Mr Speaker, I made a request earlier this year, and I want to repeat it, that we separate the debates on finance and politics. Since the hon the State President by implication announced a drawn-out election campaign of six months—I am sure we are the country that is fondest of elections—that and the events in South West Africa have become the main themes of this debate.

With regard to elections, I of course prefer the English system in which the election is disposed of within six weeks. Elect and govern. I see nothing wrong with such a debate, but could we not make a special debate of it?

I have often wondered whether we do not give too little attention to the financial matters in this country. [Interjections.] Is this scenario not partly the reason the private sector calls us the “talking house” and does not believe in our bona fides?

There is something that bothers me. Yesterday highly paid officials, competent and busy officials, sat on my right-hand side and had to listen to a debate about South West and how the war there should be won, whereas they are not able to do anything about it. They are capable of giving attention to the Republic of South Africa’s deficit before borrowing, however. Has the time not come for us to adapt the system productively for that purpose?

Numerous speakers advocated the restriction and curtailment of Government spending. I want to make it very clear today that if we want to attempt to do that in future, we shall have to begin in this House. We shall have to pay attention to certain ideas. We shall have to consider perhaps reducing the number of members of Parliament. I think we can give those that remain a better infrastructure. We can also reduce the number of Ministers and Deputy Ministers. [Interjections.] The acclamation I am receiving from certain hon Deputy Ministers encourages me to think that something along those lines may take place.

Join our new party!

Join the new party? I would do it with great pleasure if that hon member would merely reply to one question for me. Who is going to determine their economic policy? Is it going to be the hon member for Yeoville, or Prof Sampie Terreblanche? If I can gain clarity on that point, I shall consider the situation.

The amount of paperwork must also be reduced. These are things that are killing this country of ours.

It is a privilege for me to be able to take part in this debate.

†From the outset I would like to thank and pay tribute to all the members of the Joint Committee on Finance, who have so ably and willingly assisted me over the past year and in our consideration of the recent Budget, with which we have been struggling for the past few days. I want to pay special tribute to my deputy chairman, to the chairmen of the committees of the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives, and to all the members of the committee. They all contributed wisely, positively and effectively.

At this stage I would like to refer hon members, and specifically the hon the Minister, to our report. First of all I would like to say that we appreciate the fact that the Directors-General, the hon the Minister of Finance, the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance and the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs volunteered to give evidence. Secondly, I want to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to point 5.5 where we express our concern about the accounting sections of the various departments. We note with concern that there are very few bursary candidates and very few people able to fill the positions. Thirdly, in points 5.6 and 5.7 we referred to the vacancies in the Police Department and to the question of military pensions. These are very important questions and it would be kind of the hon the Minister to give us his answers on that.

In point 5.9 the committee asks for an investigation into the procedures employed in the property transactions of the State, with particular reference to the leasing of premises in Port Elizabeth and Pretoria.

Evidence was led before the committee that for instance in Port Elizabeth, of the last 22 leases signed, 15 went to one particular body. Not that it means anything, but I think it is worthwhile to have the method concerned investigated to see whether those particular procedures should not be updated.

We then go over to paragraph 5.17 where the committee has also expressed its concern about the situation of the consumer. I think that as far as this Government in concerned, that is something we have always attended to, but I think we must take that into consideration.

Paragraph 5.18 states that:

Paragraph 5.19 states that:

I think those matters must receive the hon the Minister’s concern and it would be good if he gave us his opinion on them.

Lastly, there is the question of pensions for widows of deceased Government pensioners. I think that is something on which the hon the Minister can give us an answer—especially seen in the light of the willingness of public servants to pay the extra contributions.

Lastly, I would like to pay tribute to and thank the secretariat of Parliament who dealt with this.

*I should like to place it on record that the hon the Minister, all his departments as well as the other departments that co-operated with him, made positive economic growth throughout the past year possible for the fourth successive year, despite restrictions, droughts, floods, sanctions and boycotts. This is an unequalled achievement, when one keeps in mind the problems the hon the Minister had to contend with. I think the hon the Minister succeeded phenomenally in introducing one of the best budgets, if not the best budget he has ever introduced, this year. I think he amazed friend and foe with the success with which he dealt with this Budget. I myself talked about a “blood, sweat and tears” budget beforehand.

When one looks at the integral Budget to see what it really contains, one comes to the conclusion that numerous new good facets, structural changes and the handling of longer-term structural implications have been introduced in this Budget, and one experiences a total change from the normal Budget that we had in the past. One realises that this Budget can be regarded as a new development and thought process in the budgeting formula of South African financial history. I want to repeat that this is a new development and thought process in the budgeting formula, and I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on that.

With regard to the Budget itself, it is impossible to refer to all the points, but I should like to welcome the question of the tax assessment with regard to working women. I think this is a new facet which can reap great dividends in future.

†I think that as far as the taxation of the individual, companies and, thirdly, tax in general is concerned, this will have to be attended to if we want a higher growth rate in this country. With this, I think, all of us will agree. It is absolutely necessary in this country.

If we look, however, on the positive side, we must note with thanks that from 1977 to 1988 expenditure on defence decreased to 15% from 18%. I must also welcome the fact that more money is being spent on social services. More money is also being spent on the development of the infrastructure of capital goods in this country.

I would like to say that while our hon Minister has so ably succeeded in delivering a fantastically successful Budget Speech, he must proceed with that which he has already started with. I want to suggest the following few ideas.

*In the first place I should like to recommend that the hon the Minister take the public and the private sector increasingly into his confidence, and openly shares his plans, but also his problems and needs, with them so that they can understand and appreciate his actions, and so that mutual confidence can develop. Secondly, the hon the Minister and the Government must act frankly as far as possible and conceal as little as possible. The English word is “openness”. Thirdly, the hon the Minister must co-operate with the private sector as far as possible, and take them with him on the course of privatisation and deregulation. He must make all the inhabitants of the Republic shareholders in his actions and decisions.

Fourthly the new tax structures recommended by Margo, which are acceptable, must be introduced, provided that this will grant certainty with a view to long-term planning so as to promote economy as well as long-term planning in the case of businesses, and so that paperwork can be cut out in that our tax system is being made simple and intelligible.

In the fifth place, one should be able to expect prompt and unequivocal Ministerial decisions. I think we have over-emphasised the committee system too much. It can only be advantageous to temper this a little and to place individual Ministerial decisions on the foreground to a greater extent. In English they say: “The ability to govern is becoming more and more important.”

In the sixth place one must guard against too high interest rates. That is something that can bankrupt a population, but it can also make one’s population crooked. We must never permit that to happen again. I want to appeal that Government expenditure be reduced, that we get our priorities in order, that the number of officials be reduced and that those who remain receive better salaries. I want to request the reduction and elimination of restrictions, unnecessary legislation, ordinances and regulations, especially on the third tier.

I agree with the hon member for Yeoville. Free capitalism is not always a pretty sight. We must colour it in such a way that at least it is better than communism, but more important, in such a way that it will give each inhabitant of this country the hope that at least tomorrow will be better than yesterday.

In the eighth place capital must be provided where development is essential, especially with regard to small business development. One must economise on unnecessary capital expenditure and existing capital structures must be used more intensively. We know that there are numerous capital structures, in schools and State departments, for example, where capital is not used 100% intensively. At this stage we can no longer afford that.

In the ninth place everyone in this country must be given an equal opportunity, irrespective of race or colour, to obtain a total and equal share in the economic prosperity.

Evidence was given before the joint committee that congratulations had poured in, not only internally, but also from abroad. I associate myself with that. Consequently I support this Budget and tell those who criticise it to do so positively, to provide alternatives if they want to form an alternative government, and to tell the hon the Minister where he is wrong.

Mr Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak after the hon the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance. I have served on the committee for five years now and I can say that the importance of this committee can never be underestimated.

The previous speaker said that politics and the Budget must be separated from one another. Unfortunately I cannot agree with the hon member on this and it is a pity that he and I do not feel the same about this.

To get back to this matter I want to say that in South Africa one cannot separate politics from finance because this stands on two legs. In the first place one must look at the historic background which gave rise to the poor economy of the country, and one must review the entire financial and monetary policy of South Africa. Unfortunately one cannot separate these two things.

What gave rise to our having such poor growth rates during the past few years? This is the direct consequence of disinvestment. One asks oneself what the reason is for countries withdrawing their big companies and banks from South Africa. Unfortunately this is the consequence of one word only, which has made us the polecat of the world, namely apartheid.

The whole problem concerns South Africa’s domestic policy. That is why disinvestment is taking place; that is why South Africa is in this position today. This in spite of what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said yesterday—and I welcome it—namely that there may be a light at the end of the tunnel; that there may be less pressure on the country.

However, I ask myself whether the hon the Minister told the Iron Lady, Mrs Margaret Thatcher, that there was still apartheid in South Africa, that there were still problems in the country, that 80% of South Africans could not participate in an election. Did the hon the Minister tell her that his colleagues in Parliament still could not use all the facilities in the country? Unfortunately he did not say that.

That is what the problem is all about; that is what the country’s economy is all about. Our internal policy must be set straight. The safaris through Africa and the South West Africa problem are bonuses. This indicates that we have Ministers of calibre who can negotiate and solve these problems. We must not only go outside. We must first go inside and solve our domestic problems. We must start inside the country. There is another election on the way. I want to ask the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs whether he is going to make this election a South West election.

The Budget is definitely not an election budget. The hon the Minister of Finance said so himself. I can tell him that I feel sorry for him in this election, particularly with this Budget, because this Budget is definitely not for the general middle stream—the middle stream of people between the ages of 25 and 45, the young man and young woman who have just started out in life.

Let us see what this budget says. This Budget is prejudicial to the middle class—that strong middle class. What does this Budget entail? This budget has increased GST by 1%, tax on beer by 1 cent per litre/pint, tax on liquor by 1 cent per tot, tax on a packet of 20 cigarettes by 2 cents, tax on tobacco by 10 cents per kilogram. As regards cold drinks I want to draw the attention of hon members to the fact that cold drink is the product which is drunk by poor people—elderly people and people who do not drink liquor.

It is a mixer.

It may be a mixer. [Interjections.] I am not suggesting today that the tax on liquor should be abolished.

Let us take a look at the bread subsidy. Is the hon the Minister going to tell the voters of Roodepoort that the bread price is going to go up by at least 35% to 40% in October? Is the hon the Minister going to tell the ordinary voters of Roodepoort that? I know the voters of Roodepoort fairly well because I grew up in that area. The hon the Minister represents a middle class constituency. Is the hon the Minister going to tell the voters that he is going to take R150 million from John Citizen. I sympathise with the hon the Minister as regards the forthcoming election and this Budget. I do not think the hon the Minister planned this. I just hope the hon the Minister is not going to use that R1 billion to hand out favours, because we cannot afford to let the economy run riot again.

I agree with the hon the Minister that the economy must be cooled down. Some economists say that the economy has been cooled down sufficiently, whereas others say that just after October there will possibly be a few more drastic steps to cool the economy down further. It is a fact that the economy will have to be cooled down.

There are two aspects I should like to refer to. These concern the ordinary voter. The Budget makes reasonable provision for the low income group and for the aged, but provision is not made in the Budget for the middle group in general. I am thinking of mortgage bonds for example. My appeal to the hon the Minister is that we look into this problem, because unfortunately the interest on mortgage bonds is strangling the man in the street. [Interjections.] We will have to see to it that interest rates do not go higher than 18%. We will have to consider the possibility of the State subsidising the interest. We will also have to consider tax relief on interest rates. A mortgage bond at 18% is already a lot for young people with a joint monthly income of R2 000.

The fact of the matter is that the man in the street is already being taxed enough and to pay GST of 1% on a mortgage bond of more than R60 000, is shocking if one takes into account that GST, which is an amount of at least R400 on 50% of the mortgage loan, must be added. Today I am appealing to the hon the Minister to look at the interest rates on mortgage bonds, because they are strangling the man in the street.

I also want the hon the Minister to investigate the GST paid in Black residential areas. There have always been problems with this. I think the hon the Minister must make all exempted goods taxable again and reduce GST to 9%. The people for whom these exempted goods are intended—the poor man, the man living in the Black residential area, the man who buys at the corner cafe—do not always benefit fairly from this. It is a fact—and I am saying this with all due respect to the small business man—that in the Black residential areas there is no proper structure in terms of which GST is collected, in spite of the fact that there is a limit of R50 000 which must be paid to the wholesalers.

Let us look at this limit. I am asking the hon the Minister to consider the possibility of pushing this limit up to R120 000 per annum. In that case we can make sure that the small businessman—the man with the comer cafe—pays his tax at the wholesaler. The fact is that they neglect to pay tax. If I can put it frankly: They rob John Citizen.

On the amount of R12 000 per annum more retailers will pay tax to the wholesaler. Wholesalers usually have a sufficiently large infrastructure to be able to handle this. They have sufficient funds to organise their bookkeeping system in such a way that it will not entail much more work for them. I raised this matter in the joint committee and I can give the hon the Minister the insurance that this was discussed and that there are many businessmen who agree with me.

One request was that it should be assessed freely how these people should pay. I would like it to be said specifically that the amount is R120 000 per year and that is that, because then we can be sure that the Black man or middle man will get all those monetary benefits, so that there will no longer be such swindling.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister laid great stress on history which would judge his fiscal policy. We heard similar statements last year and the year before but it was simply called something else then.

The truth is that history has already passed its judgment to a great extent. In this regard we need only look at the decline in the standard of living, the acceleration of the inflation rate and the weakening of the value of the rand. We can further look at the chaotic state of affairs of Government finance in South Africa.

Nobody believes in the Budget. The markets tell us this because we see how interest rates are soaring. The reason for this is that nobody believes that the hon the Minister will stay within the limits of his budgeted expenditure. The Government’s record in this regard inspires no confidence. Nobody, neither Little Red Riding Hood nor the hon the Minister, believes in his Budget any longer because the assurance is given Budget after Budget that Government expenditure will be kept under control but at the end of the year one sees that there have been huge overruns on the Budget as regards Government expenditure.

The hon the Minister fears a repetition of this because he is budgeting R1 billion now for unforeseen expenditure. The hon the Minister knows that his budget cannot be believed. One could just as well try to train a donkey in the full knowledge that it would never win the July. The hon the Minister’s colleagues, except for the hon the Minister of Agriculture, are particularly fast horses when it comes to spending, with the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry way ahead. Nobody believes the hon the Minister any more, with the result that the Budget has become irrelevant and the fiscal policy package seems instead to indicate a return to crisis management to control the financial affairs of the country. As a result of the unreliability and the lack of credibility of the Budget, it is difficult for the private sector to do its own planning objectively. The hon the Minister speaks about an economic strategy of which he alone knows.

There is also the Economic Development Plan which is like a ghost; one hears about it but one never sees it. Where is this long-promised EDP? I shall tell hon members that the hon the Minister does not want to disclose it because he knows that, as soon as he does so, he will call forth judgment upon himself on discipline in the economy. I assume the EDP must be a scientific and well-considered document which, if it were to be published, would provide irrefutable proof that the economic objectives of the NP, as they are now being presented to the electorate, are not practicable. The EDP will probably not hold out a growth rate of 2,5% or 3%; it will have to be more in the order of 5%. To achieve a growth rate of this nature, money will have to be spent much more productively. The electorate will then see—I am saying this as a result of what the hon the Deputy Minister said yesterday—that the large-scale redistribution of income, as it is taking place under NP Government at present, is at their own expense in that they are paying the price in the form of higher taxes and inflation.

The CP advocates orderly distribution on condition that what is distributed is also increased. Surely we know that the economic cake under the NP policy, as they are applying it now, can never become larger in this country. Everyone is just becoming poorer. As long as the Budget is no longer the barometer of fiscal policy objectives in the country and is measured against the norm of lack of credibility, everyone is impoverished. Surely we know that growth which is too rapid in current Government expenditure gives rise to lower productivity. The consequence is then a lower growth rate with higher inflation. This simply places the balance of payments under pressure followed by a decline in the rate of exchange which causes a lower tax base with consequently higher tax. Then we start the vicious circle all over again.

This Budget is specifically such that it taxes productivity and at the same time does not do enough in the short term to curb consumption. This Government is therefore creating a situation and then hiding behind it. The NP Government took over a rich country. Now they have made it poorer and they are continuing to do so. For the past decade in particular they have been introducing impoverishment to voters and now they are holding out impoverishment. Voters can just no longer keep up.

A decline in Government expenditure is of national importance. That is a condition for the relief of heavy taxation which is burdening South Africans at present. Cutting back on Government expenditure should be one of the most important instruments to place the South Africa economy on the road to rapid growth, more job opportunities and increasing prosperity again.

The hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister are boasting a great deal about the high growth rate of 3,2% which was achieved last year. The reason for this is obviously that the economy was artificially inflated by the rise in Government expenditure and the sharp increase in the money supply. The same affairs which are now being boasted about will create many problems in the days ahead. The Government has therefore destabilised the economy instead and that is nothing to be proud of.

There is also a great deal of boasting about the growth of 4,5% in the real gross national product. This, however, was caused again by external factors such as terms of trade. How long can this continue? That is why I say that, in spite of sharply rising taxes, the hon the Minister has made almost no dent in the shortfall in absolute terms. This merely indicates how high expenditure has soared and how great the problem already is. Nowadays there is always a shortfall with the result that the people are taxed excessively.

Just look at what the President’s Council’s report on productivity has to say about this. The fact is that it hampers the growth rate and can be a contributory cause of a loss of skilled workers because they leave the country for this reason, or that saving will be made practically impossible.

Any deficit before borrowing still has to be financed. If any participant in any economic system has a shortfall, it is financed by borrowing from other participants who have surpluses. This applies to the Government too. If the Government cannot finance its deficit before borrowing from overseas or by the creation of money, it is logical that it will have to be done from savings.

In this respect we need only look at the relations between the deficit before borrowing and the country’s saving statistics, whether gross or net. In both cases it is clear that the Government’s call on the country’s scarce saving funds has risen sharply over the past few years and that by means of higher taxes. This sharp increase in taxation must have had an adverse effect on productivity and saving—both important building blocks toward greater prosperity.

The Committee for Economic Affairs of the President’s Council had the following to say inter alia on the matter in its Report on a Strategy and Action Plan to Improve Productivity in the RSA, which was published on 13 March this year:

I say therefore that the entire dissaving argument is based on the hon the Minister’s deficit before borrowing. The hon the Minister tries to keep the deficit as low as possible every year and that is as it should be. He tries to ensure that it does not exceed 3% of the GDP.

As he said, the norm was set by the IMF but that was three years ago after all. What is a realistic norm now? I would say that at this stage a realistic target would be 2% of the GDP. What did the hon the Minister do, however? He tried every trick in the book but did not even succeed in bringing the shortfall down to 4% of the GDP.

Just think of the unexpected benefits which assisted him this year. In the first place there was the phasing out of the debtors’ allowance. In the second case there was the minimum company tax and, thirdly, inflation which became his ally as a result of fiscal drag. Last year he did not budget for the fuel levy and other income from surcharges.

Beside fiscal drag caused by inflation, the hon the Minister does not retain the advantage of this additional income. Consequently it is predictable and it may be expected that the shortfall can be higher rather than lower this year. The shortfall has to be financed, however; money does not fall like manna from above. The Government has to borrow the money. Where does it borrow it? From those in the country who have saved—therefore from the pool of net savings funds. I think the Government will lay claim to approximately 82% of this pool this year. Seen in this light, the Government is the greatest dissaver in the economy.

It must be remembered that capital formation can only take place if savings funds are activated to create productive assets. These are the type of assets which should serve as a norm for the prosperity of a country. Instead of helping to build up the country, the NP Government is merely eroding it by its sustained policy of power-sharing and dissaving. Just as the country is accused of destabilisation in Southern Africa, the NP Government should be accused of destabilisation of the economy.

Dissaving can never be condoned. At the end of the day it just leads to impoverishment. It is the inevitable result of the NP’s policy of powersharing. [Interjections.] In the seventies savings ran to R10 and R12 in every R100. What is it today? It is approximately R2, not even a round R2, in every R100. One of the great NP backscratchers, Assocom, made the following comment on the current Budget in its press report:

Personal income tax must be decreased in order to promote growth.

My time is almost up but I put forward the lack of credibility of the Budget and the fact that saving and productivity have not been addressed by the hon the Minister in his Budget as the disadvantage of this Budget. [Interjections ] I think the hon the Minister will have to give consideration, if he has not already done so, to having a report drawn up on Government expenditure, as in the case of the Margo Commission which published a report on Government revenue, so that another look can be taken at the quality of Government expenditure.

Mr Speaker, the previous speaker accused the hon the Minister of Finance of destabilising the economy of the country. He may do well to look at the destabilising effects his party’s policy has had on the people of Boksburg and Kraaifontein. He might also look at the effect his party’s policy will have on the economy of the country if they put their rigid separatist policy into effect. I think that that will bring about the ruination of the country, let alone the destabilisation of the economy of the country. They are attempting the impossible in that they want to unscramble the scrambled egg of South Africa. No amount of money will be able to put their policy of separatism into effect. Their attempt to turn back the clock a few decades will not succeed.

I, too, would like to say that it was heartening to have had the hon the State President in this Chamber yesterday and we are grateful that his health has improved to the extent that he was able to address us and also to remain with us for most of the afternoon. At this time, those of us who only recently became participants in this institution of Parliament, place on record that it was largely due to the efforts of the hon the State President that we were allowed to participate here in Parliament, even though it was at the expense of alienating some of his own people. History will judge whether this invitation to participate and our acceptance thereof was correct or not.

I can say from a personal point of view and on reflection on the events of the past four-and-a-half years, that the decision to participate was correct. I believe that we have in our own small way made a significant contribution to the dismantling of discriminatory measures and that our participation has also paved the way for future participation by those members of the Black community who are unfortunately not present here with us at this moment.

I too welcome the announcement that the general election will be held later in the year. The House of Delegates in particular will benefit tremendously when new members take their seats after the general election. Those members of the community who up to now have been vociferous armchair critics, now have the opportunity to offer themselves in the service of the country through the institution of Parliament. I believe this is the only vehicle which will bring about peaceful and evolutionary change to the present flawed legislative and administrative structures of our country.

I am of the opinion that, given the experience we have had over the past four-and-a-half years, those of us who will be returned to office will no doubt be able to cope much better and serve our country even more competently.

I am mindful of the fact that certain circumstances and the control by certain selfish individuals did not make for maximum utilisation of the opportunities available to us over the past four-and-a-half years for the upliftment of the community we serve. I believe that we could have achieved much more but the experience of the past has been such that the mistakes which were made—if there were mistakes—will not be repeated.

I am satisfied that no good purpose will be served in apportioning blame, except to say that we could have achieved more had there been a measure of sharing of responsibility, instituting team work and using the resources we had to the maximum benefit of the House of Delegates, Parliament as a whole, the community at large and the country, South Africa.

I want to add my quota of appreciation to our hon Minster of Foreign Affairs for his handling of the crisis in Namibia. When the peace accord was announced all right-thinking South Africans rejoiced for at long last peace appeared on the horizon. It is with regret that we learn of the continuing war that is raging in Ovamboland.

It must be borne in mind that the blood that is being spilt in far-off South West Africa is not only White blood. It is the blood of all the peoples of South Africa, and I believe that South Africa has paid a high price in the loss of lives and that we can ill-afford any further escalation of violence. I repeat that we can ill-afford the escalation of violence from whichever quarter it emanates, and in this regard I heartily welcome the recent exchange of letters between Mr Nelson Mandela and Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi wherein violence at a level other than in Ovambo was discussed. Those of us who come from Natal and are familiar with the battleground where this violence rages, welcome all initiatives which will lead to a cessation of the conflict which is prevalent in Natal at the moment.

I would now like to appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance not to allow the price of bread to be raised and to implement his unwritten promise to institute a coupon system or some such method whereby the pensioners and the needy will be able to purchase bread and staple foods, like mealie meal, without the future system of value added tax being levied on such staple foods.

I support him in his views when he resists subsidization of staple foods across the board for both the haves and have-nots of our country.

My concern stems from the fact that in 1972 a loaf of bread cost 9 cents. However, now it costs 69 cents. Mealie meal was sold at 42 cents for a 2,5 kg pack. It now costs R1,83. Potatoes were selling at 18 cents a kg. Now they sell at 96 cents a kg. Milk which has now become a luxury was sold at 14,2 cents. It is being sold now at R1,16 a litre.

It is no small wonder that—in this country of contrast—while we export food there are still thousands of children here who unfortunately die from malnutrition. Therefore I address this appeal to the hon the Minister that he does everything in his power to see to it that staple food will not be allowed to increase in price, that tax will not be levied on the staple foods of the people and that the cost of food be so prohibitive that the suffering increases in our country.

I believe that the hon the Minister of Finance ought to have made particular mention during his Budget Speech of the housing problems we have in this country. He spoke about many aspects of the country’s problems. However, he did not particularise the tremendous shortage of housing that prevails in the country. This is an area which we have to address very seriously. Although the committee of inquiry on the norms that will prevail for expenditure for housing is presently doing its work I believe that much more money must in future be voted for housing than it presently being done.

Of course the other area of concern is the high price of petrol and the levies that are being increased which will add to the sum total of the inflation rate which is spiralling to an extent that it will have an effect on all aspects of living in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I would like to say to the hon Deputy Minister that we appreciate the positive participation of the House of Delegates. This side of the House, I am sure, has no hesitation in proceeding with the process of broadening democracy in South Africa. Lastly, I would like to say to the hon the Deputy Minister that we appreciate the support in regard to the efforts of the hon Minister of Foreign Affairs of this Government in SWA.

*For that reason I should like to come back to the problem in connection with South West Africa. There is serious concern in the hearts of all well-intentioned South Africans regarding the developments in South West Africa/Namibia during the past week. The constant attempts—and this is what I find so unfortunate—by the hon the Leader of the CP to exploit this extremely sensitive, delicate and serious situation for short term party political gain borders on the absurd. [Interjections.] The reaction of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, as reported on television, cannot be described as anything but a declaration of war on the part of the CP. Yet again this is absolute proof that the hon the Leader of the CP and his party cannot be trusted with the interests and the future of South Africa, particularly not in times of crisis, like those in South West Africa/ Namibia at the moment.

The impression the hon the Leader created yesterday was one which indicated that he was getting cold feet about this extremely aggressive attitude he had adopted. He told us that all he was actually requesting was that the Defence Force should be allowed to ensure order in that country. Surely that is not true. The absolutely irresponsible, ill-considered and impetuous behaviour and reaction of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly demanded the following.

He appeared on television with that declaration of war, with three bankrupt people behind him, two financially bankrupt and one politically bankrupt. He demanded the summary suspension of the implementation of Resolution 435, the immediate expulsion of the Untag forces from South West Africa, the breaking of the Geneva Agreement, the termination of the cease-fire agreement, aggressive action by the SA Defence Force and—ridiculous as this may sound—the resignation of the two hon Ministers. This is in absolute contrast to the extremely responsible behaviour of the South African Government and the great degree of self-control shown by everyone involved in South West Africa.

Action must be taken in South West Africa, but this Government and the SADF took action with the consent of the UN. The CP’s point of departure that South West Africa belongs to South Africa, that South West Africa is actually a colony of South Africa, that we cannot lead South West Africa to independence without any participation by Swapo, is not feasible or practicable. I submit that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly did not consider the consequences of his absurd demands properly. One can say to him, in the words of the proverb: Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. [Interjections.]

It is tragic that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs had to announce in respect of such an extremely sensitive, delicate and serious situation that this hon Leader of the Official Opposition had made no attempt whatsoever to discuss the events in SWA with him or check the facts with him or the hon the Minister of Defence or the relevant authorities.

Without being presumptuous I can say that I have been in Parliament for 12 years now, and for four of those years I was in the opposition. I want to leave a thought with the hon member which he can consider at his leisure. I can remember that on many occasions—the hon member for Kuruman will be able to confirm this—when we were part of the opposition, and not with a few members like the CP, because at that stage the opposition had 48 members—in a situation like this Sir De Villiers Graaff, while he was the leader of the Official Opposition, took the opportunity to liaise with Ministers, and even to go to the Prime Minister when it was a delicate situation in which South Africa could be harmed if we dragged party politics into the matters. Then he came back to the caucus and told the caucus that they should not pursue the matter because he had cleared it up with the Government. He would handle it in a responsible way. The caucus of the erstwhile opposition accepted this. I merely want to tell the hon the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly this for consideration. [Interjections.]

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

Sir, I do not want to take a question from the hon member.

The second point I want to make concerns the following. Surely the implementation of Resolution 435 is taking place in terms of an agreement! An agreement condoned and confirmed internationally by the UN, the Security Council, other Western countries and—very importantly—also countries in Africa. This is an agreement backed up by undertakings by both South Africa and Swapo. Of course one cannot expect an agreement which has been entered into not to be violated in some way or other by one or other of the parties.

I submit that, for the first time since 1946, and after decades of subjective condemnation of South Africa by the world, there are signs of understanding for and recognition of the truth in connection with South West Africa. Britain has given its assessment, as has America, other Western countries, the UN, and this morning I see in the newspaper that even Angola has rapped Swapo over the knuckles for its irresponsible behaviour.

I am not saying that this must be accepted, but the frontline states say that a battalion must be sent—not to help Swapo—to assist the UN to achieve order in South West Africa. I am not saying this because I support those people or believe what they say. All I am saying is that different sounds are coming from Southern African concerning the behaviour of South Africa.

This agreement is the result of years of strategic planning and negotiation to achieve the best possible climate for free and fair elections in South West Africa/Namibia. This is thanks to this Government and the extremely competent behaviour of officials whom I want to mention by name, such as Mr Neil van Heerden, Genl Jannie Geldenhuys and Mr Niel Barnard.

We on this side of the House want to tell the authorities to stick to that agreement, and to do everything in their power to make all parties stick to it, instead of tearing it up and throwing it in the wastepaper basket, as the CP is apparently prepared to do. Today we say unequivocally that we in South Africa do not want to become involved in a conventional war in South West Africa again. [Interjections.] Our people want to see South West Africa/Namibia independent, with the least possible financial burden on South Africa.

The remark by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly that this Government does not care that South West Africa is going the same way as Rhodesia, must be rejected with the absolute contempt it deserves. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition can go and read and study that agreement which was entered into. I submit today that the contents of that agreement are an absolute victory for reason. It is an agreement for a responsible interim government.

What agreement?

I am referring to the Geneva Agreement. It is an agreement which lays a firm foundation for peace, progress and prosperity in Southern Africa, and it is a fair arrangement for just elections. What does the agreement provide?

In the first place the agreement provides that South Africa remains in control through its Administrator-General. In the second place it provides that after the election a two-thirds majority of those elected members must agree to a constitutional dispensation for South West Africa. South West Africa’s police force remains responsible for the maintenance of law and order. What is extremely important is that Swapo is no longer “the sole and authentic representative of the people of Namibia” as was the case in terms of former resolutions. Surely this is a victory for South Africa and for South West Africa. Most important of all it is an agreement which has been confirmed internationally.

We on this side of the House, together with the vast majority of members in this Parliament and the people outside, reject the short-sighted, irresponsible and impetuous standpoint of the CP. We are seeking peace in Southern Africa. We are seeking peace in South Africa. We shall also have this standpoint confirmed by the people outside when we hold an election towards the end of this year.

For that reason we on this side of the House want to take this opportunity to wish the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Government everything of the best, particularly in the discussions which are going to take place in South West Africa this weekend. The seriousness with which this matter is being treated by the Government, by the West, and even by Russia has been proved by the people who are going to discuss this situation with one another this weekend to try to resolve it. South Africa’s Minister of Foreign Affairs is representing our country. The USA is being represented by Dr Chester Crocker and Russia by their Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Anatoly Adamishin. According to newspaper reports the Cubans are being represented by a senior delegation. The seriousness of the matter is such that we on this side of the House—as a matter of fact I believe the whole of Parliament—wishes the Government everything of the best on the road ahead. We reject the standpoint of the CP with the contempt it deserves.

Mr Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak since the introduction of the system of joint sittings. I am glad about the statement the hon the State President made yesterday, because I would really like to have an election. I was ready for an election in October and that is the reason why I am so pleased about it.

I listened carefully to yesterday’s speakers and I thought the great men who made speeches yesterday would make a contribution about our country but there was nothing but mud-slinging, especially from the House of Assembly regarding the CP. I listened to the speakers of the House of Representatives on my left and I think they made a good contribution by telling us how we could bring about peace, stability and progress in our country by paying attention to the rate of inflation and the economic weaknesses in our country.

I have already said there was only mud-slinging from the members of the House of Assembly. I now ask hon members to consider ways and means to save our country so that we can have peace and stability. Apartheid is still alive and well in our country. [Interjections.] It is definitely alive and I am amazed that legislation on group areas still exists on the Statute Book. Hon members on the left of the House said that I supported the legislation on group areas, but that is not true. I shall never support it as long as I live. This abhorrent legislation on separate amenities must go. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must be given an opportunity to make his speech. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

I hang my head in shame when people tell us daily that apartheid is gone and that no more money is being spent on it. This is done daily and apartheid is, moreover, expensive. The hon Chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance hit the nail close to the head—not on the head—but I want to hit the nail on the head. The hon member said there should be fewer Ministers and I fully agree with him. There should be only one House; do away with own affairs. We live in one country. Eliminate own affairs so that we will be able to have one Parliament. I hang my head in shame when I hear people say that apartheid no longer exists. Only last night when I looked at The Argus I saw the heading: “Nurse axed after letter to City Council”. A charge was brought against a Black child who was on a White beach. Surely that is not right. To whom does this country really belong? It does not belong to any of us. It belongs to God. He put us here. This earth was only lent to us. We must love our neighbours. I want to repeat that pride will have no place in heaven; pride will come to a fall. I have regarded apartheid as pride since I was a child. If one is proud one cannot get to heaven. Somebody said I had said that they would go to hell. I did not say that. I want to reprimand them, because they will have to hurry to get to heaven by setting these things straight or else they will not get there.

Order! Apparently the hon member has now arrived at the right address. His time has expired. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Ravensmead is yearning for a new South Africa, and during the course of my speech I shall certainly contribute a few ideas of my own in this respect.

The hon the Minister of Finance and his coworkers are doing excellent work—excellent under the circumstances. The circumstances I am referring to are especially those of a political nature, because without a political solution we shall not obtain foreign capital on a scale that is necessary for the country’s economic growth.

That is why, in the interest of the country’s imperative development, we simply have to find a political solution. That solution must naturally be realistic. It must not be alien to the factual circumstances of our country.

While I am referring to virtually alien solutions, I also want to refer to the conglomeration of contradictions which is trying to become the Democratic Party today. With the inception of this party we are experiencing another astonishing episode in the eventful political history of this country. Let us consider it for a while.

Two of the main actors in this cynical game, the hon member for Randburg and Dr Denis Worrall, gave us an insight into their astounding ability to indulge in boundless political opportunism in 1987 already. Then, as persons and as political creatures completely irreconcilable with one another, they nevertheless, according to the admission of the hon member for Randburg, entered into a loveless, forced union. While they lived together in discontent, they informed the electorate that they were striving for a common vision for a new South Africa in great harmony. Later it became clear that not only were they without vision, but that their political ideals differed so vastly, that they were irreconcilable. When they separated, nothing remained of that unfortunate union except the dirty laundry, which they washed, uncalled for and unashamedly, in the sight of all.

In contrast to the PFP, which humiliated and nearly destroyed itself in an effort to accommodate them in their election campaigns, they were unfeeling and presumptuous to the point where the public representatives of the PFP were unashamedly lured away from them. This rendered the already exhausted PFP powerless, so that Big Money had to take over. A liquidator, in the person of the hon member Dr De Beer, was appointed to begin to settle the bankrupt, deceased estate even before the moment of death. Now these people are together again—all of them—the humiliated PFP, those who were pushed aside, those who were left in the lurch, those who were separated, the angry ones, those who were lured away, the political absconders, the untrustworthy ones, the failures and the extra-parliamentary groups. They are all temporarily together in an attempt to try and bluff the electorate once again.

I can only say that they are underestimating the voters once again, and this time possibly more than ever before. It is these people who want to change South Africa into a non-racial democracy. By the mere fact that they want to do it, they are emphasising the multiracial character of our population structure. If that were not so, surely they need not strive for multiracialism. Surely it would then have been self-evident.

To achieve their goal, they want to transform, remodel and change the shape of the South African community. This is in contrast to us, who want to reform it—which means improve. I warn you today that what they want to do is just as unattainable as the ideal of the classical apartheid ideology. In the same way as the architects of apartheid, they want to change the face of the community by means of social manipulation or social engineering. They want to turn it into something that it is not.

It cannot be done. Social engineering does not work, and it will have the same chance of success here as it had during the Marxist-Leninist attempt at social manipulation in Russia.

Without implying that the soon-to-be-established Democratic Party emulates the aims of Marxism-Leninism in all respects, I cannot but point out that the advocates of that ideology also want to bring about a non-racial democracy in South Africa.

Although the points of departure and strategies of the two parties differ, I believe that the end result will be the same in both cases. In both cases the single Black majority will eventually govern and all groups present in this Parliament today will, as such, be effectively excluded from political decision-making forever.

It is true that they want to protect certain group interests—those which the law commission calls “group values” in its report on human rights, and which include culture, religion and language.

What the law commission refers to as “political group rights”, are being underestimated and virtually ignored. That will not do. The law commission also emphasised the fact that to ignore the rights—and I emphasise the word “rights”—of minority groups, would lead to a never-ending struggle. That is exactly how it will happen.

We want to renounce exclusive exercising of power. We want to share the power, but we do not want to be excluded from our equal participation in decision-making on matters of common interest. We want sovereignty over matters that are exclusively our own, in the same way that other groups must also have such sovereignty. It is an approach which is related to the underlying facts in our country and with the realities of the multiracial segmental divisions among our various race, colour, language and ethnic groups.

I appreciate the fact that there are people who want to try and rid themselves of this reality, because there is such inequality between the segments of our community. People experience these inequalities daily. However unfair it might be, and it is, these inequalities will not disappear by ignoring the realities of our population structure. The inequalities themselves must be addressed. For that reason I identify myself wholeheartedly with the members of the Law Commission when they say:

I want to add that it will have to be done quickly. It is not pleasant or acceptable to be a part of a society in which there still exists so many conspicuous injustices of historical origin. We cannot hide behind history forever. If we do not erase the historical backlogs history, which is made today and written tomorrow, will pronounce a damning judgement over us.

When I express this criticism, I do not pretend that we on this side of the House have all the knowledge in our possession. It is difficult to comprehend the South African situation fully. I believe that each one of us only sees a fraction of the whole and therefore it is essential that South Africans cease their politicking and reach out to one another by means of negotiation.

I recently read an article written by an American, Michael Radu of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia. In it he says:

How true it is! The time for fencing is past. Leaders must now come forward to step into the negotiation arena. There can be no pre-conditions for negotiation, inter alia because none of us have the perfect answer.

The concept of “non-negotiable” is in conflict with the nature of negotiation. According to the HAT “negotiate” means to discuss something in order to come to an agreement. We must be prepared to discuss everything. What are we afraid of then? We do not have to agree to everything. No one loses his own will when he starts negotiating.

This brings me back to the Democratic Party. I am afraid that even before negotiation they had agreed to so much that was left-wing that they decreased their options to such an extent that they do not have any political space in which to move. They are already set in the narrow-mindedness of their own thoughts. They have driven themselves into a corner. They can only do one of two things. They can either come to their senses or they can try to deploy their policy of handing over power and disappear in the process. It does not seem to me as if they will come to their senses; that is why they will just have to disappear.

The minority groups of South Africa, however, are not prepared to disappear with them. Minority groups will not be satisfied with so-called equal voting rights, which will be permanently useless to many of them due to their minority positions. What they want is a state structure within which their vote will not only be equal but also of equal value. There is a vast difference between the two. This is what we must negotiate for: political rights of equal value. It is also the nature of the proposals which the NP wants to place on the negotiating table.

In conclusion I want to say that when one studies the constitutional options and applies them to our situation, you really doubt whether there are any solutions for South Africa’s constitutional problem at all. No obvious solutions exist. What is possible is an arrangement based on reconciliation between well-meaning South Africans who have the will to place the interests of the country above sectional interests. Many such people exist. If they will come forward to negotiate, we shall have a fine future. Such a future is everyone’s right and opportunity. [Interjections.] We must not let it slip through our fingers as a result of our negligence.

Mr Chairman, this could possibly be the last opportunity we have to discuss what is wrong and correct it. I am referring to the large-scale financial losses suffered in our community, especially in that part of the community which is referred to as Black.

†We have in mind the Group Areas Act. I do not want to talk about the Group Areas Act because that must go. I want to talk about the resultant impoverishment of Black property owners and the destruction of their economic base.

I too was a victim of this callous piece of legislation but I was never afforded the salutary democratic right of citizens to be able to challenge this procedure in a court of law.

I had to take what I could get and get out. In fact, the best we could get was R3 600 for a property of 10 000 square feet on which a house—a home—stood in which the principal of the local school lived. It, therefore, had to be a substantial and quite convenient home, with all the modern conveniences. That was what we received—R3 600.

A financial formula was created for us by which we simply had to abide. What it amounted to was that the State claimed pre-emptive right in an area proclaimed for the use of the White group. One had to sell to the now defunct Department of Community Development at a price stipulated by its officials. If one applied to the department to waive its pre-emptive right so that one could sell to an outside purchaser at a profit, one had to hand over 50% of one’s profit to the State. If one sold at a loss the State was prepared to reimburse one to the tune of 80% of the loss—not the total loss. All other expenses—for example the services of a property valuator—had to be borne by the seller.

This was the policy laid down by the State. The result of this and the fact that most victims were simply honest, unsophisticated persons who were not aware of the procedures to be followed, was that they lost out badly. One can even say that they were robbed. Our right to property ownership was removed and made difficult, or well-nigh impossible, to regain.

In the preamble of the constitution of the LP of South Africa we state as our very first aim:

Today I am negotiating.

This is socio-economic discrimination and until it is forcibly removed Blacks will continue to be prevented from fully participating in the economy as rational, welfare maximising consumers and entrepreneurs. Perhaps this is the reason why the full potential of inward industrialisation is not fully utilised in South Africa and I want to ask the hon the Minister to take note of that. In any event, too many Blacks are still excluded from free land ownership. About this it is said by Mr R F Botha, senior economist—South African Federated Chamber of Industries—in his prognosis of the South African economy and I quote:

The policy of the State via this Act removed the necessity spoken about. At the same time it also removed the human creativity that goes with it. Many of our people became sullen morons, completely resigned to their fate. People who had been private property owners were made tenants of state, or quasi-state authority, by the stroke of a pen—from riches to rags in most cases, as it were.

I know of a gentleman, retired at the time of the assault of the notorious “Group” on the property rights of Black people, who had 11 solidly built houses in Salisbury Park, a township now demolished by the State. These houses were built especially for the day when he retired. This was to be his pension!

Often this gentleman, Oom Manie Scheuble to those who knew him well, would relate the struggle he had, the sacrifices he had to make in order to provide this nest-egg for himself. Many is the time that he and his family had to exist on bare necessities, sometimes only on coffee and bread, to make this dream of his a reality. Oom Manie achieved what he had set himself out to do but then came the “Group” and his dream lay shattered at his feet. His dream had turned into a nightmare. Even to this day he talks about the injustice that he has suffered—yes, he is still alive and has every right to be embittered. I feel elated now that I have said this and made a plea on behalf of a broken and downtrodden man.

Needless to say the gentleman never received a pension because of the position in which he found himself. For the 11 homes he was offered a paltry sum of R26 000. This was for the 11 houses and the serviced erven on which they stood. Out of this money the seller was expected to reestablish himself in the new Parkside area in Port Elizabeth. He had to buy an erf and build a new house at least equal to the one in which he had lived.

Of course the money—his capital—was eroded by this project and this left him practically penniless. Because he had the little balance of his purchase price invested and because his wife was a teacher he—even at the age of 70—was refused a pension. This was after the Department of Community Development had gone around buying up this and other properties in the Brown areas at bargain basement prices.

We who were affected by this Act and who preferred to build our own homes were definitely short-changed. If there had been a subsidy of some sort the pinch would not have been so bad financially. If this senior citizen could just have been given some financial assistance the hurt would not have been so deep. After all, he and we had to sacrifice land cheaply which was our own for expensive land forced on us by others. If they want to talk high finance to us this is at the top of the agenda.

Even today the misery and exploitation continues. In Fairview, Port Elizabeth, which has been mentioned as a possible free settlement area, land which is not as yet in White hands is being expropriated by the State.

A typical example is that of erf 304 in Fairview which measures 2 044 square metres, left in the estate of a well-known Port Elizabeth personality. The property which has all services on its boundary was offered to the State for R20 440—that being at R10 per square metre. The State, or to be exact, the House of Assembly refused the offer and instead placed a price of, listen carefully, R5 650 plus 10% on the ground. The beneficiaries are asking for half of what they know the price should be. Those in authority offer them one eighth of the price at which these plots in Fairview will be marketed.

Someone is going to make an enormous profit. Why cannot it be the heirs of the estate? Why must there always be those who make money out of the misery of others? It is just not fair. It can only be described as being downright sinful. This is more so when we realise that in the northern areas of Port Elizabeth, where we are forced to buy ground for building purposes, the current rate at this moment is R30 per square metre. Why must these children lose out on the deal?

Let us also take into account that the deceased had been a widow for many years. On her shoulders rested the burden of raising and educating her offspring, which she did with success, as also the task of providing for her children. This was an outstanding lady. Not only did she purchase the Fairview property, but also one in Emily Street, South End. The one in South End has gone for a song. However, the authorities can still ensure that the children get a fair deal in the Fairview property transaction. Let us make this a monument to the memory of their mother. Alternatively, as the State is offering this family R3 per square metre for their property, today I will make the State the same offer on the same terms for all the surrounding property in that block. If not, why not? Let us take it on.

Make the offer right now!

I have made the offer.

As far as this Act is concerned, not only homeowners suffered financially, but also the business community. In both Salisbury Park and Fairview established butcheries, general dealers and even filling station owners were deprived of their livelihood. Strange as it may sound, no-one took time off to inform these people of their rights. Nobody informed them that proprietors or their kin, who were displaced persons as a result of the Group Areas Act, were entitled to be allocated business sites when these became available in the areas to which they had been moved. The licences, the quotas or whatever, were quietly allowed to lapse and die a slow, lingering death. No wonder people of colour abhor this despicable Act, and all its attendant ills, the way they do. Can anybody blame us if we become emotionally upset when speaking about this Act? Not only did it hurt our dignity as human beings, which is spoken about in the Constitution, but also our financial well-being.

The hurt to my dignity I may forgive and maybe even forget but when it comes to making financial amends, even at this late stage in our history, I am sure the hon the Minister will come up with a positive response. He is our only hope for a fair deal as he is the one who controls the purse-strings of this country.

I have great respect for the hon the Minister as an economist who, although operating under the most adverse conditions that a Minister could experience or find himself in, is not doing too badly. How much easier his task would have been if he did not have to contend with economic boycotts, sanctions, disinvestment and its resultant disadvantages. If he under such circumstances is still able to get short-term loans from overseas banks, how much more would he not have been able to achieve under healthier conditions? Just imagine how much more he would have achieved if South Africa was not dogged by isolation caused by the reputation it had earned—perhaps unwittingly—in international circles.

If only we could all work towards improving this image! We can. Adequate reimbursement of those who have suffered under the Group Areas Act would be a valuable investment in the improvement of human relations in this country. It could play a decisive role in improving the negative image which South Africa has gained overseas. Perhaps this may lead to the world looking on us as a country which, at last, cares for all its people and as such deserves to be taken back into the fold of the family of nations again. [Interjections.]

Perhaps it would result in the world reacting as did a group of Aboriginal landowners in the Northern Territory of Australia. In this regard I would like to quote from The Argus of 22 March 1989 under the subtitle: “Anger over South African mining link”. It states:

This attitude was the result of a very good investment—a very fair investment. Here the South African connection had merely done what is right. It offered a deal that was viable to the landowners. It was not forced on them, thus leaving bitterness; it was implemented with the necessary care and consideration for the feeling of others.

My appeal is on behalf of especially those who were property owners. There are not supposed to be many of them, as we are told time and time again that the houses which the so-called Coloureds lived in belonged to White landowners who exploited them. Therefore, there are not many of them. The cost to the State therefore to make amends would not amount to too much; it can be done. In fairness to those who have suffered it must be done.

The exploited must be compensated for their losses. I advise the hon the Minister to think seriously about the suggestion I make, as it may just be his open sesame to the treasure houses of the world.

Mr Chairman, if the hon the leader of the LP, who is leaving I see, would not mind staying for just two minutes there is a word or two I would like to exchange with him. It is interesting that the hon member for Bethelsdorp should have spoken about property deals in Port Elizabeth, because arising out of the very excellent speech made by the hon member for Vasco, I want to start by just mentioning that situation.

The Finance Committee has made a recommendation, I understand, that certain dealings by the general affairs Public Works Department should be investigated and that a group had got 15 out of the last 22 deals within Port Elizabeth. Certainly, if there is any reason to question this, I as member of Parliament for Port Elizabeth would urge the hon the Minister to investigate it as a matter of urgency. I want to say to the hon the leader of the LP that I believe that the House of Representatives’ dealings in property in that area should also be investigated together with the House of Assembly’s and the House of Delegates’; in other words, all own affairs administrations, because I know—I do not speculate, I know—from questions that have been asked in Parliament that the same people who figured in the 15 out of the 22 deals, the general affairs Public Works Department, have also had dealings with the House of Representatives and have leased property to the House of Representatives. I would then recommend that if we are going to investigate this matter, it should be done not only for the general affairs department, but for the own affairs administrations as well. I thank the hon the leader of the LP for having the courtesy to wait to hear what I had to say on that matter.

Sir, while we debate this Budget today, a meeting is taking place in Johannesburg to bring about the end of the PFP as we know it and to form the Democratic Party. As my speech, therefore, is the last to be made by the PFP in this House, it behoves me to pay tribute to all the people, from the leaders to the footsoldiers, who have worked so hard for the party over almost 30 years. I believe the influence of the party has been enormous. The party has led the way in many spheres of South African life.

Many policy changes which we have called for have subsequently been adopted by the NP. One has only to think of the changes in the manpower laws, the dompas, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Immorality Act and our call for a national convention, which the NP is now calling a big indaba. I do not believe that without the PFP South Africa would have advanced along the verligte road as far as it has at this time.

There is still a long and hard road ahead and I think that many of the changes which we are now calling for will in due course be adopted by the NP. It is inevitable that this will happen, as the whole thrust is pushing us towards an integrated society with a full and equal vote for all our citizens. The whole thrust of history is pushing us in this direction.

While the PFP is to be seen no longer, the ideals and principles which it has stood for will live on and ultimately be part of our everyday life, which I believe will be a fully integrated life within the South African context.

We stand today at a crossroads in the political history of South Africa. We are coming to the end of the P W Botha decade and we are about to move into the F W de Klerk era. This is a wonderful opportunity for the new leader of the governing party to place South Africa firmly on the road to a safe and secure future for all its inhabitants, whatever their colour. I am sure that this is his objective. In saying that we are moving away from a P W Botha decade, this also means that we are moving away from the control of the securocrats who have had far too much influence in the course of South African events over the past ten years.

I do not believe that the new leader of the NP is going to be controlled by the securocrats to nearly the same degree as his predecessor. We are, I hope, moving away from seeing a communist behind every bush and under every stone.

In welcoming the new era which is upon us I would like to spell out some of the things which I, in opposition to the Government, would like to see them doing.

Firstly and most importantly I hope and pray that we are entering an era of proper and meaningful negotiation. I am encouraged by the new leader of the NP’s statements in regard to an indaba and I trust that he will follow this through. Credibility is the key in an exercise of this nature. Without credibility we will achieve nothing. The NP under the hon the State President had no credibility left, either with the Black community within South Africa or in the international community. We have as a country broken too many promises and reneged on too many statements of intent.

The incoming State President has the opportunity to start anew and establish credibility in all spheres. Trust is easily broken and our State President must ensure that trust is built up. I therefore believe that he has a far better chance of actually getting the indaba off the ground and I would suggest that to make it successful he will also have to create a climate of hope amongst the Black people of South Africa, and actions in this respect always speak louder than words. If he wants to bring the Black people to the negotiation table then he has to demonstrate to them that the NP is prepared to move in the direction of reform. The unconditional release of Nelson Mandela would obviously play a very large part as would three vital changes in the South African scenario: Firstly, after calling for the release of Nelson Mandela, I want to call for the scrapping of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. Secondly, I want to call for the scrapping of the Group Areas Act. Thirdly, I believe we should legislate for a Bill of Rights.

If we can do these things—there are many other things that need to be done—it would create the right climate in South Africa and this would act as a springboard to launch South Africa into an era of negotiation for a peaceful future for all of us. At these negotiations no significant group of people can be omitted. To expect the ANC to sit around a conference table having forsworn violence for any period of time longer than the duration of the negotiations is futile.

Even if they did agree to this I for one would be absolutely certain that the minute negotiations broke down they would resume their terrorist operations. So, clearly, we cannot negotiate with people who during the negotiations commit acts of terrorism. Also quite clearly we must all realise that the breakdown of negotiations will inevitably lead to renewed violence.

The stakes are high. For all our sakes I hope that the new leader of the NP will create the climate for negotiation and then embark on negotiation.

The days of White minority rule are over. What we now have to do is create a democratic constitution with safeguards to ensure the protection of individual rights and freedoms.

The second area I want to discuss is the area of the economy. Industrialists are correctly concerned about our economic future and there are two prime reasons for that concern. Firstly, Government expenditure, and secondly, sanctions.

Mr Justice Margo, the chairman of the Reserve Bank, Mr Gerhard de Kock, and many of our foremost industrialists have reported time and time again that Government expenditure is far too high. It is generally accepted by the South African community that this is the case. The reason is over regulation, overstaffing and racially separated departments of State. We simply have to reduce the size of the bureaucracy. Let us be quite clear about what is meant by the term bureaucracy. It does not mean the teachers, it does not mean the nurses, it does not mean the police—these are all vital elements in our society. It does mean those who sit behind a desk passing bits of paper from one to the other and from one department to the next and who, in the long run, create more work for the private sector who are battling to make the economy grow. I would like to see a statement from the new leader of the NP to the effect that he aims to reduce by a specific percentage the number of bureaucrats employed by the State over the next five years.

One does not have to fire people to achieve this, as was demonstrated by the SATS. This was a promise that was made to the British people by their Prime Minister Mrs Margaret Thatcher and she has been able to stick to and implement that promise. I believe a similar promise from the new leader of the NP would be greatly welcomed in South Africa.

The second major detriment is of course sanctions and disinvestment. The only way we can get out of these problems is by moving in the political direction which I have already spelt out. The direction in which we have moved in Namibia is certainly good and will help in that regard. However, it is not only in Namibia that we have to do these things—it is here within our own country. If we start to move in the direction which I have spelt out then we will get that international credibility.

What we have to do is to move away from apartheid which is also the basic problem with the size of our bureaucracy. A department in any Western democracy is quadruplicated in South Africa because each racial group has to have its own department. I wonder if the NP would have embarked so happily on this tricameral Parliament if they had calculated the costs correctly.

I welcome the statement made by the NP’s new leader that we must move towards a new constitution but in doing so let us try to ensure that it does not impose unnecessary strains on the economy which this present Constitution imposes.

I now want to turn to the role of the English-speaking South African in the Government in South Africa. We know that when the NP first came to power in 1948 they embarked on a specific programme of removing English-speaking South Africans from top positions in the Public Service and replacing them with Afrikaners. This continued for many years. The net result was of course that ambitious English-speaking people realised that they could never reach the top of the tree in the Public Service and they therefore ignored this important facet of South African life.

However, it is now 40 years later and if one looks at the heads of Government departments and organisations, such as the SATS, English-speaking South Africans are as rare as hen’s teeth. That is not all, because one has to realise that today there is not a single English-speaking member in the Cabinet of South Africa. Surely it is evident that the NP is still not prepared to properly fuse both the English and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. This becomes even more astonishing when one realises that almost half the votes cast for the NP in the last election were from English-speaking South Africans.

As was said by the Sunday Times last year, the English-speakers have a 40% shareholding in the NP but have no representation on the board. The best that can be done, is one member of the Ministers’ Council and one Deputy Minister. The hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology has pointed out in a letter to the Sunday Times that there are now 13 English-speaking MPs of the NP. However, this is only 10% of the total number and that is farcical. I hope the hon new leader of the NP will allow the English-speaking South African—who has a great deal to offer this country—to play a proper role in the Public Service and in Parliament. I would like him to comment specifically on a statement by his predecessor as to the fact, and I quote:

I believe that that is a statement the hon new leader of the NP has to wipe off the record. He has to state specifically that that is no longer the case.

Finally, I want to say that we are about to go into an election in South Africa and I hope we can fight this election on issues. Let us not have a general slanging match which only damages the country. Let us fight this election on the issues which are clear to all of us—the issues of negotiation, apartheid legislation, reform and that of a new constitution. If we debate these issues properly we have a greater chance of moving into an era of reconciliation rather than one of confrontation. That would be to the benefit of all South Africans.

Mr Chairman, I must say the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, who has just spoken, launched a very unfair attack on the Afrikaans-speaking community of this country. It is really not the duty of the Afrikaans-speaking members of the community to motivate the English-speaking members of the community into participating in the political processes of this country.

I was talking about the NP!

The English-speaking members in the NP who participate in the NP’s activities, apart from voting for the party, will come into their own I want to say that I get the impression that the English-speaking people in this country occupy themselves with other matters rather than participate in the political processes of this country.

While we are discussing the political processes of this country, I want to say that the hon member also referred to the formation of the new party in Johannesburg. In my short political career I have also seen the end of the UP, and in the midseventies a congress similar to the one being held today was held in Johannesburg. The UP was then dissolved there, as the PFP is being dissolved today, and a new party was formed. In fact, three parties came into being. The original three parties were formed as a result of one party having split up, and those three parties are re-uniting today to form a new party. The history of this country has taught us that coalition parties are doomed to failure. I want to predict that the new Democratic Party, as compared to the United Party which lasted for 30 years and the PFP which lasted for 15 years, will last for about seven and a half to eight years. [Interjections.]

The consensus among us is dual. On the one hand we all agree that the tax burden is too heavy. The people who are taxed have to pay too much. On the other hand there is consensus among us that the State expenditure is too high. Various speakers have referred to this. Although various speakers spoke about the fact that the State expenditure was too high, none of these commentators tried to indicate how it was to be brought down.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said only that we had to reduce the number of officials. Fine, we can reduce the number of officials, but these officials administer the Acts and regulations made in this Parliament. How does one reduce the number of officials who administer the Acts which this hon member has helped to make?

We say that State expenditure is too high and the tax burden is too heavy, but I want to warn the hon the Minister at this early stage that some departments of the provincial administrations are underfinanced and that, owing to the demand for essential services, they will have to exceed their budgets. They have no other choice.

In other words, I want to say that in respect of some departments the budgeted amounts are too small and that we will therefore have to ascertain where we can save in other ways. That is the problem I want to discuss here today, and I also want to discuss some possibilities. The Department of State Administration and Privatisation has done a lot of work and is still doing a lot of work.

We all agree that the tax burden on the present taxpayers is too heavy. I think we shall have to look at the broadening of taxation, at the basis of taxation. This can be done simply by applying the recommendations of the Margo Commission—and some of those recommendations have been accepted and are already being applied; inter alia the value added tax. However, this does not bring in any tax from 50% to 60% of the population, a considerable number of whom are living below the minimum subsistence level of R385 per month.

If we say that 50% or 60% of the families in this country earn less than R350 per month, the value added tax from those people, who constitute more than half of the population, will be minimal. For that reason we shall have to effect large-scale industrial growth in this country so that we can create taxpayers, so that we can create rich people and companies who pay taxation; employees who can earn a lot more than R385 per month, who can support their families, who can build houses for them and who can pay taxes so that the hon the Minister of Finance can have money with which to finance essential services.

As a result of the prevailing poverty and the population growth there is an ever-increasing pressure on services provided by the State, and the hon the Minister of Finance will be forced to impose even more taxes on these taxes. We shall also have to address the problems of poverty and population growth if we want to talk about curbing State expenditure and broadening the tax base.

When the present hon State President became the Prime Minister in the late seventies his first instructions were that the Public Service had to be rationalised, and he instructed the Minister responsible for State administration at the time to scrutinise all Acts and to abolish the Acts that were not really necessary in order to effect savings.

I had only recently become a member of Parliament when the Minister in question, now the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, came to Parliament with that legislation.

Now abolish it!

It was a monumental failure. That Act did not save the State a single cent. Therefore I want to ask again: Can we not let each department scrutinise all Acts which it has to administer to see whether they are really necessary or whether they are obsolete and can be abolished successfully to the advantage of the State? When I say to the advantage of the State, I mean to the advantage of the taxpayer.

Tell Heunis that!

The administration of Acts is done by means of systems and procedures. In this particular regard a lot of good work is being done at present. There are departments that are evaluating every function performed in that specific department. There is a directorate at one of the administrations in our country that has completed this investigation. The preliminary results of only the investigation indicate that it may well be possible to reduce the existing 4 877 staff members in the main directorate by 3 135—that is 64%. If this can be done, the savings in respect of expenditure, salaries and allowances will amount to approximately R57 million per annum. If every State department scrutinises its activities in this way, we cannot fail to effect savings.

We render unnecessary services which are not really part of the State’s duty. I have already spoken about cake recipes and fitness exercises on a previous occasion. As regards privatisation and deregulation, the State is probably the largest land-owner in the country. That is not wrong, but for the State to be the owner of millions of rands worth of property which is just lying there unimproved, unutilised and unproductive, is not good business … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, following on the revelations—I purposely use the word revelations—revealed yesterday by my leader, the hon member for Southern Cape, I see before me this very bright morning a lot of worried faces and a lot of worried minds.

Rubbish!

He shouts “rubbish”. It is the reaction I expected. [Interjections.]

I also foresee a lot of frantic witch-hunting in the LP to discover the identity of the person of persons in their midst who supplied us with the necessary information. They want to and they need to plug the leaks. More revelations will follow.

*I also understand that fraud involving air travel orders was committed. [Interjections.]

Air travel orders?

That hon member knows what they are.

†I am glad of the response I am receiving since I am hitting a sore point. I am hitting at the raw bit in the bone. I am happy about it and therefore shall continue regardless.

We have a whole book of revelations to make before this House, but more of this at a later date. [Interjections.] We promise more of this at a later date.

Order! The hon member for Nuweveld is giving a running commentary.

Old veld.

Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the hon member is making too many interjections. The hon member for Matroosfontein is delivering his speech now and the hon member for Nuweveld must await his turn to speak.

I hope this is not deducted from my time, Sir.

It would indeed have been a privilege for me to have been present as a spectator at the LP’s nomination congress and there to have witnessed the merciless political bloodbath in their own ranks. The political decapitation, the bloodshed that will actually take place among them, will be a political bloodbath.

†To return to the debate on the State Revenue Fund I want to say that I agree that we urgently need to weigh up the need to curb State expenditure against the very urgent need to speed up the reform process drastically. Speeding up the reform process is in itself an expensive exercise.

I agree with the hon member for Yeoville. We need to share the country’s riches among all our people and, as he so aptly put it, to turn our people into a nation of shareholders. This would be one sure way to do away with strikes, especially wildcat strikes, which are part of the total onslaught against this country. The revolutionary forces do not play by our strictly moral rules, neither do the official rulers in the House of Representatives.

The revolutionary force I was actually referring to is outside our country, as can now be seen in Namibia. They do not play by rules; they will agree to rules, but not play by them.

I furthermore agree with my hon colleague Mr J Douw when he said it was a sad thing that 80% of the population would be excluded from the forthcoming elections this year. The hon member for Free State West repeated this statement today, and they are right. I fully agree with them. Again, as my hon leader said in the no-confidence debate in the House of Representatives a month ago …

The leader of six!

… the majority of this country’s people will be standing on the sidelines to watch. The same sentiment was recently expressed by City Press, a Johannesburg newspaper.

Talking about the leader of six, I think the late Dr D F Malan was the leader of 14. In 1948 he became the government of this country. Hon members cannot deny that. They should read their history correctly. [Interjections.] All right, if I have to go further, I can mention that Adolf Hitler started in a bar-room with five persons, and he ruled almost half of Europe. That hon member should read his history.

We appreciate the State’s efforts so far in their moves towards reform. This silent revolution—as I prefer to call it—is taking place around us every day. In support of this, I mention the huge investment in Black upliftment in the fields of housing, education, health, community facilities, etc.

However, all of this will not nearly be enough if we fail to address the problems—and problems they really are—caused by three obnoxious laws still on the Statute Book: The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act. The sooner we rid ourselves of this lot, the better. I put it to this Government that it will really cost us nothing to get rid of these laws and so get on with reform faster, much cheaper and with less human suffering. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the hon member for Matroosfontein. I will not enter into his private corruption battle. This is something which the House of Representatives will have to sort out themselves.

It has been said in earlier speeches in this debate that the Budget is now history. Of course the Budget is history. It has been read and South Africa is in the throes of its traditional glut of post-Budget discussion and analysis. Opinions seem to change from day to day as to whether it is a good or bad budget.

The chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance, the hon member for Vasco, quite correctly here today pointed out that the majority of speeches made thus far had had little to do with the Budget and that perhaps this debate should be timed differently. I imagine that the majority of the members of the Joint Committee on Finance would agree, as many hours were spent by the members in hearing evidence from various institutions and departments in the analysis of the Budget before presenting the final report of the committee. As one of the members I would like to congratulate the hon member for Vasco on his outstanding and sympathetic chairmanship of that committee.

I was also greatly impressed by the knowledge and expertise of the various Directors-General and senior officials of the departments that gave evidence. With these men at the helm we have a public service to be proud of, and this brings me to the point the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central was criticising the NP Government for, namely for not using English-speaking persons. I find in the departments many very knowledgeable and highly qualified English-speaking persons coming through and there is no doubt in my mind that the English-speaking person is very much part of the NP. I am totally welcome in the party and I feel it my home. I assure hon members that the Democratic Party will be a home for nobody. [Interjections.]

In announcing details of this year’s Budget the hon the Minister of Finance referred to the role that history plays in eventually passing judgment on the goals continuously set by the various actors in society. The public analysis of the Budget presented generally has the opinion that overall—in terms of what is needed at this stage of the business cycle—this Budget is a good one, and even the hon member for Yeoville did agree with that.

Firstly, the country dare not relax the fight against inflation. For an answer to that the total projected spending for the coming year of R65,017 billion is 15% higher than the revised expenditure for the 1988-89 financial year. In other words, with an expected inflation rate of 15%, as predicted by the Governor of the Reserve Bank, it allows for no real growth in State spending.

I believe that is a most commendable goal and, given very modest net expenditures over the past three years, I am very confident that the target can be achieved. This is especially so when one observes the very serious message spelt out by all departments and that is that this Government is deadly serious on the financial disciplines in each and every one of those departments.

The Auditor-General’s report for the 1987-88 financial year refers to the successful introduction of performance auditing—this is something I mentioned before in an earlier speech relating to the Department of Education and Training. These procedures have also been introduced in the department of the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works in the House of Assembly. These procedures are now being introduced into further departments in an effort to improve efficiency, the utilisation of equipment and manpower in order to get value for money. It is clear that these steps are already bearing fruit. The critics of the Government and the taxpayers, because of the perception created by the media of so-called gross Government overspending, should be more than happy with what has and is being achieved. It is high time that credit was given where credit is due and not criticize just for the sake of criticizing.

Elements of taxation reform are also contained in the Budget, following the proposals of the Margo Report. Last year I referred to certain aspects of the SITE tax system which, I believe, then contained elements of uncertainty and unfairness. Happily this has been largely addressed in this year’s Budget, where married working women are accommodated and SITE applies to their entire remuneration, lifting the ceiling of R20 000 per annum. The net loss to the fiscus in the 1990-91 year is expected to be R139 million. So we do care about our women. I do believe that the position of separate taxation of working wives should be extended further to include those who for instance earn commission or who run businesses for their own account. I trust that the hon the Minister will give this due consideration. I do know that it will cost the fiscus money and we will have to phase this concession in year by year.

There are further welcome changes regarding the taxation aspects of the Budget, including the announcement that the minimum tax on companies will not be reimposed. This did create many tax flow problems and the business sector therefore certainly welcomes it.

The prescribed assets reinvestment will be scrapped, which was welcomed, but clarification is required as to what investment criteria will apply. People are waiting to receive this information so that they can plan their future investments.

The gradual reduction of mining tax rates over a period is welcomed and this will allow for an extension of the life of many threatened gold mines now feeling the pinch of reduced profits. Contrary to popular belief, we do not control the gold price, but only produce something like 30% of the world’s gold.

The question of the so-called ring fencing in gold mines bears investigation in order for capital allowances to be extended within a company instead of being confined to a particular mine, because the present system does place restraints on the gold mining companies. We also have to watch situations where abuses have taken place, but I am sure that legislation can provide for that.

The recent announcement on export allowances is also most welcome. Exports are essential to maintain our balance of payments. The old maxim in Britain, as hon members may remember, was—this was flashed in lights in Piccadilly Circus—“exports go up or Britain goes down.”

We are just about in the same position, for our exports must go up, or South Africa will go down. I refer to the Kleu Report of 1982. It seems that the Board of Trade policy is now to implement this report by encouraging the diversification of industrial production and by studying various industries to ascertain their suitability as candidates for receiving State assistance in the drive to penetrate foreign markets. The new export incentives will provide cash amounts and will not encourage tax dodgers.

Industries which have been selected by the Board of Trade and Industry as being suitable for an all-out export drive include textiles and clothing—we are still awaiting reports there—electronics and the motor industry. A report on the textile and clothing industry is said to be imminent. A serious drive to win exports so very necessary to give impetus to an improved current account balance of payments and the gold and foreign exchange reserves will now require a radical re-orientation in the thinking of many industrialists. They are the people who have to think about it. There are too many fair-weather exporters whose priorities are far more easily met in the home market. They only turn to exporting when the domestic demand for their products starts to flag. My plea to these industrialists to put South Africa first for unless they do so they will end up with no domestic market at all.

If South Africa is to become an exporting country the prime target must be foreign sales of goods which can stand up in both quality and price. Quality depends on constant managerial supervision by top management and not by firstline supervisors. A leaf could be taken out of the Japanese and Taiwanese books. Top management must also be active on the factory floor not only to ensure that quality standards are upheld but also to improve productivity, a major input factor in the costing of products. Compared with Asian manufacturers the South African entrepreneur is disadvantaged. In the Far East people have inherited a cultural work ethic and educational standards far superior to those in South Africa. It is time we created a real work ethic. These severe handicaps can only be overcome by improving industrial relations and by intensive training programmes. Unless the workers and the trade unions are made aware of the targets which management is striving to attain, many difficulties inevitably arise and productivity must falter. The key to this problem is very clear and consistent communication at every level of business is necessary. Top management must not be remote; they must be seen to be managing.

These questions are vital—not just in the interests of the Ministry but because the manufacturing section plays such an important role in the South African economy. [Interjections.] There is no Group Areas Act applicable in business. We know that everyone has the right to a job. [Interjections.]

One point in so-called Government overspending—and I refer particularly to defence—is that in these times we still have the End Conscription Campaign. I would like to know from the Democratic Party—who are not here at all at the moment—what their attitude is going to be towards the ECC. They must tell the electorate whether they are still soft on security.

The question of defence expenditure, as a percentage of State expenditure it totals 15,6%, and of GDP, 4,1% by comparison, in other Western countries defence spending as a percentage of GDP is: France 3,4%; the United Kingdom 5,2%; the United States 6,3%; and Israel 14,8%.

In conclusion I would like to refer to the report of the Joint Committee on Finance. One particular item in the report is paragraph 5.20. It concerns the pensions paid to widows of deceased members of the Government Service Pension Fund where they only receive 50% of their deceased husbands’ pension. Many women have had to give up their homes because of this. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pity that the DRP has launched a mean and scurrilous attack on the LP and has now taken to its heels when confronted by the truth. The hon member for Matroosfontein should know quite a lot about corruption, since he is known for charging voters R15 to complete application forms for identity documents and pensions. The hon member has already appeared in the Cape Supreme Court for corruption in the Elsies River Management Committee. He is an absolute expert in the field of corruption.

The hon the leader of the so-called DRP yesterday used six of his 10 minutes to make certain outrageous allegations against the LP. History will prove that the DRP has done only one positive thing during its short existence, and that was to save three hon Members of Parliament from becoming complete alcoholics. Since those three hon Members of Parliament were kicked out of the LP, they have become so worried that they have completely lost their desire for alcohol. [Interjections.]

I would like to mention the example of the hon member for Upington who had a majority of more than 5 000 votes when he fought for the LP in 1984. His support has diminished to such an extent that he could only poll 72 votes on the DRP ticket in 1988. That demonstrates what the future of that party will be, and therefore I shall not be devoting too much time to them.

Today I should like to focus my attention on areas which I believe will be of the utmost importance for the future of South Africa. Firstly I will deal with the area of affordable housing, secondly with the creation of educational institutions for the underprivileged sector of our population and thirdly with the establishment of an efficient small business industry for the Third World sector of our population. Clearly, these three matters do not yet receive the national attention which they deserve. The reason for this is obvious, since it is precisely in these three areas that the governing class in this country has an abundance of interest.

Everybody knows that there are at present 36 000 empty houses in the White group areas, while the number of houses needed only for Coloureds in the Cape Peninsula amounts to more than 60 000. The provision of housing is further handicapped by the system of local government in this country, which effectively entrenches White “baasskap”.

Because the Coloured sector of our population does not have direct representation and an effective say in third-tier government, we have become the victims on the one hand of ultraconservative town councillors and on the other of arrogant, so-called liberal town councillors. The RSCs do not offer much hope for our future either since bureaucratic delay in transferring real functions to these bodies, is in actual practice causing a duplication of functions and the bureaucracy, rather than to bring about the rationalisation and cost savings promised to us when these bodies were being established.

The situation which I have outlined to hon members, clearly indicates an urgent need for further constitutional reform in third-tier government in order to offer the underprivileged sector of our population a full say on this tier of government.

Research carried out by the Urban Foundation has shown that our need for housing will amount to almost 3,5 million units between 1988 and the year 2000. To cope with this problem, almost 400 000 houses would have to be erected annually. On the other hand the Government in collaboration with the private sector has erected almost 40 000 houses in 1987. This research also indicates that 30% of the people who need houses can afford a basic structure.

In this regard the Government’s aid to first-time home buyers is appreciated. However, we should proceed to be more creative in devising financial schemes in order to address our housing needs effectively.

In this regard I have proposed something to the hon the Minister of Finance which I think could offer a solution. It means that we should start out with an interest rate of more or less 7% on bonds in the first year. The difference between the 7% interest rate and the market rate should then be capitalised over the remainder of the bond period. After the first year the rate is adjusted progressively until it reaches the market rate plus the capitalisation rate after a period of five to 10 years.

The advantage of this scheme is that it would make both inflation and the escalation in the building industry the partners of the prospective first-time home buyer. In actual practice it amounts to an increase of more or less 20% in the bond rate—and that compared to a 100% increase in building costs over a period of five years.

The Government can give momentum to such a scheme if the Government could guarantee 20% capitalised interest at financial institutions for a period of five years. This scheme is also important since cheaper capital, which previously was available in the form of prescribed assets at building societies, is also going to be something of the past now.

I should also like to say something about the establishment of schools, especially our Black schools. Currently there are 153 000 empty seats in White schools throughout South Africa as well as 23 000 empty hostel rooms. I found the hon the Minister of Finance’s standpoint on this matter in the joint committee to be totally unacceptable. His standpoint was that the NP accepted the fact that some of its policies were expensive, but that South Africa would simply have to pay the price for them.

This year there was an increase of 16,1% in expenditure on Black education. When the inflation rate of 15%, as well as the 15% increase paid to teachers are deducted from this, it amounts to a decrease in the expenditure on Black education in this financial year, while the 2,1 million pupils in our Black schools are increasing by 4,1% each year.

In view of these statistics it is quite clear that the R155 million, which in this financial year was made available for the construction of 684 classrooms for primary and 1 243 class-rooms for secondary schools is completely inadequate. In this area too alternative methods of financing would have to be found so that the amount of R155 million allocated for school buildings could be used to eliminate the backlog.

Currently we are building schools until the money has run out, and then we wait for the next year. If you have to build a house in this way, nobody would ever get a house. If the private sector’s money could be used for building all the schools, and the amount allocated for school buildings could be used for paying back these loans over a period of 10 to 20 years, we could eliminate the backlog in our school buildings at today’s prices.

I should now like to come to the third aspect on which I should like to focus attention, namely the establishment of small business opportunities for the Third World sector of our population. This aspect is of the utmost importance for the future of South Africa. Our best countermeasure against socialism is to bring the advantages of capitalism to the man in the street.

These days we place a very high premium on education. It is often said in this House that it is the best investment for the future of this country. I would like to support this statement, but with one important reservation. If you offer someone education and you do not then offer him the opportunity to work and earn an income, the whole process could be counterproductive.

The establishment of a thriving and effective small business sector in our country is still being seriously inhibited for various reasons. I should like to mention three of these reasons. According to Dr Ben Vosloo the absence of an overall national small business development policy and strategy by the Government is one of the most important obstacles in this regard. His stand point is that this sector is still being considered on an ad hoc basis. I agree with him 100%.

The second reason is the existence of the Group Areas Act. This Act inhibits the creation of prosperity because it effectively places the control of prosperity and land ownership in the hands of the Whites. At least 80% of South Africa’s living and residential areas are effectively controlled by the Whites. Also during the last 30 years the Group Areas Act has not brought viable dormitory towns for people of colour into existence. The dormitory towns are far from industrial centres and central business districts. Consequently large financiers invest their money in the risk-free White areas rather than in the townships.

With the abolition of prescribed assets, this relatively cheap source of credit will also become something of the past for institutions such as the SBDC. However, most of this money will still find its way to the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and large office blocks and shopping centres in our CBDs.

A third aspect which has an inhibiting effect on our small business sector is the increasing extent to which this country’s economy is being controlled by monopolies, monopolies which are mainly in the hands of a limited White minority. Almost every profitable aspect of our economy is in the hands of a monopoly. The importance of small business development can never be overemphasised.

South Africa has plus-minus 35 million people of which plus-minus 14 million are earning their living somewhere in one way or another. As opposed to this the Government provides 2 million people with employment while the formal private sector provides between 2 million and 3 million people with employment. We find that almost 9 million, or more or less 65% to 70% of our people, are earning their living in one or other way in the informal and in the small business sector. The solution to our financial problems and our unemployment lies in this area.

As long as 99% of the companies on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange are 100% in the hands of White companies, constitutional, educational and social reform will remain hollow concepts to most of our population.

I should like to dwell briefly on the decision of the Department of Finance to increase GST by 1%, and the fact that they did not see fit to rather reimpose GST on those foodstuffs which are at present free of GST. This system cannot be effectively controlled, and it has become the most important source for tax evasion since retailers simply load and scale down their non-taxable products to the taxable part of the products in which they are dealing. I believe that the Government annually loses billions of rands in this way. I feel that if we could rather reimpose GST on these basic foodstuffs which are now exempt from GST, we would eventually succeed in decreasing GST from 13% to nearly 10%.

I would just like to mention an interesting statistical item which is going to appear in the annual report of the Department of Home Affairs one of these days. Between 1 January 1988 and the end of 1988, 1 094 Portuguese entered South Africa. I should like to single out this group of people as being the main taxdodgers because of the differentiation in GST. Only 24 of them have left the country. These people are becoming very wealthy because of this tax evasion. Urgent attention will therefore have to be given to these problems.

Mr Chairman, we had a bizarre performance in this Chamber yesterday, reminiscent of those held in the days of Nero, with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs as the main virtuoso of the NP MPs who, like the Roman senators of old, cheered with the mob in the Circus Maximus at the actor’s antics. And all the while a war was being waged in South West Africa.

The hon the Minister reproached my leader, as the hon member for Turffontein has done today, for not having made inquiries before speaking out. Let me tell the hon the Minister in his absence, and his chief lieutenant in the ordinary benches, that the CP will not humiliate itself again by making inquiries at the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I personally approached the hon the Minister’s office with an inquiry last year. They did not even come back to me with a reply. I approached the secretariat a second time. I was patronisingly told that these matters were dealt with at Cabinet level, and I received no further reply in that connection. We shall not expose ourselves to humiliation by asking the Department of Foreign Affairs for information. We shall have to react on the basis of what we know and the information available to us.

The hon the Minister did not succeed in sidestepping my hon leader’s extremely pertinent remarks with his silly and sneering comments. I shall now deal with my hon leader’s reaction in respect of the matters he raised. My hon leader is known and respected as one of the clearest, most sober-minded and most responsible speakers in this country.

What did my hon leader say in the television interview? He said that South African troops should enter South West Africa. They subsequently did. The Government sent them in. My hon leader said that Untag should leave. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs threatened during the weekend to expel them. Thirdly, my hon leader said that Resolution 435 should be suspended. What is left of Resolution 435? Not a single principle of Resolution 435 remains in force at the moment.

The hon the Minister did not give a satisfactory reply yesterday to any of the points made by my hon leader. With his feeble witticisms, his truly reprehensible and disrespectful reference to the British Prime Minister and his unedifying choice of language, he turned the entire debate into a farce.

The sympathy of the foreign Press, if it is going to last, and the verbal support of the West, if it is ever going to be more than verbal, are not relevant at this moment. What is relevant is one single test, and this is whether the agreements, protocols and so on in connection with Resolution 435 are comprehensive enough to provide for eventualities concerning, in particular, the lives and safety of the people of SWA …

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, before business was suspended, I was saying that the test was whether the agreements were comprehensive enough to ensure the lives and safety of the people of the territory. The answer is undoubtedly no. No provision has been made for the present situation in that territory. It is an absolute vacuum. Everything indicates a superficial and frivolous approach to the whole situation. The Pretoria News describes how, in Cairo, the hon Ministers of Defence and of Foreign Affairs “were larking about on the backs of camels like schoolboys on an outing”.

In an interpellation debate with us in the House in Assembly about the conditions for the implementation of Resolution 435, the hon the Minister said, and I quote him:

In an advertisement in Rapport of 2 April, which was not identified as an advertisement, the following was repeatedly stated categorically:

Someone just said that the taxpayer was paying for this. That is quite true.

What is more important, however, as my hon leader pointed out, is the fact that the hon the State President, when he was still Prime Minister, foresaw this very possibility—not any other possibility—and asked to what arrangements had been made in this connection that we are now faced with. The reply that the hon the State President received quite clearly did not satisfy him. He should take this up with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and tell him that, as will be evident from the hon the Minister’s official documents, he foresaw the possibility that Swapo might violate the rules. The hon the Prime Minister should ask him why he did not provide for this eventuality and should then sack him. [Interjections.]

In which constituency are you going to stand?

In the one in which I stood last time, and I shall see that hon member here afterwards. [Interjections.]

If the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has any courage, he will admit that he was guilty of gross negligence, to such a degree that it amounts to recklessness, and that he did not ensure that adequate provision was made for this situation in the negotiations. Then he should resign, as Lord Carrington did after the Falklands war.

An equally serious mistake is the fact that Untag was not deployed before 1 April. In order to perform its monitoring task properly as from 1 April, Untag should have been ready on April Fools’ Day, and it should have been present at the Swapo bases on the 16th parallel as well. However, Untag was not there. It seems that Untag’s biggest police component had not even arrived in Southern Africa at that stage. Everyone—the United Nations as well as South Africa’s ministeries—put the cart before the horse. They set a final date and then began to discuss certain further details at their leisure and with great naivety, but also with a great deal of TV fanfare. The result was an ill-considered affair, full of loopholes and flaws which could give rise to an explosive situation in next to no time.

It is abundantly clear that while these talks were being held, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was more interested in camel rides and TV coverage than in the substance of the agreements. [Interjections.] He and his leftist overseas friends at the UN and elsewhere were so preoccupied that they either closed their eyes to the flaws so as not to cause any further problems, or they were so naive and obtuse that they did not notice them, or they were simply unable to negotiate more forcefully than they did. Actually, I believe the hon the Minister was so obsessed with success and his own image that he was prepared to sacrifice certain key standpoints and to hope for the best—in other words, to gamble with peace and war in Southern Africa. [Interjections.]

For years, this hon Minister has been talking the people of South Africa into a state of despondency. He has been threatening them, and now the people of South Africa see that these dangerous people are not capable, on the one hand, of effectively deploying just over 4 000 people, and that they are not even willing, on the other hand, to send a group of 50 soldiers until their safety has been guaranteed. These are the people with whom this hon Minister has been trying to frighten South Africa for 14 years.

He talked about my hon leader’s statements. Let us examine the things he has said within a period of seven days.

†Last weekend, on 2 April, he threatened to expel Untag. Lo and behold! “Pik’s threat to expel Untag”.—The Sunday Star van 2 April 1989.

Midweek, Wednesday 5 April: He asks the United Nations to send all Untag units to the border immediately.

*That is typical of him. The threat of expulsion is gone and forgotten.

On 31 March, I think, he came up with a real gem. He said with great fervour on television:

The April Fool joke of the year! What happened on Wednesday? “Troops are pouring into South West Africa.”

We come now to an advertisement in a Sunday newspaper of 2 April—it cost the taxpayer thousands of rands—which reads as follows:

This was said on 2 April. What happened on 1 April? Nothing had been monitored, and Swapo had poured across the borders of South West Africa in their hundreds and perhaps thousands.

Let us examine the ultimatum issued by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. What was his first ultimatum? They had to leave at once. What was his second ultimatum? They had to leave within hours. What was his third ultimatum? They had to leave within days. In these critical moments, the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs could not adhere to one standpoint on the question of an ultimatum even for a period of hours.

The chickens are coming home to roost, and South Africa is going to be the only loser in the situation. The NP speakers say that they have confidence in the South African Government …

Absolute confidence!

… and they say the position is under control. The position is so much under control that there is no certainty from one day to another about what is going on. It is so much under control that we are unable at the moment to obtain information, for the purposes of this debate, about what is actually going on there. The situation was so much under control that an SWA police sergeant said he had seen the tracks merely by chance.

Were those tracks going backwards? [Interjections.]

He said that the machineguns had already been removed from some of the armoured vehicles. That naive hon member does not know that in terrorist warfare, it is a well-known tactic to walk backwards, not to double back on one’s tracks, but to produce tracks … [Interjections] … for the very purpose of misleading one’s enemy. [Interjections.] Hon members may laugh, but it is a tactic they use. [Interjections.] Who among those hon members have been on the battle-field, who among them has been at a place where bombs are exploding and bullets are whistling past? [Interjections.] Hon members are laughing at this. It shows how little importance they attach to the lives of South Africa’s young men.

Another report said that the members of Swapol were only going to their camps to replenish their supplies of ammunition and that they would then leave again at once. The hon members of the NP say that the South African Government has the situation under control. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister says he knew, and he informed Mr Ahtisaari and Mrs Thatcher. I accept that, but then I ask him whether the security forces there were on the alert. If they were, I want to ask why the remarks were made and why the reports appeared to which I referred a short while ago. The confinement to base was lifted with the consent of the UN Commissioner. What is the status of the South West African and South African troops and police in the north of South West Africa at the moment? Who is their commander-in-chief? [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, following on the hon member for Soutpansberg, I want to say that it is time in the history of South Africa that instead of politicking over the SWA/Namibia issue, South Africans should put their heads together to resolve the situation. I believe that South Africa, through its hon Minister of Foreign Affairs and hon Minister of Defence, and the team behind these hon Ministers, has done all that is possible to bring peaceful, evolutionary change in SWA/ Namibia.

They need to be congratulated on their efforts and endeavours. We need to express our prayers and wishes that the conflict in SWA/Namibia should be over as soon as possible. Rather than scoring political points over what the policy is of the NP vis-a-vis that of the CP, let us be practical and objective and see for ourselves that South Africa should enjoy the image of integrity which it has enjoyed in the world forum over SWA.

As I see it, there is no fault on the part of South Africa regarding Resolution 435. If there is any fault, as has been admitted by the Untag forces in SWA, it is the fault of Swapo for crossing the sixteenth parallel. That is where all the trouble started. Let us then pray for the early realisation of peace in the area and independence for SWA in the interests of all those who want to see peace and prosperity there.

At local level we should apply our minds to what has been achieved in the last four or four and a half years as a result of the tricameral system. We believe that we have served our probationary period in the forum of decision-making in South Africa. I am now convinced that after the elections the incoming Ministers and both the Houses of Representatives and of Delegates will be playing a meaningful role towards the abandonment of the tricameral system.

I have a vision for South Africa of one Parliament where all the peoples are represented. This House is too large in numbers. We want a reduction in the numbers of parliamentarians. Let us move on to what we see as a vision for South Africa, namely regional government for the regions in South Africa.

I am not propagating a one man, one vote system but rather an accord to be reached between people of all political persuasions in this country as to how best we can govern at the regional level and the central level which would deal with the main issues a country should be concerned with.

When suggestions or recommendations of this nature have been made in the past the NP, the strongest political party in this country which can act from a position of strength, shunned the idea of a federal government. They shunned the idea of grey areas when that suggestion was made but came back to Parliament with the same perception in new guises and forms calling it free settlement areas. The President’s Council, in which I had the privilege to serve as the first member, produced a constitutional report for South Africa. If that had been adopted at the time we would not have had the situation that we have now. That was an experiment that could by now have been paying dividends for five years if the report had been accepted by the Cabinet at the time.

When Harold Macmillan was in this country he warned South Africa and the region of Southern Africa of the winds of change. The winds of change have had their results, and there are storm clouds gathering at the moment. Thatcherism is on the way, Bush is on the way and we must take heed of what the outside world wants to see in South Africa. I am sure that many of the hon members in this House share my concern for the future of South Africa. I believe that we should now get together as South Africans and evolve a constitution for ourselves adaptable to the particular situation in this country.

I want to comment on the hon the State President’s announcement yesterday of elections. We in the House of Delegates and I in particular welcome the opportunity of the forthcoming elections. Once and for all it will dispense with what has happened in relation to suspicion etc in the Houses.

In the House of Assembly they have had their problems, as a result of which they had the CP which dissociated themselves from the NP. I say to the NP that theirs is the strongest political party in South Africa. [Interjections.] They can face the future, face the elections that are going to be coming their way and do not fear the policies of the CP or the Democratic Party because they still have to find their feet in this country. The NP are in a position of strength and they must be brave enough to take those steps that will bring peace and happiness to South Africa because in their efforts and endeavours for reform they will have the people of colour behind them.

My colleague the hon the Minister of Finance has—under very difficult economic circumstances considering the state of the economy of our country—done his utmost to present to us a Budget. I know that all budgets are criticised by all those who do not see them as meeting their particular requirements. I want to echo the words of the hon member for Yeoville that those who ask for most want, when they are taxed, to be taxed lower. If we want to see prosperity in South Africa then the economic stability of South Africa depends on the hon the Minister of Finance and how he looks at the situation.

On this particular matter I want to congratulate my hon colleague and his team in the Treasury for what they have given to us in the Budget. I agree that there should be a cut in the country’s expenditure but it is not only the Government that must curtail its expenditure. The private sector and every individual in South Africa have to do their bit to cut expenditure.

I want to repeat what I have said in my own House, namely that South Africans must be patriotic to South Africa. South Africa itself must produce the goods that South Africans need. Let us not indulge in the luxury of imports where we can buy South African, wear South African and live in the South African way.

Inflation invariably has its effect on the economy of any country and South Africa needs to watch the situation. In the past two years we have managed to control the inflation rate somewhat but I believe that if we do not watch our expenditure and our cost of living which both rise by the day, the inflation rate will soon rise too. We need to monitor the situation very carefully.

Mr Speaker, I want to say that many years ago I had the experience of having a photograph taken with you which appeared on the front cover of a magazine. You being a tall man and I being a short man, I looked up to you to see where I reached you. There is a message in this. When I look up to people for results it should not be seen as my being an underling to such people. The truth is that I am coming with a message from the people of colour in South Africa. I need not stand on a box. I speak my mind and I speak from my heart.

The forthcoming elections for the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates will be equally important. I want to predict that one will find members who in the past were very hesitant to be part of participation politics coming into these two Houses, particularly into the House of Delegates.

We in the House of Delegates believe that through our participation in the Parliament of South Africa we have been the forerunners of what is to follow. In the same vein I want to warn that if the NP wants people to come here and participate in Government, there should not be segmental representation in Parliament. Let us look at a common Parliament for all the people on a basis of no domination, as I said earlier—a principle accepted by all population groups.

It is also time that leaders of all population groups and of all political persuasions come together, as the hon the State President once suggested, at a great indaba. Let the hon the State President know—when he retires from office in a blaze of glory—that the hon the leader of the NP and the State President-elect will have enough courage to go forward and give South Africa a dispensation acceptable to all of us so that we can live in peace and harmony with one another. Our economy will prosper. We leave ourselves in the hands of our good Lord to guide us towards the future.

Mr Speaker, may I first of all say that I fully agree with the hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Delegates on his compliments to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his staff. I also think that they have done an excellent job and I am glad that at least the other Houses of the Parliament of South Africa acknowledge that fact.

Just in passing, I want to say this. After having listened to the hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Delegates, I again was impressed by the level and the standard of debating that has emanated from the other two Houses of Parliament since 1987 when again I became a member of this Parliament. [Interjections.] Some of them have set a very high standard, a standard that I think could well be emulated by some of the hon members of the House of Assembly.

Unfortunately, one finds both debaters and agitators in this place. We can do with more debaters and I think in the time we are living in, we can do with fewer agitators. I refer specifically to the speech made by the hon member for Soutpansberg. [Interjections.]

*The hon member said at the beginning of his speech that the CP would not humiliate itself again by making inquiries at the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I want to say to him that it is my considered opinion that if one has South Africa’s interests at heart and promoting them is one’s real objective, then it behoves one to be humble sometimes and to forget one’s haughtiness and pride. In this way one can serve one’s country instead of serving the petty interests of one’s political party.

One asks oneself what South Africa’s position at these various negotiations would have been if the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon the Minister of Defence and their delegations had taken up the same haughty and proud attitude towards the delegations from the other countries of the world.

Often it seemed as if one conference after another was doomed to failure. It is only through patience, courage and perseverance that results were eventually achieved. Then they have the audacity to demand that Resolution 435 be withdrawn so that South Africa will again find itself engaged in a full-scale war with the Angolan, Cuban and communist forces, without the sympathy of the Western countries which we are enjoying at the moment.

Until when?

The hon member for Lichtenburg asks until when. He is hoping that the Western world, too, will withdraw its support for South Africa. That party indulges in vulture politics. [Interjections.] Therefore, the worse matters get for South Africa, the better they get for the CP of South Africa.

This is the negative way in which this party conducts its politics. The hon member for Nigel was present when, as members of a parliamentary delegation abroad, we had an interview with a certain deputy minister of the British Parliament who is also a member of the European Parliament. We discussed matters relating to Southern Africa, and when we were on the subject of the Cairo conference, I said to him: “I suspect that the Russians brought pressure to bear of the Angolans and on the Cubans to return to the negotiating table.” His reply to me was: “You suspect it—I know it.”

These are the kind of powers we should be unleashing against ourselves again if we should follow the course that the hon member for Soutpansberg and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly want to prescribe to us.

One has to ask oneself what would have happened if the CP with its hard-line attitude had negotiated with other people in Cairo on behalf of South Africa. No agreement would have been reached, and now they are asking us what we have gained.

We have gained goodwill that we have never enjoyed before—goodwill even on the part of the Organization for African Unity. Is that not an achievement? If that is not an achievement, then the hon members of the CP must tell us what would be an achievement and what would be a breakthrough in terms of our international relations.

Boksburg!

I shall come back to Boksburg.

Then they have the audacity to demand the resignation of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs!

I want to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg that a general election is on its way. The hon member is quite used to moving around—from one constituency to another.

Not as often as you! [Interjections.]

The hon member will have the opportunity of proving how well the CP’s policy has been received by the voters. He is welcome to oppose the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs in his constituency. He is welcome to do that, but he will not do it. He knows he will be defeated. I think I have spent enough time on this hon member, and I shall now address other hon members of the CP. [Interjections.]

As far as I can remember, we have had only two speeches from the CP on South Africa’s economy during this debate. There is a general election in the offing, and one would have expected one of the CP spokesmen to spell out to the voters of South Africa their economic and financial policy and how they are going to implement it. [Interjections.] What have we been getting from them, however? We have been getting criticism of the Government’s policy. That is all we have been getting from the CP.

In the second paragraph of his speech, the hon the Minister of Finance said that the history of this particular period in South Africa’s economy would one day be judged, not by the degree of growth and prosperity we achieved during this period, but by the extent to which we managed to survive this period, since we are experiencing an economic crisis.

The hon members of the CP will remember the days of arson and unrest in South Africa, when the image projected to the outside world was that South Africa’s economy was breaking down and that the Government of South Africa had lost control over the economy. Then, as now with the SWA-crisis, the CP walked around with broad smiles on their faces like the proverbial cat who found the refrigerator open, because when South Africa and its economy are in trouble, fortune smiles on the CP.

What did they say to South Africa and the outside world? They conveyed exactly the same message to the outside world as the arsonists and the rioters, namely that the Government had lost control over South Africa’s economy—and they did this with satisfaction. It has been the NP’s task to pull this country and its economy through. We have received no co-operation from the Official Opposition, not even in the form of suggestions on policy and possible economic adjustments, only criticism.

The world’s financial institutions such as the IMF are no longer accessible to us. We can no longer make use of them. Following a policy such as that of the CP and practising the kind of discrimination in South Africa that those hon members are practising in their CP-controlled towns will not make them accessible to us either. [Interjections.]

If we are to make any progress in South Africa in re-establishing our ties with those financial institutions I have just mentioned and with foreign trade, and if we are to get rid of sanctions, then we shall have to follow exactly the opposite course to the one the CP is trying to prescribe to those areas and those towns where they have gained control of third-tier government. We cannot continue to impoverish our White businessmen in our cities. If we do this in the way in which the CP is doing it at present, it will have a seriously destabilising effect on the economy. These people, who pretend to be the champions of the White man in South Africa, are the very people who are now impoverishing the White businessmen in the areas under their control. Naturally unemployment follows. We no longer need that kind of policy in South Africa. The CP is not fit to rule South Africa. The voters will reject them in the coming elections just as they rejected them in the 1987 election. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Kuruman. In my opinion he is a 100% improvement on the previous hon member for that constituency, the present leader of the CP in the Cape Province.

Firstly, let me say to the CP that their shortsightedness in regard to the Namibia issue is not only destructive but that it also confuses and distresses the parents of the young men who are at present serving in that area. The CP’s attitude, as revealed by their leader yesterday and by the hon member for Soutpansberg today, is to my mind quite unreasonable.

Where is your son?

There are 33 000 young Coloured men who at some stage or another served in South West Africa of their own will. [Interjections.] That is more than that hon member can say. [Interjections.]

The CP forgets that Namibia has never belonged to South Africa. They forget that in future Namibia can only belong to South Africa through the shedding of the blood of thousands of young South African men of all races. They also forget that we are desperately seeking peace in Southern Africa, for the children of CP members too. That is why the LP does not hesitate to praise the hon the Minister of Defence and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs for what they have achieved in this process.

Let us look at some of the accusations. Surely the CP knows that the SA Defence Force is always ready to take action if it is called upon to do so. It is wrong to create the impression that the SA Defence Force was caught unawares. That is simply not true. Surely they know that that the SA Defence Force was confined to its bases. The SA Defence Force is always ready to take action should it be necessary.

Surely they realise that we are living in different times. For South Africa as well as Namibia there is a great deal at stake. It is in South Africa’s interest to maintain its clean record as far as the settlement process is concerned. It should adhere to the Geneva Protocol as well as the associated agreements. The promised new future for the people of Namibia is too important to be upset by this wilful action that is now taking place there. It is now time to stay calm. It is gratifying that both Cuba and Angola have distanced themselves from these latest activities.

All the present circumstances must be a great embarrassment to the United Nations and to Mr Ahtisaari. The UN will have to use simple footwork here, because what is taking place in Namibia at the moment is the classical situation in instances where there has been a lack of confidence among people for many years.

†The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly has in recent weeks dared to imply that his party’s policy of partition has religious overtones. I want to warn him against presenting what he sees as the “volk’s” cause as God’s cause. I want to remind him that if we are to reconcile Black and White in South Africa and not run away from it, we must remember that it will require true Christian humility and self-denial in the process, challenging the idols and the sacred cows, bridging divisions and upholding the individual’s rights. These prerequisites are not easy to comply with but then again, true Christians will tell you Christianity is not founded on a cheap grace.

*As Calvin did I want to emphasize that man’s civil government has no message for the soul, but rather concerns itself with the outward regulation of behaviour.

While the hon members of the CP are being so sanctimonious, let me refer them to what happened in Balfour in the Transvaal. As hon members know, they have a CP town council there. A strange thing is happening in that town. One of the basic necessities, water, is literally being withheld from the Black majority in the Siyathemba township. [Interjections.]

†Is the CP trying to make the Black people of Siyathemba die of thirst? Let me remind this House that 4 500 White residents of Balfour use up to 75% of the domestic water that is available to the town. In contrast, the remaining 25% is channelled through to 30 000 citizens of Siyathemba. In desperation many of the residents of Siyathemba have walked to Balfour with containers in an effort to obtain water from taps in the town. This CP controlled town, maintains that the law does not compel it to supply Siyathemba. It only sells its surplus water to the Black township of Siyathemba. What a disgrace!

It was the NP that was in power then! [Interjections.]

I am not concerned about who was in power; I am saying what the situation is now. [Interjections.]

Let me remind this House that Siyathemba is a proclaimed area and should be supplied with essential services. I for one cannot understand the attitude of people who first see to themselves and in the process deprive their brothers of a darker hue of God’s gift to mankind—water. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to allow the hon member for Nigel to hold his own public meeting in that part of the Chamber. [Interjections.] The hon member for Diamant may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I do not mind that, but I am certain the hon member will not allow me to attend his meeting at Nigel.

I want to tell the CP that they will be judged by their deeds; not by their semantics. They should remember this in future.

Since we are on the eve of an election, let me place the following on record. Since the LP came to power in the House of Representatives, their education budget increased from R762 million to R1 792 million.

Since 1985 57 new primary schools and 50 new secondary schools have been built. This year five new primary schools and 11 new secondary schools as well as seven hostels and eight school halls will be built.

As far as community development is concerned, the funding has increased from R215 million to R429 million. Since the LP has come to power, 10 000 new sites have been serviced and 32 000 houses have been built. During this period old-age pensions have increased from R103 per month to R200 per month, and if the hon the Minister gives us back the amount of R36 million, we shall increase them even further. This is what the score board looks like. Remember, that is what the people outside this Chamber will say.

While the LP was doing its work on community level, it also continued with its other task, and that is to steer the country in the direction in which it believes its future lies, namely a geographic federation in which no discrimination exists.

I want to remind the Government that lack of communication is one of the most important factors that could lead to conflict. Due to imaginary dividing lines the citizens of this country do not know one another and have no desire to get to know one another. We can see this clearly in the CP on one hand and what we sometimes experience in the Black townships on the other. Our children do not know one another. The people of the future are living in different worlds. Instead of confidence, people experience fear. Instead of love, some people have hate in their hearts. Disregard for human dignity is one of the most important factors that give rise to revolutionary attitudes.

South Africa’s rulers should not underestimate the depth and the degree of the resistance that is building up among the Black people. As is the case with the CP, there is a whole choir of Blacks who still cling to a childish belief that there is a creative force in the universe that is on their side.

In recent speeches by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the leader of the NP, some signs of renewed hope appeared. I should like to remind them that it takes several years for renewal to take place along parliamentary channels, while it only takes a few months to train a terrorist. We should therefore start working immediately. We have no time to waste.

We are living in a county of conflicting ideological undercurrents and widely divergent aspirations. We must not be afraid of conflict. While we find ourselves on the eve of an election in these uncertain times of unavoidable events, we should prepare our voters for hopeful changes and risks. This is what the future requires from all of us.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the hon member for Diamant, but he will have to forgive me if I do not dwell on his speech, because I want to touch on a few other matters this afternoon.

I nevertheless want to refer to one aspect, which he referred to at the end of his speech when he said that new hope for reform in South Africa had emerged from speeches by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the leader of the NP.

It is important for us to address the necessity for reform in South Africa at every opportunity but it is equally important, when we talk about reform and a new South Africa, for us all to realise that we are all participants in that process and are therefore responsible for the creating of a climate in which that reform can take place.

I am mentioning this because in recent debates in Parliament, in this Chamber, in the House of Assembly and elsewhere, constant reference has been made to the so-called suppression by the NP of other people in South Africa. Constant reference is made to the oppressed masses in South Africa, and in the same breath there are complaints about the perception of the outside world regarding what South Africa is like, which is forcing sanctions and disinvestment on this country. We in this Parliament must be very careful that, as the governors of South Africa, we do not, in an effort to score political points, create the image or convey and strengthen the perception that there are so many irregularities in this country that the world is entitled to resort to disinvestment and sanctions.

This afternoon I really want to appeal to the opposition parties in the House of Assembly, as well as the political parties in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. Let us join hands in this process so that we can become climate creators for a new South Africa. We cannot build a new South Africa if we elevate the prejudices inside ourselves, regarding things which have happened in South Africa over the years, to the norm for discussion. We shall have to move away from those things, and if we cannot do so, I want to tell hon members this afternoon that South Africa is headed for disaster. [Interjections.]

It is very easy to say that we must abolish certain laws. This afternoon I want in all fairness to put a question to the hon members—I think it is necessary for us to say this to one another—who say here in public that we must abolish these laws, and who say we must get rid of all the measures in which there is a hint of apartheid. [Interjections.] I want to ask those hon members whether they will hold discussions with their colleagues and then determine the fears which some of their colleagues have in respect of the abolition of these laws.

We cannot achieve reform in South Africa if we try to bluff one another with public standpoints. [Interjections.] We can only achieve successful reform in South Africa if we are really honest with ourselves regarding what we want to achieve. This afternoon I am asking hon members to assist us to build the new South Africa, not on the venom and the prejudices of the past but on the new opportunities awaiting us in South Africa.

I want to refer to the appeal which the hon member Mr Lockey made here today in the debate, namely that it is essential to stimulate the small business undertakings in South Africa. I do not want to elaborate much on this except to make a real appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance to see whether an effort cannot be made, by means of tax benefits, or whatever, to stimulate the small business sector to a greater extent.

Every day we see how the big companies—particularly those companies falling under the control of certain monopolies—are strangling the small business undertakings. In this way the economy of South Africa is weakening and deteriorating. I want to give my wholehearted support to that appeal by the hon member Mr Lockey. I want to associate myself with it. Every day we make appeals for more money to meet the rightful needs of the people of South Africa. I have no fault to find with that. However, has the time not come for us to generate that money ourselves? We know the overseas sources have been cut off and we must therefore find that money inside South Africa.

This afternoon I want to ask that in the same way that we have a year of the child and a water year, for example, we must introduce a year for productivity and pride in one’s work. I feel this is one matter which cannot be addressed sufficiently in South Africa. We must get away from the mentality that when we have worked eight hours a day we have completed our task for that day, and that it does not matter what we have achieved in those eight hours either. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister, because he has a say in the Cabinet, to broach that matter for us.

Any political party which claims that it wants to play a role in the future in South Africa must take account of certain factors which are of great interest to the voters outside and to the public. This afternoon I want to point out four of those factors.

In the first place a guarantee of security must be built into the message of that party. In the second place the message of that party must be realistic and topical. In the third place the future vision of that party, as interpreted by its policy, must be implementable and feasible. In the fourth place, a political party must have the ability to interpret and guide the feelings of the electorate correctly.

If I look at the soon to be established Democratic Party, which will see the light of day in Johannesburg tomorrow—by the way I think it is the tenth party to the left of the NP which is being established—I want to say this afternoon that judging by any of these factors, that party cannot survive the demands of the times in South Africa. In respect of security the ideas of the components which must form that party are so divergent that South Africa will be running a risk if it places its security in that party’s hands.

As regards realism and topicality in respect of a message, I must ask whether the main reason why left-wing political parties in South Africa were established and then came to naught was not that they were not topical in their political philosophy and realistically took into account the expectations of the people who had to vote them into power. That party is not able to meet the second requirement a political party must meet. How implementable and feasible is the future vision of the Democratic Party? We are on the eve of a general election. At this stage that party has no clear plan for South Africa. This afternoon I want to venture to predict that that party is not going to formulate that plan within the next four months either.

Let us look at the components represented in that party. Do hon members really want to tell me that the hon member for Yeoville—who is attending the funeral of the PFP in Johannesburg—with his political viewpoints and standpoints which he has built up over the years, will be able to co-operate with the totally left-wing hon member for Randburg in a new party? We can say what we like about the hon member for Houghton, but there is one thing we must say about her: Over the years she has fought for left-wing politics. Is it possible that she can be happy in a political party in which Dr Van Zyl Slabbert is playing such a big role?

This afternoon I also want to address myself to the right-wing political parties. I do not have time to dwell on this, but I do want to say that as long as these parties endeavour to incite the emotions of people against one another in an endeavour to bring reform in South Africa to a standstill, I will regard those parties as parties that are negating the interests of South Africa for their own political expediency.

You sound like a party-political organiser.

I may sound like a party-political organiser, but I want to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg that I am not as frustrated by life as he was, when he stood up this afternoon and made one of the lowest personal attacks on the hon the Minister I have ever heard. I think the hon member, who is a senior member in this Place, must learn to behave himself and learn to set a better example to younger members here. The hon member must not allow his frustrations to get the better of him. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, this afternoon I should like to associate myself with the sentiments of the hon member for Durbanville and then take this opportunity to confine myself chiefly to the NP’s perspectives for a future South Africa. In this regard, however, I also specifically want to turn to the hon members of the other two Houses present here.

It is true that from as long ago as 1948 the NP has been engaged in dismantling domination in South Africa. Thus four independent states and the self-governing homelands were created. That is why we also have the other two Houses present here today. Let us, however, frankly acknowledge today: There are still frustrations that exist in these two Houses. It is true that in regard to the non-entrenched sections of our Constitution, and also in regard to our legislative procedures, we are still a slave to Westminster democracy.

The majority party has the final say, albeit via the President’s Council. The other two Houses still experience this as White domination. I do not blame them. After all, we have said all along that this Constitution is not perfect and is not final either. In a future dispensation this defect will, in fact, have to be eliminated, without replacing it by another kind of group domination. Let us deal with this challenge jointly, in conjunction with those who still have to be involved in that new dispensation. Let us therefore accept, in word and deed, constructive joint responsibility for this, including the future political system, instead of grumblingly continuing to feed on the bitterness of the past. Let us all get away from the political rhetoric of discontent of a bygone era. This does not offer us any hope for the future. Therefore accept joint responsibility, together with the NP, so as to create a new dispensation—one which offers hope to us all.

As yet not all the hon members in the other two Houses have actually adopted that responsible course. Too many are still playing the little games of the past. We ourselves cannot place those hon members on the road to a new South Africa without group domination. Only they can do so.

In that new South Africa we shall have to make political provision, not only for the three groupings present in this House today, but also for the components representative of our Black population.

In addition opportunities must be created for the political self-realisation of those who do not want to identify politically with one of the existing groupings or peoples. We will, in fact, therefore have to create an open group. Thus the LP, for example, would prefer to be incorporated into such an open group, and we shall therefore have to create that option. Likewise the Democratic Party, which is to be established, is also compelled, in terms of the statements made by leading figures in that party, to become part of the open group, thus to be able to compete by way of free association within that open group.

They tell us that the majority of Blacks are in favour of exercising their political rights within the context of this free association. The DP will therefore find that they have sufficient spiritual allies in that open group; in fact, they are going to furnish tangible proof of the correctness of Prof Lijphart’s conclusion in his book, Powersharing in South Africa, in which he states:

I therefore foresee that the DP, with its chiefly White power base, will completely disappear as a relevant political group; in fact, already it does not seem as if they can be in any way relevant, and they have not even started their process of free association yet. The LP, of course, is also free to adopt the same course.

Apart from this group, we shall also have to provide for the self-determination of other groups along historico-ethnic lines. It is extremely naive and extremely dangerous to believe that we do not have to include the ethnic and racial composition of our society in the equation for our constitutional structures. Hon members should do themselves a favour and ask Prof Lijphart—he is a greater expert than I am. Politicians and academics who propagate this are merely playing opportunistic and intellectual little games, thereby side-stepping the actual challenges facing us.

Before critics say that a plea for the recognition of the dangerous reality of ethnicity in our structures is unrealistic and that Blacks will never accept this, I should like to bring them back to earth. [Interjections.]

Order! No, we cannot go on like this. The hon member may proceed.

It is no longer a secret that during the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba, Afrikaners and certain Zulu Cabinet members conducted discussions behind the scenes and reached agreement. The agreement was specifically based on the principles and points of departure I have spelled out above. The last meeting took place in my own living-room. There the principle of the non-domination of groups, together with the option of an open group, was accepted by all parties concerned. The principle of numerical majorities as the decisive factor, which is so unique to the Westminster system, was also relinquished.

But you rejected the Indaba!

We proposed the first alternative. That is the reason. I am coming to that alternative. I am elaborating on that. Try to understand. I can furnish the hon the Deputy Minister with an argument, but not with an understanding of the situation.

The hon member Mr Hattingh would be able to confirm that, because he was also present. This readiness on the part of Blacks to move away from the stereotyped patterns of thought gives me and other hon members hope for the future. With these inputs I believe that the NP is making a contribution towards an acceptable future for us all. Surely this is, in fact, a country of minorities.

There are, however, a few minority groups in this country such as the LP that apparently do not quite realise this yet …

We are the most powerful party in the country!

You could have fooled me! [Interjections.] … or they do not want to acknowledge it frankly. They will be forced by political developments, however, to reconsider their standpoints, or simply to thrash and bash about in that open multi-ethnic group that results from free association, and I say “good luck to them”, but I really do wish them greater security than that for their own people.

Own people! Who are they?

The hon member must identify them for himself. I know my people. [Interjections.] The NP is therefore committed to the dismantling of the domination of one group by another. Consequently the NP is not in favour of the blatant domination of the White minority group or people by other groupings or peoples either—not now, and not in the future either. We believe that we shall increasingly be getting more equal partners in this endeavour of ours.

One could, of course, attempt to boycott these developments, thus attempting to keep the Blacks out of positions of authority, whilst at the same time making a sanctimonious fuss about the injustice being done to “our brothers and sisters out there”. That is what the Progs did in respect of the Indians and the Coloureds when we wanted to involve them in the governmental process. The Progs did not want it, because that would encroach upon their position of authority in Parliament. I trust there are no parties here that want to try the same tricks for the same reasons. If there are, they would only be delaying reform, while they are supposedly able to speak for others.

Let us rather make it possible for those others to speak for themselves here, as we can for ourselves. Today we are therefore extending an invitation, not only to our fellow-Whites, but also to the Coloureds and Indians. Let us accept joint responsibility and build up a South Africa in which Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks—whether they are Vendas or Zulus—get off one another’s backs politically and are committed to a progressive, stable South Africa.

We can realise this if each one of us is placed in a position to maintain and extend his personal self-respect. The first step on this road is to realise that a Westminster-orientated democracy—in other words a numerically-based democracy—does not really offer any of us here any political future. We must rather think in terms of certain types of decision-making based on group votes instead of individual votes. To a certain extent we are already working on this. It will have to be developed, however, because that is where the key lies to a future that must move away from the Westminster system.

Let us therefore create a South Africa in which democratic values find expression in the non-domination of participating population units; in the additional option of free association for those who prefer it and the guarantee that they will also be able to figure meaningfully in an open group; in the existence of various political parties and in a free economic dispensation. Only then could a common loyalty to a common fatherland flourish, because then there would really be maximum political lebensraum and options for everyone. I believe that it is only in that way that we can all be winners.

In conclusion let me concede that a Bill of Human Rights, incorporating both individual and group rights, can and must indeed be one of the building blocks for a better South Africa. It cannot, however, be divorced from our exceptional and unique Constitution. I therefore want to advocate that we do not, independently of our constitutional set-up, overhastily propose and finalise a Bill of Rights because this would exclude certain options or prescribe others in advance. This could result in our not accepting them. I advocate that we first give the nation a chance to work out its future dispensation and then allow a Bill of Rights to help protect and develop it. We must guard against trying to restrict the present political dialogue and the resultant dispensation by way of a Bill of Rights.

If we failed to heed this call, ultimately the Bill of Rights would not be worth the paper it was written on, since it would lapse into irrelevance because it was not really a living entity within us. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: According to my programme the next speaker should be an hon member of the House of Representatives.

Order! That is not the case. That has been changed.

The hon Whip did not inform me of it.

Order! That is why I took my time in calling upon the hon member. The hon member for Brits may proceed.

Mr Chairman, while the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was speaking in the debate here yesterday, I asked myself how it was possible that a responsible Minister could boast about the possibility that South Africa had warded off sanctions as a result of a lack of effective action in South West Africa and do so while numbers of people were being mown down there by a bunch of terrorists. I want to tell the hon the Minister this afternoon that history will express a harsh judgment on the role which he played personally in selling out the Whites in South West Africa. [Interjections.] I want to tell him that he above all is the man who forced and manipulated the Whites of South West Africa to surrender, to such a degree that, in the words of Mr Kosie Pretorius, his own Cabinet colleagues were not even always aware of it. Mr Pretorius makes the following serious allegation in a booklet which appeared on South West Africa a while ago and in which, inter alia, he says the following:

Who but the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs should have informed the Cabinet about South West Africa and the standpoint of Whites there? Mr Pretorius makes a few more other unflattering comments about the role which this hon Minister has played in South West Africa. He says that he doubts whether the hon the Minister or his department has ever made out a case to the international community for the right to self-determination of the Whites and other minority groups in South West Africa during the past 10 years; on the contrary, South West Africa as a unitary state under a Black government had to serve as a guinea-pig for South Africa. Mr Pretorius says:

No wonder that Mr Pretorius warns his compatriots in South Africa as follows:

This afternoon I actually want to spend some time on another matter, that is the promise of the new hon leader of the NP that we shall enter a new South Africa under his leadership. In that new South Africa heaven will descend upon us if we listen to him. A bright future awaits that South Africa and all its inhabitants. There will be equal opportunities for all and nobody will be dominated by anybody else. An infallible plan will also be conceived in which both the aspirations of the Black majority will be satisfied as well as the entrenched rights of the Whites protected.

As South Africa is preparing itself now for a coming election, we find it essential that the hon leader of the NP spell out to us in practical terms exactly what he means by this. This afternoon I want to try to help him to think about it very practically in the interests of the voters of South Africa. If one’s point of departure is that all the peoples in South Africa jointly inhabit an undivided country, if one accepts that those peoples jointly form one nation, if one accepts further that all within that one South Africa must have equal privileges to the highest level, there are a few logical implications which one has to accept for that new South Africa.

The first inevitable implication is that the composition of the Cabinet has to reflect the so-called equal opportunities in the country. In a new South Africa, with 25 million people of colour, the Cabinet can surely not consist of Whites only—not if one is serious that all should share in the privileges which the country offers.

It is almost five years since the new Constitution was put into operation. At the beginning of this new dispensation it was said that appointments would be made from Coloured and Indian ranks on merit. Over the past five years two people of colour had been appointed to the Cabinet and then only on a temporary basis.

What we want to know from the Government today is the following: After five years’ experience in Parliament, is there no Coloured or Indian who qualifies on merit to serve in the Cabinet? [Interjections.] I say today that, if the NP talks about equal opportunities to the highest level, if it talks about a South Africa without discrimination, and means it, then the first and most important place where this must be reflected is specifically in the Cabinet. Further, what is the position of people of colour in the Public Service and in the security forces of South Africa? [Interjections.] How many senior posts in the Public Service in general affairs departments are filled by Coloureds, Indians and Black people? How many of the personnel in hon Ministers’ offices are people of colour? How many Black, Brown and Indian generals are there in the SAP and the SADF? [Interjections.]

If the NP has serious intentions about building one nation in South Africa, the composition of the Public Service and the security forces will also have to reflect the composition of the population of South Africa. If that is not the case, the Government is either guilty of that discrimination of which it accuses us or it regards those of colour as not good and capable enough to carry out those responsibilities.

It does not help to talk about a new South Africa but to flinch when one has to turn words into deeds and then not have the courage to tell one’s voters and to try to obtain a mandate for it. It does not help to promise other population groups a heaven on earth while one knows in one’s heart of hearts that one cannot fulfil those promises. If one does that, one is committing a crime against one’s own people because one is destroying their credibility and integrity in the eyes of other peoples. [Interjections.]

Does the Government think for one moment that the Whites in South Africa, and in particular the Afrikaner, would accept the full implications of its policy of one undivided South Africa? I say to hon members today that this would never happen. That is why the vast majority of NP supporters give CP replies when they are questioned on politics. They are still prepared, obviously unthinkingly, to accept power-sharing as the NP explains it to them in their lounges when the other population groups are not present to hear what they are saying. [Interjections.] And then only when they hear that the final and ultimate decision lies with the White House of Assembly after all. In other words, they are prepared to share power in so far as they need not relinquish White domination and I am now speaking of NP supporters. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, does the Government think for a single moment that its supporters will accept the logical implication of one South Africa for education? In one undivided South Africa the implication is clear that available funds and facilities must be divided among the various population groups in a fair way. Surely it is not morally justifiable that the Black part of that one nation should accommodate 50 to 60 children in one classroom while the White part of that one nation has 25 to 30 pupils per teacher. Surely it is indefensible that classrooms should stand vacant in White schools in one undivided country while no adequate facilities exist for the other part of the population.

I shall give you another example. All the hon members in this House, and also the Black people out there, who are invited to form part of this unitary state want to know what the new symbols in the new South Africa will look like. Does the Government think it is possible to create a new South Africa with the present national flag and the national anthem as symbols?

Never!

How will the Government succeed in binding people with such different backgrounds, people with such different histories, into one nation around the same symbols? How can the Government expect the Afrikaner to give up Die Stem as a national anthem? On the other hand, how can the Government expect the Black man, the Coloured and the Indian to sing that song with conviction and patriotism while it was born out of the history and out of the experiences of Whites and especially the Afrikaner? How can the Government expect the millions of Black people in our country to honour the national flag, created as a result of White history, as a symbol of their freedom? Is it a policy of fairness and justice, as the hon member Dr Geldenhuys pleaded here yesterday, if one takes away the right of a nation, whether it is the Afrikaner nation or the Zulu nation, to build its pride around its own national symbols? It is an impossibility to do justice to different people within one dispensation, the demand of the Bible, according to Dr Geldenhuys—I agree in this respect. I want to say to the NP today in all seriousness that they are attempting to create a union of peoples in South Africa which can never belong together. [Interjections.] The various peoples in this country can never have a single love where a national anthem and a national flag and a language are the issue. Hon members have just heard this from the left of the House.

It is ironic that the CP is accused of dream politics. If there is one political party in South Africa which is dreaming, then it is that very NP. They disregard the greatest reality in South African politics, that of different and, added to this, exclusive nationalisms. Whoever leaves this out of consideration is the one who is indulging in dream politics and the realities of South Africa will bring him down to earth with a bump.

Even at this eleventh hour I want to tell the hon leader of the NP to discontinue this unrealistic and destructive policy of power-sharing. It will destroy South Africa and he and his party will be held responsible by the inhabitants of this country. He is creating expectations among other peoples which he cannot satisfy because the people to which he belongs will not permit him to do so. All that he will leave the CP when it succeeds his party is murky relations and deep mistrust toward the Afrikaner and the Whites.

Mr Chairman, the previous speaker asked good questions, and I think the Government must give frank replies. This will mean that the entire South African people will know what course we are adopting.

It is a pity that the previous speaker and his party are politically isolated. That party is trapped in a cave or tunnel with a flat battery. It is as if his party is bogged down—in the mud. I do not want to give further attention to those hon members.

The purpose of a budget is to look after the general welfare of a country by means of taxation and the distribution of revenue. A second purpose is to balance the funding of a country. In our country we have a unique problem, in the sense that we have economic characteristics of both the First World and the Third World.

A budget is a country’s balance-sheet and we must debate it as such. We must insist that the reform programmes be implemented more rapidly. These are the tactics we should adopt. Hon members are here to debate the Budget and to agitate for reform and the improvement of South Africa in general.

The Labour Party of South Africa does not accept a new dispensation of separateness on ethnic grounds. We must try to make a clinical analysis of the Budget. That is what is needed in this debate, and for that reason we reject every amendment which would lead to our not accepting the Budget, because we want to make a positive contribution to the welfare of the country and its entire population.

At this stage we must state categorically that John Citizen is feeling the pressure owing to the tremendously high inflation rate, high taxation and the general decline in employment opportunities. Will the hon the Minister, who is making an input on behalf of his voters and the general public, tell us to what extent the budget proposals will help to stimulate the “upward phase in the business cycle” to which he referred, so that the many unemployed persons among us can face the future with hope and renewed confidence, taking into account the inflation rate and all the increases in transport, post office rates, as well as other important articles which affect the daily lives of all citizens?

I want to deal with the matter of loan funds. The budget proposals include a large deficit, which will be recovered on loans from sources available to the State. The poor showing of the rand as against foreign currencies must serve as an incentive for investments. If this happens the Budget has made adequate provision for the encouragement of investments, particularly from abroad, as well as from other sources.

In view of the strong representations to disinvest, is the Budget providing some or other solution to counteract disinvestment? In addition loan funds are being made available in large amounts from the savings of different population groups. Are there sufficient incentives in the Budget to encourage all persons, other than senior citizens, to invest and save?

As a party we are opposed to disinvestment. We realise that for the purposes of economic progress, which can help to reduce unemployment and can encourage stability in this country, money, machinery and knowledge must flow into our economy from around the world. For that reason the LP wants to see the State encourage economic progress, stability, investments and savings. South Africa has so many assets, namely minerals, a sound infrastructure, labour markets and the viability of the sea route around the Cape—to mention but a few.

Half-hearted attempts are being made to stimulate the growth rate. A process of deregulation and decentralisation is under way, but we must develop the idea of a dualistic economy. By this I mean an economy with a large manufacturing and export industry supported by a strong retail industry, which in turn can provide the components for large business needs. Countries like Japan, Taiwan and South Korea have adopted this successful course in order to make economic progress. If South Africa can sincerely adopt this course, we can reach the summit as regards economic progress.

One again asks whether this Budget is making such a financial statement and will encourage us to adopt that course. Ft is a course which is characterised by three factors, namely stability, productivity and free enterprise. If we can achieve this, we will also have social harmony. We can adopt this course to utilise our country’s full potential and make good provision for our children and grandchildren too.

As long as the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, and all the other discriminatory laws and regulations remain on the Statute Book, this is impossible. These are the cold, hard facts which cannot be argued or conjured away.

I mentioned earlier on that half-hearted attempts were being made to stimulate the growth rate. I want to try to motivate this fact. Let us consider what is happening at local government level and what effect the apartheid laws are having on the people there.

The Government is talking about own areas, own schools and so on. In certain towns it has been said—seeing that we are prescribed to by law where we must live—that we would also like to provide work there and do business there. When we ask these kind of questions, the Government says no, there are open industrial areas and there is no land for business premises in the Coloured group areas either. They also want to know what is to become of the businessmen in the town. There are all manner of excuses.

What is more, there are long lists of regulations which obstruct entrepreneurs. Then one is not even talking about what happens when one approaches the financial institutions. A very small percentage of those of us who are not White are assisted by them. However, if one is the right colour one can even get money over the telephone, and everything is settled in a jiffy. After all, the saying goes: “If you’re White you’re all right, if you’re Brown you must step down.” A large percentage of these people who are assisted so readily go bankrupt within a very short period. On the other hand, I wonder what percentage of non-White businessmen go bankrupt.

I should like to express an opinion on what the young Coloured and Black students are asking in respect of education. However, I want to refer to the tremendous amount which education costs the country owing to its being under divided control. I am not talking about education as an investment, but I am referring to its being under divided control.

Money is spent on own affairs education, Black education, education in the alternate states, that rely on South Africa in some way or other for their funds, and on many other separate institutions across the length and breadth of South Africa, which belongs to all of us. This is a tragedy that is haunting education. Like a spectre conjured up from the grave it refuses to be exorcised or laid to rest where it belongs.

I referred to the questions which were being asked. Tremendous strides are being made towards improving education and expanding it, but is this going to be enough to eliminate the backlog by the year 2000? After all, this is the year which is frequently speculated about.

The moderates are asking for the provision of education facilities to be speeded up. They want a better supply of trained teachers. They are asking questions about the use of underutilised facilities in the more privileged communities. However, underlying these calls the fundamental question remains when South Africa is going to proclaim and implement an education policy comprising a uniform open system for all South Africans.

I want to conclude my speech with these remarks. The basic issue of an open system of education for all South Africans is something we must all tackle and solve. In spite of the fact that the goodwill which led to the allocation to this Vote and all the good intentions on the part of those who intend to meet the educational and other basic needs of this country, are acceptable as such, no one must have any doubts that complying with this basic requirement, namely an open system for all South Africans, is the alpha and omega of the actual progress in the field of education in South Africa.

That is why this principle of an open system of education for all South Africans is entrenched in the policy of the LP; a policy which we fully endorse because it is fair and unavoidable. Our young people of all groups, colours, creeds and cultures must get to know one another from an early age so that they can learn to love one another like brothers and sisters of our beautiful country, South Africa … [Interjections] … so that together they can form think-tanks to help South Africa to develop into an economic giant in the world. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I should like to react to the hon member for Wuppertal, and I want to congratulate him on a very good speech. He referred to numerous problems that still exist in South African society, and I want to express the confidence that we as a team in this House, as well as the people who are not represented here yet, will begin co-operating shortly in order finally to eliminate these problems.

I am reacting to this member after the hon member for Brits made his speech. It is very difficult for me to speak with these religious, puritanical White Afrikaner CPs. This is the political party that indicated through its hon leader yesterday that they were heading backwards to nowhere. [Interjections.]

Listening to these debate elicits one’s sympathy for the situation in South West Africa. Regret was expressed, as well as thanks and appreciation to South West Africapol, the South African Defence Force and the fighting units that are taking action there. One political party did not join in this, however, viz the religious, puritanical Afrikaner party—the CP.

The hon members on my left, the LP or the so-called Coloureds, are the people the CP never wanted in this House, and they have nothing whatsoever under South Africa’s sun to offer them, but the LP are the ones who stood up for and came out in support of South Africa’s Defence Force and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I hope the voters will dispose of that political party during the imminent election. [Interjections.]

We shall dispose of you! [Interjections.]

I do not think I should react to that hon member. The best hope he has in Newton Park is to retain his deposit. I challenge him to do his best there. [Interjections.]

It is also very clear to me that there is a kind of paranoid attack on the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the part of the CP. I want to tell them today that the more they denigrate, disparage and belittle the hon the Minister, the more he will grow in the hearts of millions of South Africans who live here according to the principle of “South Africa first”. I get the impression that they are making this terrible onslaught on the hon the Minister because he is a thorn in their flesh.

Did you vote for him?

Yes, I did. So what! Today I stand by the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP. I am not a deserter like the CP members who leave when they cannot find their feet in a party. I am loyal to my hon leader-in-chief today, and I think that is how every decent politician should act.

In the last place, before I turn to Port Elizabeth, I should like to refer to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. I have always had great appreciation and respect for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. I have watched him often. He is a decent, refined man, but after yesterday I cannot but think that he is going off his trolley. He is going off his trolley, because the things that hon member said in his speech yesterday are not worthy of a political leader in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I merely want to know whether it is permissible for one hon member to refer to another as someone who is going off his trolley?

Order! What did the hon member mean by that?

Mr Chairman, I grew up in the North West, and there people always said that anyone who was a bit odd was going off his trolley. [Interjections.] Anyone who did not know what was going on around him was off his trolley. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think what the hon member means by that is very clear, and I request that you instruct him to withdraw those words.

Order! I accept the hon member’s word. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Things are going well with the industries in Port Elizabeth.

You have been off your trolley for a long time! [Interjections.]

Mosgas was undoubtedly the catalyst. CBI is doing the piles, tubulars and impression cylinders, and have work to last them up to 1991. Babcock is building four modules and the whole of the Charl Malan quay is a hive of activity. Algoa Oil and Pipeline are preparing the underwater pipelines. They are using 5 500 tons of cement, for example …

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: To my recollection you still argue in a case in which a point of order is raised, that you will not permit anything to be said about the hon leader of a party.

Order! I have given my ruling. I accepted the hon member’s word. He explained what he meant, and I am compelled to accept his word. The hon member was a presiding officer himself, and he knows that the Rules provide that I must accept the word of the hon member for Newton Park.

Mr Chairman, he said that where he comes from, a person who is off his trolley is someone who has become a little bit odd. You know what that means, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brakpan may resume his seat. I have given my ruling. The hon member for Newton Park may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I shall help the hon member. I shall withdraw what I said by saying the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly is not off his trolley, and is only a little off the beam.

The Eastern Cape training centre has already supplied this project with 1 850 workers. With regard to the whole situation concerning Mosgas in Port Elizabeth, the Eastern Province Herald reported as follows on Wednesday, 5 April 1989:

This is really a very positive picture, and I should like to convey the appreciation of those of us in the Eastern Cape, and specifically in Port Elizabeth, to the Government for this huge injection they have given us.

Our tourist industry is blooming. More people than ever before are discovering the golden beaches and other tourist attractions Port Elizabeth has to offer.

The building industry is also faring well. Things are going very well, especially with regard to institutional construction work, such as the main Post Office, the Supreme Court, Vista and others.

The problem we are experiencing to an increasing extent, however, is the establishment of foreign industrialists. We go to a great deal of trouble to recruit these industrialists, and as soon as we have done so, the red tape begins. We have just lost a large enterprise, Aardvark Engineering, in this way. I am grateful, however, that this matter is still receiving the urgent attention of the Cabinet, and I have already received a letter from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I trust, however, that this matter will be finalised as soon as possible.

We also have another problem, viz the package for decentralisation that encourages settlement in homelands. Alcan has just announced that they have enlisted 6 500 employment opportunities and an investment of R254 million abroad. They are lured to areas where large amounts are paid for employment creation, however, and then the firm does not give proper consideration to whether or not the industry it is establishing is well situated in respect of its markets or well situated to survive after seven years, when these benefits cease.

I want to appeal today that we shall attempt with renewed vigour to attract industries to South Africa from abroad in order to enter into the export market to an even greater extent, and that we shall ensure that they are established in those areas which have the best chance of long-term survival. We must bring new technology to the industrial areas, and we must utilise their expertise in the best possible way.

The Decentralisation Board must make a study of the success or lack thereof of firms that established themselves in our country previously. I am afraid that firms went bankrupt because they established themselves in the wrong places. A disillusioned industrialist is a much greater embarrassment to us than an ordinary, everyday, noisy activist.

Another problem that I want to refer to once again—the hon the Minister must be sick and tired of this—is the question of the home owner in respect of interest rates. I want to appeal, if it is at all possible, for the hon the Minister to try to prevent further increases in the interest rates on home mortgages. Another source is the impossible increase in car prices, which can be to the detriment of our local industry in that people are no longer in a position to buy cars. I am pleased to hear that this matter is receiving the constant attention of the Government.

In connection with Port Elizabeth, I want to refer in the last place to the necessity of considering the economic implications of the era after Mosgas at this stage; in other words, is a long-term energy policy going to be drawn up, or how shall we know to keep the big Mosgas men in Port Elizabeth when the Mosgas project has been concluded and we still have the rest of the nineties to contend with?

I want to agree with the hon member for Yeoville’s appeal that no expenditure for which provision has not been made should be permitted by the hon the Minister. There is one exception, however, and that is our elderly people. The Bible says: “Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Our elderly people are our most valuable possession. They are our fathers and mothers, after all. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister please to use any funds that may become available to improve the living conditions of our elderly.

South Africa finds itself in an exceptionally difficult situation with regard to its elderly and social pensions. People are getting older, and this places an increasing obligation on the Treasury. The responsibility of the Government is being exacerbated, for understandable reasons, in that the number of new entrants is much greater than the growth in the financial contribution is in relation to social pensions. In addition attempts are rightly being made to effect parity in respect of all population groups. This means that immediate attention will have to be given to alternative sources of income in order to supply our elderly with a reasonable income. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the hon member for Newton Park by saying that the hon member for Soutpansberg’s problem is that they must take him along next time to let him ride a camel, only once; then he will come back very satisfied. [Interjections.]

Their problem is they saddled a wild horse when they formed the CP. Now the hon member cannot stay on top. Now that he has seen how easy it is to ride a camel, he is complaining about what happened in Cairo. He could not go along.

As regards the hon member for Brits, he asked a few penetrating questions this afternoon. I want to tell him only one thing. South Africa does not only belong to the Whites. South Africa belongs to all its population groups. We on this side of the House assume that we shall accept joint responsibility for a joint future.

We have heard a lot in this debate about the impoverishment of the White by the NP Government. However, it is necessary to look at the constitution of the CP in this regard. In paragraph 7.1 (b) they say, referring to a so-called own economic development:

What they are in fact saying is that South Africa should have a lower growth rate than that in the national states. This must be maintained until we eventually have a White majority in this country. In other words, what they are telling us is that they will be responsible for the impoverishment of the Whites. How long will it take then, for example, to get the hon members in the House of Representatives established in a homeland? How attractive must they make such a homeland and how long will they then have to wait to attract these people from our present integrated economy to a so-called Coloured homeland?

At the same time they talk about improving the economic welfare of everyone. I now want to know from the hon members of the CP whether, when they talk about improving the economic welfare of everyone, they mean all the population groups in South Africa or only the Whites. The problem is this. If they say yes, they are talking about all the population groups, they know that they will not be able to get these people established in an independent state. However, if they say no, they know that we shall tell them that they are playing into the hands of the revolutionary forces, of communism.

They also believe in a free enterprise system. The question is once again for whom. Only for the Whites, or for all the population groups? The free enterprise system in South Africa is there for everyone to participate in. We on this side of the House are convinced that we must try to involve as many people of colour as possible as entrepreneurs in this system.

A general characteristic of the policy of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly is that they love criticising and that they never explain to the voters how their policy will be implemented and what the consequences will be. They want to introduce a higher growth rate there, but at the same time they want to move the labour force to independent states.

The NP, on the other hand, wants to keep the country’s growth rate within acceptable limits by improving the productivity of our country’s manpower by means of education and training, because job opportunities are created by managers and people. For that reason we want people of other population groups to become managers and skilled people.

The days are past when people created wealth in South Africa but were not given the opportunity to share in that wealth. Wealth in this country belongs to all its people. It is created by everyone and everyone will share in it. As regards our manpower position, we in the NP realise that we must give our urgent attention not to colour, but to productivity.

I would like to ask hon members whether, when they have meetings in their constituencies, they tell their voters what the consequences of their policy will be, and how many people of colour will have to be removed from their area, regardless of how this is done. Does the hon member for Lichtenburg, who is unfortunately not in the House now, tell his people that approximately 42 000 people of colour have to be removed from his constituency? For the hon member of Schweizer-Reneke the number will be more than 27 000 and in the case of the hon member for Potgietersrus it will be more than 38 000 people of colour, the vast majority of whom are involved in the economy of those constituencies.

Has the time not come for the hon member for Lichtenburg, for example, to keep fewer people of colour than Whites on his farm? In that way he would be giving practical effect to the views he proclaims to the people. [Interjections.]

The CP are forever agitating for more money, especially during elections, and blame the Government for doing too little in the fields of education, welfare, salaries for officials, agriculture, defence and many other fields. State expenditure is one of the most important reasons for inflation, and therefore State expenditure must be strictly controlled in a time such as this so that South Africa can live within its means.

The question arises where the CP are going to get the additional funds that they want to spend. The hon member for Delmas said this morning that the cake that had to be divided had to become bigger. However, he did not tell us how to do that. Must we increase taxes, curtail services or negotiate loans? They want to force interest rates down while at the same time maintaining a low rate of consumer expenditure and a sound balance of payments, and they want to encourage savings. They want to decrease personal taxation drastically, but still balance their books, in spite of increased expenditure amounting to thousands of millions of rands. The CP do not keep their voters informed, nor did they do so when they were still members of the NP. They had their voters on a political diet, and I would like to mention a few examples.

I want to ask whether hon members of the CP, when they were still members of the NP, told their voters that they were in favour of Coloured farmers becoming members of White agricultural co-operatives. Did they tell their members this, because that was the standpoint they adopted in the NP caucus? They did not mention it. The hon member for Lichtenburg, who has a White co-operative in his constituency, has never told his people that Coloured farmers should be allowed to join that co-operative, for then he would have to add immediately that they should be allowed to farm there, and if they are allowed to do that, they must have land there. Nevertheless, that was his standpoint in the party.

Have they told the voters that they are in favour of industrial areas having no group character, and that they have accepted joint responsibility with us on this side of the House for the introduction of free trading areas? Have they informed the voters that they are in favour of Coloured people becoming members of White business organisations and workers’ organisations, for example a White chamber of commerce, and that this was decided by the Government as far back as 1977? Those hon members joined us in that decision.

Have their voters been informed that they shared the Government’s view that Coloured inhabitants of coastal towns which had been declared White should be allowed to share the local beaches with Whites? They should take a look at the White Paper on the Erika Theron report. That was the Government’s opinion in view of a recommendation in this regard, and they accepted it. Moreover, have they also explained to their voters what their view is regarding amenities that amenities should be opened gradually to the Coloured population groups, and I quote from recommendation 176 as contained in the White Paper:

To this the Government replied, in 1977, as follows:

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly accepted this, but he never told his voters. If we look at this aspect and at the fact that a Coloured and Indian homeland was rejected by the NP when they still formed part of the party, the following question arises. Since the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition expresses the opinion that his party’s policy of partition is based on the Bible, in other words that it is a religious policy which is almost sacred to them, he must now tell us whether he was being unbiblical when he held those views. If so, when did he become converted, because these views have nothing to do with partition. The NP rejected partition with regard to these two population groups.

If one were to summarise all these facts, one would say that constitutionally and economically the CP wants to formulate a policy in such a way as to suit it and a few of its followers. It is neither capable of formulating nor prepared to formulate a policy economically or constitutionally that is also in the interests of other population groups in this country. That is the difference between the CP and the governing party, namely that we have the interests of South Africa and all its inhabitants at heart. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, there has been a great deal of comment on the present Budget and I do not want to add to it. It is, however, very clear if one evaluates the various comments that they were overwhelmingly positive. The evaluation of experts, as can be seen from evidence given before the Joint Committee on Finance, in the financial press, as well as at meetings to discuss the Budget directly after its introduction, was positive throughout. The hon the Minister and the Government are doing as well as the circumstances permit; they are doing even better in the circumstances than was generally expected.

While all those who know something about the economy were positive throughout, there was one exception, namely the CP. It is clearly starting to crystallise in South Africa that as a rule, when the CP is opposed to a matter or is critical of it, that is the best indication to the Government that it is on the right track. Criticism from the CP is therefore actually a compliment.

I wish to devote my time to certain remarks concerning the government’s role in the economy and the credibility of the Budget, or in other words, budgetary discipline. As broad objectives the following can be stated: Firstly the part played by the government in the economy should diminish over a period. Secondly, the growth in Government expenditure, as an ideal, should be less on a year-to-year basis and, if possible, should even decrease. Thirdly, budget discipline must be as strict as possible, thereby retaining the credibility of the Budget as a financial instrument.

I wish to elaborate on these three objectives. It stands to reason that the community expects the authorities to supply certain services and to provide infrastructure. The community also accepts that the authorities will tax it to find money for this expenditure. The community, however, expects the authorities not to tax it more heavily than it can afford on a fair and just basis.

Here are therefore two conflicting expectations which have to be carefully weighed against each other: On the one hand the expectation of services which have to be provided and on the other hand the expectation that the community must not be over-taxed. If this balance should be disturbed, the result is that the community does not appreciate the services which are provided, but that the attention is focussed on its overburdened position. It can even go so far that the community expects a certain service to be scaled down or even terminated, if that would result in decreased taxation.

Politicians should take cognisance of this, voters can even, in a certain phase of the economy, expect their representatives not to appeal for more of this and more of that, because a politician appeals indirectly for higher taxation. Consequently responsible politicians will also serve their voters by advocating that the authorities play a diminished role in their community.

That brings me to the aspect that we must be more specific when we speak about Government expenditure. Too many people and institutions make general statements that Government expenditure must be kept in check. Without specific proposals these statements are useless and do not contribute to a solution. Opposition speakers in particular should be prohibited from rising here and saying that Government expenditure must be kept in check if they do not give examples of what must be done. The same people who say that Government expenditure must be kept in check, beat a path to the hon the Ministers’ offices to ask them: Build us a road here or improve a school building there or build a police station here, or give more salaries here or give more aid to farmers there. Yet they then have the temerity to stand here and say that Government expenditure must be kept in check.

This morning the hon member for Delmas, fine person that he is, had a lot to say about Government expenditure. I requested him in a friendly manner to come here and tell the hon the Minister how the Government could curtail expenses save in his constituency. Come and tell the hon the Minister from here how he can give less aid to the farmers in his constituency, abolish subsidies on certain foodstuffs, give no salary increases and make no appeals for the improvement of roads, police stations or other infrastructure. The hon member must also go to his constituency and inform the voters that he will campaign for that; then he would be making a contribution.

The hon member for Delmas tried to make a suggestion. He said that power-sharing was the problem. I wish to ask him something. This Government does not spend a cent on the development of a homeland for Coloureds and Indians. How much will his party spend on it? Is this his way of curtailing Government expenditure?

Furthermore his hon leader says that White money will be applied in other communities—in as far as such a thing as White money exists. I accept that those hon members will, for example, close the State Theatre in Pretoria to other communities if they have the power to do so. However, they believe in equal facilities and no discrimination, according to their own statements. Then they are probably going to build an opera complex for the Indians in Laudium, one for the Coloured community in Eersterus and one in Atteridgeville and Mamelodi for the Black communities in the vicinity of greater Pretoria. The cost per opera complex totals approximately R50 million. Is this the hon member’s recipe for curtailing Government expenditure? His reference to power-sharing in this respect is, to say the least, ridiculous.

†The question can also be raised whether can we learn something from the opposition on the left in the House of Assembly. I have said before and I repeat that I have great appreciation for the role of the hon member for Yeoville in the Joint Committee on Finance as well as in debates in Parliament. Yesterday he made a very good speech but he has a lot of thinking to do these days.

What will his position be in the new Democratic Party and what economic policy will they pursue? I suggest that as a possible solution they must think, as with their leadership, to have a troika of economic policies and a troika of economic and finance spokesmen. Then we shall hear in every financial debate the budget according to the hon member Mr Harry Schwarz, followed by the budget according to Prof Sampie Terreblanche and then the budget according to the hon member Dr Zach de Beer. These are three fundamentally different views. No, Sir, unfortunately they too will be of no help.

*I want to conclude with certain ideas regarding budget discipline. I am thankful for the billion rands which has been budgeted for unforeseeable expenditure. This cannot, however, be allowed to create the expectation in anyone that expenditure may be incurred because the money for it already exists. It must be used strictly for unforeseeable expenditure so that it can be an instrument to enhance the credibility of the Budget and can keep the deviation from the budgeted amount at the end of the financial year as small as possible.

From the report of the Joint Committee on Finance it can be concluded that this committee feels very strongly about budget discipline and the limiting of Government expenditure. I quote only two points which apply to this, from the report. The first is:

A second point in the report of the Joint Committee on Finance is:

These are the only two points which apply here.

I wish to make a personal suggestion which I know will be sensitive and controversial. In our Public Service the personnel function is considered to be so important that it is singled out and dealt with on a higher level in the Commission for Administration.

As far as the financial function is concerned—which I maintain is just as important or even more important than the personnel function—the Department of Finance, its Director-General and Treasury are on the same level as the departments which compete for the funds. There is the Exchequer and Audit Act with all its regulations, but I believe that the time has come to consider placing the nation’s purse a step higher than the hands which grab at the money in the purse, for the sake of effective budgetary discipline. Together with that we must also give attention to stricter procedures for acquiring funds from an additional appropriation.

It might be, if this procedure is too easy, that a department knows from the outset that if it cannot make ends meet with its budget, it can easily turn to an additional appropriation to obtain further funds. If we are serious about budgetary discipline and the restriction of Government expenditure, we must also give attention to these matters.

Mr Chairman, after the announcement yesterday by the hon the State President, I think it is obvious to all of us that South Africa finds itself once more at the crossroads. Indeed, one could argue that we have once again reached the banks of the Rubicon.

Having listened carefully to hon members during this debate it is obvious to us that standpoints are being taken with an eye to the coming general election.

South Africans of all colours are going to have to look deep within themselves and they are going to have to ask themselves certain pertinent questions. Particularly, White South Africans are going to have to delve deep into their consciences and ask themselves whether apartheid is indeed justifiable. This applies not only to White South Africans but to their political leaders as well.

When one talks of free enterprise and the system of capitalism, the question in the minds of the people in the townships, the people of colour, is: Where does apartheid fit into the free enterprise system and into capitalism? This is the question that I am posing to the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance.

The system of free enterprise supports the idea that market forces rather than an ideology should determine the growth of the economy. It is interesting to note that currently a campaign is being conducted by the Bureau for Information. This campaign is aimed at promoting the concept of capitalism and free enterprise. In principle one must commend and laud both the bureau and the Minister responsible for the campaign itself. One wonders, however, whether the NP and its members are aware of the implications flowing out of that campaign.

By implication it means that laws and regulations prohibiting the system and the concept of free enterprise and capitalism should be done away with. One would like to know from the hon the Minister whether this is in fact so, because the Group Areas Act prohibits free enterprise. I would like any hon member of the NP to tell me otherwise. If so, please explain to us how the Group Areas Act promotes free enterprise.

I listened with careful attention particularly to the speech of the hon member for Umhlatuzana and I understand his dilemma. He has a serious dilemma. He was charged with reporting to his party on the Natal-Kwazulu Indaba. I do not know what he reported to his leaders but it seems strange that until a short time ago, prior to the election of the new hon the leader-in-chief of the NP, there was absolutely no progress in that quarter. Indeed, NP members and in particular the hon member for Umhlatuzana, made it quite clear that the proposals were totally unacceptable. Yet, when the leaders of the indaba met with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and with the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP, there was suddenly a new climate.

Statements emanating from that quarter said that they had not rejected the indaba. Hence, listening to the hon member for Umhlatuzana today, one can understand that …

The principle has never been rejected.

The hon member should have said that.

It has been said many times.

No, no. From the very outset hon members of the NP in Natal made it quite clear to all and sundry that the indaba was unacceptable. Yes, that is the truth.

But we did not veto it.

Hence, when we listened to the hon member for Umhlatuzana today we realised the dilemma he finds himself in because negotiations have now begun. A climate has been established and he has to find some way of extricating himself from the corner that he has painted himself into.

It is important to say that I personally am grateful to both the hon Ministers responsible—the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Minister who is now the new chief leader of the NP—for taking the step of meeting with the indaba. If ever there was an act designed to create a new climate in South Africa, then that was it.

I listened with attention to hon members speaking today and in particular, among others, to the hon member for Vasco. He challenged other parties and other hon members to explain and to say where the hon the Minister of Finance was going wrong—if at all.

I have to differ with him with regard to finance per se being divorced from party politics. There is a saying in English that it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.

Politics is about finance because where the money goes, determines which political party stays in power. We also cannot ignore the injustices of the past. Indeed, I think that we should learn from those past mistakes. Mistakes have been made and therefore it is our duty, on this side of the House, to highlight the injustices of the past and to make those hon members aware of where they went wrong.

However, we do understand the difficulties faced by those hon members. It is difficult now to go back to that “Tannie” and “Oom” who sits there on that veranda smoking his pipe, and to whom they had been saying all these years: “Apartheid is reg, Oom. Dit is die beste beleid,” and now say to him: “Ag Oom, ons was verkeerd.”

In South Africa we find ourselves in a situation where people of colour may not purchase or own agricultural land except via a permit issued in terms of the Group Areas Act, and yet we scream out loud about free enterprise and capitalism. To add insult to injury to the same people of colour, foreigners can come into the country and purchase agricultural land using financial rands in terms of the status quo that those White hon members enjoy while the same privilege is refused to citizens of this country. [Time expired.]

Debate interrupted.