so red? [Interjections.]

In the right-wing groups there are people one treats with great sympathy. I wonder what the hon member for Barberton’s standpoint is with regard to Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche. I do not think he is very happy about the turn the right-wing alliance has taken. [Interjections.] One wonders if those hon members’ three groups—or four groups if one wants to include poor Dr Boshoff as a fourth prize—were to hold a joint congress, which of those parties’ standpoints would gain the ascendancy at such a congress. [Interjections.] I want to ask them today: If they were to hold a joint congress, would they accept the standpoint of Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche that there must be a White dictatorship in South Africa? [Interjections.] I am asking the hon member for Sasolburg that.

No.

No, he is not going to accept it. He is not going to accept it, but he went to Monument Koppie and was put out of countenance there by Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche. [Interjections.]

The trouble is that those hon members are no longer able to stand on their own feet. Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche has deprived them of all support and he has the people eating out of his hand. I think those hon members will have to ask Mr Terre’Blanche whether he will give them a nomination in the next election.

Let us look at the so-called Boere Republic argument. I want to ask those hon members: Do they accept the standpoint of the AWB that a Boer Republic must be established?

No.

The hon member says no; what about the CP? [Interjections.]

Me? I will tell you … [Interjections.]

Sir, I see there is at least still a measure of honesty and a straightforward adopting of standpoints by the HNP. The hon member for Sasolburg summarily says “no”. [Interjections.] What do the hon members of the CP say? They are as quiet as mice! [Interjections.] We shall go to Southern Natal, the Eastern, Northern, Southern and Western Cape and to South West Africa and tell the people that the CP are not prepared to adopt a standpoint against Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche’s standpoint on the creation of a Boer Republic! [Interjections.] Mr Terre’Blanche said that Jews would also have to get out of this community, because there was no place for them! [Interjections.] He said they were going to create a Hong Kong around Johannesburg for the Jewish community of South Africa! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte has now made his last interjection during this speech. The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

Sir, what are they going to do with all the Black people in Soweto? Are they going to create a second South African Hong Kong for the Black people of Soweto? [Interjections.]

In consequence of the examples of who they associate themselves with, as becomes apparent from the newspapers, one gets the fright of one’s life! I cannot imagine being associating with people of that kind in my political career. I am thinking for example of a person who arrives at the Monument, which is almost a holy shrine to the Afrikaner, wearing a gas mask, a person wearing a crash helmet and a leather jacket who looked like a hippy or a Hell’s Angel! [Interjections.] No, Sir, those hon members are lost to South African politics! [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by telling the hon members that they must take a look at the standpoints accepted by the supporters of the Ossewabrandwag movement. These will be so familiar to them that they will be ashamed of themselves! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall not respond to the speech of the hon member for Turffontein now; he concentrated mainly on the rightist side of White politics in South Africa and I believe he put a few important, pertinent questions. I think the hon members of the right-wing party here next to me ought to answer those questions because I believe that everybody in South Africa would like to know what is actually going on in their ranks. As we say in English, we should like to know how it happens that the AWB upstages whatever happens at the Voortrekker Monument!

Where do you stand regarding the ANC?

And the UDF?

Yes, begin with that!

We shall talk about that in a moment.

†I want to refer to one sentence of the hon the Minister of Finance’s speech where he quoted the English version of the State President’s speech. He said:

I believe the hon the Minister is probably aware that the emergency at this time is one of the most awful experiences which this country could conceive of. [Interjections.] It is much worse than the emergency in the early 1960s and worse than any country at war. If he read that lackey of the Government, Die Burger, this morning, he will know how even they are complaining, as nicely as they can, about what is going on.

I believe this Government and everybody in this country is going to find an extended emergency under the emergency regulations as presently promulgated quite intolerable. I do not believe it will serve any good purpose in this country to carry on with it. It is for that reason that we, in an attempt to serve the public during this state of emergency, have established a Missing Persons Bureau. Hundreds of people have disappeared in the past five days, and we suspect that almost all of them have been detained in terms of the emergency regulations. No person may even tell another that somebody has been detained. The Missing Persons Bureau will be there to help people who cannot find relatives or friends—if they have reason to believe that they have been detained. PFP members of Parliament can then make inquiries on their behalf. Secondly, Parliament is the only place left in the country where names and incidents for which we have good evidence can be publicised and issues raised through which possible abuses can be monitored to an extent. Thirdly, by keeping a comprehensive data bank of missing or detained persons on our research department’s computer facilities the PFP can be of use to the newspapers, news agencies and concerned bodies and groups which are trying to trace these missing people. [Interjections.]

I want to come back now to the hon the Minister of Finance’s reference to the State President’s previous speech when he said that the important thing was to fulfil their role and the reform programme to which the Government had committed itself. The State President, when he spoke on the declaration of the state of emergency, tabled a document from the SA Communist Party. The content of this document was obviously of interest, but the arguments in it are not news to the PFP. We are well aware of the thinking of many of the SA Communist Party people or the hard left as they are sometimes called. Some of this document is simply old-hat communism. It is the dreams of the October and February revolutions, the dreams of Leninism and the Bolsheviks in the nineteen teens. [Interjections.] In a real sense we will always have that with us, because the communists are at work in any society. They are like vultures who feed on carrion, but if there is no carrion, if one has a healthy society, a just society, these people have nothing to feed on. They are still there, they are still trying to make their trouble, but they cannot actually achieve anything. [Interjections.] They are therefore prevalent and present in every society. They become a danger to a society when that society has genuine grievances, is unstable or is not comfortable.

In paragraph ten of this document the interesting thing is that the communist discussion paper says that the danger is what they choose to call the “liberal bourgeoisie. We can either call it the reformists or use their term. This is what they say:

That is, what I believe, any serious politician in South Africa should be seeking to do; not to follow a course of oppression, but to recognise that there are genuine grievances and to pre-empt the objectives of the revolutionary forces. If we can create a healthy society, a society where people are free to live their lives and to express themselves politically, then the communists cannot achieve their objective. The most interesting thing about the document is that it devotes a substantial portion of itself to considering how to blunt the effect of the reformist initiatives of what they call the liberal bourgeoisie, and they name them. They talk about Van Zyl Slabbert, the Federated Chamber of Industries and Gavin Relly. They do not mention the PFP by name, but quite clearly they associate them with the liberal bourgeoisie.

With reference to what they have called the liberal bourgeoisie on page 10 of the document, they then go on in paragraph 13 to refer to the risk one has in a society:

That is the “New Nats”—

In the past 20 years we have had a number of successes in achieving what one might call democratic societies. Three European countries come immediately to mind, and they are Portugal, Spain and Greece. Each of those three countries could have gone communist. In South America today, with one or two exceptions, we have democracies in existence, even though they are battling. Argentina is the most recent example of one, and Chile is battling to establish itself as a democracy too.

I do not believe that we on this side of the House are unaware of the danger that the Communist Party represents, but as I see it there is a discussion we must have if we are to have a meaningful debate amongst ourselves and hon members opposite. I am referring here to an expression used by the hon member for Amanzimtoti—although it is not his really; it is used by most people— when he asks: How does one manage reform to ensure that one can pre-empt or “skaak”—as Die Burger puts it—the revolution? In other words, we must create a healthy society in which the communists cannot operate. In that respect I believe that the Government must tell us what is going to do after the emergency has been lifted. How are we going to manage the situation when the emergency has been lifted? [Interjections.] A similar question is: How do we let Mr Nelson Mandela out of jail? What conditions do we create for that? I believe that there is only one way for the Government to do it, and that is by creating more effective political representation. I believe that the National Council Bill is the vehicle to create that kind of opportunity, and to me it is most encouraging that the Government has actually published the Bill for comment. I believe that the Government must be as flexible as possible in regard to that Bill, because after lifting the emergency, hopefully many of the people who have been detained will have thought about what violence is costing this country and will have grasped the fact that violence is actually not going to solve the problem. They may therefore well be in the mood to consider political, peaceful options, and I believe that that is the responsibility of the Government.

Mr Chairman, this evening, in my opinion, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North made one of the most responsible speeches he has ever made in this House. [Interjections.] I must honestly say that tonight it is quite a pleasure to follow up on what he said. At first I was rather apprehensive that he would make another of his wild speeches here. Then it would have been difficult for me to follow up on what he said, but now I should very much like to associate myself with the statements he made. I think the hon member made a good analysis of what one is dealing with here. I should have liked to have augmented a few of the points, or rectified something in connection with his views here and there, but I do not have the time for that now. But in my opinion what the hon member said was true, and here I also associate myself with the statement someone else made when he pointed out: “It is not good enough to be anti-communist, one has to provide a better alternative.”

That is right, what have you got?

If that is the hon member’s argument, I am in full agreement with him. [Interjections.] I should like to know whether he is the same kind of Prog as the hon member for Yeoville. In all earnest, I just want to repeat, that if this is the way in which we can argue with one another, the kind of debate we can conduct with one another, we shall also be able to make progress in this House.

I should like to take this specific theme a little further. I am not trying to score any political points now. I want to begin with the statement made by Eugène Terre’Blanche last month when he said: In the long run it must come down to a choice between the ANC and the AWB in South Africa. He said this from a public platform in Pretoria last month. There is only one conclusion one can draw from that, and that is that all of us sitting in this House, form the middle group between the ANC and the AWB. [Interjections.] That goes without saying. It goes without saying that all of us form the middle group—as we are represented in this House; in fact, as we are represented in Parliament.

No, no!

Do the hon members want to be the ANC or the AWB?

We are the middle group.

If those hon members want to comprise the middle group, then there is no hope for this country. If that handful of votes which they represent have to comprise the entire middle group, then neither this country nor they have any hope. But I am not going to dispute this, because they are simply spoiling my argument now.

The point I want to make is that the hon members of the CP and of the HNP in this middle group are probably closer to the AWB. There are other members in this middle group who may perhaps be closer to the ANC. The point, however, is that all of us here comprise the middle group-—and let us now score political debating points off one another in this regard now.

[Inaudible.]

I am certainly not going to allow the hon member for Greytown to make a point in this regard now, because he is the last person who can follow any meaningful argument. [Interjections.] The point is that if we who comprise the middle group take into consideration the situation in which this country finds itself, then we have no choice but to seek, through argument and debate, the best solution to the problems of this country.

Through co-operation we must in fact search out the common ground which exists. This is possible, and the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North has just proved this with his speech. The hon member Prof Olivier also proved it earlier in the debate on the Constitutional Development and Planning Vote.

There is hope for you.

Occasionally the hon member for Yeoville also makes a contribution which makes this possible.

During the past few weeks, however, we have so frequently in debates in this House—and I am saying this in all fondness for everyone and I am also including this side of the House—tried to score political points off one another-instead of really addressing the emergency in which this country finds itself. That is a fact. We are too intent on confrontation, instead of trying to find common ground so that we can arrive at the best solution. What we have is not only confrontation on personal level, but also that we talk at cross-purposes in our arguments and seek the divisive rather than the cohesive factors. I should therefore like to make an appeal and say that we should seek the common and cohesive factors, and in that way arrive at the realities of the situation on behalf of our country. Let us look beyond our own interests and try for the sake of our country to discharge this responsibility.

I now wish to mention three examples which have recently occurred in CP arguments—I do not want to confront them— which I will use to argue that those hon members build solely on their own observation of reality, which makes it impossible to enter into any kind of discussion with them and to see whether we can jointly arrive at the reality.

The first example is the speech made by the hon member for De Aar who this afternoon quoted from earlier Sprocas documents. I do not want to quarrel with him, because what he was discussing was probably proven facts. However, he then jumped to the conclusion that Sprocas was responsible for the NP Government saying today that there was only one undivided state. Surely that is rubbish. The fact that Sprocas said this in the seventies, is perhaps true, but the fact that the NP Government says it, has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Sprocas members are members of your party.

Oh please, Sir! It is that kind of reaction from the hon member which makes it impossible for one to conduct a meaningful argument with him.

Do you deny that members of your party were Sprocas members?

I know nothing about that, and therefore I cannot admit or deny it. [Interjections.] That is not the point. What I want to tell the hon member, however, is that this Government perceives that South Africa is one undivided state. Why do we say that? We say that with reference to the policy which was devised in the fifties and sixties and on the basis of which the homeland idea was considered to be the final solution as regards Black politics. By the end of the seventies this Government had already realised that it was not the full and final solution in regard to the Black problem in this country. [Interjections.] This led to this Government inevitably having to look for an alternative solution. That is why the Government can also say today that although the homeland policy will continue to form an inherent part of the final solution—it does not matter of course which government is in power, it is still inevitable that the homeland policy will ultimately comprise part of the solution—it is also true that the homeland policy in itself does not offer the final solution.

Seen thus, what does one do with the between eight and ten million Black people who are not resident in the homelands? I am now putting this question to the hon members of the Conservative Party. Let us forget about the homelands for the present. What do we do with those between eight and ten million Black people other than to admit that they do in fact form part of the South African population? It consequently means that one must admit that we are dealing with one state, in which we must establish those political structures.

The second argument put forward by hon members of the Conservative Party that I should like to deal with is the following. Yesterday the hon member for Kuruman, who is not present in this House at the moment, advanced the argument here—and the hon member for Jeppe himself has also advanced this argument—that Cabinet members Hendrickse and Rajbansi must resign owing to their standpoint on the security legislation dealt with here in this House. I do not wish to argue this point now. All I want to say is …

When did I say that?

All I want to say is that it indicates wonderful progress when a person takes into account that Minister Hendrickse was detained for 60 days in 1977 and today he is sitting in the Cabinet.

Is he still a security risk?

No, not at all! I really do not think so. But what is the aspect which is really relevant? Not the fact that either Minister Hendrickse or we won a victory, but the fact that reason and reasonableness have triumphed. The fact that he discussed matters with him and he with us, makes it possible today—even though we are not necessarily perfectly united in spirit—at least to deliberate together in one Cabinet. [Interjections.]

Order!

What I should like to make clear to hon members of the Conservative Party is the following: The fact that it happened and that reason and reasonableness triumphed gives me hope for the future of this country. It makes it possible for me to say that I think we can probably, in the long run, find solutions to the problems of this country.

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

No, I do not have the time to reply to any questions now. I am sorry.

In the same vein I now wish to put a further question to the hon members of the Conservative Party. They argue here—and this is their own terminology now—that our partners in the Cabinet are leaving us in the lurch. They mean of course Ministers Hendrickse and Rajbansi. Now I want to know from those hon members who their partners are who want to pursue a policy of partition with them? Who are those partners of theirs, in the Coloured as well as Indian ranks? Who are their partners? Come, let me put it to them another way. How did they want to cause their partition to succeed in regard to the Coloureds and the Indians? They have only one of two possibilities at their disposal. They can either accomplish this by way of negotiation, or by way of force and violence. They must either acquire the consent of those people to accept partition around the negotiating table or they must force them into partition and into a homeland at gunpoint. Now I want to ask those hon members who their partners are who are going to sit down around the negotiating table with them to negotiate on the realisation of partition. They have no such partners! [Interjections.] They have no such partners. Very well, the hon member for Soutpansberg is sitting there, laughing. Let him rise to his feet now and give us the reply to this question. Let him tell us who his party’s partners are.

Who were Dr Verwoerd’s partners in 1960, when he wanted people to accept the idea of separate homelands?

No, wait a minute! Do not start arguing about other things now! We are asking the Conservative Party who their partners are.

All those people who have accepted independence!

Minister Hendrickse and Minister Rajbansi are there for everyone to see. They are with us on the Cabinet. We should now like to ask who the Conservative Party’s partners are, who, together with them, are going to implement their plan. I repeat that there is only one way in which they can achieve that if they want to do so without force and violence. They will have to go and negotiate! There is no other way. [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to a final statement. My time is almost up.

Hear, hear!

Once again the hon member for Jeppe is shouting “hear, hear!”. By now it has become so monotonous that it is no longer funny. However, I shall leave the hon member at that. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to a third argument that has been raised during the past few days in this House by hon members of the Conservative Party. They say the unrest prevailing in this country at present is the result of power-sharing. Has one ever in one’s life heard such a nonsensical argument? I can well imagine, though, that this is the argument they advance on public platforms outside this House. I say it is a lie. It is a lie that the present unrest situation in the country is the result of power-sharing. It is a flagrant lie. If hon members of the Conservative Party wanted to proceed with this argument, I now ask them what their reply to my following question is. Is the South African Communist Party and the ANC not responsible for the present revolutionary onslaught on South Africa? Is that true or not?

The cause of the unrest is the poor performance of this Government, which is too weak to govern!

I just want a reply to this question of mine. That is the question to which hon members of the Conservative Party will have to reply to me, Sir. Is the SA Communist Party and the ANC responsible for the revolutionary onslaught on this country? Yes or no? Do you see, Sir, now they are not answering, because it does not suit them to deal with the truth. They prefer to disseminate lies.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May we, under the rules of this House, reply to the hon member’s question? [Interjections.]

Order! No, but as I understood the hon member for Johannesburg West, he said the hon members of the CP preferred to disseminate lies. The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon members of the CP prefer to proclaim untruths in this regard. [Interjections.] They do not want to proclaim the truth in respect of who is responsible for the revolutionary onslaught on the RSA.

I have used these three examples to state only this one point, namely, let us try to seek the truth.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Johannesburg West say that we prefer to proclaim untruths?

Yes, of course!

There it is being repeated, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon member for Johannesburg West should withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon member Dr Vilonel also said it. Should he not also withdraw his words?

I withdraw them, Sir.

Order! The hon member Dr Vilonel has withdrawn his words. The hon member for Johannesburg West may proceed. [Interjections.]

In conclusion, Sir, I just want to emphasise that I did not hold up these three examples merely to score points against those hon members. I used these three examples in an effort to try to get at the truth. My argument was therefore that we should conduct the debate in such a way that we can find common ground so that we can make a contribution to our country.

Personal explanation during debate

Order! At this stage I want to grant the hon member for Sunnyside an opportunity to make a personal explanation.

Mr Chairman, as I remember, I said this afternoon that the hon the Minister of Finance had gone so far as to tell this House an untruth. My Hansard reads as follows, however:

I want to withdraw that word “lie”. All I really wanted to say was that the hon the Minister had told an absolute untruth.

Order! I want to make it very clear that when the hon member for Sunnyside used the word “lie”, I got the impression that he had corrected himself immediately, as if he had not meant to use that word. I accept that is what he meant, and that was the impression I got. On the other hand I want to point out that a senior hon member of the NP drew my attention to what was stated in Hansard. I therefore want to thank the hon member, since what he did—drawing it to the attention of the presiding officer—was in the best traditions of this House. I thank him for doing so.

Debate resumed

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Johannesburg West has approached this debate from an angle from which I should not like to speak. But if I may react briefly to his speech, I want to say that the hon member lodged a plea here this evening—I gained the impression that he was serious when he lodged the plea—that we should try to find common ground in this House.

But I am afraid—and in this regard I must disappoint the hon member—that the course and the direction the hon members of the NP and the NP leaders have decided to adopt for the future of South Africa, cannot and will not ever be acceptable to those of us on this side of the House. [Interjections.] After all that course is diametrically opposed to everything we stand for. [Interjections.] If this hon member then alleges—I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue— that the NP decided in the seventies that the homeland policy with regard to the Blacks was not the final solution, this is news to me. [Interjections.] In the seventies I was a relatively mature person, who was actively involved in politics as a member of the NP.

What about the 1977 plan of the NP? [Interjections.]

We are now talking about the Black people. That is after all what the debate is about.

What about the 99-year leasehold?

I did not interrupt the hon member for Johannesburg West. Consequently he must give me a chance to talk.

As far as the Blacks are concerned, it was the steadfast standpoint of the NP, to which we in the CP belonged at that stage—and this was the standpoint they adopted until we left the NP—that the homeland policy with regard to the Blacks was the final solution. As a matter of fact I do not know whether the hon member was a witness to this. In addition to the Ministers the main speaker on the NP side in our time was former Deputy Minister Hennie van der Walt. There was a time in the seventies when as the spokesman of the NP in this House he argued that the so-called “section 10 rights” contained in the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act should also be taken away from Blacks because this gave them a degree of permanence in White South Africa. That was how the NP reacted in those days. Dr Connie Mulder said that if the NP’s policy was carried through to its logical consequences, there would eventually be no Black South Africans. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Communication served on the Cabinet with him.

No, I was never in the Cabinet with him.

The hon the Minister was a member of the NP. Other hon Ministers served on the Cabinet with him, and not one of them repudiated Dr Mulder. They all accepted this.

Schalk van der Merwe repudiated him.

Now the hon member for Johannesburg West says that we must find common ground, and he argues that we must debate. Now I find it interesting that when the crisis took place in the NP before the rift, the hon leaders of the present NP did not display the patience with their fellow Afrikaners in that party which they have displayed today with Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi. [Interjections.] When we pleaded in the caucus for them to give us another opportunity to talk, …

After you lot had intrigued the previous night.

… we were told to get out.

Oom Cas, you know that is not true.

If the hon member is talking about the intriguing of the previous night, the hon member for Brentwood can inform him fully.

Order! I think the hon member for Barberton is being interrupted too frequently. The hon member may proceed.

Then there was not the weeks of endless patience we are experiencing today. Then two Ministers—they just happened to be White—of the NP at that stage were summarily told to get out. The same leader of the NP at that stage has all the patience in the world today. The hon member says that reasonableness is now triumphing. But they had no patience with their fellow Afrikaners. We were not even given the opportunity to state our standpoint.

What must I say about Dr Hertzog?

I have now allowed myself to be led astray by the hon member, but time is passing. [Interjections.]

I should like to get back to the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill. We are grateful for certain announcements made by the hon the Minister, although they may have been a bit late. I am particularly grateful that the surcharge on imports—particularly on production agents—which he introduced last year, is now going to be abolished.

When I say that we are grateful that it is going to be abolished, I want to say in the same breath that it should never have been introduced. In the economic climate prevailing in South Africa, particularly as regards the agricultural industry, the hon the Minister made a fatal mistake by further increasing the already impossibly high production input costs of the agricultural industry in particular.

In this connection I want to advance an argument which I have used frequently and which I may use again before the end of this session. The hon the Minister is now eventually finding it necessary to do away with the surcharge on machinery and so on, which we need in agriculture inter alia, in order to lower the production costs of the agricultural industry as well. I want to point out to him for the hundredth time that the agricultural industry simply cannot afford the present rate of GST which applies to agricultural machinery and requirements.

I am referring to a dying industry in agriculture and perhaps the most important industry in agriculture, namely the maize industry. This year we had a production price increase of 10% for white maize and 5% for yellow maize. But according to our information both those prices are lower than the production cost of that maize this year. This is a fact, according to the estimates of the department of the hon the Minister.

Which Minister’s department?

The hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics. According to their own figures the production cost this year total R254,14 per ton. This is estimated at a reduced production which is no longer more than 800 million tons, but considerably lower than the lowest estimate. The price for yellow maize is R225 per ton.

Nowadays we hear the argument that the maize industry is allowing its prices to rise impossibly high. Now that the maize industry is on its knees, it is being told: “We are giving the baby back to you”. Now it is suddenly a free economy and now they must make the grade themselves in future. In the years when the maize industry was of importance to South Africa because for various reasons it was possible to export maize profitably, an appeal was made to the same industry in the interests of South Africa to be willing to accept a lower price than they would be able to get for their product overseas. Now that the maize industry is on its knees, it is being told that it is being given the baby. It is also being said that the maize industry is allowing prices to rise impossibly high for itself.

Who said: “The baby is yours”?

We shall get back to this again next year.

The State has increased its subsidy for the storing of maize tremendously. The result is that the consumer price of maize in South Africa must of necessity be increased by R5 per ton every month. It is surely not the maize farmer’s fault that that increase must now come into force. It is the State which has withdrawn its protecting hand from that industry.

As far as white maize is concerned, the producer gets R240 per ton. This is a fixed price, which is not determined by the socalled “free enterprise”. The direct buyer of the product pays R280 and a few cents per ton. The final consumer in the chain store eventually pays R764 per ton for a packet of white maize weighing 12,5 kg. The result is that the farmer only gets 31% of the eventual amount which the final consumer pays for the white maize. The rest goes to the middleman.

When it comes to our attention that there are binding mutual agreements between the largest millers in South Africa which eliminate real competition between them, we say that the time has come for a thorough investigation to be made into that aspect.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Barberton is an expert on agriculture, and by the same token the hon the Minister of Finance is an expert on financial policy. Of course he generally does things as he thinks best. That is why I want to congratulate him heartily, because I also know what part the Reserve Bank and others played in getting the rand to this evening’s high level of 40,20 American cents, which was above expectation. I think this is an achievement.

I also want to congratulate him on the repayment of the loan levies of 1980. With that he is giving us an injection of R292 million, R206 million of which is going to individuals and R86 to companies. From tomorrow it will be revealed in financial statements that that money is once again coming into circulation in our economy.

The hon the Minister came up with a financial package here today to stimulate our economy. He announced an excise reduction of R70 million in regard to the motor industry, as well as a grant of R750 million for low-cost housing for all.

He gave a further R50 million for the provision of employment and training. I think the original amount for that was R600 million. He allocated a further R50 million to the Small Businesses Development Corporation, to which R58 million was originally allocated. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister; I think he is doing a lot of good in that respect.

In the short period of time available to me I should like to discuss the total onslaught against the RSA, the importance of authority, and if I can get around to it, the importance of reform.

It was really heartening to note that the lead story in tonight’s edition of The Argus was about a thunderstorm in the Cape. The storm and the rain therefore received greater coverage than all the negative reports on the unrest. [Interjections.]

Since the announcement of the state of emergency there has also been a much more positive tone in the South African Press as a whole. This helps us to destroy the negative and shocking image that RSA has abroad, which constantly gives the impression that South Africa is being consumed by flames. I have here before me a sample of a big advertisement under the heading “Ons moet mekaar vind” which appeared in our newspapers.

One does not always agree in all respects with these reports, particularly when they want to prescribe to us what we will have to do eventually.

I want to state very clearly that the NP believes that South Africa’s salvation cannot be sought in isolation and we therefore take note of events in countries abroad, and also of the onslaught against us, but we in South Africa retain our self-respecting, sovereign and, as a Republic, exclusive right to make our own decisions in our own interests without interference from outside.

We do not accept the way in which foreign groups, who have never set foot in South Africa and do not even have the slightest clue where the RSA is situated, utter all sorts of cries on apartheid, like parrots. This is repeated with boring regularity, by the Official Opposition as well. It is really the Official Opposition which incites the foreign Press, because the only word it knows is “apartheid”. [Interjections.] They are also the cause of much of the catastrophe we are experiencing because they continue to talk about disinvestment, which is simply not relevant. [Interjections.]

They regard economic sanctions as the first step in hastening revolution in our country. I am now talking about overseas people, and not about the Official Opposition. That is why they want us to stop our policy of reform, because the people overseas prefer revolution above everything else. We have to expect a strong message of condemnation, because they are powerless to bring this Government down in another way. Now they concentrate on the business undertakings of the USA which precisely through their investments and business activities are ensuring an economic revival in South Africa. At the end of 1984 direct USA investments in South Africa amounted to $2,3 billion, and this amount was eventually halved.

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

No, I have very little time, but I just want to tell the hon member that he is going to lose in Jeppe. He is not going to come in again in Jeppe. Why did the CP not put up a candidate in ward 45 during the city council elections? They did not have the courage … [Interjections.] No, I want to talk about the 350 companies.

Mr Chairman, I do not know now whether the hon member is going to reply to my question.

No, I am not going to. [Interjections.]

There are 350 American companies here in South Africa today who, due to their activities, supply between 650 000 and 750 000 families, Black and White with a living. The USA reserves the right to interfere in our affairs and to harm us by applying futile economic sanctions which are a waste of time.

Those sanctions will have precisely the opposite effect in South Africa. They can retard the growth of the economy to a certain extent, but they will not harm the pace of social reform. We shall continue with it.

That is what you told Smith.

The supporters of sanctions and disinvestment do not have the vaguest idea of timing. Why do these people not look at the wonderful products which South Africa exports to Africa? Our exports to Africa amount to R1 800 million per year.

If one looks at videos and television, one sees what they do. I was looking at one of these videos this very morning. Oil and blood and dollars are spoken about. That is all they can talk about. Do they not think of how the oil, the blood and the dollars flowed in Libya and in the Middle East? They are the biggest hypocrites under the sun. [Interjections.]

They only take care of their own interests, and are jealous because their own undertakings are collapsing. I saw those people did not have the IQ of a human being. They do not have the mental capacity to manage their own affairs. They are extremely stupid people who want to tell us what we have to do. [Interjections.] That is why we will not listen to them! We will not yield to any foreign pressure. We are part of Africa and we shall accept that responsibility.

There are 358 000 Black workers from our neighbouring states who work in South Africa. They take home R668 million annually to their countries. Also, more than 1 million illegal foreign workers are admitted to South Africa. All we can still do, is to help to ensure that that disinvestment campaign fails. We shall not tolerate these Satanic forces which are concentrated against us. I just want to quote a US News and World Report article of 3 March 1986:

What they are busy doing is scandalous.

We shall not allow ourselves to be intimidated by sanctions and disinvestment. We shall rise again, we as South Africans! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is usually a pleasure to follow on after the hon member for Rosettenville, particularly when he debates a matter which he understands fairly well, ie the Railways, but to follow on after him after he has spoken about sanctions and the way in which he would prevent them, is not quite as pleasant.

I thought of a word which could describe the kind of speech he made this evening, and I must say that the only word I could think of which was suited to what he said, was the word “show off”. We in South Africa will have to realise that this kind of showing off will have to come to an end. When one speaks about economic matters, hon members must realise that we in the West are all interdependent. That is why it is important that we do everything within our capabilities to ward off sanctions to our own advantage, but also to the advantage of countries with whom we have traditionally traded over all the years. This also includes Africa. That is why I shall be referring to sanctions in the course of my speech.

†In his opening speech today, the hon the Minister quoted an unknown author as saying: “Success is a journey, it is not an end”. I think what the hon the Minister was actually saying was: Do not measure the Government by its end objectives. Rather measure its successes from day to day. I think that was more or less what he was trying to say.

As the hon the Minister and his colleagues have not even at this late stage of the session shared their vision of a new South Africa with us, I too would like to measure the Government by its successes as it goes on its journey. What do we have in South Africa? Tonight in South Africa we have unemployment which is so bad that it has become a major contributory factor to unrest in this country. We have urban violence which fills even the most optimistic among us with despair. We have a cost of living and inflation rate which makes one fear that 1986 will compare to 1987 like a boom year. Most importantly, we have alienation and polarisation between groups and races which raises the question whether reconciliation will be possible even after this Government is no longer in power. That, I want to tell the hon the Minister, is the reality of South Africa in June of 1986. It is the reasons for this situation to which we should be applying our minds and by which we should be measuring the success of the Government as it goes its journey.

*I am certain that the hon members on the Government side of the House did not purposely create the conditions which we are experiencing today. But I am equally certain that unless there is a radical change in regard to regulating conflict and in the way in which we are going to try and find solutions to our problems, we shall not be able to manage. I want to give a few examples of what I mean by this.

Let us examine the attacks on targets in our neighbouring states on 19 May. As a result of those attacks the Commonwealth group first interrupted and then ended the negotiations they were busy with. The value of the rand dropped that day from 45 American cents to 42,5 American cents, and within a few days it dropped further to 36 cents. [Interjections.] The insistence on economic sanctions increased during the past month as a result of the attacks and violence, so that the hon the Minister had to announce today that a further amount of R5 million had been set aside to ward off this threat and to help with technological development.

The hon member for Rosettenville referred to America and to sanctions. As we are sitting here this evening, it is only Thatcher and Reagan who are blocking sanctions. I think they are only preventing them because they think that sanctions will not be effective. Also, foreign investments in South Africa are being discouraged for political reasons. This is the result of the attacks and this is the situation in which we find ourselves this evening.

I wonder if the hon the Minister can say if these consequences were foreseen when it was decided to carry out these attacks. I want to ask him if he as the hon the Minister of Finance told the State President and his Cabinet colleagues what the possible consequences could be. I should like to know if the consequences were even debated in the Cabinet. Did they give consideration to what those consequences could be? [Interjections.] Were the advantages as well as the disadvantages weighed up against each other? This is actually the question: Did the action which was taken hold any possible advantages?

The hon the Minister of Defence said that day that there was a direct connection between the targets and the attacks against South Africa. If this is correct, why did they then wait until 19 May and why were four targets in three countries hit on one day? That was after all surely not a follow-up action, and it can also not be regarded as a preventative action, because since those attacks there have been further landmine explosions and bomb attacks against South Africa. I also want to ask the hon the Minister: Where is the evidence that the targets which were hit, were in fact camps from which acts of terrorism were carried out against South Africa? A month has gone by now, and we are actually still waiting for the proof of that.

I think we have the right to protect ourselves, but in this specific case I am not at all convinced that the price which was paid internationally, was worth the trouble. I rather think that the attacks were a political gesture made by a Government which has lost touch with reality.

The State President accepted full responsibility for it after the attacks, but I do not think that this actually impressed anyone, because it is not he who has to pay the price for it. I say this with respect because his time has actually passed. It is the younger generations who will have to pay the price for that kind of decision.

One gets the impression that the Government is taking delight in using force and violence to try to settle differences. Internal violence as well as violence against our neighbouring states only creates conditions and an atmosphere in which negotiation becomes very, very difficult.

We must rather go home … [Interjections.]

I am not saying we should go home.

†I know that even if the PFP were to implement a liberal democracy, there would still be those who would oppose us because they would perhaps neither be liberal nor believe in democracy. I believe that is so.

Plenty!

I also believe that such people would oppose us and would do so with violence. In that case I, too, would retaliate. For the present, however, I believe there is still an immense reservoir of goodwill in this country. I also believe that there is still an immense amount which this Government could do through negotiation. The way in which the Government resorts to violence at the drop of a hat does not bode well for this country’s future. I would very much like to know what the hon the Minister will do, as a member of the Cabinet, to ensure that this kind of thing does not take place for purely political reasons.

I am disappointed in the hon member for Wynberg, firstly because he accused the hon member for Rosettenville of showing off this evening. We who know the hon member for Rosettenville, know he is the last man in this House who is a show-off. [Interjections.] I think the accusation which the hon member for Wynberg made against the hon member was uncalled for. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Wynberg also referred to matters regarding unemployment and so forth. I think the hon the Minister of Finance will give him a comprehensive reply. Furthermore, he also spoke about regulating conflict, with which I have no fault to find. He deems it fit, however, to list the Defence Force’s offences, and accuses us amongst other things of the fact that we were responsible for the failure of the EPG’s mission, and that the Defence Force is responsible for the rand’s value declining.

The Government! [Interjections.]

Let me tell the hon member I take it amiss of him for having adopted this attitude here this evening.

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

Yes, Sir, if it is a short little question, because I only have 10 minutes available to me.

Mr Chairman, I just want to know if the dicision which the hon member was talking about, was taken by the Defence Force, or whether it was a political decision on the part of the Government.

Sir, I shall come to that in the course of my speech. [Interjections.] I shall reply to the question; I am not afraid to give the hon member for Yeoville a reply! The hon members were informed, however, and should know what it was all about! [Interjections.]

In the world in which we live with its many double standards, I think it is tragic that South Africans are still to be found today who question the Republic’s right to act against identified ANC facilities in its neighbouring states. [Interjections.] No one in this country, in South Africa or in the world, can be at all unclear about South Africa’s policy in this connection. This policy has been clarified repeatedly so that everyone would know about it. [Interjections.] We reserve the right to protect and safeguard our interests and those of our people.

In this connection we act in accordance with international law, because on the basis of international law it is an offence when a state offers a haven to elements that plan, initiate and carry out deeds of terror against other states. The state against which such deeds are perpetrated has the right—this is an inalienable right—to act in self-defence, and to carry out pre-emptive strikes. [Interjections.] In this way Israel attacked the PLO’s camps in Tunisia. America, which has taken a strong stand against our doing this, attacked the Libyan positions in Libya. [Interjections.] We do not become involved in the internal affairs of our neighbouring states, and we are also entitled to expect them not to become involved in our affairs.

Furthermore, we have warned our neighbouring states on a continuous basis that South Africa has a duty to protect its territorial integrity and the lives and property of its citizens. I want to make it clear that there can be no uncertainty about this. They were warned publicly on a continuous basis— through diplomatic channels and through other functional channels, which I would rather not expand on because this is a sensitive matter—that we would take action if they did not stop this habit of theirs.

I also remind hon members of the invitation which the State President addressed to the neighbouring states on 31 January, in which he invited them to establish a joint security mechanism so that security bottlenecks and other matters could be regulated and handled in an orderly way. The response to that was increasing violence inside South Africa. Since 1 January no fewer than 101 terrorist attacks within our borders have been recorded. In these attacks 14 Blacks and 5 Whites died. They were murdered by these people. Altogether 72 Blacks and 76 Whites were injured in the process. [Interjections.] We have abundant proof of the fact that these actions were planned and carried out from surrounding states, because the ANC is entrenched there, and plans these actions against our people in South Africa. The landmines, explosives and AK-47 rifles which we find in the country, do not fall out of the sky; they come into the country through our neighbouring states. [Interjections.]

Do hon members of the Official Opposition—the hon member for Wynberg and other hon members—expect that we, while these things are taking place, should remain sitting with folded arms? Do they expect us to turn a blind eye to these acts of violence against our people? We are not prepared to do this. We have a duty, and we shall do it. I also want to make it clear that South Africa’s action against the ANC bases is calculated action. We act on the basis of irrefutable proof on ANC bases, their facilities and the plans they make there. We try our absolute best not to endanger the lives of innocent people during our actions. We restrict our actions as far as it is at all possible only to action against the ANC.

Let us admit this evening that the action of the SA Defence Force against these ANC bases was extremely successful. We did exactly what we wanted to go and do; we did not threaten a single other person’s life unnecessarily. [Interjections.] The ANC, however, does not pay attention to any of these rules.

How many arms caches did you people find?

The ANC injures everyone in this country. They injure the innocent in the country, for whom they do not care, but when we act against the ANC—those who are committing the violence—it is questioned in the highest Council Chamber of our country.

[Inaudible.]

The ANC, however, continues to train terrorists and to do its diabolical work. I can understand that the hon member for Greytown’s pride has been injured; I can quite understand it.

Yes. [Interjections.]

There is another point which I want to put very clearly. When the Defence Force acts against terrorists, it does so on the instructions of the Government. That is also my reply to the question of the hon member for Yeoville.

It is a Cabinet decision.

All the advantages and disadvantages are first weighed up. That is why I reject insinuations that the SA Defence Force acts as a kind of desperado or thing.

Who said that?

In connection with this an article, written by Prof Deon Geldenhuys of RAU, appeared in the Sunday Times of 25 May 1986. The hon member for Wynberg has actually linked up with this by his insinuation that the action of the Defence Force had a whole lot of negative consequences, and that it was supposedly not Government action. I repeat that it was calculated action on the part of the Government against the enemies who destroy or wipe out South Africa’s people. I immediately want to say that these kinds of insinuations made by Prof Geldenhuys and some hon members, are not worthy of them. They are the kinds of accusations and insinuations which portray South Africa as a destabilising force—which is untrue. Instead of that, these people should rather take note of the stabilising role which South Africa plays in Southern Africa. Time does not allow me to discuss this tonight, but there are many examples of South Africa’s stabilising effect on Southern Africa. The hon member also asked whether the timing was right. He says it was wrong. [Interjections.]

It was rotten.

Then let me ask this evening when the time would have been right. I have said before that politically speaking there will never be a so-called right time. Many years …

Oh please, man!

The hon member does not understand these matters at all. He should rather attend a funeral, because he does that much better than he participates in this debate. [Interjections.]

For many years South Africa has continuously been under this bright spotlight of world opinion. This focus has increased drastically during the past two years and numerous political figures—those in office at present and the has-beens—are constantly prescribing to us how we should run our affairs. There are numerous examples of this, and I just want to mention two of them. There are the so-called wise men of President Reagan who, if I am correct, have a year to investigate matters. They are involved with their investigation at present. The EPG have been examining our political activities, and how we should run our affairs, for a few months by now. Now if this is the situation, how should we then behave? Should we wait until all these matters are completed? And if we have to wait until these politicians have examined our affairs, we shall have to wait for two years, and may we then not take any action at all in the interim? In the meantime the ANC blithely continues to practise violence against us, to kill our people, to murder. No, Sir! I really want to say that this kind of argument is too crazy to be true! An hon member can surely not expect the South African Government and the Defence Force to sit with folded hands under these circumstances and not to do anything against these people who commit violence and are butchering our people. [Interjections.] We are simply just not prepared to allow this. My reply to the criticism of the hon member for Wynberg is therefore short and to the point. When action has to be taken against terrorists there can be no better time than the present. There is no better time than now. This is emphasised by the successful action which we have had against these people who are committing violence. These are pre-emptive strikes which anticipate the violence so that one can ensure that no more violence will follow. [Interjections.]

I should now like to come to the hon member for Wynberg and the hon member for Johannesburg North who unfortunately is not here now. These hon members were given a complete briefing on the action taken by the Defence Force, but I do not want to discuss that any further. However, the hon member for Wynberg again said here tonight: We are still waiting to hear what success was achieved. This is what he said, if I understood him correctly. He wanted to know what success we had achieved with the targets we had hit.

Yes, tell us.

But we did provide the hon member with the information, did we not? I told the hon member what we hit there, what we went and did there. We did after all inform the hon member fully. [Interjections.] No, that hon member is very wilful. I just want to put two questions to the hon member for Wynberg and his colleague the hon member for Johannesburg North, and these two questions they will have to settle with their own consciences. I think they also owe the country an explanation.

On SABC-TV the hon member referred to a discussion which he held with Oliver Tambo in Lusaka. The hon member said it was a chance conversation, but how on earth is it possible for a person to bump into Oliver Tambo by coincidence in Lusaka? [Interjections.] I think the hon members should explain to us how they bumped into him by coincidence. The hon member for Wynberg is the chairman and chief spokesman of the defence group of the Official Opposition in South Africa. One does not reach Tambo by such a coincidence. The hon members should also tell us what they said to Oliver Tambo. They do after all know that Oliver Tambo is the man who plans violence in South Africa. When the hon members spoke with him, he knew that his people were sending a car bomb to Durban and that they were busy planning violence for 16 June. The hon member for Wynberg accuses the Defence Force of being responsible for acts which have negative consequences for South Africa. Did the hon member ask this perpetrator of violence against South Africa: What are you busy with? I expect the hon member, as the chief spokesman on Defence of the Official Opposition to tell us: I addressed that man on the things he is planning in South Africa. We expect this of a responsible hon member of this House. [Interjections.] The Official Opposition accuses us, in this House and in public, when we tackle terrorist lairs because it upsets their plans. I frankly want to tell the hon member for Wynberg out that I blame him for adopting this standpoint.

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

No, I do not have any more time. My time has almost expired.

We live in a time of choices, and in my opinion one of the most important choices in South Africa is the acceptance or rejection of violence. If we act against violence—violence which is aimed at us—we should not handle the situation with kid gloves. We are also sorry when people are hurt, we are very sorry when people die, but if those committing the violence do not want to cease to do their violence against us, they must expect us to reply in the same coin. We therefore ask the Official Opposition: Do not reproach us; rather support us in the interests of all the people in South Africa, so that the tyrants who act against us, will know that we all stand united to counteract violence.

Mr Chairman, we feel the same resentment as the hon the Deputy Minister does regarding terrorism and the things they advocate, and consequently we cannot quarrel with him about that. We welcome the firm standpoint adopted by the Government regarding terrorism. But we are upset that stronger action was not taken earlier.

As far as the state of emergency is concerned, you will remember, Sir, that the state of emergency which was proclaimed in July 1985, applied to 30 odd magisterial districts. Then it was extended to a further six magisterial districts. Then it was lifted in a few magisterial districts and after that it was fitted entirely. The other day the hon member Mr Theunissen referred to this, and I should just like to refresh the memory of the hon the Deputy Minister in this connection, because we then issued a Press statement regarding our perception of conditions in South Africa.

Our perception of conditions in South Africa cannot be as authoritative as that of the hon the Deputy Minister, but on 4 March 1986 we issued a statement in which we said that the State President, by lifting the state of emergency, was creating the false impression that the security situation in the country had improved whereas the revolutionaries were in fact intensifying their onslaught. The CP warned the public against a false feeling of security and last Thursday the State President proclaimed a state of emergency not in 30 or 36 magisterial districts, but throughout the country. Yet again the CP was proved correct. [Interjections.]

We also want to tell the PFP that they must understand that when the Defence Force takes action, it takes action after certain orders have been issued from political circles. I do not think it is in the highest tradition of patriotism to attack the Defence Force under such circumstances. Attack political leaders, they are not worth anything in any case, but leave the Defence Force alone. [Interjections.]

This evening the hon member for Johannesburg-West found it extremely difficult to cover himself and other hon members in this House with the blanket of moderation. I think he must reread the history of the NP in the publications of the University of the Orange Free State. A few pages from the beginning there is a letter from Pres Steyn to Senator S F Malan in which he says that if there is one word he dislikes it is the word “moderate”. He says the “moderates” are usually very “moderate behalwe waar dit gaan oor de weggeven van de regten van my volk, dan is hulle op hul immoderateste”. Does that not fit in wonderfully with the picture of the NP’s policy today?

Talk about the present for a change, not the past.

We are only talking about truths. We are all seeking truths and we all profess the eternal truths. The hon member must not get angry if we tell him an eternal truth or a political truth. We are only showing how the so-called moderates have leaned over backwards so few to accommodate others and in this way have freely given away the rights of their people.

But it is all right when the hon members of the National Party want to change their standpoint. The hon member for Randburg referred to this. There is nothing wrong with a person changing his standpoint. But when one is dealing with a political party which changes its standpoint so radically, that is another matter. When a political party, which has always adopted the standpoint that this country is not a unitary state, suddenly changes its standpoint so much and accepts that South Africa is a unitary state, that political party is immoral. It is immoral when a political party perseveres with such a standpoint without consulting the electorate. That is all we ask. We ask that the voters must be consulted and tested regarding this radical change in the approach of the National Party.

For the first time since 1910 there is a Government in power in this country which has continued to govern for longer than an average of four years and two months between elections. Despite everything else, we are simply asking the Government to hold an election.

We will!

Yes, but when? When pigs fly? [Interjections.] The National Party, which has just tried to create the impression that it is governing with a firm hand … Just allow me to give a few examples of the lack of resolve, the hesitation and the uncertainty prevailing in that party at the moment.

A few months ago Dr Connie Mulder referred in a speech to the fact that the National Party did not have a legal mandate to govern, and that there was a technical fault in connection with the extending of the lifetime of this Parliament in 1984. At that stage there was a tremendous flutter in the dovecote. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning reacted to this. The newspapers certainly did not neglect to react to this either. The question was asked how the opposition parties could allege that the National Party did not have the right to lengthen the lifetime of this Parliament further. But then an interesting thing happened. In spite of this bravado with which the National Party claimed that it had the right to lengthen the lifetime of this Parliament, a proclamation by the State President was published in the Gazette of 2 May 1986—take note, not 1984, when the new Constitution was promulgated—in which he said:

Is it not wonderful that, two years after the first session of this Parliament began, an announcement was made that in terms of section 102(8) 4 September 1984 would be deemed to be the date of commencement! But the interesting aspect of the matter is that the provision in section 103(1)—it is a good thing that the hon member is listening for a change, and I see the hon member Dr Vilonel has put on his earphones; perhaps he will become a little more sensible now— reads as follows:

But the State President promulgated this Act on 6 June 1984.

The Constitution Act.

Yes, he promulgated the Constitution Act. But in terms of the provisions of section 101(8) the State President must also by means of that same proclamation determine when the lifetime of this Parliament shall actually commence.

My question consequently is: Where did the State President get the authority to issue a second proclamation, as he in fact did on 2 May 1986? I think the State President must consult his law advisers to ascertain whether we are meeting here legally. [Interjections.] This is the behaviour of a Government which is supposed to be governing this country with a firm and steadfast hand! [Interjections.]

I want to make a further point. This concerns what the hon the Deputy Minister said about timing. I want to agree with the hon the Deputy Minister as regards the timing aspect of these incidents in Lusaka and so on. As far as timing is concerned, I just want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister one more thing. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke at Pietersburg, and he said that the West had left South Africa in the lurch. He said that the West was not interested in South Africa; we might just as well forget about the West. They do as they like in any case. That is how a great statesman speaks. But at the same time Mrs Thatcher appeared on television and she was fighting for South Africa; not the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but Mrs Thatcher. She asked that other considerations should apply here. She said they could not ask their allies in the British Commonwealth to start with sanctions. This was not the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is now perfect timing. We reject a Government that vacillates and dissembles to such an extent and is so unsure of itself.

Mr Chairman, at the start the hon member for Brakpan boasted about the CP’s behaviour regarding the state of emergency.

Do you agree that the Government is illegal?

I shall still get around to the illegal Government. The hon member for Brakpan boasted about their standpoint regarding the state of emergency, but he will concede that his party really chopped and changed as regards the state of emergency. When the state of emergency was proclaimed for the first time, the CP announced far and wide that a state of emergency should never have been proclaimed because existing legislation was adequate to deal with the situation. When the state of emergency was lifted, this was held against the Government. Yet, according to their own standpoint, the state of emergency should never have been introduced.

Quite right!

I think they must reconsider that standpoint. As far as the matter of a unitary state is concerned, which was also mentioned earlier this evening in the debate, and to which the hon member for Brakpan also referred, I only want to make one remark. The hon member for Johannesburg West indicated that it had already become clear to the NP in the seventies that the policy of independent national states could not be the final answer. The hon member for Barberton then said that was news to him. But it is a fact that it was in the seventies that the legislation in connection with the 99-year leasehold was introduced. Surely this is an acknowledgement of the fact that Black people were permanently in the RSA. [Interjections.] What is more in the late seventies Black people already enjoyed franchise in the RSA. After all we have three tiers of Government. It is a fact that full status was given to Black local authorities when the late Mr Vorster was the Prime Minister in the 1970s. I think these were the directions which the hon member for Johannesburg West in particular wanted to indicate.

I feel one would usually think that there has to be an unbridgeable gulf between the political groupings of the far left and the far right, but closer investigation brings to light that there is a common denominator. I am referring to the joint endeavour of both these political groups to get rid of the Government and the NP.

Who for example, was declared enemy number one at a meeting of the End Conscription Campaign? It was not the leaders of the AWB, the CP, the HNP, the Volkswag or the Kappiekommando. The persons declared the enemy there were the State President and the NP.

Were you there?

Yes, I was there, and I wish that hon member had also been there so he could understand what point I was trying to make here.

No, I do not associate with the UDF.

Have you joined the UDF?

No, I shall never join the UDF.

If one goes to the meetings of the right-wing groups, one finds that enemy number one is not the leaders of the ANC, the UDF, or the PFP.

Were you there?

Yes!

Where?

I am aware of the standpoints adapted at these meetings.

You do not go to AWB meetings, but to UDF meetings! [Interjections.]

The point I want to make is that the State President is also the number one enemy of the right-wing groups like the CP and the AWB, and this proves that there is one big common denominator. The irony is that both groups use precisely the same methods to achieve their common goal, and I want to refer briefly to just two examples.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

About a year ago the South African Council of Churches proclaimed a day of prayer with the sole purpose of praying to get rid of the Government. At the beginning of this year there was a meeting of the association Bybel en Volk, at which they also prayed for the fall of the Government. In both cases precisely the same method was used to get rid of the Government, namely prayer. [Interjections.]

In this connection I just want to make a remark in passing. Whoever sees fit to pray for the fall of a government which has committed itself to freedom of religion and also to governing the country on the basis of Christian principles …

And to power-sharing as well!

Order! The hon member for Jeppe has now made his last interjection for the evening. The hon member for Randfontein may proceed. [Interjections.]

Whoever prays for the fall of such a government, must search their own hearts very thoroughly. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to a second example of how the far left-wing and the far right-wing use precisely the same method to overthrow the Government. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it not possible for you to give the same ruling regarding interjections by hon members on that side of the House?

Order! I was watching who was making the most interjections. I shall maintain the order in this House. The hon member for Randfontein may proceed.

From the ranks of the far left-wing one hears to an increasing extent that the Government is no longer legitimate because the majority of the people it is governing do not have a say in the composition of the Government. Because it does not have legitimacy, one can also get rid of it by means of violence in the long run.

We also hear precisely the same argument from a completely different quarter, and we heard it here again this evening. Here it is being insinuated—and it is also being proclaimed loudly from public platforms—that the Government is no longer legitimate because its term of office expired on 29 April 1986. Because the Government is now ostensibly so illegal, it is also fair to silence Government spokesmen even if it is in a violent way during public meetings. I think this is becoming a dangerous game when every Tom, Dick and Harry is trying to cast suspicion on the legitimacy of a government, because then we are heading unavoidably for political anarchy. [Interjections.]

Consequently I want to discuss the arguments regarding the matter of legitimacy very briefly. A say in the composition of a government governing a person can never be the only criterion for legitimacy. The fact that a government promotes everyone’s interests and not only the interests of a specific group also gives such a government legitimacy. After all, it is a fact that this Government does not only promote the interests of Whites, but that it in fact promotes the interests of all population groups—to such an extent that there are even hon members sitting in this House who hold it against the Government that it promotes the interests of other population groups at the expense of those of the Whites. [Interjections.] The argument from far left-wing quarters regarding the matter of legitimacy is consequently in my opinion not valid, but the argument from right-wing quarters regarding the matter of legitimacy, as we heard it here this evening again, is equally invalid.

I want to refer very briefly to a definition of legitimacy, as reflected in Basiese Konsepte in die Politiek. It reads as follows:

From this definition it is clear that the Government has all the legitimacy in the world to lengthen the term of the House of Assembly in accordance with its Constitution. This Constitution did not materialise out of thin air, it was agreed to by a two-thirds majority of the White voters. If there was ever a question of a democratic way of doing things, then we have it here.

I want to repeat that it is dangerous to play with the legitimacy of a government. In that way we are heading for political anarchy, because after all legitimacy is also a very relative concept.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Standing Order No 106 of this House provides that when an hon member leaves his seat he shall bow to the Chair. I should like to draw your attention to the fact that the hon member for Jeppe did not bow to the Chair when he left the Chamber.

Oh, you are talking nonsense. [Interjections.]

Order! I did not notice that.

Mr Chairman, it is not my intention to enter into a lengthy debate with the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence at this stage. However, I do think it is necessary that we in these benches make certain remarks regarding what he had to say concerning the hon member for Wynberg. I wish to point out that at no stage did the hon member for Wynberg make any allegations that the Defence Force on their own behalf undertook, or at the wrong time undertook, attacks on the foreign states. His attack was on the Government of this country which made those decisions, and we in these benches must make it absolutely clear that if that hon Deputy Minister and his colleagues think that they can drive a wedge between the members of the Defence Force of this country and the Official Opposition they are making a big mistake. [Interjections.] Many of the members of our Defence Force are voting members of this party. Let us therefore accept that when we make attacks on the decision-making process, it is on the Government that we make those attacks and not on the Defence Force.

Secondly, the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence saw fit to justify the declaration of the state of emergency as taking steps before the events take place. We do not know whether those events would have taken place or not, and neither does he. However, there is not a single member in this House today who can tell me how many people have been detained. Is it 1 000? Is it 1 500,2 000? How many have been detained in Cape Town, and how many in Durban? You do not know, Mr Chairman. We do not know. That is where the very danger lies of creating a state of emergency and setting in motion a chain of events that deprive people of the very information they need.

Two weeks ago—and I say this is a set of circumstances that have occurred—in the first of the two Second Reading debates on the Public Safety Amendment Bill I said, and I quote from my Hansard as follows (col 7251):

I said this two weeks ago. I went on to say:

I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Durban Point said about his constituency, but I do wish to take exception to one point that he made. He talked about the mindless killers and the mindless people planting those bombs. I want to make the point that I do not believe they are mindless. The people who plant bombs in places such as outside restaurants and Durban recreation centres know exactly what they are doing. They are not mindless. Their actions are aimed at creating an atmosphere in South Africa and among the people of South Africa, and we certainly reject these scare tactics totally and absolutely, as I believe the majority of the people of South Africa do. We do reject them. [Interjections.]

Do you accept them as terrorists?

Certainly.

In a very real sense, the political parties in this country need to know where we are going. We need to be absolutely sure of our direction, and that is the problem now.

For us in the PFP, the attainment of a liberal democracy is a key matter. I have little doubt—my colleagues the hon members for Pietermaritzburg North and Wynberg have already said this—and I am not so naive as to believe that there are not any enemies and that there will not continue to be enemies of the liberal democracy in South Africa. What we must ask, however, is where the NP stands. Is the NP to be numbered among the enemies of a liberal democracy? [Interjections.] Certainly the communists are enemies of a liberal democracy. History and political knowledge show us that. Another group of enemies is the fascists who wish to ensure a totalitarian rule by one person or one group over others. We in the PFP will fight for the ideal of a liberal democracy against a communist leftist attack and their persuasive propaganda, which we have all seen…

Don’t sell out!

… and against the emotive, blood-curdling calls to arms from the fascist right. We will fight them both! However, where is the NP?

What do you mean by that?

What are you insinuating?

Hon members must please not take exception! The hon member for Sasolburg must not take exception; he is in a democratic institution!

But what do you mean by that?

Where do the NP stand? Are they in favour of a liberal democracy? Are they for any form of democracy? That is the key question. [Interjections.]

I want to quote what an American politician said:

Who is the politician who said this, Sir? It is that most right-wing of American politicians, Barry Goldwater. One can defend liberty and pursue justice but one must be careful when one is not defending those things. [Interjections.]

We believe it is not enough for the NP to slam communism and a possible communist takeover in this country without ensuring that they offer the people of South Africa the opposite of communism and of totalitarianism, namely democracy. It is nothing else; it is democracy!

Is that what the ANC wants? [Interjections.]

Now, if the hon member believes that they want democracy, then why is the Government fighting them?

No, I am asking you whether that is what they want!

Sir, the NP need to stand up and say that they are democrats and that they are fighting communism in order to give this country a government which will not be an NP government, which as a government cannot effectively be elected because it is a minority party only for Whites. Does the NP fight for democracy? If they do that, then we might believe them! However, every reform move they make is accompanied by a refusal to distance themselves from the concept of a White-dominated government.

I read the SA Communist Party document which was quoted by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. I read it with interest. We are probably the “liberal bourgeoisie” the SA Communist Party is so concerned about. Yes, we do want the February 1917 type of government of Alexander Kerensky and not the October government of Lenin. What is the difference between the two? Kerensky wanted a liberal political climate with various political parties competing in a political market place, with full and free elections, unlike Lenin who wanted the dictatorship of the workers.

That was February.

What happened to Lenin and what happened to Kerensky?

Mr Chairman, will the hon member answer a question?

Unfortunately, Mr Chairman, I have limited time. [Interjections.]

One of the first measures of the Kerensky government was to proclaim civil liberties and promise to convoke a constituent assembly. What happened then? I quote from The History of Russia:

Who said so?

I am quoting from The History of Russia.

What happened to him?

He became a professor in New York, as we well know.

Words, words, words!

Let me ask the hon member who says words, words, words: Are the NP committed to full and free elections? [Interjections.] Are they concerned to bring about and help maintain democracy, or do they wish merely to keep that Government in power? There is no middle ground. Either it is going to be communism—which we totally abhor—or it is going to be liberal democracy in this country.

Or partition. [Interjections.]

The pattern of behaviour of the NP regime this session has shown certain clear symptoms of psychopathology. On the one hand we have loud and vociferous noises condemning apartheid and discrimination and the introduction of such measures as the abolition of influx control, a single identity document and urbanisation, among others, but on the other hand the voices praising own affairs, criticism of the concept of a Black president and the enforcement of a “kragdadige” fist against the unacceptable opposition of a Black community. I label this behaviour, psychologically, an aberration, since it is not congruent, there being no clear, single signal or direction indicated by that Government.

Let us look at one or two issues, for example the Group Areas Act. One notes that this measure is no longer defended by the NP. None of the members defends it any longer. [Interjections.]

It is not a sacred cow.

We all accept that the President’s Council inquiry into this Act will bring about a considerable change. Possibly this is going to be on the NP agenda in August. [Interjections.] In that case, let us urge that party and its delegates to face the future. Having this Act remain cannot be said to serve South Africa. Scrap it during the second part of this session, and let us stand up very loudly and say we are happy to do so, because there are many, many people already residing in areas outside their own group areas.

If this Act is repealed we know that certain consequences will follow. The President’s Council has been examining these aspects, but one could prophesy, for example, that there would be no large-scale exodus of White people from this country. Secondly, the present economic system, augmented by the additional talents of more people, would benefit. [Interjections.] Thirdly, the political system at local authority level would be forced to come to terms with a multiracial community. The most important effect, however, would be the tremendous stimulation of the flagging property market, and I say this to the hon the Minister of Finance. There would be a movement into wealthier White suburbs, but there would also be movement into those areas close to city centres, areas which are not at present attractive to many people. People will move, not only into White areas, but away from shacks into houses, and from small houses into bigger houses. The Group Areas Act, we know, will go. Why not take advantage of the situation now and not merely make the small little noise that was made in connection with the pass laws. [Interjections.] Do something definite by standing up and saying: We are going to get rid of the Group Areas Act. Take this definite step to let people know that the fears stirred up by the right-wing parties about mixed residential areas are unacceptable. We need to live together. Let us accept that and get on with it.

Mr Chairman, at this late hour of the night the hon member for Pinetown merely played with words and made no contribution to this debate. [Interjections.] He played with the words “liberal democracy”, but no one could discern exactly what he meant by this. He will have to tell us more about it on some other occasion.

It is very interesting that not a single opposition member said a word about the positive phenomenon that no ugly things have happened in this country during the past few days. There was not a single word about this from opposition ranks.

The hon member for Wynberg said here tonight that as we are sitting here, there are only two countries which do not support sanction proposals. If this hon member had watched the television news at eight o’clock, he would have seen that eight countries had declared their opposition to sanctions.

Six!

Very well, there are six countries which oppose sanctions. This hon member also watched television news. The hon member also spoke about the value of the rand which had dropped so considerably. [Interjections.]

Order! Someone keeps on calling out “monitoring committee”. It is the hon member for Springs. It has got to stop. The hon member may proceed.

The hon member spoke about the value of the rand which was dropping so considerably, but did not want to say in the same breath that at one stage today the value of the rand was almost 41 cents. The proverb reads: No news is good news, but to the opposition members on the opposite side, good news is bad news and bad news is good news. That is how they experience these things. [Interjections.]

During the past weekend we were at Pietersburg where the NP held a regional conference. This was followed by a public appearance by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This appearance by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Manpower as well as the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply was an boost for the NP and a nail in the coffin of the right-wingers in the Northern Transvaal.