Mr Speaker, I think we were all looking forward to this afternoon’s meeting with Some people expected a farewell speech, but most did not know what to expect.

It is not my prerogative to comment on the announcements made by the hon the State President this afternoon, except to say that I agree with the hon the State President that with a view to a general election, it would have been best to have had a delimitation of at least the House of Assembly seats before the next general election. [Interjections.] With the composition of the constituencies and the changes in numbers we have had over the past almost 10 years, we will have a completely distorted representation in the new House of Assembly. We will find that in the same province there will be constituencies that have more than double the number of voters that other constituencies have, a situation that is completely untenable.

Some people were looking forward to a possible farewell speech from the hon the State President, and we are experiencing interesting times, because today’s debate is the last in which the former Official Opposition will take part as a party. Consequently we will probably receive a farewell message from the PFP. Perhaps they will reappear in this House in a different guise.

I want to come to the Budget debate which is taking place in exceptional times. Apart from the situation in South West Africa, our country is almost in a state of siege with regard to the economy. There are problems concerning the trade balance; there are problems in respect of excessive imports. The spectre of inflation has reared its head once again, and recently we have had disclosures of corruption, something that is unacceptable to South Africa and so much so that according to a survey that was taken recently, the majority of voters regard all MPs as potential crooks. I may refer to that again.

It is not possible in a short time to comment fully on the Budget. Hon members will agree with that. If, however, I may point out certain problem areas briefly, I wish to say the following. Right at the beginning I want to refer to the provision in the past few Budgets for a deficit before borrowing. We have referred to that repeatedly in the past. Provision is made in our present Budget for a deficit before borrowing of R9 949 million, but apart from that provision is made only for capital expenditure of R5 076 million. In other words, the Government is using an amount of R4 873 million in loan money to cover ordinary current expenditure. If one also takes into account that according to information our public debt increased on 31 March this year to approximately R68 billion and that provision for interest payments for the new financial year is increasing by 23,8%, or maybe more because of the possible further increase in interest rates and the abolition of the requirement with regard to prescribed investments by institutions, I also want to point out that apart from this direct public debt the Treasury, according to the figures provided to us, also owes the Reserve Bank a certain amount in respect of forward exchange cover, and this, according to figures given to us on 28 February 1989, amounts to a further R9,7 billion. In this Budget provision is made only for the transfer of R1 billion from the previous year’s surplus. My argument is that this additional R8,7 billion which the Treasury owes the Reserve Bank is in reality also public debt. It has to be repaid at some or other stage.

In conjunction with that I want to contend that when we talked in the past about the so-called redistribution of income, one could argue that it is healthy for there to be a redistribution. Then it must be a redistribution of income in reality, however. But what do we find now? Not a redistribution of income, because money is being borrowed to effect that redistribution. We therefore do not have a redistribution of income; in reality we have a consumption of assets.

If we also look at what is happening in South Africa with regard to savings, we see in the documents we were provided with that direct taxation as a percentage of personal income was only 6,2% in 1980, but that it increased to 10,4% last year.

Along with that, indirect taxation, GST, has increased from its original 4% to its present 13%. It is not possible for me to say what percentage of the GST was paid by individuals, but in that connection we must look at what has happened to individual savings recently. The figures given to us show that while individuals saved 11% of their available income in 1980, that figure dropped to only 1,7% last year.

While the total savings in 1980 were 17,5%, they dropped to 5,9% last year. The alarming fact, however, is that the Government absorbed 78,1% of this percentage-wise reduced savings last year. I think the hon the Minister of Finance will agree with me—in fact, he indicated as much in his Budget Speech—that this is not a healthy condition. That is why I welcome the hon the Minister’s announcement that he has now appointed experts to investigate and report on the effect of taxation on savings.

If I have one objection to the present Budget submitted by the hon the Minister, it is that there was no additional incentive beyond what there was previously to encourage the individual to save. On the contrary, in my opinion personal savings are being discouraged as a result of present inflation expectations, the interest rate pattern and the taxes the individual has to pay on his earnings from interest. I therefore think it is more than time for a penetrating investigation to be made in order to determine the effect of personal taxation on interest from income as well as the effect of personal taxation on dividends. This must be a worthwhile investigation which can quantify the influence that a possible—I shall not be more ambitious than that—exemption from taxation on income from interest can have in encouraging the individual to save.

I realise that the hon the Minister of Finance did not have many options in this Budget. Our balance of payments is under pressure, but we expect to have to try to obtain a surplus of at least R4 billion on the trade balance this year. On the other hand we see that imports increased by a colossal 37% last year.

It seems to me that the fiscal and monetary measures that were taken to restrict imports were not sufficient. I think in the short term it has become imperative to consider placing import restrictions on the import of non-essential goods.

Internal spending must be curbed; if not our exchange rate will come under more pressure and will drop sharply, and related to that we will have an increase in the inflation rate.

I want to ask whether the forward exchange cover, as provided by the Reserve Bank, does not amount to a subsidy on imports in a certain sense. In that case I want to argue—I see the hon the Minister agrees with me—that we cannot permit this indirect subsidy to be provided to importers when it comes to importing luxury goods that we do not need in our country. I know that this is a very difficult area, but I think consideration must be given to this.

I want to refer briefly to the hon the Minister’s provision of an unallocated R1 billion in the Budget. I cannot but think that the main reason for the hon the Minister’s doing something like this for the first time is to enable him at the end of the day, if the Budget is exceeded once again—as everyone expects it will be—to say that he has made provision for R1 000 million in any case and that his overspending is not as excessive as everyone wants to imply.

If I tell my dear wife that she can spend only so much money per month and no more, but I have a little extra money, what incentive is there for her to stick to the amount I have specified? I think this also applies to the colleagues of the hon the Minister.

I should like to refer to another matter. The Margo Report—which we agree with—proposed that as far as personal taxation was concerned, the distinction between married and unmarried people should be done away with. Married people must therefore be taxed like individuals on their individual incomes. We expected the hon the Minister to do something about this, and he did. Initially we had a concession in that married women who earned less than R20 000 per annum were taxed separately from their husbands for practical purposes. I shall not elaborate on the technical points now.

In this year’s Budget, the hon the Minister went a step further and said that if a woman received a salary, her income, irrespective of the amount involved, would now be taxed separately from her husband’s income. That is to be welcomed. I find it a pity, however, that the hon the Minister did not go the whole hog.

Whereas there used to be discrimination between married and unmarried taxpayers, we now find that there is discrimination between one married couple and another. It is discrimination. Let me give an example. If a qualified female doctor works for a salary, it does not matter how much she earns. Her earnings are taxed separately from her husband’s. If the same woman practises in partnership with another doctor, her income is taxed with her husband’s.

I know the hon the Minister has certain practical problems, but in principle I cannot accept that the one is taxed on a different scale from the other. They both practise the same profession, and the only difference is that one gets her income by way of a distribution of the partnership’s profit, and the other by way of a salary.

I now come to the biggest disappointment in this Budget. The hon the Minister and the Margo Commission expressed the opinion that it was absolutely essential in South Africa for direct personal taxation to be reduced and that, in compensation, indirect taxation would be increased. We find in this Budget that indirect taxation is being increased, but direct personal taxation is higher, with the exception of the concession to people above the age of 65 and a negligible primary reduction for the taxpayers. It is less than 10% in any case as far as the other categories of taxpayers are concerned. As a result of fiscal drag, all personal taxpayers in South Africa are being taxed more highly in real terms this year than was the case a year ago. I think the hon the Minister probably wanted to do something about this, but unfortunately he did not, and that is my main objection to this Budget.

Let us now look at inflation. It was explicitly announced last year that the Government was going to tackle this problem, and I concede that there have been encouraging results. It is a pity, however, that I have to read in the present Budget that the hon the Minister of Finance is doing exactly what the individual and individual businessmen in South Africa do in that he is planning for the future according to his expectations with regard to inflation. That is what it looks like to me, because the calculations are made on the expectation of a 15% inflation rate. We find that to be a great pity.

The hon the Minister told us that in the coming year we should build on the success of last year’s Budget. If I must refer to a success in last year’s Budget, the hon the Minister said the deficit before borrowing which he budgeted for last year had now been reduced by R764 million. That is true, but how was that success achieved? By receiving more revenue in GST, to the amount of R1,3 billion; by getting a little windfall of R900 million from the increase in the surcharge; and by means of an increase in the fuel levy. Surely it is no achievement if one is able to reduce the deficit before borrowing by a certain amount, when in the meantime the levies and taxes have been increased by a much larger amount. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to what the hon member for Barberton said. In the past five years I have come to know him as a man who gets to know his subject thoroughly before he says a single word. To a large extent I want to share his concern about personal savings, inflation and import control. At a later stage in my argument I also want to say a few words about inward industrialisation.

Hon members must permit me, however, to say a word or two about the hon the State President’s address. The LP of South Africa regrets the events of the past weekend. We regret the loss of life, and we are sincere in saying that we would not like to see the negotiated agreements coming to naught as a result.

It is on record that the LP of South Africa has, throughout the years, supported Resolution 435. We are also steadfastly on the side of justice, however, because we believe that every citizen of the country should have full civil rights in the country of his birth. We hold the view that Namibia should have been given back to its own people years ago so that they could work out their own salvation.

On the question of the election let me mention that last year more than R5 million was spent on propagating local government elections. On 26 October 1988 the whole of South Africa went to the polls to elect representatives for the respective local authorities.

I feel very unhappy, however, because I realise that when we next go to the polls, 80% of South Africa’s citizens will only be spectators. We cannot tolerate that any longer. With a great fanfare the tricameral Parliament came into being in 1984. Not for a moment are we going to attempt to cast any doubt on the NP’s or the Government’s good faith in regard to its efforts at reform, but during the past five years we have experienced fewer ups and downs.

I have realised that what is needed is not only courage, but also money, when it comes to restructuring society. After decades of exclusivity in which it was given to only a small minority to have education, skills and wealth, since 1984 the Government has made it its task to dismantle most of the old barriers. Throughout these years guidelines were laid down in terms of which the democratic base was to be extended and, to a certain extent, provision was to be made for access to means and opportunities for a greater portion of the population.

For some people in South Africa it was very difficult to take this political decision. Taking this political decision was one thing, but deciding on how to finance the proposed efforts at reform was a horse of another colour. As far as I am concerned it is a virtually impossible task because South Africa did not have the financial means at its disposal to carry out its reform policy over the past five years. It is clear that South Africa is now suffering the financial consequences of its past sins. Unfortunately it is the victimised and oppressed of this country who bear the brunt. There is no doubt that at present South Africa is experiencing a serious crisis. Those who do not want to realise this are definitely living in a fool’s paradise. In this period of crisis stubborn optimism is only to be found in those who are ideologically blind to the realities of the South African situation or those who are blissfully under some misapprehension.

There is no doubt that the South African economy finds itself in difficulties. This is chiefly the result of the relatively low gold price, the poor agricultural conditions over the past year, increasing Government spending, an extremely high local demand, a low trend in personal savings, the low value of the rand and the high inflation rate. In my argument I shall attempt to discuss each of these factors briefly.

Earlier this week I explained to the hon the Minister of Finance that South Africa had reached a period in which matters of national interest should come before matters of party-political interest. This Government will, of necessity, have to take unpopular decisions with a view to saving the economy. The concomitant problems of local unrest, the collapse of economic confidence abroad, and to a certain extent locally too, and also international steps to introduce economic punitive measures, can only be properly addressed by way of fundamental reform. Partial reform or a palliative meddling with the apartheid system will, at this stage, do more harm than good. Nothing less than the removal of legal impediments, including the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Population Registration Act, is good enough to restore economic confidence, both locally and abroad.

The CP is so glibly blamed for the collapse of economic activity in Boksburg and Carletonville. What is lost sight of, however, is that NP Ministers administer the relevant legislation that has been responsible for the tales of heartache in Boksburg, Carletonville, Windmill Park, Mayfair and Kraaifontein.

I also want to remind the private sector that it has a role to play and a duty to very seriously assume its potential role as a catalyst for peaceful negotiation and compromise in South Africa. The time has come for businessmen to stand up in unison and pressure this Government to remove all discriminatory legislation.

The demand must be for a constitutional dispensation in which provision is made for a South Africa in which all citizens will have legitimate, effective and enforceable decision-making powers. This new dispensation must place a premium on the elimination of absolute poverty and the provision of basic necessities of life, the provision of equal educational opportunities, equal health services and free access to professions needing skilled labour.

The apartheid dispensation has, over the years, brought about an unequal distribution of power, freedom and rights amongst Whites and Blacks, and that is why we have an economy today in which 5% of the overall population possesses 88% of the personal wealth. Now, more than ever before, the time has come for solutions to be found to our constitutional problems.

I have only the utmost respect for the Matie students who, on the basis of their personal convictions and their love for South Africa, conducted discussions with members of the ANC. We shall have to hold discussions, and we shall have to do so with everyone of any consequence in South Africa.

As in the case of Swapo in Namibia, the ANC is going to be a factor in the new South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Thank, you, Mr Speaker. For all oppressed South Africans violence and apartheid are synonymous and it is essential for both to cease simultaneously so that truly representative leaders can be brought together around the negotiating table. South Africa and the world are waiting for the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela. At the moment Mandela’s release in instalments is an indication of his eventual release. What strikes me very noticeably is the fact that he is already being treated as an acknowledged leader and, as far as I am concerned, as a true head of state. I think the way is now being paved for negotiations between people who are accepted as the true representatives of those on whose behalf they speak.

An economic policy for the new South Africa will also be an essential point of discussion on the agenda for negotiation. The Black man equates the capitalist system with repression and apartheid. For us the capitalist system is the most important repressive force in the country, since 90% of the population creates wealth by virtue of its labour and yet does not share in that wealth.

Secondly, because these labourers do not have any productive assets, they have no real reason to defend the present economic system. Thirdly, the consolidation of its military power has placed the White minority in South Africa in a position to reserve the upper echelons of this capitalist system for themselves, and this has resulted in the division of the country on a racial basis in terms of which the Black majority is kept in political, social and economic servitude by means of a network of laws and regulations.

It is against this background that the LP of South Africa is striving to achieve a social market-orientated economy. This is an economic system in which both the Government and the private sector uphold the principles of a market-orientated economy, at the same time tempering this with a balanced sense of social responsibility.

In such a system one would endeavour to establish functional markets which could comply with the demands of efficiency and a minimum standard of social justice. One would strive towards strengthening private initiative and supporting private industrialism if this is not in conflict with social and community objectives. One would strive towards providing for the basic social and economic needs of all the inhabitants of South Africa. One would strive towards establishing equal opportunities for all South Africans to participate and make headway in the economic sphere. Lastly one would endeavour to bear in mind, as determining factors, natural resources such as capital, labour and public funds which are essential for orderly avenues of development.

When we lay down a social, market-orientated economy as a guideline for South Africa as a whole, we acknowledge our solidarity and joint responsibility for the socio-economic development of all the people living within South Africa’s traditional borders. We believe in this system because a social, market-orientated economy turned a ravaged Germany into the economic giant that it is today. Consequently the LP will, bearing in mind its commitment to finding peaceful solutions for our political, economic and social problems, set itself the task of firstly investigating the objectives and specific implications of the social market-orientated framework for future policies and to discuss them with all interest groups. The party will establish policy-planning groups to give attention to the specific needs …

Order! I get the impression that hon members are discussing the election, whereas it is the Budget that is under discussion. Hon members must please give the hon member who is addressing the House a fair chance to do so. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I accept the fact that certain hon members are possibly participating or listening to the last Budget debate in this House. I shall therefore not hold it against them.

The party will establish policy-planning groups to give attention to the specific needs of all social groups and regions and to make tangible proposals and draw up programmes of action.

Thirdly we shall attempt to remove the Group Areas Act from the Statute Book. [Interjections.] An attempt will be made to investigate existing discriminatory practices in the use of infrastructural facilities, for example public resorts, swimming-baths, educational facilities, etc, and we shall make efforts to abolish them. We shall continue to strive for the abolition of general sales tax on essential consumer goods.

We are opposed to the phasing out of subsidies on staple foodstuffs which are essential for lower-income households. If they were to be abolished, we would campaign for the establishment of an alternative system which only benefits lower income households. Steps will be taken at all levels and in all institutions in an effort at achieving participation in the decision-making process. We are aware that this will make great demands on our leaders, but we are prepared to accept the challenge.

The social, market-orientated economy aims at the upliftment of South African society as a whole, and there is consequently no room for discriminatory or restrictive practices. We need less government and much more money.

State expenditure creates feelings of ambivalence. On the one hand one is concerned about the detrimental effects of such expenditure and, on the other, one is concerned about the tremendous backlogs in communities which have been treated unjustly. We should like to improve—and this is essential in South Africa—the quality of life of all the people. For me quality of life has to do with the fact that people must be placed in a position to live their lives to the full; in other words, to have sufficient opportunities and facilities at their disposal, but at the same time to be in a position to make full use of those opportunities and facilities.

I know that the country cannot afford separate facilities for the respective communities. Therefore, in spite of vehement opposition, existing and developing facilities must be utilised jointly and efficiently.

State expenditure, however, has increased very sharply in the past few decades. During the sixties, overall Government spending was, on average, 20,6% of the GDP, as against 23,6% for the 1980-84 period. If one bears in mind that fixed investment by the Government was drastically curtailed as far back as 1976, it is clear that Government spending has grown considerably more rapidly than the economy, thereby having an additional braking effect on the growth potential.

The performance of the South African national economy during the first half of the eighties was shocking. In this regard the country played fully into the hands of its enemies, and during a period of political reform and crisis we were so impaired economically that it is going to be difficult to make the grade again in the foreseeable future.

Quite simply there must be greater discipline in State expenditure. Yesterday the Commission for Administration, giving evidence before the Joint Committee on Finance, indicated that unauthorised expenditure should only be approved in exceptional cases, so as to impose a kind of discipline in certain departments.

If a greater degree of discipline could be evidenced in regard to Government expenditure, this would of course create room for tax reductions. The hon the Minister is fully aware of the fact that South Africa’s present tax rate levels are beginning to have a detrimental effect on productivity.

Excessive State expenditure also has a detrimental effect on inflation. South Africa’s record inflation rate has a detrimental effect on the domestic purchasing power of the rand and also promotes spontaneous exchange rate depreciation. In this way imported inputs simply become more expensive, local prices rise and the exchange rate remains under pressure.

I should like to compliment the hon the Minister and his very able advisers on the fact that at present the inflation rate is at its lowest level in more than four years, ie 12,5%.

Deregulation, in particular, is on everyone’s lips. It can, to a large extent, play a role in solving our unemployment problem. The economically active sector of the population comprises approximately 8 million people. Technically speaking, in South Africa there should consequently be an unemployment rate of 30%. That is not the case, however, specifically because of the existence of a vigorous informal sector.

Economists throughout the world would tell us that there are certain ways of getting the economy going which cost money, but that there are also ways which do not cost money. All one has to do is merely to stand aside to allow people to get on with what they really can do. Just think of how many geniuses could not achieve their full potential in recent decades because people were not given the necessary opportunities.

Although there are other reasons, too, it is normally the unemployed who cause unrest. We must guard against unemployment levels getting so out of hand that a favourable climate for political instability is created. When the unemployed are also voters, they give expression to their wishes at the polls. When the unemployed do not have the franchise in the country of their birth, however, they take to the streets to give vent to their feelings.

It is therefore necessary for the remaining restrictions on economic activities to be lifted and for the formal sector to be duly and actively encouraged. In order to do so one needs a concerted policy of action which will, in the long term, have a beneficial effect on the growth trend.

The creation of new job opportunities is largely determined by the rate and pattern of economic growth. Our country’s economy has put up a very poor performance in the past decade. Economic growth must, of necessity, have preference, and the country must set itself an annual growth target of 5% to 6%. South Africa is capable of achieving this, and this would create a climate of confidence which would quite simply be self-generating.

I think that the Government should have recourse to more internal sources of growth and focus its attention increasingly on the urbanisation process and improvements to the labour market. Urbanisation can potentially serve as a strong stimulus to greater internal demand for certain products.

The hon member for Barberton has already referred to that, but I also want to mention that the joint committee was unanimous in expressing its concern about South Africa’s increasingly poor achievements in the field of savings. This concern is based on the view that positive achievement in this field is of cardinal importance for sustained long-term economic growth. The decreasing trend in savings is a direct result of the fear of inflation and has led to South Africa becoming increasingly dependent on short-term foreign capital, which in turn has led to our present foreign debt crisis.

Now, however, we are cut off from foreign capital markets and now, more than ever, the role of locally generated capital is that much more important. I am the first to acknowledge that in the light of the present socio-economic climate, as a result of the sustained pressure on current expenditure and the already high level of both direct and indirect taxation, there is little room for the Government to improve on its achievements in the field of saving. The decline in our net savings rate, however, gives cause for concern, and if this is also related to the imposition of capital sanctions and the annual repayment of a part of our foreign debt, it is clear that our ability to finance net new fixed investment is going to be seriously undermined.

The Government cannot be permitted to leave a single stone unturned in its efforts to improve the national trend towards saving. I think that this can be done by means of tax concessions, by a positive principle in terms of which State expenditure is kept in check and by decreasing the Government’s share in the economy.

As far as the present Budget is concerned, we expected it to be conservative and neutral, and we definitely expected John Citizen to feel the pinch. We regret the increase in GST. The increase in the excise duty on beer, spirits, cigarettes and soft drinks will, to a larger extent, hit the more indigent the hardest. We are disappointed that no increase was announced for pensioners. We do, however, welcome the fact that 18,6% of the Appropriation has been allocated to education. An investment in our human resources cannot but embody long-term benefits for this wonderful country of ours.

I want to mention that economic distress is the major obstacle in the freedom struggle of developing countries. South Africa, however, has the ability to meet the challenge successfully. I am convinced that if the political situation were resolved as quickly as possible, and the national economy were administered in terms of such a long-term strategy that one fully took into account both the strong and weak points, including the opportunities that exist for us and the threats we are faced with, we would soon be able to place the South Africa economy on the road to prosperity once again. In this way sufficient job opportunities could be created for our rapidly growing labour force, one could ensure greater prosperity for all our citizens and maintain political stability in our wonderful country.

In conclusion let me take this opportunity to extend a word of thanks, on behalf of our component of the joint committee, to the officials who have assisted us during these five days, in word and deed, and in particular to the committee clerks.

Mr Speaker, having listened to the two hon members who spoke before me I must admit that this is a very good Budget.

I listened with particular interest to the hon member for Barberton, because he was fairly dissatisfied with the speech I made before this one. In that speech I said that the CP did not have an economic policy. However, having enriched myself with the Patriot during the past few weeks, I must admit that I was wrong. They have a fragmentary economic policy which is based on distortions, racism and government interference. [Interjections.]

I also want to say that it is a kind of ethnic socialism that is reflected from the first page to the last of the Patriot. If one looks at the distortion of the facts, the most interesting of these—the hon member for Barberton did not elaborate much on this today—concerns the money supply in the country, which according to them is totally out of control.

If one wants to study economy, it is interesting to take the Patriot and see how they analyse the matter. They say there are two reasons for the tremendous increase in the money supply. According to them the first reason is the tremendous increase in credit to finance Government expenditure. The main reason for the increase in Government expenditure is the division of income—of wealth—between Whites and non-Whites. This redistribution is one of their main arguments.

However, the next point is even more interesting, namely the Hoggenheimer reason which we came across in the old days, many years ago, in 1947, in Die Burger, namely that our banks and our Reserve Bank are controlled by outside organisations. They decide with a “stroke of the pen” how much credit there must be. They decide on the gold price and they decide on the interest rate. They then sum up this reasoning in a dramatic highpoint and tell us that owing to this division of wealth—where this Government went wrong—it is increasing taxation on the Whites, and it is now also increasing the interest rate which the poor farmer must pay.

To be honest I must say the hon member for Barberton made a very good speech. The hon member introduced another aspect too, namely that spending in South Africa is too high. However, I want to discuss a distortion of the facts. I just want to point out that if one takes a little trouble and looks at the budgets of recent years one realises that we have not financed any deficits prior to budgeting by means of bank credit in recent years. I do not expect the Patriot to know this.

Let us consider the issue of Government interference. Now the experts from the Patriot or Kollig come along and say that there is only one solution: This matter of the increase in the gold price, credit and interest rates must be left to Parliament. I of course assume that this is a White Parliament. It must now be left to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, our house speculator, and the hon member for Overvaal, Mr Koos van der Merwe, to decide on the gold price, the interest rate and credit. Kollig goes further regarding the big theme of the redistribution of income. They say it is shocking that the tax money of the Whites is being used on a tremendous scale for services, development and welfare programmes for the non-White population. They say this must stop because it is leading to the impoverishment of the Whites, but they must stop what they are doing in Boksburg and Carletonville, because there is an impoverishing process under way there too.

The hon member for Waterberg said we could use White money too. This entire view is nothing but racism pure and simple, because if one gives the non-White population money it is socialism and if one helps the Whites it is capitalism.

I now come to the Democratic Party, which is about to be established. Recently there has been an interesting public correspondence between our respected editor Ken Owen, Prof Sampie Terreblanche and the present hon leader of the PFP. I do not know whether he is going to be the leader of the Democratic Party. This correspondence concerned democracy, free enterprise, and the redistribution of income. It is so funny, becaus the CP does not like a redistribution of income, and Ken Owen does not like it either—both the left wing and the right wing do not like it.

Now Sampie Terreblanche says that a redistribution must take place in this non-racial political community, and the income of the Whites will drop by 30%. Ken Owen says he is wrong; in our free economic system this takes care of the compensation of all people. Even if we introduce full political rights it will not be necessary for the State to redistribute income. He goes on to say:

My point of departure is that no democratic system based on one man, one vote in a unitary state—in South Africa for example—can operate if an economic system is not fair, feasible and acceptable. What do I mean by fair? I mean fair in the case of the distribution of income and employment opportunities; fair in the case of land and home ownership.

In South Africa with its present economic set-up a non-racial democracy is not possible, because the gap between the income and the subsidising of Whites, Coloureds and Indians is great. The gap between the income and subsidising of Whites, Coloureds and Indians is great, but the gap between the income and subsidising of Coloureds, Indians and Blacks is just as great.

If one introduces a system of one man, one vote in a unitary state, it goes without saying that the Black man with a lower income will see to it that his government comes into power, and that party will implement a massive redistribution. One cannot expect anything else, because the economy cannot implement that redistribution yet. Everyone is talking about equality, but equality will destroy fairness. Fairness is also based on merits and productivity, whereas this is not necessarily the case with equality.

The non-White people in South Africa have a backlog as regards housing, education, health services and capital. This means that they cannot be competitive in the free enterpise community we at present have. I shall refer to the USA later, where the system is not yet succeeding either. This means that Dr Sampie Terreblanche is quite right. If a non-racial community is created, there is going to be tremendous pressure for redistribution by the political powers. Now Dr Terreblanche says the following and I am quoting:

However he admits that there is also support for affirmative action in the groups.

The two gentlemen, Ken Owen and Sampie Terreblanch, did not realise however that the older democracies did not start with a complete democracy, but with a limited democracy. Just think of the Greeks and the old British system.

Then there is still the hon member for Randburg. He says one must not use profit for the division of income, but one must seek some or other religious norm. This is the old Fabian group’s idea of Christian socialism. When I look at those people I ask in all sincerity where the hon member for Yeoville is if we have to hear such things from them.

Let us rather carry on. The CP is attacking this redistribution on a tremendous scale. I want to ask them again whether they are going to put a stop to the subsidising of Black education, health and housing in our White area. I am again referring to Kollig, that thinker in their publication the Patriot. In his fine article which begins with the words, “Dinamiese toekomsdenke beperk tot die regses” he says:

Sir, but we are basically overrun. Why are they shying away from Carel Boshof s Afrikanerstaat in the North Western Cape and a bit of South West Africa? The reason is that they cannot implement their own political policy economically.

The NP believes in a free enterprise system. The NP believes in a more fair economic system in which it will eventually not be necessary for the Government to deal with the redistribution of income through the State, but in which the market will deal with this. We also believe that we have communities—as I have already said—which cannot yet compete owing to their backward position. The process of democratisation must take place in such a way that it does not destroy the free market or free enterprise system in South Africa. This means that the new Democratic Party which has not yet been established is a textbook dream.

This Government believes in economic stability. This Government believes in economic growth. This Government believes that equality must not destroy fairness. A great deal is being said about confederal, federal and canton systems. This Government has defined its policy as the devolution of power. We are not giving enough attention to this, because it means that what we are seeing is the devolution of power downwards from a central point.

Let us look at this from another angle. Let us look at the upward devolution of power. We therefore have the reverse approach. What do we see in this model of the reverse approach? We see that according to this approach the economic and political rights the individual is striving for must be protected and must also be controlled by him. That is what man is like. Every family tries to manage itself as a unit. Every village, every city, every region, every province and the central government are units of self-government in a vertical structure. For every individual the most important elements of self-government are in his home, in his town and in his work place, but what he cannot handle he delegates to someone higher up.

I want to quote a very interesting except from the second article of the original constitution of the USA:

Older democracies started with limited democracy. Modern democracies develop from the ground up by means of self-government. In these schools of thought the Government is a remainder and a residue.

However, if one considers this a development from the ground up, one must also view the financing of the Government in this light and we then come to the well-known concept of fiscal decentralisation. Every community which receives certain political powers must also see whether it can finance them. That community must see whether it can carry the costs.

However, in this country every community cannot carry the costs, because there are disparities. That is when we come to the concept of the redistribution of income to help those communities which cannot yet carry the costs to govern themselves. I do not think anyone can contest this. What is important regarding these schools of thought is that no community dominates another, because this system of self-government which was taken over from the old confederal system, has as its underlying principle the inclusion of safety valves from bottom to top.

Lower income groups of one group cannot take over. It is not simply to assist self-government that one’s fiscal decentralisation must take place; this also takes place with a view to greater efficiency. That is why the Government has the policy of devolution of fiscal power, deregulation and privatisation—aspects which are all ways of moving closer to the market mechanism as regards the supply of public goods.

I can mention what the hon the State President has also said here regarding the aspect of deregulation and privatisation with a view to greater efficiency. We cannot allow our second and third tiers to be nothing but agents, because if one is only an agent and one does not have one’s own sources of revenue, one does not have fiscal responsibility. It is interesting that in Switzerland the largest part of one’s tax is paid to one’s commune or municipality and canton. Far less tax goes to the central government. With that system every community will learn to live within its income, and where assistance is given to eliminate disparities it must link up with that community’s tax achievement—its “tax effort”.

In this entire system we must exercise strict control over the utilisation of State funds. The exercising of strict control must start with the auditing and public accounts committees. If we look at the new auditing and public accounts legislation, this is the process we are moving towards.

I want to conclude with the following words. What is wrong with the NP Government’s democratisation process being based on units of self-government? There is nothing wrong with that. This is the absolute tendency in every modern community. What is wrong with delegating the functions of the Government? Is it wrong for us to continue doing this and delegating State financing too? What is wrong with our gradually eliminating disparities between communities? We are not ashamed—I can tell the CP that too—of redistribution, because we want to redistribute to assist self-government and efficiency. In this way we can help our people who cannot yet compete on the free market, and then it is not necessary for the Government to redistribute by means of the Budget.

Mr Speaker, in the course of his address the hon the Minister of Finance stated, amongst other things, the following:

Even though this is the debate on the Budget I believe that, following the hon the State President’s address here this afternoon and having regard to the developments in South West Africa, the emphasis today should be on the political future of our country, as all the discussions which pertain to the Budget have a bearing on the political future of this country.

Peace and stability in our own land, subscribed to by all the people of this country, will help the hon the Minister of Finance to make money available for all the needs in our country. We can have the conditions obtaining in our land which can contribute to the fiscus and thereby satisfy to a very large extent the financial wants of our country as they affect the people of our country.

The news in South West Africa is certainly cause for concern but I want to say that we must commend our hon Minister of Foreign Affairs, our representatives in South West Africa and even the Army and the Police Force for the manner in which they have conducted themselves. They have done nothing which will give our detractors an opportunity to name South Africa as the wrongdoer, and for that I believe all South Africans are grateful.

I believe the presence of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mrs Margaret Thatcher, even for a short while, in South West Africa, and her ability to assess developments there and the statements which have been made by her, are certainly encouraging. I want to say that I sincerely trust that the hon the State President of the RSA will respond positively to the expressed desire of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when that distinguished lady said that she would like to see the release of Nelson Mandela and that she would like to see in South Africa a constitutional framework which would allow for one man, one vote. She qualified that by saying that it was up to South Africa to decide the constitutional framework and how the one man, one vote would be exercised. Nobody is thus prescribing to South Africa. All they are asking and pleading for is the great indaba of which leaders in South Africa, including our hon State President, have spoken so that men can come together, sit around a table and work out a constitutional framework which must be acceptable to all the population groups in South Africa.

I believe that before this Parliament rises in May, it would be a wonderful opportunity to have the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom speak to this nation, the Southern African region and to all the people whatever their political persuasions are, and to make the plea that we as South Africans have to find solutions to our problems by peaceful means and that we must come together, and that the British Government and people will play a positive role.

They can play a role. Nobody outside South Africa is better qualified than the British because they have experience of Southern Africa. Their people and descendants reside in this land and I think that, despite the colonial past, the utterances of the British Prime Minister in recent years offer hope for positive assistance to the people of South Africa to find answers. Let us get one thing clear, however: We do not want anybody to prescribe to us, but I think that we need the good will of sincere people to bring together South Africans who have been separated whether they are abroad or within South Africa. In this way suspicion and fear will give way to understanding, and that understanding can then manifest itself in a discussion without any preconditions being imposed so that we may be able to find an answer.

I want to reiterate that I would like to see the hon the State President release Mr Nelson Mandela on the basis of the plea of the British Prime Minister. I would like to see before May comes to an end the British Prime Minister come to this country, stand on this rostrum and make a plea to South Africans, and also commit herself to helping us to find an answer and promoting understanding amongst the people in Southern Africa who view with suspicion everything that goes on in South Africa, including the participation of Coloureds and Indians in this Parliament. We are here using the establishment as a platform to articulate the needs of our country, and I think nobody can accuse us of not having done that adequately or properly.

Dr Chester Crocker who has been involved in shuttle diplomacy in Southern Africa for the past 10 years believes that there is nobody better equipped than Mrs Thatcher to make a contribution. He says that the Americans will not be able to make that kind of contribution. I believe I must accept with sincerity what has been said unless the contrary is proved.

I must also take note of the utterances of people like President Kaunda who is prepared to speak to our hon State President. Dialogue and discussion will help to establish the truth. We must not miss these opportunities, particularly at this time in our country when we have demonstrated in South West Africa/Namibia that the South African Government honours its commitments—it undertakes to deliver the goods as agreed upon between nations. All these factors must certainly help to remove that suspicion and fear which unfortunately has been hanging over our heads.

I am not saying that the Russians have fallen in love with South Africa overnight. I am not prepared to pass judgement on their bona fides more especially in the light of their contribution—however small that may be—in helping to bring the parties to the negotiating table and helping the forward movement of the reform process even in Namibia.

There are the assurances of President Fidel Castro—to which testimony has been given by the Director-General of our own Department of Foreign Affairs who was present and sat alongside this gentleman—that he is not committed to the destruction of South Africa. They all indicate they would like to see the problems of our country resolved through peaceful means. We cannot dismiss that as being unreal or untrue.

We are living in changing times and the economic picture of the world demands that the nations of the world commit themselves to putting their own homes in order, to helping raise the standard of living of the people of their respective countries. More than anybody else, the people of Russia have paid a dear price in trying to resolve the problems of the world. Afghanistan is a monumental message and I think they are now wanting to concentrate in creating a new order in their own country to improve the lot of their own people. That means fewer forays outside—fewer in Africa. All this gives us the opportunity to look anew at the situation and to use the assistance and the help of anybody who can contribute to offering us the opportunity of coming together as South Africans in this country, whether they be abroad or inside, and to sit around a table and talk.

When the hon the State President talks about the “great indaba” which he mentioned some time ago, let us answer that challenge and let us call for and get that “great indaba” going without any pre-conditions. I believe that when we as South Africans, Black, White, Coloured, English and Afrikaner sit around a table, we will find ourselves as South Africans and hopefully find the answer that has been evading us for so long insofar as the constitutional process in this country is concerned.

The fact that a country like Mozambique recognises and realises after many years—a decade or so—that the economy and the well-being of South Africa and Mozambique are interdependent is again something by which we can take another step forward. Despite the stance that they have taken in the past, the reality of the situation lies, when we talk about economic interdependence, in respecting the political systems that exist in their country and here. Despite that, there is room to come together.

I believe the visit of Mrs Thatcher to Malawi and other countries in the Southern African region and their historical economic ties with South Africa—the dependence of these countries on our railroads and our ports etc—must make a deep impact on the kind of stand she will take when the opportunity presents itself.

I have said this before, but I think it is worthwhile repeating: The fear that the White man’s culture will be undermined in a new dispensation is unfounded. My plea to the conservative group is that it should devote itself to seeking a just and peaceful solution to South Africa’s social, economic and political problems. Dissension will only aggravate the issue and create more disharmony and delays in finding a solution through negotiation.

We should not fear to negotiate, nor should we negotiate out of fear. I plead for the unity of all the people of South Africa. We are not talking about the past, but about the future of the country—the future of our children. Let the constitution of the future be written, not with the blood of any group, but by the brains of our people.

Negotiation is not about capitulating to pressure or about imposing a single point of view. It is about finding compromises to and consensus in the diverse issues through the process of give and take. No one point of view can dominate, and the fears and hopes of all have to accommodated. The fears of the Whites—I have said this before—have to be turned into hope, and the hopes of the Blacks have to be turned into reality. All sides have to scale down their demands in a negotiation exercise. There is enough goodwill and common sense left in the leaders of our society to recognise this simple fact.

Understandably, any indaba will be based on certain realities, namely the need to remove from our Statute Books legislation which is discriminatory. Those three pieces of discriminatory legislation, the demise of which has been called for year in and year out in Parliament are well-known to all of us without having to be identified by name.

Having said that, I sincerely trust that we may yet, despite the short period of time available before this Parliament rises, give the British Prime Minister the opportunity to play a positive role in bringing South Africans together around the negotiation table, all of which we have been asking for for many, many years, in fact, since our presence here in the tricameral Parliament.

In the Budget presented by the hon the Minister of Finance, he referred to the fact that it was necessary for the country to have a healthy balance of payments position. We all agree on that. I would like to commend something to the hon the Minister of Finance and to his colleague seated alongside him. Export and the export of processed goods is something about which we have been talking for a long time. I think the hour has now arrived when we must address this problem urgently and in a realistic manner.

I want to comment to both those hon Ministers that Richard’s Bay is a very modern harbour with an enormous industrial area, well-planned and laid out with all it needs to induce industrialists to settle there. I believe that harbour must now be developed to its optimum because an enormous sum of money has been spent there—almost two decades ago—on which we are not getting an adequate return. So instead of spending more money on developing other areas, we must realise that here we have a port which meets export needs. It can be identified as a port where export-oriented industry can be developed. It has the infrastructure. What is more, Blacks, Coloureds, Whites and Indians live in and in the proximity of that town. So one would not need to bring in people from the outside. They are there already.

Therefore, the process of industrialisation in its diversified form does not create the kind of human problems that we have on the periphery of Durban and in many other parts of Natal, where KwaZulu is right on the boundary and on the doorstep of the White areas and the urban areas. I would like the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology to set in motion an investigation as to how the existing resources—bearing in mind the availability of labour—can best be utilised for the benefit of that area and the country as a whole.

Much has been said in recent times about the non-availability of skilled labour in South Africa. Here again technikons and vocational schools in the Black, Coloured and Asian communities are in fact turning out people, but the question is whether their presence is recognised. Are the young people coming out of these institutions in fact being offered work opportunities or are they fading away to become clerks and factory workers, instead of being recognised for the skills that they possess? Are the skilled workers encouraged and given the opportunity to find work on the basis of their skills? I believe much has to be done in this field because people trained in this direction and with this kind of skill are not being given work opportunities and they are not being recognised and something has to be done to sell the products of these institutions so that they can make a positive contribution.

I would like to say that there are those people who are enriching themselves with the financial rand and overpriced imports and exports and who believe that we are at the end of our journey in South Africa. They want to make a quick buck and take the money overseas. That brings me to the submission I made earlier on, namely that we need to find the political answer to our problems in order to create the kind of stability which will put an end to this kind of exercise.

Mr Speaker, as this is the first opportunity I have had of formally congratulating the new hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates, I would like to do so, having followed him in this speaking turn, and to wish him well in that job. I have known him for a long time and the one thing which is beyond question is his sincerity and his loyalty, which I have learnt over many years to be outstanding qualities of his. I wish him well in his job.

There is one matter on which, with respect, he will allow me to express a difference with him. As he indicated at the beginning of his speech he accepts people at their word. He accepts the word of Fidel Castro. He accepts what Secretary Gorbachev says. He accepts what all these people say, and I think that is in the nature of the person that he is. That is where I differ. I am prepared to accept what they say, but at the same time I keep my powder dry in case they break their word. If ever it has been proved that that is what one has to do in the world of politics, it has been what has happened in South West Africa/ Namibia. One takes people at their word and intends to honour it, but unfortunately they do not do the same thing.

Permit me to react briefly to what the hon the State President said at the beginning of the sitting today. I really would like to express the following thought. I think that irrespective of any party-political affiliation that anybody has in this Chamber, we are happy that he is back in his seat, that he is able to participate in debates and that he is rapidly restoring himself to his previous health. I think that is something that goes right across party boundaries. It is respect that I think we all have for him. Permit me to go back in time, because my mind came to it as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates was speaking, to when, amongst others, the hon the State President and I were involved on the Angolan border in 1975. At a very late hour of the night we were arguing about what should happen in Angola.

At that time he pointed out that he thought I was much more of a hawk than he was. When one looks at that situation in retrospect one realises that the one fact that has emerged since that late hour meeting in 1975 is that in some respects we were both right. In the first place I think that we should have taken Luanda. If we had, the history of that area might have been different. In the second instance the hon the State President was correct, because in this world we cannot stand alone, but have to respect our allies and their wishes.

I thought of this—it is not part of my prepared speech—because the reality of this is that it brings me to what is actually happening in SWA/Namibia today. This is not a time for party politics, but a time for national unity in respect of certain issues facing us. When one talks of the situation there, it is a time when South Africans should stand united.

The loss of life is sad and regrettable and I think that everybody here wishes it had not happened. Some of us, while we hope that everybody would keep their word and honour agreements, express caution and a need to keep alert, bearing in mind the history which had taken place.

As Swapo has failed to honour its obligations and has sought to create an untenable position by aggressive incursions there was and is no alternative to appropriate defensive action. The denials of the Swapo leadership appear to have no credibility at all in the face of the verification by UN functionaries, who cannot really be regarded as being inherently prejudiced in favour of the RSA. I would like to submit that to a certain extent this is a test as to the integrity of international opinion and of the Security Council.

Is it going to be a question of is Swapo right or wrong or will the patent wrongdoings of Swapo on this occasion be seen to be, be said to be and be condemned as such? The test is not for us; the test is for them.

There is one other thing which I think is appropriate and should be said, perhaps two things. The first is that we hope it will still be possible to salvage the peace process and that the people of Namibia will make choices which will enable Western style democracy, human rights and values to prevail in their country after independence. It is also necessary to say that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs deserves the congratulations of the country for his handling of this very delicate matter. The hon the Minister has handled it with great skill and great delicacy.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance and I have an ongoing debate about economic matters and today he asked where I stand. Right at the beginning I am going to tell the hon the Deputy Minister where I stand. At the end I am going to tell the hon the Deputy Minister what I am leaving. Firstly, I stand with anybody who wants peace and who does not want violent change in South Africa. Secondly, I will talk with anyone who does not want to fight because I want to talk; I do not want to fight. But if anybody wants to fight then we have to fight back; that is part of my philosophy. Thirdly, nobody in South Africa can bring about peaceful change unless we have law and order. As far as I am concerned, I have not spent most of my lifetime working to remove apartheid in my own little way in order to see a system after apartheid which is equally bad or perhaps worse.

I will work with people who want to work for a Western democratic economic and political system. Anybody who wants to work for that—as far as I am concerned—I am prepared to talk to them about that and prepared to be with them. That is where I believe I stand.

I think we need to talk about the Budget. The Budget has now already become part of history. It has been analysed, dissected, praised, condemned by all and sundry—expert, layman and interest group alike. To a large extent it has already become part of the history of South Africa.

I would like to look at it in the light of the immediate needs but perhaps more important as an instrument in the finding of long-term solutions for the country. South Africa—while it is a land of vast resources and opportunities—is of course a country in transition. Everyone who lives in our country—unless his eyes are closed to reality—can actually feel the vibrating atmosphere in which we are living. Socially, economically and politically there are dramatic shifts. Not all of them are in an agreed direction—to which we all agree—or at an acceptable pace. In some cases changes are not wanted at all by some people. However, whatever their approach is, the reality is that it is all happening. It is in this context of a fiscal instrument in a changing society that one looks at the Budget and seeks to examine it.

The country is beset without doubt by major problems. They cannot be solved by mere cyclical antidotes. There is a rapidly increasing population with demands and expectations. More educated young people are seeking jobs which are not available and frustrations turn people to believe that political action can solve economic problems. There are all kinds of pressures from abroad. To take one example, every single United States computer company is being pressurised to disinvest from South Africa—a significant fact which we should not overlook. All of this has resulted in sanctions and boycotts and this has made our country’s growth a prisoner of the balance of payments.

There is a long list of woes whether it be inflation, interest rates, elderly people worrying about their existence, young people concerned about their future, growth, productivity, housing, a shortage of skills at a time of unemployment, the threat of a lower gold price, the exploitation of consumers, the escalating crime rate or the massive income and wealth gaps of which the hon the Deputy Minister spoke. The list of woes seems endless.

Despite the list of woes I would like to put the case for the optimist in South Africa. I would like to place myself with the optimists because there are solutions for our economic problems. Inward industrialisation is one of them. Recreating the incentive to work and encouraging the entrepreneurial spirit are others. What we need above all is that our people should have confidence in the future and a realistic belief not only that there is hope but also that the country will come right.

In South Africa there are on the one hand people who are puzzled and who do not see a way out. There are others who out of frustration believe that the only way to get what they want is by taking it and not by negotiating or working for it.

In addition there are too many people in South Africa at the moment who are suffering from a “get rich quick” syndrome. They take short cuts and they exploit others. There is an aura of corruption in the air. Some figures who were held in high esteem were suddenly found to have feet of clay—and dirty clay at that!

There is a desire to sell free enterprise and the market mechanism but in doing a hard sell the fact is ignored that there is not equality of bargaining power in the market place and that the fruits of the system are not available to many if not to most people. The market mechanism—and here I support the hon member Mr Douw—particularly without consumer protection is seen by many people as an exploiting mechanism. The face of free enterprise is not always a very pretty one and we must see to it that it is correctly projected.

In these circumstances ordinary, decent people who are the overwhelming majority in South Africa are looking for a lead. They want to see the plans which are realistic. They want us to give them answers. They want to know where they are going and I believe that there are answers which can be given. I want to appeal today that the people should be taken into the Government’s confidence. They should be told in no uncertain terms, as the hon the Minister already hinted at, as to what the real economic situation in South Africa is.

The hon the Minister has spoken of economic survival as opposed to economic progress. I believe this message needs to be brought home to the people of our country. They must be motivated to respond to this situation. They must not be lulled into a sense of false security or believe that all that is happening is that the hon the Minister is crying wolf. Let there be an appeal for people to get back to a proper work ethic, for people to make sacrifices and to accept that life is going to be different in the future. Life will be different in the future for the Whites of South Africa and adjustments are going to be have to be made. The reality is that the sun will rise, but before it does there will be periods of darkness that we have to see through.

If we agree to the kind of economy we want in South Africa and if we agree that we want free enterprise not with an ugly face but with an attractive face, and if we are there to care for people and have a caring economy, then we can take politics out of long-term economic planning and let the best brains in the country be mobilised to get together in order to find a solution. No one has a monopoly of wisdom but I believe that collectively the country has the talent in order to solve the problems that we have to face.

There is a fourth point which I believe has to be seen to. We must mobilise public opinion to help root out any form of corrupt or anti-social behaviour. Without the public behind them the authorities cannot root out this evil.

If I may put the fifth point, I think there needs to be not only a commitment to remove discrimination in the provision of social services, there also needs to be a specific plan and a timetable. However, the people have to be told the truth, which is that only the deserving and the needy are going to receive social assistance. The rest, who can afford it, are going to have to pay for their services.

To make social services available on an equal, non-discriminatory basis means that some of us who are getting social services today will have to accept that we will get a lower level and quality of service because South Africa’s resources are limited. The truth may be tough but it has to be told and it must be told when people seek mandates in the forthcoming election.

There is one other issue which is important to my mind. That is that the majority of the people in South Africa are moderate in their political outlook. Moderate leadership and moderate political groupings have to be given a chance to survive. They must survive because they constitute the majority. They are the ones who must keep the radicals at bay. They are the ones who can actually build a sound South Africa. This moderate leadership must show and demonstrate that the fruits of negotiation are there for their followers and that the protagonists of violence will go away empty-handed. Unless one shows that there are fruits, negotiation is not a commodity that one can sell.

It is not easy to sell unpalatable medicine and I am not making a speech today in which I am promising the world to anyone. If one wants to sell unpalatable medicine one can do so when the patient knows that he is ill and is convinced that if he takes the medicine there is a cure. I believe that South Africans will respond positively to political openness if they are told what the actual problems are that they have to face.

If I may, let me turn to some specific aspects of the Budget and matters which I believe need to be dealt with.

In the same context in which I have spoken, there are the cries—to which I am a party and I make no excuse for it—that we should have lower levels of taxation in South Africa. I believe there is no point in changing the form of taxation from one to another except to make it more equitable. If there is to be an overall reduction in taxation, it can only be achieved if there is an overall reduction in expenditure by the State. What is so tragic is that very often the same people who ask to pay less tax ask for greater services. It is the same group of people who ask for less State intervention and the moment something goes wrong they ask for the State to intervene. So we have to make up our minds as to what we really want. The key to reduced taxation is lower demands by the exchequer, and that is what needs to be dealt with.

Let us look at the Budget again. I asked the hon the Minister the following question in the Joint Committee on Finance: Where would he further cut the Budget? I asked him that question because that is the question he always asks me. The reality is, however, that one cannot just make unscientific cuts in a budget across the board. That causes serious problems.

Let us take the hospital services as an example. The hospital services are in trouble at the moment. In the evidence that we have it is conceded that 82% of the total population of this country needs some form of health assistance. I think they should get it. Only 18% are able to provide for their own services as a result of medical aid or their own resources. Yet, in that situation, we have overcrowding in some hospitals and empty wards in others; unavailability of staff in some and availability in others. We have problems in relation to staffing which are serious. I mention this because to my mind the health of the nation is one of the priorities we need to look at. Priorities are the key to this whole issue of where the State should spend its money.

In the total Budget of R63,5 billion more than R24,5 billion is being spent on social services at the moment and not social services on a non-discriminatory basis.

The total sum that is spent is spent on a basis according to which not everybody gets the same. Some R15 billion is being spent on protective services. If we look at these two figures, this is clearly not where we are going to be able cut down. The reality is that one has to look at other services. One needs to look at the question of duplication and bureaucracy. The question of cutting down on expenditure and working out the priorities related to it need to be examined on a expert basis and we need to debate it publicly.

The hon member for Barberton spoke about savings and I agree—we have spoken about it—that we need to look at methods for saving as we have a very low level of personal savings. I would like to commend to the hon the Minister the personal equity savings plan which encourages a nation of shareholders, which encourages people to save and which enables them to protect their investment against inflation. It also enables them to have a stake in the means of production. This scheme is employed in the United Kingdom. There is also a business expansion scheme there which enables savings to be effected, but at the same time provides capital for new industrial ventures. I believe that those are the sort of things we should look at.

I happen to believe that the question of savings and the broader ownership of the means of production go together. As I have indicated before, I believe that in order to deal with socialism which seeks to own the means of production through the State we need to ensure that the means of production are owned by the people. We should actually turn our people into a nation of shareholders. We need to look at the whole question of the incentives for share schemes in our present tax legislation in order to create more opportunity for workers to have shares in the enterprises in which they work. This should not be a substitute for living wages but it should be in order to give them a stake in the real assets of the country and in what goes on in South Africa. This would turn us into a nation of shareholders.

I also believe that we need to look at the whole question of savings in respect of retirement. There needs to be a complete education process in this regard because the Meiring Committee which did valuable work has not been able to put across to the public that one needs to save for one’s own old age. That needs urgent attention.

I also think that we need to look at some other aspects. There is the question of company tax and I believe that the present rate of taxation of close corporations should be brought down to the same level as personal taxation. We need to look at the United Kingdom’s system whereby small companies pay a lower rate of taxation. To my mind the example of the 25% company tax in the United Kingdom might well be followed here.

There are many other things which one can deal with but there is of course limited time available and I need to restrict myself.

I would like to touch on the question of VAT. It now looks as if VAT is not going to be introduced until the 1991-1992 financial year. I think that we are quite correctly not rushing into it, but I still make the appeal that there should be ample time for the private sector to consider the draft legislation and I ask that it should be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance for detailed study.

What worries me is some of the evidence given before the Joint Committee on Finance which seemed to indicate that the same rate of VAT on the method in which the legislation has been drawn, will produce less revenue than GST produces at that rate. I think we need to be very careful in what we do in this regard.

Finally, there are three things in regard to the Budget I would like to draw hon members’ attention to. The first is the unhappiness at the absence of tax relief; the second is that I still believe we have not cut back expenditure enough; and thirdly, there is the question of the credibility of the Budget.

The hon the Minister will remember that we backed him and the hon the State President last year but he dropped us. We said that we would stand by him and we could have taken political advantage, but what they did was that before the municipal election, they announced the increase in salaries and after the municipal election they increased the fuel tax.

However, I am a glutton for punishment. I am again advocating tough measures because I think that they are necessary. I think that the hon the Minister is going to dish out some little sweets and gifts before the next election. I have that terrible suspicion about him and I am saying to him: “Don’t do it!”

I do not think that it is a question of saying to the people of South Africa: “Blood, sweat and tears.” I think that one should say to the people of South Africa before an election: “Realism, hard work and openness. These are the problems and let us tackle them together.”

I have come to an end of an era for myself because this is the last occasion on which I am going to speak as PFP-spokesman on finance in this House. I think there are some words that I would like to place on record, both in regard to the party and of a personal nature.

History will judge what role the PFP has played in South African politics and it is too early to expect outside judgements today. However, I would like to believe that it will be said and written of this small group of members of Parliament and a relatively small political party that, at a time when things were difficult, they never allowed the call for human rights to be silenced, that the PFP demanded throughput its existence an end to discrimination on the grounds of race and colour when it was not popular in the White community to do so.

They kept alive the concept that democracy did not necessarily mean majoritarian rule and they put forward federalism as an alternative constitutional structure. The party preached negotiation and rejected violence as a method of change.

Perhaps the major disadvantage that my party has had, is that it has always been just a little ahead of the times in the White community. It could not rally the necessary popular White support.

However, in my lifetime in this Parliament I have spoken against the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Immorality Act, influx control, job reservation and other discriminatory measures, and today as I stand here they have all gone. Therefore our job was not in vain and we made a slight contribution towards the history of South Africa.

We never did this because we pretended to speak for Black people or other groups against whom there has been discrimination. We cannot do so. We have no such right. However, we did so because of our own value judgements and beliefs that to do so was in the interests of the very White people who had sent us to Parliament.

In my own way I have tried to convey that economic change must go hand in hand with political change. I have adhered to the concept that for peaceful change to have a chance law and order must be maintained. I presented the concept of economic democracy as an alternative economic policy and nobody has yet been able to knock a hole in it. In everything that I have tried to say I have tried to put my country before a party—something which sometimes put me on a very lonely political road which I had to walk with only my conscience as my companion.

However, whatever the judgment on us or me today is and whatever political stones are thrown, I hope that history will say of the PFP that they spoke when some others were silent. They stood up when some others were absent. I hope that when history is written it will be remembered that there was once a PFP. Once we were here and once we did our job for South Africa.

Mr Chairman, during the past months we have been witnesses to the unsavoury spectacle of gross corruption on the part of individuals in Government confirming once again Lord Acton’s dictum that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Of course the Government of South Africa understands this and therefore has left no stone unturned to bring the wrongdoers to book in terms of the procedures laid down for just such eventualities.

We must admit that Government probity has been given due attention by the authorities. Those corrupt practises I touched upon affected two out of the three Houses of this Parliament, the House of Assembly and the House of Delegates. Could it be true that the hon members of the House of Representatives are totally free of any malpractice or attempts at malpractice? Do we have here a group of people who possess quite a degree of governmental power who are going to prove Lord Acton wrong? No such luck! Despite Lord Acton, despite all laws designed to ensure honest practice in all walks of life, despite our religious and moral training, despite the graphic lessons to be learnt from what happened in the other two Houses, the spectre of corruption has stuck its head out in the House of Representatives as well. [Interjections.]

Just this morning I had occasion to make available to Mr Speaker in writing certain facts and reports about attempts by the LP to defraud Parliament of substantial sums of money. I also requested that the matter be subjected to appropriate investigation in order to establish the culpability or otherwise of the persons allegedly involved.

It is a startling picture which emerges from the persistent reports I have been receiving from within the LP itself, from individuals whose consciences will not allow them to continue to keep quiet about what took place. This has been reinforced by telephone calls from newspaper reporters, one of whom was even better informed than I was about the alleged transgressions.

Thus speaks a man who is no longer a Minister.

Order! If the hon member for Dysselsdorp keeps on wanting to deliver a speech, he should inform his Whips; then he will be afforded an opportunity to speak. If he continues with his interjections, I will order him to leave the Chamber. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives may proceed.

The facts as I received them are as follows: At a caucus meeting of the LP at the beginning of the current session of Parliament the hon the Leader of the LP instructed hon members who had outstanding balances in respect of their constituency allowances to submit claims for those amounts to the Parliamentary officer dealing with such matters. Cheques received in payment of such claims were then to be handed over to an hon Deputy Minister, who is also the national secretary of the LP. He would then deposit the amounts received into the LP’s bank account. [Interjections.] According to my information the party was short of funds to pay for the printing of calendars for 1989, among other items. [Interjections.]

Order! Whether the statements made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives are true or not is not the question. He is entitled to put his thoughts on record. Whether we are vociferous in our objections or not is not going to make the facts either correct or incorrect, so I suggest the hon Leader should continue and be given a fair chance to deliver his speech.

My informant mentions the specific case of a Labour Party MP who on the instructions of his party secretary put in a claim for R2 000 or thereabouts on the strength of an invoice deliberately back-dated to 19 December 1988 which was provided by the hon the Deputy Minister in question. The invoice purportedly was for printing done by a firm of printers. It may be of interest to note that 19 December was a holiday when all printing firms were closed. Another member of the Labour Party would only say that he was in fact approached to submit a claim but refused to do so. To my mind the foregoing amounts to fraud or at least to a considered attempt to defraud Parliament. I accuse the LP of such malpractice. There are other, similar activities affecting individual members of the LP which are under investigation and which will be brought to the attention of the House in due course.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to allow myself to become involved in the infighting between the Labour Party and the hon leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives. [Interjections.]

I do, however, want to agree with one remark that he made about corruption. Yes, it is true that everyone has the potential for corruption, and all political parties have the potential for corruption. That is, however, not the question. The question at the end of the day is whether the machinery exists with which to expose that corruption and to deal with it accordingly.

That is what the NP did. [Interjections.] However, I want to add something, and I think it is something that deserves attention on the road ahead. I have nothing against commissions which inquire into matters. I have just indicated that it is the correct thing to do, but it can happen at the end of the day that a person is found innocent in the light of a report from such a commission, but then he lives under a cloud of suspicion. I think it is an aspect which we must examine very closely. Karl Marx’s mother said: “If Karl had made more money instead of writing about it, he would have been better off." As an MP I naturally do not make money.

A nominated member!

I cannot write about money, and therefore I do not want to talk about it either, in spite of the fact that I am participating in a budget debate. In this respect, however, I can appeal to sound evidence. It is written in the Bible that man shall not live by bread alone. I shall leave the bread and butter issues of politics at that for a while.

I want to object most strongly to the right- and left-wing peddling with religion in politics. I want to repeat that. I want to object most strongly to the right and left-wing peddling with religion in politics. Perhaps I should first elaborate on this argument, and touch on another matter in conclusion.

Make up your mind!

I have already made up my mind. I am going to refer to the hon member, and he is going to know all about it.

Oh, come on! (Interjections.]

We have a very complex political situation in South Africa, with an immense potential for conflict.

I appeal to hon members not to increase this conflict by appealing to the Bible to support their political views. I want to appeal to them not to use the Bible like a ventriloquist’s doll and attach their own interpretation to it to support their own political views. [Interjections.]

I could perhaps direct this appeal to the moderator of the Ned Geref Church, but I am also going to direct it very specifically to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition this afternoon.

It is very easy to attach one’s own interpretation to the Bible. I can do it, for example, with reference to the hon Minister of Finance. We can blame him because we have a system in this country according to which one has to charge interest, because the Bible says that a person may not charge interest from a fellow-countryman. On the other hand I can do it by keeping silent about a text which reproaches a person for burying a talent instead of charging interest for it. It is therefore easy to attach our own interpretation to the Bible.

I can attach my own interpretation to the Bible and say that socialism is a Biblical system, because in Acts it says that the first congregation contributed according to their means and then it was distributed according to their needs. However, the Bible also refers to the virtuous woman as an example. She purchased a piece of land, thought about it and sold it again. She was in the manufacturing industry.

If one appeals to the Bible in this way, then you can justify all systems and viewpoints. This afternoon I want to object—and I say it for the third time, for the attention of the hon member for Overvaal—to the Bible being used to promote our political standpoints.

Where did I do that? [Interjections.]

I am not going to react to that argument. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal has made enough loud interjections. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

Let us consider how the Bible is hawked about by the right-wing. The other evening the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said in a television interview that the partition policy of the CP had a religious foundation. One must qualify this statement on the basis of another statement which he made during a public meeting at Krugersdorp. On that occasion he said that the partition model was closer to the Bible than the idea of a unitary state.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was and still is a respected church leader, and I think he should realise when he makes such statements that they have certain meanings and that certain connotations are attached to them. The only obvious connotation that is attached to it is that the partition model is more in line with the Scriptures than other models. From this it follows logically that if one follows another model, one is moving further away from the Bible’s standpoint.

What about the sin of apartheid?

I am still coming to that.

When the results of the referendum were announced during a CP meeting after the referendum, it was said that 66,6% voted “yes”. From the audience the remark was made that the number 666 is the sign of the Antichrist.

The CP mayor of Boksburg says that the Lord sent him to do what he had to do in Boksburg. In a newspaper interview he says: “I do not have a problem; the Lord is on my side.” I am quoting verbatim from the newspaper. [Interjections.]

Alan Boesak also says so!

I have a problem with this because in reality it is a peddling with religion to promote a political standpoint.

This tactic also originates from the left-wing. A remark was made here in connection with Dr Boesak. Dr Boesak says that God is on the side of the oppressed and that is why the Government has to be prayed out of existence. Here is a recently published book entitled God in South Africa: The Challenge of the Gospel, written by Albert Nolan.

Here we have one of the best exponents of revolutionary theology. He says there is a titanic struggle in South Africa between what he calls “the struggle and the system”. He says hat God is summarily on the side of the “struggle”, and because God is on the side of the “struggle”, the “struggle” will triumph over the “system”.

We are also living in a time when synods are being convened to profess everything which is suspected of apartheid to be a sin. I shall elaborate on this point later. But what are the facts? No policy or constitutional model can claim the Bible as witness. I cannot condemn apartheid on the authority of the Bible, nor can I try to justify apartheid on Biblical grounds. I cannot justify integration on the authority of the Bible, nor can I condemn it. I cannot base any system on religious grounds. The only system which complies with the criterion of the Scriptures, if it deals with the choice of systems, is a theocracy. Strangely enough, there is not a single political party in South Africa which is campaigning for a theocracy, and I am not going to elaborate on that. Since we do not demand a theocracy for ourselves, we call our own proverbial political kings and declare them envoys of God, and in this respect we hope to win votes.

I want to say unequivocally that the only system that complies with the criterion of the Scriptures is a system that complies with the Bible’s demand for justice. Every party’s policy, whether it applies partition, and it may take it as policy, must measure it against the Bible’s demand for justice. If one advocates power sharing without the domination of one group over another, it must satisfy the Bible’s demand for justice.

On the basis of this measure I am prepared—also as member of the Ned Geref Church—to confess my guilt if a person is wronged as a result of forced removal. Of course I shall do it, but I am not going to confess my guilt if a person is removed from a slum situation to a decent existence. I shall confess my guilt if someone—these are not theoretical speculations—is wronged on the grounds of his colour, because then it is unjust and I shall confess to it. I am not going to confess my guilt for the fact that there are 85 members of the House of Representatives in Parliament.

In a separate House!

I think that we must debate our political standpoints …

Order! The hon member must curtail his interjections. The hon member may proceed.

I think that we must debate our political standpoints on merit and stop dragging in the Bible. The largest part of South Africa’s population consists of practising Christians. This should be a cohesive factor and not a dividing factor in this country. On that basis we can also go forward to meet the future with confidence.

I just want to react briefly to the accusation of the CP that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence must resign because of what is happening in Angola. [Interjections.] After all, we are living in a time when people want to build monuments for others. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly wants to build a monument to the town councils of Boksburg and Carletonville. These two hon members—the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence—must not resign. They must be thanked. They deserve, without a doubt, to have monuments build to them for what has been achieved in SWA during the past decade. This Government undertook to strive for a peaceful solution. No responsible government can accept war as a way of life.

The Government did not go to the negotiation table from a position of weakness, but from a position of strength. Thanks to resounding military victories which were initiated by the Government and carried out by the security forces, South Africa could go to the negotiation table from a position of strength. It could go to the negotiation table and stipulate that the Cubans withdraw from South West Africa during the implementation process. The hon members who are now requesting that these two hon Ministers resign, were in 1978 prepared to have Resolution 435 implemented without Cuban withdrawal as a condition.

The South African Government was not caught unawares. It warned UN representatives against what has happened now. South Africa is completely in control and if necessary, will chase Swapo into the ground with the blessing of the UNO, and it will be a unique achievement.

Mr Chairman, first of all I would like to endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Yeoville with regard to Namibia.

The Budget has been described very differently by various quarters. Some have said that it is very moderate whilst other have said that it is very conservative. Some people have even gone to the extent of saying that the economy has not only gone around the bend but down the cliff for a dip. Under the present circumstances it has to be accepted that the economy has to be structured within the constraints imposed by the balance of payments in particular.

One of the welcomed aspects of the Budget is the anticipated further reduction in the deficit before borrowing from 5,8% to 4,1% of GDP. Also to curb and control State expenditure. A positive and a welcome move is to invest economically in the mining industry as well as the proposed abolition of investment in prescribed assets.

The aspects of concern are the rise in GST, with which I will deal a little later; the R1 billion that has been set aside in a contingency account; the accepting of a 15% inflation rate; and the fact that very little or nothing has been done to encourage personal savings.

I would like to commence with GST. Although there has only been a 1% increase and some of us may feel that this is not much, I believe that when dealing with bread-and-butter issues that 1% rise affects those poor people—particularly the labour class—who have, as most of us have noticed, bread, minerals and perhaps tinned fish for lunch. I just want to detail how this will affect them. The bread subsidy has been withdrawn to a certain degree—even this year I believe some R50 million’s worth—and I foresee an imminent increase in the price of bread. This will affect the poor people. Then we have the question of a duty which has been imposed upon mineral waters but not upon fresh juices. Fresh juice is the luxury of the rich person, yet there is no imposition of tax on that.

As far as the acceptance of the 15% inflation rate is concerned, this inflation is sending the cost of living soaring. It is forcing up manufacturing costs and adding to the difficulty of competing in the world markets. Local business and industry are expected to create more and more job opportunities and are often subjected to and constrained by a lack of education facilities and a brain-drain activated by political oppression and economic duress.

The question of personal savings has been mentioned by the hon member for Yeoville, but I would just like to mention here that personal savings in 1988 were somewhat around 4%. In 1988-89 the figure is expected to be 2,5%. What we could realistically expect of this country is that between 6% and 7% would really stimulate its economy. The real economic growth for 1987 was 2,6%. Although this is higher than the average annual growth, it is still below the levels necessary to improve living standards with the population growth recorded in our country at between 2% and 2,5% per annum.

I just want to deal with a few aspects with regard to education. Although we are all of the opinion that equal education across the board is acceptable, the unsatisfactory condition of Black education is of concern to us. I am of the opinion that a move to uplift the Black community’s education uplifts the standard of living, creates an atmosphere of stability, creates employment, etc. This improves the economy and the community becomes self-reliant rather than dependent on hand-outs.

A large percentage of the Black teaching fraternity does not have matric certificates. I believe the Department of Education and Training has started a programme which by 1992 will require matric as a minimum qualification for their teachers. This is not acceptable in comparison to the standards set for other races. We have an overflow in the Department of Education and Culture which falls under the supervision of the House of Delegates. My suggestion is that the department employs some of these people in order to get a higher standard of education for our Black community.

I now come to the question of housing. I think it is the desire of every individual to have a roof over his head and that makes for a stable and productive society. Monies have been allocated to the own affairs budget for the erection of these homes, but our biggest problem is the identification of land and the strangulating effect of all these laws, such as the Group Areas Act, as well as the length of time it takes for the first bricks of these homes to be laid. When a piece of land has to be identified for this purpose, it has to go through the process of proclamation, being advertised and eventually the final decision is determined by what the Group Areas Board says. This finalisation takes from two and a half to three years. The time that lapses before the people can move in is approximately four years. This adds costs and the poor community has to pay for it.

Order! There is an undertone of discussion and voices are clearly audible. This makes it very difficult for the Chair to hear the hon member speaking. Would hon members kindly lower their voices? The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, I think that all laws regarding the proclamation of land and identification as well as the question of eventually acquiring this land should be scrapped so that when land is identified the people get it as soon as possible within a three or four month period so that the construction of these homes can get off the ground.

I want to come to the next issue. I think that to stimulate the economy of a country everyone is expected to do his utmost. Whether one is in the labour force, a professional in industry or the business sector, be it big or small, one has to play one’s part. How can one do one’s best when one is strangled by regulations and discriminatory laws? The CBDs, I have no doubt, are open in some areas but in these such areas in some municipalities these laws apply to the fullest extent in that no person of any other race can conduct a business there. In my opinion, it is very silly that colour should be recognised in business. There is no such thing as preserving ethnicity and culture when it comes to business. I would suggest that all business from grassroots level should be opened for trade.

The hon leader of the NP committed himself to a non-racial future and indicated a new deal in community life. The hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning also acknowledges that the Group Areas Act has in the past caused great hurt among many individuals and communities and is still continuing to do so. I believe there is only one solution to all problems: remove all racial laws so that South Africa will get immediate recognition and respect. Trading will then open up and create greater job opportunities for all people in our country and free enterprise will become the order of the day and a higher growth rate will be recorded.

I believe economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprises.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Tongaat will no doubt excuse me if I do not react to his speech.

I wanted to say a few words about the speech of the hon member for Yeoville, but I now see that there is not a living PFP member in the House. [Interjections.] I think they are having the burial robes fitted or something of that nature. I will just say that the hon member for Yeoville spoke very patriotically about South Africa again today. I am extremely sorry that we have to bury him as well, but I want to wish the other hon members a happy funeral. I say farewell to the PFP. Rest in peace. [Interjections.]

My sincere congratulations to the hon the Minister of Finance on a very balanced Budget. I would not like to encroach on his field, but there was prior speculation across a wide spectrum that drastic increases in taxation would follow. The hon the Minister and his department therefore deserve expressions of praise and appreciation for the way in which this Budget was tabled. I think the fact that there is virtually no criticism from any quarter any more, is probably his best testimonial.

I would also like to address the CP, because, as usual, they are again involved in negative and destructive politics. The CP consists of and has become the haven for unhappy and dissatisfied people. If one looks at the CP, one sees that they are unhappy people. They are deeply aggrieved and unhappy. That is the alternative government which hon members are looking at. Those are the people who announce at the tops of their voices that they are going to take over the government. Hon members can see that they are now relatively quiet. [Interjections.] We heard the same refrain before the 1987 election, but now Boksburg, Carletonville, the AWB and Prof Carel Boshof have made them stumble a little.

I suspect that the CP has already established a beautiful photo gallery for themselves—a photo gallery in which the new cabinet will be displayed. I imagine that there are 33 portraits or 33 frames hanging there. In the first 23 we find the present hon members of the CP, because there are not yet sufficient of them to form a cabinet and appoint deputy ministers.

We are not going to have as many departments as you have!

I think they will simply govern without a cabinet. [Interjections.]

I want to concentrate on those 10 frames which will not have photos yet. Surely it would look very bad if those frames remained completely bare. I now want to make a suggestion. I think they should place some of the many hackneyed expressions of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in those frames. I now want to present a few of them to the hon members, and I want to refer to the speech which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made during the Transvaal congress of the NP on 3 November 1981. There Dr Treurnicht said:

[Interjections.]

I would like to second these standpoints of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

As an example we can also look at the CP’s standpoint with regard to South West Africa. A few nights ago we saw a beautiful portrait on television. The hon the leader, with three bodyguards behind him, was very angry with the NP—not with Swapo, but with the NP. The NP had to suspend Resolution 435 immediately. We recall the snide remark of the hon member for Lichtenburg a few days ago here in a different setting, when he referred to the season of peace which had now settled on South West Africa as a result of the events there during the past four days. I am saying that it is scandalous. The question which one asks is whether or not, if the Government really suspended Resolution 435 and annulled everything, peace would then prevail.

Is there peace at the moment?

I hope it will come, but the question is whether or not peace would follow if Resolution 435 were suspended. [Interjections.] This is once again proof that the CP is not interested in making positive proposals, and that they only specialise in negative standpoints and do not offer any solutions. They are simply disparaging and intolerant, even towards fellow Afrikaners. Let me say at once that we regret the renewed violence in South West Africa. No one, no one at all, wants it. I would like to express my commiseration with the next of kin of those killed and wounded. I reject the invasion by Swapo, but could we not then ask the CP to condemn Swapo as well and to support the Government in what it is doing now?

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon member knows that it is unparliamentary to say that another hon member is stupid. The hon member for Overvaal must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Thank you very much, Sir. I take it from whence it comes. Would the CP not want to join us in paying tribute to the SA Forces and the forces of South West Africa, who are now fighting fearlessly in South West Africa? Would the CP not want to join us in praising our hon the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence for what they are doing for South Africa?

Are they not grateful, as we are, that England and the USA have already condemned Swapo? Does the CP not realise that other perceptions now exist and that South Africa is now operating there with the approval of the UN and that Swapo is now seen for what they are?

The CP is also still acting as the great patron of the NP in South West Africa. During the adoption of Resolution 435, all the senior hon members of the CP were here. The hon the leader and deputy leader were even members of the Cabinet … [Interjections.] … or at least a Deputy Minister. What did they do then? Absolutely nothing! If they did anything, they must prove it to us.

Three of their senior hon members recently paid a visit to Windhoek, namely the hon members for Lichtenburg, Soutpansberg and Brakpan. Did Mr Pretorius, the hon the leader of the NP there, not also tell them what he told me, namely that the NP of South West Africa was more left-wing than the NP of the RSA? Did they not take note of the fact that the NP of South West Africa had accepted Black majority rule and that they had been operating under Black majority rule for the past 10 years and had served with Blacks in the Cabinet of that transitional government? Did he not tell those hon CP members that? Or do they not want to accept it?

The objections of the NP of South West Africa relate to the protection of minority rights. The hon the leader of the NP of South West Africa says that they do not accept Resolution 435.

Allow me to now quote to hon members the standpoint of the then leader of the NP expressed in the first constituent assembly, which was held from 20 to 22 December 1978. I quote from what Mr A H du Plessis said:

1. (a) Gedagtig daaraan dat SWA en Suid-Afrika dieselfde basiese oogmerke nastreef veral wat betref vrede, vryheid en vooruitgang, wil hierdie vergadering sy opregte dank teenoor Suid-Afrika boekstaaf vir die wyse waarop hy in die verlede die belange van SWA en sy mense behartig en beskerm het;
2. (b) Graag tydens hierdie kritieke oorgangstydperk verder gebruik maak van Suid-Afrika se vriendskap, raad en bystand;
3. (c) Sy vertroue uitspreek dat Suid-Afrika deurgangs oorleg sal pleeg met hierdie vergadering oor die verskillende aspekte van die huidige onderhandelingsproses …
4. (d) Aangesien hierdie vergadering groot waarde heg aan internasionale erkenning van ’n onafhanklike SWA, aanvaar hy in beginsel Veiligheidsraad-besluit 435 behoudens die volgende voorwaardes dat:
   1. (i) die Administrateur-generaal die wetgewende en administratiewe gesag in SWA gedurende die oorgangstydperk tot onafhanklikheid sal uitoefen;
   2. (ii) handhawing van wet en orde deur die Polisie van SWA behartig sal word;
   3. (iii) behoorlike en billike raadpleging met die Administrateur-generaal in verband met alle uitstaande sake …

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I see that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives is not in the Chamber now. He reminds me of the chaps up in SWA who lay land mines and then run away. [Interjections.]

In a speech earlier today he made the following statement and said “the hon the leader of the LP instructed his caucus members to submit claims for their outstanding constituency allowances to be paid into a party account”. I was present at every caucus meeting. I want to state it unambiguously today that this statement is a blatant lie.

Order! It may be a lie but the hon member may not say that. [Interjections.] He must withdraw it.

I withdraw it but then I say that it is certainly the greatest untruth that has ever been told. [Interjections.] I want to tell him that it makes a low, mean disinformant of his so-called informant. I challenge him to say this outside Parliament.

He also said “that this is a considered attempt to defraud Parliament”, and then mentioned the amount of R2 000. It is ridiculous that a party as powerful as the LP should commit corruption for R2 000. [Interjections.] It is regrettable to what depths people will descend in an attempt to get at others to pursue small personal differences.

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition …

An Opposition of six.

An Opposition of six, yes. If he wants to sling mud, he must look out because later he will have no ground to stand on. [Interjections.] All I then have left to say to him is “hell has no fury like a woman scorned”. [Interjections.] Hon members are not to misunderstand me!

I want to revert to the Budget. This Government had a five-year plan which was unknown to us by the way. In this five-year plan it envisaged increasing the budgetary cake. The aim of the five-year plan was to enlarge the budgetary cake to such an extent to enable the less-developed population groups to obtain a bigger bite of that cake.

The Government has failed in this country. Domestic expenditure has caused the surplus on the current account of the balance of payments to plunge sharply. The value of merchandise exports has increased on the trade account. A huge outflow of capital has occurred over the years. Steps have been taken to curb domestic expenditure. The surcharge on imports has been increased sharply.

Excessive expenditure was undertaken as regards improved conditions of service for Public Servants, increases in social pensions, as well as defence. Bank rates have been increased recently from 9,5% at the end of 1987 to 16% on 23 February 1988. As a result of these tendencies, the Government has submitted a limited budget this year and consequently the budgetary cake will never be capable of enlargement. In the light of sanctions, disinvestment, boycotts and unrest at our door it has become impossible for the Government to enlarge the budgetary cake. As a result of the lack of an international banker, the possibility of an enlarged budgetary cake has remained merely a vague dream.

It is high time now to work with the existing cake. For more than 40 years the Whites in this country have skimmed off the cream while those of colour have had to be satisfied with the crumbs and the skimmed milk. For more than 40 years the Brown people, Black people and Indians have made sacrifices so that the Whites could live a life of luxury and plenty. For more than 40 years we have suffered unnecessary hardships in this beloved land of ours. The time has come now for the White component in this country also to start making sacrifices as we have done over the years.

The Government must show that it has the courage and it must do so now that we are facing an election. I ask the Government, specifically the NP, to act honestly and with integrity toward their voters. I request them to ask their voters to make the sacrifice which we have made over past years.

The Government must show the courage, and I ask the hon the Minister to keep strictly to the proposed estimates as regards general affairs. Stop the annual overexpenditure in general affairs. Do not exceed the 15% increase in respect of general affairs in this budgetary year. We request this sacrifice on the part of the White component.

In addition the Government must show the courage to take the unpopular decision to get rid of discriminatory legislation. Get rid of the three restrictive Acts which the hon the Acting State President spoke about in this Great Hall! I appeal to my hon colleagues of the NP to tell the voters during the election campaign that they will get rid of group areas, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Population Registration Act. [Interjections.]

I can assure hon members that they will run circles round the CP. They need not be afraid that White people will vote for a Boksburg policy. [Interjections.] If they head in that direction, they will be broadcasting the policy of the Labour Party. [Interjections.] The policy of the Labour Party offers the solution to the problems of this country! The Western World accepts the Labour Party’s policy.

Hon members must have noticed that the Labour Party’s policy is never criticised. The NP does not criticise our policy and the CP will not even try. [Interjections.] Extraparliamentary organisations criticise us as individuals for our participation but they never criticise our policy. I want to say today that the solution to all South Africa’s problems lies in the policy of the powerful Labour Party. [Interjections.]

We have taken note with concern of the fact that the saving capacity in the country has declined sharply. Personal savings plunged as low as 1,7% in 1988. I want to congratulate the hon member for Barberton on having noticed this.

Personal income has shown an increasing trend since 1984. Remuneration of employees increased from R85 million in 1984 to R101 million in 1988. Domestic income from property, consisting of interest, dividends, rental receipts from leases and the profits of non-incorporated business undertakings, after provision for depreciation and correction in respect of inventory valuation, increased from R9,9 million in 1984 to R21,6 million in 1988. Current transfers of general Government receipts increased from R2,7 million in 1984 to R5,2 million in 1988. Total current revenue increased from R71,4 million in 1984 to R128,3 million in 1988. Personal disposable income increased from R63,6 million in 1984 to R114 million in 1988 but, against this, personal saving decreased from R2,6 million in 1984 to R1,9 million in 1988. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member who has just finished speaking claims that the Western World supports the policy of the LP. I claim that they apply the partition policy of the CP. [Interjections.] Their naked existence in separate states is CP policy. It is a fact.

I should like to associate myself with a previous speaker, who referred to the recovery of the hon the State President, and I want to identify myself with that sentiment. On the personal level we are always grateful if a person who was ill recovers his strength to such an extent that he can continue with his labours.

In a certain sense the announcement made by the hon the State President in connection with the election was disappointing for us because we think that he had a sounder standpoint when he said earlier that a delimitation should first take place, and that the election could therefore not take place before that had been done. We think it is putting the cart before the horse, although at the same time I want to say that the CP is immediately geared up for the election, whenever it may be announced.

In reverse gear! [Interjections.]

The hon member will be astonished to know in what forward gear the CP is, and I want to tell those hon members that if they want to debate issues with the CP, they may experience many positive revelations. [Interjections.]

Order! I think hon members must now give the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly the normal opportunity which hon members of his seniority enjoy in this House. The hon Leader may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I appreciate the good-natured response. I also appreciate your protection.

I want to associate myself with the reference made by the hon the State President to what I think is a crisis in South West Africa. I think the crisis in South West Africa now requires urgent attention. It does not simply require protests on paper. It requires firm action.

So far this afternoon, from the Government side, we have heard only the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and we assumed that he was speaking on behalf of the entire Government—consequently on behalf of the hon the State President, the chief leader of the NP and the rest of the Cabinet.

The one moment he speaks with excitement about the peace in South West Africa and reproaches the CP for simply wanting everything set straight by means of shooting and violence. Incidentally, I want to ask whether the 170 people who have been shot there were killed in an act of love. Surely there has been shooting, and who did the shooting? Did it take place without the blessing of the NP and the Government? Surely it was not an act of love. Those people were shot. Now we are being reproached for ostensibly wanting only to shoot and adopt violent measures. I think those 170 who were given a beating were given a proper beating, and that happened with the consent of the Government. We shall come to this again.

I want to tell the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs that he is hiding behind the skirts of unknown CP mothers who thank him for peace. At a stage when he did know about the Swapo advance—he did know about it because he informed Mr Ahtisaari about it—he was talking about CP mothers who thanked him for the peace. At that stage there was no longer any peace. He was still hiding behind the skirts of the CP mothers when the media cried out: “War!”. I am not trying to be sentimental now, but if he wants to hide behind mothers I can tell him that mothers then had to hear about their sons who had died!

The next thing we heard was that 800 to 1 000 Swapos had invaded South West Africa. The number of casualties rose, the war intensified in scope and depth, and yesterday morning the hon the Minister spoke about the rapidly deteriorating situation in South West Africa and said that the Secretary-General would have to take steps within a few hours, so dramatically had the position deteriorated.

What is the issue? Is it simply the independence of South West Africa as one territory? Is it that we wanted to rid ourselves of South West Africa financially, militarily and administratively? Is it that we would prefer to see South West Africa going the way of Rhodesia and other countries, and that we do not mind, regardless of the direct implications for the safety of the RSA, the safety of South West Africa and the political development within South Africa?

We have reason to ask whether South West Africa is being used as a guinea-pig for a unitary state, according to which the RSA with its various peoples must be forced together under one government. Is it, in other words, the prelude to what is being planned for South Africa?

South Africa wanted to give the peoples of South West Africa an opportunity to decide their own future. It is perturbing, in the vocabulary of the NP, to see how it has moved away from the reference to the nations (volkere) of South West Africa to ultimately merely the people of South West Africa.

South Africa very definitely wants to prevent a communist take-over of South West Africa. It wants to prevent the red flag from fluttering in Windhoek and it wants to prevent Russian surrogate forces having to be stopped on the banks of the Orange River.

Swapo has been repeatedly described as a communist-controlled organisation. I want to tell the hon member for Walvis Bay that he really need not search for us when it comes to a condemnation of Swapo. I think he quoted a little like a Rip van Winkel here this afternoon. Swapo has been described repeatedly as a communist-controlled organisation. Swapo has at all cost to be prevented from gaining control of South West Africa. It is not a democratic political party with respect for peoples, for freedom and for self-determination.

As a so-called national liberation movement it is part of this trilogy—the world socialistic system, the international workers class and the national liberation movements. It is one of those three of the trilogy. As a so-called national liberation movement it flows in a single stream with communism and the communism revolution as an integral part of the world revolutionary process.

Its total independence of South West Africa means for all practical purposes that the historic and cultural, as well as the economic and geographic ties between South West Africa and South Africa have to be broken, and that South Africa must then, as a “foreign oppressor”, be replaced by Soviet Russia. Swapo’s so-called socialistic democracy will be acquired by means of social, economic and political reforms, the drastic abolition of private property, the destruction of economic freedom on all levels and comprehensive State planning of the economic life according to the Marxist recipe. This is his “classless society”.

Through the class struggle South West Africa must be liberated from all opposition organisations and the one-party collectivistic people’s democracy must be established in the immediate future. I am now quoting from a publication of a Catholic organisation on the true image of Swapo. Swapo says:

That is the euphemism for violence, intimidation and terror—

I hope the hon member for Walvis Bay is with me.

The distinction between Swapo communists and so-called moderates—as some draw the distinction—is part of the strategy of taking over the regime. Moderates must attract support but they may not become a nuisance or offer resistance.

Surely it is not possible to negotiate with such an organisation on the take-over of political power in South West Africa! Swapo is no more a parliamentary type that can accept responsibility for the freedoms of communities and peoples than the ANC or the SA Communist Party are parliamentary types in a Western democracy. Surely these are facts.

Swapo is a hostile communist-controlled organisation and it must be opposed. I want to state here this afternoon that if the Government and the SA Defence Force—hon members must please note that I am choosing my words carefully—take the necessary steps to do so, they have the support of the CP for that.

Hear, hear!

There is no need to debate the question of whether the CP stands for peace or for war. I think the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was being a little silly when he asked that question.

I just want to tell him that we take cognisance of the fact that the SABC came to me to record an interview, and I then informed him about it. In addition they also gave him an opportunity to react to it. [Interjections.] What is more, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs also congratulated them on the way in which they had ostensibly sorted me out in that debate. I just want him to know that I know it.

I say there is no need to debate the question of whether we are in favour of peace or war. It is only a fool who seeks war for the fun of it. I am not accusing anyone of that kind of foolishness. However, I want to add that it is only a fool who will enter into an agreement not to use arms in a war, and then when he is attacked by a force of arms, call the world to witness that he stands by the agreement! It is almost like two people telling one another that they are going to fight, but they are going to keep their hands behind their backs. They then proceed to fight, but only with their feet. The one frees his hands and fights with his hands as well, while the other one still keeps his hands behind his back and says: See how I am being attacked: I am keeping to the agreement! [Interjections.]

The freedom of the peoples of South West Africa is at stake. This is not merely the freedom of a conglomeration of people. The safety of the Republic of South Africa and that of its people is also at stake. If our Government negotiated with Cuba and Angola to see to it that Swapo remained north of the sixteenth parallel, and there was any undertaking on the part of Swapo that it would not invade South West Africa, then I am convinced that our Government’s cooperation in the implementation of Resolution 435 should be suspended. In addition our Defence Force must be put in the position to protect lives and to drive Swapo out. [Interjections.] When I say this it indicates that what is happening now, namely the resistance to Swapo, is nothing strange, because it is happening with the approval of the Government.

The hon the State President, when he was still Prime Minister, said the following on 8 March 1979:

He concluded by saying:

Those are strong words. I am now saying that it is not correct to plead with Swapo to lay down their arms and then to take them back like obedient, good little boys to where they came from, or to their bases. They invaded South West Africa with violence and they now wanted to disappear among the population like fish swimming in the ocean. It is not good enough merely to threaten them.

Then, too, there is the story of the Administrator-General who said that they would examine the tracks and see how they came into South West Africa. Now surely this is a simple matter for the terrorists. I am not giving them a tip. All they need do is walk backwards over the border of South West Africa, then surely it will look as if they had left. [Interjections.] That is how ridiculous a Government can become! [Interjections.] If I were to do that, I would be ridiculous! [Interjections.] I am pleased the hon members are amused at their own foolishness. What nonsense is this? Surely one does not deal with terrorists and with enemies in this way.

The question earlier was whether the Government knew about the Swapo advance. Did it know? If it did not know, then it is perturbing. In the Northern Transvaal the Defence Force assured us that they knew where every terrorist base was. I cannot believe that we could have been caught so unawares, and by 1 000 to 1 200 invaders to boot. If the Government or the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs did know … He knew about that advance. The hon the Minister knew.

According to this morning’s Citizen he informed Mr Ahtisaari of this and mentioned to him that 150, and subsequently between 500 and 700 Swapos had deployed just north of the South West African border. Consequently he knew and at that stage, when he knew about it, he referred to the mothers who had thanked him for the peace that had been accomplished!

Surely it is inconceivable that, for strategic reasons, we can first allow an incident of this magnitude to take place and then tell the world that we are innocent of the blood of more than 20 South African victims plus 170 of the others. It is inconceivable that anything like this could happen.

The hon the Minister wanted to teach us a little lesson here, and I am quoting him from Die Burger of 4 April 1988. He said:

You are going to get a hiding!

With all due respect, I want to say that that kind of cleverness they ought not to seek in us. I just want to ask whether this is the cold-bloodedness of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the way he thinks. Would he, if he were in such a position, have been gratified that 20 people had been shot so that he could have received a bonus? I think this is a disgraceful remark. [Interjections.]

What is the present position? The present position is that there is doubts as to the impartiality of Untag; there is doubt about its ability to oppose a violent onslaught by Swapo with the necessary forces. In any event South Africans are already involved in the struggle against Swapo. Consequently it is not only the CP who is asking for violence to be used. Violence is being used.

Today we have received no indication of the state of affairs on the battlefront between our security forces and Swapo. We have not ascertained what steps South Africa is taking to ward off the Swapo onslaught.

The uncertainty about the future of our people and the peoples of South West Africa continues. Untag is present in South West Africa. I do not want to refer to deployment now, because the question is whether they are in fact deploying, but they are there. There has been an armed onslaught across the border on innocent people in South West Africa. The onslaught is there. In terms of Resolution 435 the South African Defence Force has been withdrawn to its bases in South West Africa. Last year the hon the Minister of Defence—earlier the then Prime Minister had also done so—committed South Africa to the protection of our people in South West Africa. He committed himself to doing that.

We asked how he was going to use the South West African Defence Force to protect our people in South West Africa if, in terms of the requirements of Resolution 435, he had withdrawn the Defence Force to the Orange River. That is the requirement of Resolution 435. If South West Africa is independent, everyone will be back, including those still in the bases. This question is still valid today. How is one going to do that?

We are now experiencing a hostile attack from across the border. In the Geneva Protocol there is no obligation on Cuba and Angola to put Swapo in its place with the necessary force and authority. If South West Africa becomes independent under a Swapo Government with no UN supervisory or task force there—it will then be an independent country—and it becomes independent with no RSA Defence Force present in South West Africa, the presence of a further 10 000 Cubans at that stage of independence will be a fact. According to the progamme of withdrawal there are still going to be approximately 25 000 Cubans in Angola by November, with the full potential of communist destabilisation in Southern Africa. The question then is whether this will leave South Africa cold. Will we argue that we wash our hands of the situation?

Ten years ago the Government identified this present problem and danger in South West Africa precisely. It was done by the Prime Minister, the present State President, and I want to give him credit for it. I am quoting what he said on 6 March 1979:

That is the question. That is the situation in which we find ourselves today. We find ourselves in precisely that situation which the hon the State President identified 10 years ago—when he was Prime Minister—and in regard to which he put this question. After 10 years the Government still does not have an answer for us. I think it is time we received that answer. I think it is in the interests of all the peoples of South West Africa. I think it is also in the interests of South Africa that the Government give us a reply to this. The situation is escalating, but no other people may intervene. All we get are threats. Mrs Thatcher says they are wrong. America says Swapo is wrong, but in the meantime Swapo’s representative is still recognised. Blood is flowing there. Who must take action? We think this Government has an obligation to protect our people there and to ensure that law and order is restored.

Mr Speaker, I must admit that it is difficult to debate matters with a person who wants us to talk about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. Once again this is merely splitting hairs. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly does not take the trouble to ask to speak to me about what the agreements mean. He thinks up things, or someone feeds him information, and then he makes a speech here without knowing what it is all about. [Interjections.]

It is true that I said that after agreements about the independence of South West Africa had been concluded—therefore in December, and even earlier too, as we made progress with the concluding of agreements to establish a timetable for Cuban withdrawal, my department, the Department of Defence and others received congratulations from all corners of South Africa. Where he gets the information that I supposedly said that after Swapo broke the agreement, mothers telephoned me, I do not know. He thinks that up for himself.

You said that on Monday evening! [Interjections.]

No one could have telephoned me. At that juncture I was in South West Africa. No one had my telephone number. He thinks that up here. He did not hear it. Nor was he at the press conference. He then comes along and says the SABC informed me beforehand of his criticism of the Government just to give me a chance to make propaganda for the Government.

Let us examine the facts. I addressed an international press conference at which the SABC was also present. A representative of the SABC put questions to me, one of which was what my reaction was to statements made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. Many of the other media representatives there asked me what my reaction was to what Mr Nujoma had said. I told them what my reaction was. The SABC, just like every other member of the media, is quite entitled to ask questions at a press conference. I gave my answer, and they used that part of it. I therefore do not know where hon members get their facts from. That is the problem.

What is interesting, however, is the fact that there were only two leaders who were opposed to Mrs Thatcher’s visit to South West Africa, and only those two leaders opposed the South African Government’s standpoint about action against Swapo and our standpoint about South West Africa. Who do hon members think they were? Sam Nujoma and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.]

He said that in 1979 the hon the State President issued a warning to Mr Ahtisaari. That is correct; I was present at the discussions. Our major concern at the time involved the growing number of Cubans in Angola. In 1978, with the categorical approval of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly and the hon member for Lichtenburg, Resolution 435 was adopted, without a timetable for the Cuban withdrawal. The hon the leader was a member of the caucus; he attended the debates we were conducting. One of our major achievements was the fact that we subsequently—ie ten years later—did in fact succeed in negotiating a timetable for the Cuban withdrawal.

That was something that was not thought possible by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly or the hon member for Lichtenburg. Ten years later we did, in fact, succeed in doing so.

It goes without saying that this reduced this Government’s major problem about the security of the territory, because by 1 November of this year, if the election in South West Africa is to take place, all Cubans must be north of the 13th parallel. That is a considerable distance from the border of SWA. It is approximately at the Benguela railway line. What is also of importance, however, is that by then 50% must already have left the country. During these negotiations we consistently conducted negotiations with Unita too.

Again the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly forgets to tell the country that he is aware of the fact that South West Africa never belonged to us—never ever. Why does he not do battle with Genls Botha and Smuts, who conquered the territory from the Germans and then did not incorporate it? Why does he not do battle with Dr Malan, who did not want to do so, or with Mr Strijdom, Dr Verwoerd or Mr Vorster? I cannot understand this kind of reasoning, that of simply dealing with South African policy or politics in regard to South West Africa as if South West Africa were part of South Africa. Surely he ought to know that by this time.

He was part of the drafting of the standpoint that the people of South West Africa would decide their own future on the basis of one man, one vote. He was an absolutely integral part of that. I can prove it to this House in black and white. I shall give proof, in black and white, that he signed for those documents that he received, that he was part of the Cabinet meeting in January 1982—both he and the hon member for Lichtenburg. I shall call upon all my colleagues who were present there.

In any case, if he did not like the decision, why did he not walk out and resign? He was never sufficiently fearful to threaten to resign. Why was he not man enough to resign, or stand up in the caucus and say that he did not like what was happening, that he objected and was walking out for that reason?

That was not the reason why he splintered the party. Hon members know why he did so. My contention today is that he accepted those proposals, and there is no way whatsoever in which he can deny that; in fact, he accepted a less stringent Resolution 435 than we subsequently manage to obtain by improving the conditions. [Interjections.] I cannot devote my attention solely to him, however; there are important aspects regarding South West Africa in which, I am certain, other hon members of this House are interested. I can now report here that there is no doubt that South Africa is gaining growing support for its clear standpoint from all responsible countries in the world. Growing support is the word. Yesterday, or today, for example, an editorial appeared in the New York Times about South Africa, and if I now tell hon members that that is the most favourable editorial about South Africa in that newspaper in 40 years, I am not exaggerating. The first sentence of that editorial reads as follows:

The editorial concludes as follows:

That is a very striking editorial, but the editorial comment in this morning’s London Times is even better. I quote:

Mr Ahtisaari, the special representative of Dr De Cuellar, the Secretary-General, was today quoted in the Finnish newspaper Hufvudstadsbladet, and the translation reads as follows:

With this remark of his, which was published in a newspaper in his fatherland, in my opinion Mr Ahtisaari has thus far—I do not know what he is going to do tomorrow—illustrated his impartiality. It was very difficult for him to make such a statement. [Interjections.] It was very difficult for him to make such a statement, because the whole wild world—the whole wild non-aligned world—hauled the Secretary-General and Mr Ahtisaari over the coals, attacked them and placed them under severe pressure, but he had the courage to state the facts. The opposition to Swapo goes a great deal further. Today I issued a statement which I should like to give to the House. It reads:

So where do we stand? We are in a position in which South Africa’s image throughout the world has been constructively and positively built up over the past week. I am not the one to say so. Hon members can ask anyone who knows anything about attitudes abroad about this. These complaints and accusations, throughout the years, about South Africa being the bullyboy of Southern Africa, are now being refuted by Swapo’s conduct.

Does it really require so much common sense to see that tragic as these events may be—here one newspaper states that Swapo has shot itself in the foot—South Africa has reinforced its image as a responsible regional power in Southern Africa owing to the fact that it has remained within the framework of its obligations?

This afternoon I want to predict here that this conduct on our part will prevent any further sanctions against us being considered in the immediate future. I want to predict that, and I also want to predict that Swapo will be increasingly isolated. For 20 years there has never been any peace in that part of the world. We have made serious attempts to realistically bring about peace by getting the Cubans out of Angola whilst at the same time remaining true to the South African Government’s undertakings. We undertook nothing more or less than that the people of South West Africa should decide their future for themselves under conditions in which they were not subjected to coercion and intimidation.

We succeeded in negotiating for a police force of 6 000 well-trained men in South West Africa to be responsible for the maintenance of law and order.

That was a great improvement on 1978. Instead of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly standing up here this afternoon to express his thanks and pay tribute to the SWA Police Force, he tried to make a little political capital out of arguments that are not based on facts. This Government and, I take it, responsible hon members of this House will support me if I express our thanks to the SWA Police Force which has, with bravery, daring, expertise and humaneness, dealt efficiently with this whole problem.

We have managed, with the permission of Mr Ahtisaari and Dr De Cuellar, to release our troops from their bases so that they can continue to assist the SWA police in their task. Although this has been done efficiently, the hon the State President, the hon the Leader of the House of Representatives and I have conveyed our regret and condolences to the next of kin of those who died. No one can take pleasure in that, and I do not know why the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly made the unsavoury comments he made here today. Only he will know. No one could have been more hurt than I myself when Swapo began to cross the border, but since this has now happened, one does not, as he said, walk backwards until one literally sees a certain part of one’s anatomy in the wrong place. [Interjections.] One moves forward and sees what can be made of this situation in order to achieve the utmost benefit for our country. That is what one should do.

It is against that background that I had my meeting with Mrs Thatcher in Windhoek and held discussions with her. She told me quite roundly (rondborstig)—frankly at the airport outside Windhoek … [Interjections.]

She told me frankly:

She returned to London and everything she had said she honoured in the British Parliament. [Interjections.] Heavens above, is it too much to ask for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition simply to take note, now and then, of what is going on abroad; to just sometimes take note of what is going on in South Africa—for example in Boksburg and Carletonville? I know that for him South West Africa is too far away. I know that for him Ovambo is a primordial spot far, far beyond his field of experience. He has probably never been there. He was near there once, and then he agreed to Resolution 435. In any case, it is probably too far away for him.

To think that one now has to walk backwards over the border on those sandflats, or in Ruacana’s mountains and gullies. [Interjections.] It is because his party is so accustomed to walking backwards; in fact, I have heard they are going to have shoes made for them that one puts on backwards to more efficiently allow one to move backwards in history to Jan van Riebeeck’s time, and even beyond that too. [Interjections.]

I have previously said that if Jan van Riebeeck were to have consulted him about whether he should have come to Africa, he would have said: “Godverdomme, moet niet naar deze wrede, donker, ver land gaat. Blyde hier in Holland, met die melkwit handjies en die melkwit kaas, die klompe en die mooi strikdassies, die tulpe en die meulens! Hier sal u veilig zijn.”

I want to give the hon member this piece of advice. I am inviting the CP in good time to support the Government. I want to give the CP some information. Throughout South Africa we have support for the way in which we have dealt with this matter. [Interjections.] Hon members may put that to the test. We can do so in the general election. Then we shall see. We will, in fact, be doing so in the election. [Interjections.] This Government has never guaranteed that parties would keep their word.

Go and have a look at my speech in New York on 22 December 1988. That day I stated categorically:

[Interjections.] That is what we said. On the evening of 31 March, when we were having dinner with Mr Ahtisaari—that is correct and I say it to my credit and to that of the hon the Minister of Defence—I told him that there was a danger that people might cross over. We warned him against that. They did cross over, and that proves we were right.

After they crossed over, that very same day, we took the necessary steps, with the approval of Mr Ahtisaari—that was an achievement—to deploy South Africa’s security forces and the South West African Police so as to enable them to do their work and to do it as well as if the UN had never been there. What more does one expect of this Government?

We gave no guarantee. There is no one in this House who can tell me that he can give me a guarantee that a gangster or a thief will not break into his or her home. Who is there here who can say that? What is important is that if the gangster or the thief were to break in, one would be able to deal with him. I am saying that the Government could handle that one. [Interjections.]

Obviously the implementation of the whole process remains in jeopardy. We are still in an extremely delicate phase, but in this phase South Africa is playing by the rules. South Africa has a self-assured and balanced approach, it is a strong regional power and it does not have to take to its heels or act precipitately.

Meanwhile we see positive comment forthcoming from throughout the world. There are positive comments in newspapers which have not had a good word to say about us in 40 years. Government members support us, and even the Canadian government agrees that Swapo must withdraw to the north.

Against that background the dam wall that South Africa has built has not only held, but Swapo is not going to be allowed to breach that dam wall. [Interjections.] We shall deal with this matter in a way which will not internationally jeopardise South Africa’s positive role. [Time expired.] [Interjections.]

Order! Did I correctly hear the hon member for Overvaal say: “You remain a clown”?

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

Order! Did I also correctly hear the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives say: “You are the biggest one”?

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Order! The hon the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, speaking after the genial hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I feel quite happy that he acquitted himself well of his task after all the criticism levelled against him. He was able to justify his actions in the field. I compliment him on behalf of the House of Delegates and my hon leader here present. I want to say that we admire the way in which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been handling this matter. No matter what one does, a Minister is always criticised. He went out of his way to see that everything he did was correct. He attempted to see the right people in South West Africa/Namibia. He contacted the UN representative and he sent off letters to the Big Five. What else can one expect him to do? He has done the right thing and that genial hon the Minister must be complimented for what he has been doing in his peace initiatives.

I am aware that I speak during the Budget Debate of the hon the Minister of Finance and I do wish to compliment him as well upon having presented a fairly good budget under difficult economic circumstances. However, I wish to bring to his attention that the financial dispensation is apportioned according to a formula, which, in my opinion, leaves much to be desired in the case of the House of Delegates. In our case, the Budget dispensation with regard to education, elicited much criticism because of the fact that we were not able to meet all aspects of education, particularly because of our population which moves from one area to another. The older generation remains and gives rise to younger people who have to move to new areas. Capital investment is absolutely necessary and therefore we found ourselves in difficult circumstances to meet the situation with the amount which had been allocated to us. We had therefore, as the old saying goes, to rob Peter to pay Paul in order to meet the situation and seriously cut down on other aspects of education.

There again I must mention the criticism levelled against us by the teachers’ association. No matter what the hon the Minister of Education does, the teachers’ association will criticise him. For some time we have been at loggerheads—if I may use that word—trying to convince the members of the teachers’ association that theirs is a consultative body and that they must not withdraw from consultative committees. However, they misunderstand us. I have also explained to them that if they pull out of consultative bodies there is no purpose in their being recognised by the hon the Minister. There they also misunderstood me.

Coming to another matter, in an earlier debate I said that South Africa is virtually sitting on a time bomb. If it should explode, it will take years for the country to recover, if at all. I then referred to the unemployment problem which is escalating by the day, especially among our Black people. I also said that if educated and qualified personnel were not adequately accommodated in job situations, they would be drawn in by opposite camps. These are undesirable camps because they are in the ranks of the radicals. The socio-economic evils arising from such a situation could be phenomenal and the result would be that it would create dangerous situations if not tackled with purpose and resolve.

Our ideal is a non-racial society and if our ideal is based on non-racial education we must support all measures which come before this House towards achieving that goal. South Africa is endowed with enough resources and the tapping of these resources depends on our ability to diversify our manpower resources. All training facilities such as technical and academic facilities should be upgraded if the economy of the country has to be given the required growth. To curb the tendency of driving away educated people requires a more enlightened economic policy. Although the potential among Blacks is being tapped, one may ask if enough is being done to make them assets of our country. The answer might be that a great deal is being done, but a deliberate and concentrated policy of training technicians in the different fields has to be formulated and adequate funds provided. A lot depends on how much the country can spend.

As far as peace initiatives are concerned, I have already mentioned the good work that our genial Minister of Foreign Affairs is doing and I did compliment him. I want to say that no matter what measures he takes the opposition will always criticise but if it is constructive criticism, it will be appreciated. We are all behind him. We know that our country will be in a crisis situation if the South West Africa/Namibia situation is not resolved peacefully. We certainly all hope that it will be resolved peacefully. Peace at all costs is a solution but peace can only be achieved if man begins to respect man, irrespective of his political persuasion or the colour of his skin. If we want to live happily and peacefully in this beautiful land of ours the many resources we have must be tapped and we must be able to accommodate all who are committed to non-violence. With this kind of proven attitude sanctions could be a forgotten word and the economic growth of the country can and will gather momentum.

Visible political changes, as were seen earlier in the year, must be hastened. If that momentum could be carried further South Africa would be a better place to live in. The Government indicated this earlier through its moves and the need is there. The quicker this is done, the better for all of us. Unless visible changes come about, with a concomitant improvement in the status of the people of South Africa, we can expect harsher measures from the international community. This will further damage our economy, unemployment will increase and instability will be promoted. This will not be to our satisfaction but to the satisfaction of our enemies and this we want to avoid.

No South African who has the interests of South Africa at heart, can afford to turn back the clock and reintroduce hurtful measures. There must, therefore, be a determined elimination of discriminatory measures as fast as possible. In the long run the price of peace may be more costly but no price can be placed on human resources. The price of peace can never be too high.

Debate interrupted.

Mr Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of this Joint Sitting to present matters of urgent public importance to hon members.

In view of the latest events on the northern border of South West Africa I consider it essential first to deal briefly with this urgent subject.

On behalf of myself and the South African Government I want to convey our sincere sympathy to the families and the next of kin of members of the Security Forces who died or who were injured in the fighting. I am convinced that I am also expressing the sincere feelings of hon members on all sides of this meeting.

As regards the Government’s standpoint in respect of the South West Africa issue, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I have spelt it out repeatedly and in the minutest detail in Parliament and in public.

I want to refer in particular to a comprehensive statement in this connection which I made in this Chamber on 24 August 1988, during the short session of Parliament.

†As regards the present conflict in the northern part of South West Africa, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has also made the South African Government’s reaction clear to the world and to the United Nations.

There can be no doubt that Swapo is in default. The facts are that Swapo personnel, heavily armed with AK-47 rifles as well as with mortars, RPG-7s and even Sam-7 missiles, have since 31 March 1989 crossed the South West African border from the Angolan side, in groups ranging between thirty and one hundred.

At first Mr Sam Nujoma alleged that this was a figment of the imagination and he categorically denied that Swapo had crossed the border. Subsequently he endeavoured to explain the situation by alleging that Swapo was merely regrouping in a peaceful manner inside Namibia and were the victims of persecution and oppression.

I want to state here today that Swapo has no military bases or camps inside Namibia. I am not aware of a single person who can contradict this fact.

It is quite clear now what Swapo’s plans were. Fearing to enter into a democratic procedure and to campaign in a democratic manner, Swapo must have decided to project itself as a forceful intimidatory organisation. Its plan backfired. Swapo miscalculated.

They thought that while the South African forces would be confined to base they could infiltrate into South West Africa with heavy arms and without resistance, believing that Untag would either not be able to detect their infiltration or, if they were discovered, would not lift a finger to stop them.

The leadership of Swapo knows that Swapo is under an obligation to retire to north of the 16th parallel in Angola. They know that it was illegal to enter Namibia in the manner in which they did.

The British Prime Minister, Mrs Margaret Thatcher, quite correctly summarised this important subject as follows in the House of Commons on 4 April 1989:

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has consistently urged the five permanent members of the Security Council, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the Security Council to acknowledge that Swapo has violated its obligations in terms of the applicable agreements.

Of course we are concerned about the unnecessary killings that have taken place during the past four days. The leadership of Swapo will have to account for the carnage. They will have to explain to the people of South West Africa why they flouted the authority of the Security Council of the United Nations.

In conclusion, the process for the independence of South West Africa cannot be successfully completed if any one party is allowed to violate its commitments. South Africa has scrupulously adhered to its commitments. South Africa expects no more and no less from all the other parties, including Swapo.

If any one party is now allowed to violate its obligations, the whole process for the independence of South West Africa would disintegrate. I can only hope that Swapo will be brought to its senses.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday made an appeal to the Secretary-General and all member governments of the United Nations to join with us in calling upon Swapo to cease its incursions, to lay down their arms and to accept safe conduct back to the points north of the 16th parallel in Angola.

I can inform hon members that, at the request of South Africa, an urgent meeting of the Joint Commission, established in terms of the Brazzaville Protocol to oversee the implementation of the Trilateral Agreement, will take place in South West Africa/Namibia within the next few days. South Africa, Angola and Cuba, the members of the Commission, and the Soviet Union and the United States, as observers, will participate in the meeting.

I trust that the Commission will be able to find a peaceful solution to the very serious situation which has arisen.

*This is the first matter I want to present to hon members. The second matter to which I want to refer concerns a possible delimitation and general election.

In recent months there has been much speculation about the expiration of the life of the present Parliament, and therefore inevitably about a possible general election.

It was my standpoint that a delimitation of electoral divisions for all three Houses of Parliament should first take place in an orderly way, and that a general election should only then take place on the new basis. Seen from various points of view this would have been the best basis on which a general election ought to have been held.

Section 48 of the Constitution, for example, makes provision for the appointment of a delimitation commission at intervals of not less than five and not more than ten years. However, it has become apparent after investigation that for technical reasons it would now be extremely difficult to synchronise the necessary delimitation for all three Houses of Parliament with an election date which would more or less coincide with the term of Parliament.

The House of Assembly held elections in 1981 and in 1987 on the basis of the delimitation of electoral divisions that had been completed on 3 October 1980. For the House of Assembly, therefore, it was possible for another delimitation to take place as from 1985. The first elections for the Houses of Representatives and Delegates were held on 22 and 28 August 1984, respectively. These followed the delimitation of electoral divisions, which was completed on 11 June 1984.

In respect of these two Houses a delimitation of electoral divisions can only take place later this year. Consequently it has been decided not to cause a delimitation of electoral divisions to take place before the next general election.

†This inevitably brings us to a second alternative. If a delimitation of constituencies is not possible now consideration should be given to the provisions of the Constitution Act concerning the lifetime of Parliament and, consequently, also the tenure of office of the State President which is directly linked to the life of Parliament. The first session of the present Parliament commenced on 4 September 1984 and in terms of section 39(1) of the Constitution Act its term expires after five years on 5 September 1989.

The State President holds office during the lifetime of the Parliament from which the electoral college that elected him, was constituted. Against this background I will proceed to the best of my ability, and in proper consultation, to fulfil the obligations entrusted to me by the Constitution.

*There can now be no other conclusion but that a general election on the existing delimitation must take place approximately by the end of the lifetime of the present Parliament.

Consequently I shall proceed to take the necessary steps to dissolve Parliament on a suitable date towards the end of May, 1989, and subsequently prepare the proclamations with a view to a general election within the framework of the statutory requirements.

At present, too, there are vacancies in three electoral divisions of the House of Assembly, and one electoral division of the House of Representatives. The decision to dissolve Parliament towards the end of May 1989 entails that the statutory obligation in regard to the promulgation of by-elections falls away in view of the dissolution of Parliament on a date before such elections would have had to take place.

In any event, it is in my opinion an unnecessary waste of energy and effort for the country as well as political parties to hold by-elections shortly before Parliament has to dissolve in any case owing to effluxion of time.

According to section 9 (1) (b) of the Constitution Act the State President continues to occupy his office after a general election until a new State President is elected after the commencement of the first session of the newly-constituted Parliament and has acceded to office.

The serving State President therefore relinquishes his official duties when the new State President accedes to office. Consequently it will therefore have to be ensured that arrangement are made for the constitution of an electoral college to elect a new State President after the election of the new Parliament.

After a new State President has been elected, the further step will also have to be taken of inaugurating him in terms of section 11 (2) of the Constitution Act at a formal function at which the Seal of the Republic will handed over to him by the retiring State President. That is the orderly and constitutional way.

I am grateful that so many positive influences have shaped South Africa over a period of centuries since 6 April 1652 into the regional power we have become today in the interests of Southern Africa and our entire continent.

We can be of great value to our own country and to our neighbouring countries if we hold firmly to civilised values, renewal and development. The future will then be full of promise for our country and all its communities.

I hope these announcements will help hon members to prepare their future plans better.

The Joint Sitting rose at 14h36.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.