as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the Arms and Ammunition Amendment Bill, as follows:

A. J. VLOK, Chairman.
Committee Rooms
House of Assembly
3 June 1982

Report and Proceedings to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays:
   14h15 to 18h30
   20h00 to 22h30
2. (b) Fridays:
   10h30 to 12h45
   141115 until the House adjourns
   upon its own resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition is opposed to the motion. I should like to know from the hon. the Leader of the House, and from the Cabinet, why it is necessary to place an intolerable burden and such a strain upon hon. members of this House who are here to do a job of work. Why is it necessary to place this burden upon all the officials of Parliament, upon those who draft legislation, upon the entire administrative staff of Parliament, upon the Hansard officials, the translators, the messengers, the caterers and their staff? Why should they all be subjected to this unnecessary pressure, which affects their efficiency, their home lives and all their personal arrangements, while it does not make it possible for them to carry out their parliamentary duties in a proper and efficient way?

Last night we sat here until 23h20. In terms of the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House we are expected to sit here in this House for a period of altogether 41 hours and 45 minutes. That is if we sit here until midnight on Friday. That is, however, not the full scope of our work as members of Parliament. Most of us arrive here at 09h00, and if one should calculate the time from 09h00, it means that, until midnight on Friday, we will have worked a week of 64 hours and 45 minutes. I should like to know what trade union in the world would allow people to work—carrying the heavy work load that we do—for 64 hours and 45 minutes a week. [Interjections.] That is not the way, I submit, a Parliament should be run. [Interjections.]

Order!

Why do we have to finish on Friday, 11 June? What good reason is there for that? I would have thought the need has already passed for hon. members on the Government side to worry about their constituencies and the in-roads made there by hon. members of the CP. Surely, the time to worry about that has already passed. Is Friday, 11 June, a magic date? I should like to know.

This has been a heavy session, and also a very controversial one, if I may say so. Including Orders of the Day still on the Order Paper, we have so far discussed approximately 114 Bills. We have used the system of Standing Committees for a number of years now, something which has enabled us since 1978 to save something like 40 hours, which accounts for approximately two weeks. Today happens to be the 84th day of this session. If we sit here until Friday it is going to be the 87th day of the session. Before the introduction of the Standing Committee system in 1978—for example, in 1976—117 Bills were discussed in a session of 104 days. That session lasted until 25 June 1976. In 1977 127 Bills were discussed, and the House sat for 103 days, until 24 June. From 1978 a system has been devised which enables us to save up to 40 hours. In 1978 the House sat until 16 June—a session of 92 sitting days. In 1979 the House sat for 93 sitting days.

Methods by which time can be saved by Parliament are fairly and squarely in the hands of the hon. the Leader of the House and the Cabinet. He can dictate at will during what hours the House will sit, and he can spend as much or as little time as he likes in respect of legislation that comes before this House.

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member for Hillbrow tell us whether he does not think his salary increase can be justified only by working longer hours? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, apart from hon. members, who do not expect it, what about all the administrative staff to whom I have already referred—the secretariat of Parliament, the administrative personnel, the messengers and the rest? Are they going to be paid time and a half or overtime for all the extra hours they have to work? Is that going to happen? [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs will be able to tell us. [Interjections.]

If the hon. the Leader of the House wants this session to end by Friday evening he will have to withdraw many of the Bills which are on the Order Paper now. He cannot simply continue to introduce new legislation, even after a target date for the end of the session has been determined. It is no good trying to determine a target date while at the same time continuing to introduce new measures, and not only ordinary measures but measures which—some of them at least—to very controversial.

At the beginning of this session there was an improvement, and the House was kept busy for quite a while. To a large extent, however, that was owing to the fact that last year we had two sessions. We initially had a short session of 25 days before the election, and another session of 51 days later in the year. That means we only sat for 76 days last year, which meant that a lot of last year’s legislation was actually carried over to the beginning of this year’s session. Therefore we had the impetus to carry on. Then we lost that impetus, however. Why can the Cabinet not prepare their legislation during the recess, while Parliament is not in session so that the legislative programme can be ready when the session begins? I am sure they can work out a proper time-table so that things can run smoothly and so that everyone can know more or less where he stands. I consulted Hansard in respect of previous arguments used for similar motions. Last year for instance the hon. the Leader of the House said that for 22 years he and previous Leaders of the House had listened to arguments similar to those I am putting forward now. There was no excuse then and there is no excuse now for this type of action where these matters are under the control of the Government. If we are to complete all the business on the Order Paper at the moment, we shall have to sit beyond midnight on Friday and into the early hours of Saturday morning. If hon. members of this House have to sit for this length of time and especially into Saturday morning, what justice can they possibly do to important and far-reaching legislation affecting the lives of millions of people in South Africa? In fact, when we look at the Order Paper today, we see that notice has been given of the introduction of further legislation. We notice too that one of the most controversial pieces of legislation that could come before Parliament is to be introduced at this stage of the session. Either the hon. the Leader of the House will have to drop some of the legislation on the Order Paper if he wishes to finish on Friday night or otherwise we are going to find ourselves sitting right through Friday night into Saturday in view of the fact that we are to adjourn on our own resolution. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the House, if he intends to dispose of all the business on the Order Paper, whether he is still prepared to let the House adjourn on its own resolution, in which case we will sit through Friday night, and the whole of Saturday, the whole of Sunday and even on the following Monday. I say this because in view of the business on the Order Paper, I do not see how we can possibly finish this business by midnight on Friday or even sometime on Saturday. If we go through to Saturday, the hon. the Leader of the House is going to experience a problem in regard to the stages of the legislation. He is going to find himself in the position where, having got hon. members to work right through to Saturday, he will realize that he cannot complete the legislation because he will only be able to take the final stage on Monday. I say therefore that the hon. the Leader of the House will have to take a very careful look at the legislation on the Order Paper. A lot of this legislation is controversial. There is legislation dealing, inter alia, with the Press, the constitution, elections, the environment, Black local authorities and defence. Hon. members have come to this House to do a job of work and they want to do that work properly. If the hon. the Leader of the House had told us that if we sit tonight and also on Thursday night and perhaps a little later on Friday, we shall be able to complete the work, I do not think there would be very many complaints in this regard. However, as I have said, at this stage it seems highly unlikely that we will even be able to complete all this work by Saturday morning.

In the circumstances, Sir, there is nothing that we can do but lodge our protest to the hon. the Leader of the House in the strongest possible terms. We shall vote against this motion.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP also wish to register our objection to the proposed sitting hours. We do so for the reason that this party has always been opposed to the principle of extending the hours of sitting at the end of a parliamentary session. We believe that this can be avoided and I think it is only fair to place on record our appreciation of the fact that during this year of 1982 tremendous strides have been made towards the goal we are seeking to achieve. Now, during this last week of the parliamentary session, we are faced not with the possibility but with the reality of having to sit both tonight and also on Thursday night and possibly well into Saturday morning in order to complete the business of this session. This means in effect that we are being called upon to do what I want to call extra duty on only two evenings, that is if one does not consider the sitting last night to have been excessive although, as I recall, we only sat about 40 or 50 minutes in excess of our normal sitting hours. As I say, great strides have been made this year, and I think everybody is to be commended on those strides. I also think the hon. the Leader of the House is to be commended on what he achieved by virtue of the fact that a large amount of the legislation was placed before us early in the session. The hon. Whip of the official Opposition is quite correct. We hope to have dealt with something like 114 Bills before the end of this session. This is a great deal of work and, I believe, it has been done effectively up to this point because of far more careful and far more diligent planning than was the case in the past. However, the fact still remains that we are opposed and shall continue to be opposed to this in principle. We are opposed to the principle of having to sit extended hours in order to complete the business of the House. I may even say that it is with a certain measure of regret that we find ourselves in this situation because I shall be, and I know that my hon. colleagues in this party will also be, extremely pleased when the day comes that we do not have to stand up and oppose this issue because it will not arise. This is the goal that we seek, and we shall continue to oppose until such time as we attain that goal. It is my sincere hope that 1983 will see the attainment of that ideal situation.

Mr. Speaker, in the 24 years that I have been a member of this House, there has not been a single year when the House of Assembly has not made use of additional time during the last week of a session. To tell the truth, I think it was a tradition from the outset. Because one has legislation, and because there are others as well, for example, the officials, who have to make arrangements about moving back to Pretoria, one has certain targets. Of course, in determining those targets many other arrangements which must be made have to be taken into consideration.

Firstly, let me point out that we are not dealing here with a new phenomenon. In fact, it has happened in the past on various occasions, not only in the final week, but also in the penultimate week of a session, that there have been additional sitting hours. As far as this is concerned, it is therefore not a well-founded argument to contend that we are now suddenly coming up with something which is not characteristic of Parliament. What we are doing now, is characteristic of the House of Assembly.

Secondly, I point out that neither yesterday nor today has any new legislation appeared on the Order Paper, of which the Oppisition was not notified beforehand. As for me, I have not given the Opposition the wrong impression. In fact, I notified the Opposition several weeks ago that we should be submitting certain legislation towards the end of the session. They were therefore prepared for this. I reject the allegation of the hon. member that the Government does not submit legislation in time. In fact, this year—the hon. Whip of the other Opposition party also pointed this out—the Government has come forward with a programme which was better prepared than ever before. The Government has also done its utmost to do the programming in such a way that Parliament could conduct its affairs meaningfully, as has, in fact, been the case. We have now reached the stage where the hon. members of the Opposition are saying that they prefer not to sit for the additional hours and would rather we proceeded with the session next week.

The fact of the matter is simply that the Government has a legislative programme, a programme which the hon. members opposite were also aware of. Precisely because they were aware of this, the programme will be carried through. All we have being trying to do throughout is to take hon. members with us. We asked them to co-operate so that we could deal with matters in a meaningful way. I think the Government has done this as meaningfully this year as could ever have been the case in the past. It is no use wasting the time of this House any further; we should rather proceed with the legislation. The fact of the matter is that we have a programme, and we shall carry this programme through to the best of our ability. All I ask of hon. members now, is that we proceed with the work before this House in order to dispose of this programme.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, on page 485 of May’s Parliamentary Procedure it is written that in asking leave to introduce a Bill a Minister may explain the objects of the Bill and give reasons for its introduction. But normally this is not the time for any lengthy debate on the merits of a Bill. However, as May states, if the motion is opposed, the opportunity may be taken by the Minister to give a full exposition of the character and the objects of the Bill. The long title of this Bill does not give very much away. It reads—

But the Newspaper and Imprint Registration Act already provides that no newspaper may be published unless it is formally registered with the Director-General of Internal Affairs. Only two weeks ago the passage of the Internal Security Bill, now the Internal Security Act, added new dimensions to that registration by increasing the deposit to R40 000 and by providing for circumstances in which this registration might lapse or be withdrawn. In other words, it provides for Governmental closure of newspapers. But I believe that there is more to this than meets the eye. In February this year the now discredited Steyn Commission report was tabled, recommending a general Press council and a statutory register of journalists. These concepts have not yet been publicly accepted or rejected by the Government, but against this background the NPU have over a period of months been holding protracted talks with the Government to try to reach a reasonable measure of accommodation befitting the circumstances of our times. While I have no knowledge of the discussions that have been held, it is clear to me that the NPU have been more than reasonable in trying to meet the demands of the Government. But it seems to me that this was not enough. The Government appears not to be satisfied with honourable agreements or with proffered goodwill. It in fact wants a law. Perhaps it wants statutory control. So in the dying hours of this session, we suddenly have this Bill placed before us. The ordinary registration of newspapers seems to be no longer sufficient.

Could it be that the effect of this Bill is to force all newspapers to register with the NPU and/or to be subject to a form of Press council already in existence or to be established? Failure to accept this will mean either refusal of registration for new publications and/or deregistration for those newspapers already in existence. In other words, those already in the NPU will not have the right to opt out and those not in the NPU will be forced to get in. Is this Bill not an attempt to force an unwilling NPU by statute to exercise discipline over the whole industry, over newspapers which are not presently part of the NPU fold? If this is the case, I believe the Government is crossing the Press Rubicon and taking the first steps towards real statutory control of the media.

Furthermore, why is this Bill linked to an amendment to the Publications Act of 1974? Most newspapers are at the present time exempted from the provisions of that Act. Does the Government in any way intend to bring, no matter how obliquely, newspapers within the scope of the Act? I believe that all these questions require answers, answers that will satisfy the many doubts that exist, before the First Reading may be accepted, because even if the short-term objective of this Bill is merely to affect the rights of such publications as Die Afrikaner or Die Patriot, its provisions will in the long run affect the rights of all newspapers, and also those of the South African public. Voluntary and well-intentioned agreements are one thing. Legislative coercion in the field of the free Press cannot be supported by this side of the House.

Sir, I have in the past weeks come to believe that recently the climate between the Press and the Government had improved considerably, but I do think that this Bill could well sour and, in fact, damage that climate most seriously. We therefore give notice now, at this early stage, the First Reading of the Bill, that any action to force newspapers to accept an unacceptable form of self-discipline by holding over their heads the sword of Damocles of deregistration or of refusal to registration, will be opposed by the PFP at every stage, and at great length.

Finally, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a few pointed and very relevant questions. Firstly, why has this Bill been introduced now in the last four days of this session, without warning, without consultation, and without hon. members knowing what is coming? If this Bill was so sorely needed, if the Government thought that this Bill was absolutely necessary, why was it not brought to this House a long time ago? Secondly, what are the implications for the media and for the public of the sentence in the long title “to make new provision for the registration of newspapers”? What is the implication of that? Thirdly, has the NPU been consulted in regard to this Bill? If the NPU has been consulted, has it agreed to the provisions of this Bill? Fourthly, have the editors’ organizations of the English and Afrikaans newspapers in South Africa been consulted in regard to this Bill and if they have, have they agreed to the provisions of this Bill? Fifthly, what are the implications of the proposed amendments to the Publications Act? I think that, before we vote on this Reading, we are entitled to be told exactly what those implications are. Finally, do the provisions of this Bill flow in any way from the delapidated and discredited proposals of the Steyn Commission and, if so, to what extent?

Until full and proper answers are provided to these questions and until this House has been enlightened as to the Government’s intentions, we will oppose the introduction of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Sandton, and since I am familiar with the standpoint of the hon. members of the PFP, I can understand why the hon. member is sceptical at this stage about the proposed legislation. As far as we in these benches are concerned, on the basis of what has been indicated here, we have no reason to oppose the First Reading of the Bill. The CP has fixed principles as far as the responsibility and the freedom of the Press are concerned, and we should first like to hear what the hon. the Minister’s reply is to the standpoints which have already been advanced, and which are still to be advanced. Depending on this, we shall adopt a standpoint. At this stage, on the basis of what we have at our disposal, we have no objection to the First Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are also somewhat disturbed about this Bill, but since we have no indication of the contents—the standpoint of this party has always been to know what we are voting on if we are going to vote against a Bill at First Reading—we find ourselves in the position of being unable to vote against this Bill, unless the hon. the Minister clearly indicates some policy principle with which we cannot agree.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend replying to the questions of the hon. member for Sandton at this stage. [Interjections.] After all, all hon. members will have the opportunity of discussing the principles and details of this legislation at the appropriate times. However, there is one remark I must make. The speculations of the hon. member for Sandton are extremely interesting. What did he say? He said that he had no knowledge of the negotiations or talks held or alleged to have been held with the Press Union. Despite the fact that he states here that he had no knowledge of this, he nevertheless draws certain conclusions concerning such talks. [Interjections.] If there were talks, they surely took place after, and not before, the Steyn Commission report. [Interjections.] At the least one has to question the hon. member’s statement that he had no knowledge of the negotiations. However, he has gone further. He has categorically stated that the Government does not wish to accept honourable agreements. On what basis does the hon. member make such a statement, once again taking into consideration the fact that he said that he had no knowledge of the negotiations or the content of the negotiations? [Interjections.] The hon. member should perhaps at a later stage avail himself of the opportunity of telling us how his instinct could force him to draw such a conclusion.

We know you too well; that is all.

However, he has gone further. He said that since the Government did not wish to accept honourable agreements, the Government wanted legislation accepted. I therefore wish to ask the hon. member …

I am not permitted to reply now.

He can reply and indicate whether he does not agree that no Opposition party opposed the Newspaper and Imprint Registration Act.

That is right. But that was long ago—11 years ago.

Nor was the publications Act opposed in 1974.

Of course it was.

The First Reading? [Interjections.] The hon. member must please give me a chance. The hon. member is aware that the First Reading was not opposed in 1974. But it also concerned new measures relating to the registration of newspapers. The hon. member knows this. What kind of ingenuity is he displaying by suddenly asking what new provisions are being introduced here? Really, we are not children!

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

No. [Interjections.] The hon. member has indicated that they are going to oppose this legislation at this stage, in the Second Reading Stage and the Committee Stage.

I asked you for factual information.

I therefore wish to suggest that we do not waste the time of the House at this stage. We can discuss the principle and the details at the appropriate stages.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Nos. 5, 9,15, 20 and 19.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to Votes 5, 9, 15 and 20, printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Schedule

In my budget speech on 24 March 1982, in addition to the amounts appearing in the Appropriation Bill and the printed estimate of expenditure, I announced further concessions of R196 million, which had to be incorporated in the Supplementary Budget, namely: Social pensions, R77,2 million; pension bonuses, R47,3 million; military pensions, R3,3 million; civil pensions, R4 million; contributions for medical aid to civil pensioners who are not members of official medical funds, R5,2 million; land consolidation, R12 million; the bread subsidy, R45 million; the dried fruit industry, R2 million—a total, therefore, of R196 million.

In the printed Supplementary Budget, which has already been tabled, R194,666 million, or R1,334 million less than the above amount, is budgeted for. The decrease may be ascribed to the rounding off during final calculations of the expected expenditure on improved social pensions, mainly by the Department of Health and Welfare and the Department of Co-operation and Development. The supplementary amounts were allocated to the relevant Votes and the details are contained in the printed Supplementary Budget, which is in hon. members’ possession. If there are therefore any questions, my hon. colleagues and I will certainly try to reply to them.

Amendments to Vote No. 5.—“Co-operation and Development”:

Mr. Chairman, before addressing myself specifically to this Vote, I should like to react to what the hon. the Minister of Finance has said. I think that any increase in social old age pensions is to be welcomed, and will accordingly be welcomed by hon. members on this side of the House. The point I should like to make, however, is that I believe that we are going to have to begin to look at this problem of providing for the aged because I do not believe—and I should tell the hon. the Minister this—that this Government or any Government is going to be able to continue to pay social old age pensions out of income tax revenue by the year 2000. I think the only solution to that problem will be the introduction of a system in terms of which every working South African will ultimately contribute towards a pension fund, a pension fund from which he will derive the benefit of both his and his employer’s contributions.

Coming back now to Vote No. 5, I note that the amount voted in respect of welfare promotion for the aged is R129 million. This is an increase of some R20 million over the original estimate. In order simply to reinforce the point I made that we are going to find it more and more difficult in the future because of increasing social old-age pensions, I want to state that if one looks at the total cost of Black social old-age pensions ten years ago, one finds that it amounted to some R9,4 million. Therefore, the increase alone this year is roughly double that figure of ten years ago. If we take the position as it was five years ago, we find that the amount involved was R41,4 million. Therefore in a period of five years, the cost of Black social old-age pensions has in fact trebled. When we look at the figures for the other groups, I think we shall find that the pattern is similar and that social old age pensions are costing us more and more.

However, this factor is even more pronounced in the case of the Black community, and for a number of reasons. The first of these is I think the question of urbanization and the fact that as the Black family unit begins to break down—this is what happens when there is increased urbanization—there are fewer and fewer aged people relying on their family to maintain them and more and more of these aged people begin to rely on the State to maintain them. This is a particular problem that we are going to have to face in regard to the Black community because of their increasing urbanization.

The second problem that relates particularly to Black social old-age pensioners is obviously that they are beginning to live longer. At the present moment a Black female has a life expectancy of just under 60 years; in other words, she does not quite qualify on average for a social old age pension. However, by the year 2000 because of improving health and living standards it is estimated that the life expectancy of a Black female will be 67 years. What therefore can we anticipate? We can anticipate that there are going to be more of these people claiming pensions and, when I look at the replies given by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development to certain questions I put to him, one can see this pattern developing already. In 1978 something like 17 000 new pensions were granted by the Department of Co-operation and Development. By 1981 this figure had increased to 33 844; in other words, it had virtually doubled over that short period of three years. When we look at this position, we find that this department most probably affects more social old-age pensioners than any other department.

I think it was in April of this year that I asked the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development what the number of Black social old age pensioners was, and the figure he gave me was very interesting. As at 31 December 1981 there were 217 417 Black social old age pensioners. In fact, there are more Black social old age pensioners than there are White social old age pensioners. However, what was particularly interesting about that reply was that the hon. the Minister mentioned the fact that these figures were only in respect of pensions administered by the Department of Co-operation and Development and did not include those in regard to the National States. He said it was estimated that 212 000 Blacks in National States were in receipt of old age pensions during September 1981. Therefore, when we consider the total Southern African area we find that there are approximately 400 000 Black social old age pensioners. What is more, this figure is likely to grow because at the present moment there are approximately 750 000 people in the aged category who are Blacks. Within the next 20 years, however, the number of people in the Black aged category is going to double and in the following 20 years it is going to redouble. Therefore, in the next 40 years we are going to have four time as many Black aged people in South Africa as we have now.

Following upon the reply given to me by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, I have one or two technical points that I should like to raise. The first one relates to the question of pensions in the Black national States. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what the position is of South African citizens who receive pensions in and reside in the independent homelands. I ask this particularly because there were Press reports concerning problems in the Winterveld area and with Bophuthatswana. In fact, the hon. member for Houghton asked a question on this. There also appeared an article in the Pretoria News of 1 March 1982.

There are specific questions I should like to ask the hon. the Minister. Firstly, I should like to know who is responsible for the payment of those pensions; it is the South African Government or is it the Government of the national State? Secondly, I should like to know to whom the money is paid. If there are South African citizens who live in Bophuthatswana, is the money paid directly to the pensioner, or is it paid to the Government of Bophuthatswana for onward transmission to the pensioner? It seems to me that some of the difficulties might be that the money is paid to the Government of Bophuthatswana for onward transmission to the pensioner. Thirdly, in the event of non-payment or delayed payment, who is at fault? Is it the Department of Co-operation and Development or is it the Government of the national State, and if there is a mistake, what redress is there? In other words, to whom should those people complain?

I should like to come to the question of the payment of pensions to Black old-age pensioners because it seems to me that this whole area is a problematical one. If one is a pensioner, there are two things one needs. One needs to receive one’s money timeously and one needs to receive it conveniently. I am aware of the extent of the problem because there are 217 000 pensioners who have to be paid through 278 pension offices. I think it is correct that there are 278 pension offices of the Department of Co-operation and Development. I assume that the personnel of those offices have other duties to perform apart from paying pensions. At present those pensions are paid every two months and I assume that they are paid in cash which is both time consuming and dangerous. There is a danger to the pensioner who is receiving a fairly large cash sum and I should imagine there is a danger to the officers who are paying those amounts out, because people know that there is a large amount of money that will be paid out.

I have raised this with the hon. the Minister before and it still seems to me that we should actually ask the private sector to help us here. It has become common for White old age pensioners—I am sure the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare would be able to confirm this—to have their money paid directly into a savings account either with a bank or building society. This is a very good system. I think that since the building societies do in fact receive assistance from the Government, we should have a system whereby each Black pensioner is given the opportunity to open a savings account with a building society so that the pension money can be paid directly into hat savings account. This will result in saving a tremendous amount of the administrative problems we experience with the transfer of funds. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has gone rather wide here, but I shall try to reply to him. I am not sure that the position regarding the independent States is particularly relevant to this Vote. At the start of his speech the hon. member referred to the increasing number of Blacks who are claiming social pensions. He also referred to the increasing number ahead. I mentioned this in, I think, my last two budget speeches. I think it was last August that I had a calculation made by our actuary. If this position went on and if more provision was not made outside the Government for pensions and pension rights for these people, the indications are that we would probably end up with a liability of something like R5 000 million or R6 000 million.

Yes, that is so.

The hon. member will remember. It was an actuarial calculation done conservatively on the basis of certain assumptions as to population increase and so on. It therefore is an enormous problem, and everything the hon. member has said is correct.

One cannot divorce this from another important issue directly involved, and that is that we have been extremely anxious to provide for the preservation of pensions. I think the hon. member, who studies these things and understands these matters, will agree there is great merit in that. What we find today increasingly—besides the fact that inflation also plays a part—is that people who belong to pension funds, particularly younger people, resign in order to get their pension benefits and as often as not they come back within a matter of weeks to their former employers to ask for their jobs back. In the meantime they have bought a motorbike, a car or a television set. That is something which we think is very undesirable because it means that such a person has prejudiced the provision he was making for his old age. By doing that he is throwing a heavier burden on the State. It is so because the State obviously will do its best to try to assist its senior citizens. Any responsible Government will try to assist them, but it is becoming increasingly costly. When people do this sort of thing, try to escape their own responsibility as it were, they put an extra burden on the taxpayer. That is why I am so anxious to find a way of proceeding with this matter on a voluntary basis. Let us get something going.

What the hon. member said about the increasing burden of pension provision, is therefore absolutely true. There is no question about it. We will have to watch this. I do not want to go too wide myself, but this obviously brings one into the realm, should there be a national pension scheme for everybody …

Everybody should belong to a pension fund. It need not be a national pension fund.

Yes, that is another matter. I am certainly not happy at the thought that one can say that the answer to this is a great, big nationalized pension scheme. If that should be done, we will be right in the middle of a welfare State with all the costs involved to the taxpayer. However, what one has to do is somehow to try to find a way of encouraging people more and more to make provision for old age by joining pension funds where that is not obligatory.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister: Should we not do for pensions what we have done for third-party motor-car insurance where it is compulsory to belong to a third-party insurance scheme but where the individual has a choice as to which company he wants to insure with?

These are things to which we will have to give a lot of consideration as we go along. From our point of view we would prefer it to be done on a voluntary basis, if at all possible. But with the liability, the burden, which lies ahead for the taxpayer I have no doubt we will have to do some hard thinking, unless something is done quickly.

The hon. member also mentioned the National States. Perhaps my hon. colleague would be able to make a more meaningful reply on the question of the payment of pensions in the National States.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to comply with the request of the hon. the Minister. The position is that as a result of the normal increase announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in the budget, we voted the following amounts: To Gazankulu, R1,6 million; to Kangwane, R1 005 000; to KwaNdebele, R815 000; to KwaZulu, R13 995 000; to Lebowa, R7 151 000; and to Qwaqwa, R765 000. These amounts in aggregate represent the total given in the supplementary estimates, namely R25 331 000. Here the hon. member already has the answer to his question, namely that an amount is voted in the estimates for allocation to the various national States. Thereafter the amount is allocated and transferred to the individual national States. After that every national State takes over and pays out the amounts itself, because it has its own administrative machinery. Anyone who feels he has been wronged, or who is not paid, must obviously raise the matter with his national State. In exceptional circumstances, such a case can also be brought to our attention, if this is necessary. However, if it is brought to our attention, we merely, in turn, bring it to the attention of the specific national State, and then the process takes its course. The hon. the Minister of Finance has already stated that the independent States are of course not involved in this at all. This is something quite different.

The last question the hon. member for Edenvale put was in connection with the payment every two months. Of course this is a problem. If we could pay the amount every month, we would prefer to do so. As a matter of fact, I held further discussions two weeks ago to see whether this was not possible. But, as a result of the shortage of officials and other problems, we are not able to do it any other way besides every two months. I know from experience that the hon. member is intensely interested in these matters and usually always makes good, positive contributions here. I am very interested in his suggestion that we should perhaps involve the private sector to see if we cannot come up with a more acceptable and easier system and can perhaps make monthly payments. I cannot make any promises, but we shall go into the hon. member’s proposal and if it is at all possible to implement in practice, I shall come and tell him myself that it is possible to do so.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendments to Vote No. 15.— “Health and Welfare”:

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Edenvale I too should like to make the comment that obviously any increase in pensions is to be welcomed, and in this sense we welcome the increases that were announced in the budget. Therefore we shall be supporting this supplementary Vote. However, at the same time I believe it is important that in this Vote which relates to White pensioners, we should keep the whole picture in perspective despite the very large amounts of money that are involved. I believe that this category of persons is still not receiving a fair deal.

The simple fact today is that tens of thousands of pensioners, certainly those in the cities, are struggling to feed themselves, to pay their rents or, in some cases, to find any accommodation at all. Thousands of pensioners have become desperate as the cost of living continues to soar. Their security has been shattered and they face the prospect of having to see out their days in a state of miserable insecurity, and often hungry and cold as well.

To find out why this has come about we need only look at the figures. If one includes the bonuses granted, social pensions this year are going up by 12,6%, which in isolation looks quite reasonable. But bearing in mind the cost of living increase of 16,5%, we are going to find ourselves in a situation where, if that rate of inflation continues, in October this year, when pensioners receive their increases, they will actually be worse off than they were in October 1981. They will in fact be R5 per month worse off than they were a year earlier.

One of their problems, particularly in recent times, has been accommodation. Again, if one compares the increase in pensions of 12,6% this year—it was 11,4% for the year before—with the increase in housing costs of 19,5%, one can understand that this is playing a considerable role in the accommodation crisis in our cities.

I am aware of the fact that the cost of housing, as incorporated in the cost of living index, does not only reflect rental in respect of flats.

There are a number of factors. But I think that anybody in the major cities and towns in this country who is involved with old people, will know that in recent years flat rentals have increased by considerably more than 19,5% on average. Flat rentals have, in fact, rocketed, and pensioners are having to spend an ever-increasing proportion of their income on accommodation. This in turn results in less money being available for food and for keeping warm.

Unfortunately this year has not been an exception. Over the last five years, from April 1977 to April 1982, pensions have increased by 81%—that is pensions announced in April, but taking effect only in October—the cost of living has gone up by 89%, and the cost of food by 113%. This trend has been continuing over a number of years. There can be no doubt that the standard of living of pensioners has been dropping steadily and ominously, despite the fact that during those years this country experienced one of the biggest economic booms in its history, and despite the fact that even five years ago pensioners were struggling to make ends meet.

It is sometimes said that people should have made the necessary provision for their retirement, and in general terms that is correct. However, circumstances have changed. The importance of pensions and the effect of inflation were not factors 30 or 40 years ago when many of the older people of today started work. Now, after the event, it is easy for us to be wise, but I believe that in many cases people were not, in their opinion, irresponsible. Some, of course, did not provide for their retirement, while others attempted to but might have been hit by some financial crisis or other.

There are, however, thousands of pensioners who have been crippled financially by the disastrous rate of inflation that has prevailed in this country for more than a decade. People have been robbed of their savings. They have been impoverished by mismanagement on the part of the Government, and I believe that they are entitled to proper protection. It is not charity; it is returning to those people what was theirs in the first place.

I should also like to deal with the effects of the delay that applies to pensions each year, because the increase only comes into effect on 1 October. Surely, Sir, in this age of computers it should be possible to get matters organized so that the increases can be paid much earlier than 1 October. I think the hon. the Minister should be made aware of the fact—if he is not already aware of it—that this is a source of great irritation among pensioners, the fact that they have to wait six or seven months before they receive the increased pension, during which time inflation has of course, eroded a considerable percentage of the value of the increase.

Then there is the question of payment of bonuses, and I think it is important for the record that the point is made that, since the introduction of this concept a few years ago, generally, pension bonuses have been paid in May and November of each year. For some reason not so strange, last year the bonuses were paid in April and in November, instead of in May and in November. It just so happens that there was a general election on 29 April last year; so those bonuses were paid a couple of weeks earlier. I believe that one cannot but describe that as a shabby and cynical manoeuvre, and to regard it with contempt as having been a pathetic attempt to buy the votes of pensioners, and I believe it failed because they saw through it. The Government should rather set about ensuring that pensioners get a square deal on a long-term basis, so that they can enjoy the security and peace of mind to which they are entitled.

To turn to civil pensioners, I think it is one of the best aspects of this budget that older pensioners will now get 10% plus 1% per year for the number of years that they have been in retirement. It is long overdue, and we welcome it heartily. It will certainly go a long way towards remedying what was a most unsatisfactory situation. It was, of course, not particularly generous to the people who retired very recently, but certainly the most needy group amongst civil pensioners got the lion’s share of the available resources.

The second aspect involving civil pensioners is their right to join an official medical scheme, if they have not been able to join before. That relief is also welcomed.

Finally I should like to refer briefly to the late payment of civil pensions. The hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare said that because of depleted staff this had occurred from time to time, but that the department was investigating the whole issue of pension benefits. It is obviously unsatisfatory for people to go into retirement and then have to wait months before they start being paid their pensions.

I should like to draw attention to the question of interest being paid if the department takes more than 60 days to process the applications. At present the position is that the pensioners have a claim to that interest, but they are not paid that interest automatically. I am sure that many of them do not know that they have that claim. I think it should be paid, if it is the fault of the department, in fact the fault of any Government department, not only the Department of Health and Welfare. In addition, civil pensioners should be informed of their rights in this regard, so that those who have been owed interest in recent years can claim it, because I believe that there have been quite large numbers who are owed money. In future I think they should be paid automatically. If the pensioner has acted in good time to get his documentation in order, he should be en= titled to interest and that interest should be paid. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has a remarkable propensity for exaggeration. He also has a remarkable propensity for exaggerated language. He says the standard of living of pensioners has fallen.

Yes.

Does he know what he is talking about?

Exactly, yes.

If the hon. member is at all affected by facts, he will know that from 1948, when this Government took over …

I said the past five years.

Never mind the past five years. I am replying to the hon. member now.

Well, stick to facts then.

The hon. member will not dictate to me how I answer any matter in this House. So he can just as well settle down.

Yes, you avoid the issue.

Mr. Chairman … [Interjections.] He is an extremely offensive member. We all know that. In fact, I have said it before.

How many votes did you get?

From 1948 to this day social pensions have increased at twice the rate of the increase in the cost of living. What does the hon. member have to say about that? Why does he choose a period of five years? Would he like to tell me that in the past five years pensioners have not done better than in practically every other country in the world? Would he like to make that statement, because I will take him up on it.

I did not make that statement.

He comes along here with a lot of claptrap. What is the position today? He talks of inflation, but we all know that there is inflation in this country. There is, in fact, inflation throughout the world. [Interjections.] If one is looking at the position of the aged, one also has to look at their tax position. Many of them pay tax, and look at the huge tax concessions we have given the aged in the last three or four years, and of course again this year. We have to look at that, and also at the tax thresholds. When does a man over 60 years of age pay tax? Only after he has earned thousands of rand. When does a man over 70 pay tax? Practically not at all, unless he is an extremely wealthy man.

I was talking about social pensions.

One also has to take that into account, because one is talking about the relationship between the Government and the aged.

I was talking about social pensions.

That hon. member can talk about what he likes, but I am talking now. [Interjections.] I am saying that one cannot just single out one factor, say there is inflation and conclude that the aged have been hard hit. What I am saying is that in the sphere of pensions alone we have an unenviable record …

Hear, hear!

I wonder whether the hon. member could just curb his tongue for a few minutes.

It is very difficult for him.

I know it is difficult for him. He is the man who ran across to the other chamber when we were discussing these things last year and talked behind my back. Now that he has to confront me, he is getting rattled because I am stating the facts. That is why he is losing his temper. But I am stating facts.

Do not get personal. Just deal with the issue.

The position is that one has to take taxation into account because many of these people pay tax. What is more, when interest rates were low, how many times did we not hear that the Government should not persist with low interest rates because this adversely affected the aged who had something to invest. Quite a number of these good people have amounts deposited in different places.

What do they get today on a mortgage bond over five years? On a participation bond one can get 18% compound interest. The hon. member leaves that out of account. He should come and see the files of letters from pensioners my hon. colleague and I have. My file of letters received since the last budget is inches high. It contains some of the nicest letters I have ever received, from literally hundreds of people.

What about the nasty letters?

My colleague is in exactly the same position. That being the case, what is all this nonsense about the pensioners not being looked after by the Government?

The hon. member also talked about making the increase effective from 1 October. He said that this was a great hardship. This practice has been going on since time immemorial and, if one is to change it now, one is going to give these people a double jump in one year. Do you know, Sir, that the bonuses alone—that is in addition to the increases in basic pensions—amount to R47 million this year? Not one of the pensioners who talks to me and writes to me and to my colleague does not express his absolute pleasure in and appreciation of these things. Therefore, to say that this Government is careless about the aged, is about the most inaccurate statement anyone can possibly make.

Regarding the management of these affairs, there are in fact hundreds of thousands of individuals involved and each year, as the hon. member for Edenvale said, these numbers are increasing substantially. All this has to be handled. This is being done by the Department of Health and Welfare. The Treasury takes an interest in these things and I can say that we have nothing but admiration for the way in which this matter is handled by my hon. colleague’s department. Why does the hon. member not go to the department and see the way in which this mass of figures is handled? Then he can see what it looks like. I do not know whether my hon. colleague wants to add anything to what I have said, but I want to stress with all the emphasis at my command, that I think this Government’s record, when it comes to the care of the aged and particularly the matter of pensions, is second to none to my own knowledge and in my experience—and I do try to keep abreast of these matters.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to agree with what my hon. colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance said. Sometimes one is astounded when one watches television programmes which are presented as though they reflect the general state of affairs among our aged. I think the Government realizes that they are people who are suffering hardships. We realize that there are old people and pensioners who have problems with their accommodation. We realize that there are problems in connection with increased rentals. This is frequently in the hands of the private sector and we therefore do not deal with it. The hon. the Minister of Community Development has to keep a watchful eye on the position and if necessary, introduce certain measures. Last year measures were introduced to prevent people from demanding too much rent from the aged.

Today I want to state that this Government is very sympathetically disposed towards the elderly. The Government proved it beyond a doubt in this budget. In his speech the hon. member said one or two nice things about the incremental formula of 10 plus 1. I think this is an exceptional formula that we have hit upon. There are approximately 23 000 pensioners that are affected by it. In addition it was announced in the budget that the date of commencement would be 1 April. Every one of those 23 000 pensioners received their increase in April. There was not a single pensioner who did not receive it.

I just want to explain one situation briefly. In terms of a new arrangement people now have to notify their department of their intended retirement three months before they go on pension. The forms which have to be completed have also been simplified considerably. It is no longer necessary to fill in a great deal of information. In any case we already have most of that information at the Department of Health and Welfare, where it is stored in the computer. Here and there of course there are problems in connection with information that was incorrectly furnished. This sometimes causes delays. We are now asking for that information three months in advance. The relevant department for whom we act as agent, sends the relevant information to head office, where it is processed. However, there is very definite instruction to the department to pay the person a pension immediately, from the day he goes on pension. The people concerned therefore receive their pensions immediately. Because everyone has a personal pension there are, for the most part of course factors, for example the date of his last promotion, or even money he may owe the Government, which have to be taken into account. There may be quite a number of deductions. That is why I have directed that on the specific date on which he retires, he must first be allocated an amount. The other calculations can be done later. As soon as this has been dealt with the relevant pensioner receives a refund—if he is entitled to it—and he receives his final pension to which he is entitled. Of course mistakes sometimes creep in. I do not want to suggest that the department always succeeds in paying every pensioner promptly. I do receive letters from time to time from people in which they raise certain complaints. However, we frequently find, too, that the fault in fact lies with the pensioner concerned. This happens when he neglects to furnish certain information that the department has requested. Mistakes of this nature can lead to delays of even two or three months, particularly when people do not submit their forms in time. Of course I do not want to condone delays.

The hon. member also referred to the matter of interest. I have already discussed the matter with the department. The hon. member for Edenvale referred to this when this specific Vote was being discussed. I discussed the matter with the department because I also think that it should not be necessary for the pensioner to complete forms in which he asks for interest. If the fault is ours we must find a system by means of which interest can be paid out more quickly or in terms of which it is automatically added to the pension of the pensioner concerned. I cannot make any promises in this connection today. However, I can state that the matter is being investigated and that the department is well aware of the problem. The hon. the Minister of Finance referred to correspondence. When I took over my present portfolio I literally received hundreds of letters every week. However, the stream of letters is gradually diminishing. At present it frequently happens that for several days running I do not receive any letters. Of course this is my best criterion. Anyone can write to me and every problem presented to us is immediately investigated. Hon. members of the Opposition ought to know about this. They know—particularly those of them who deal with pension matters—that as soon as they refer a case to me they receive the replies they wanted within a day or two. However, this is not a department that does its work in too great a hurry. However, all our affairs work out in the long run. In any case we do our best to care for the aged. In fact we elected to have a Year of the Aged to show our sympathy for the aged, and to ensure that we are able to give them an improved pension as well as better medical funds and improved civil pensions to those who are entitled to them.

I think that the hon. the Minister of Finance has replied to most of the other questions. In conclusion I just want to point out that the Government is well aware of the problems which exist. I can only express the hope that when another television programme on the aged is shown in South Africa—for example in “Midweek” or “Verslag”—we shall be consulted first. We have some of the best schemes in the world here in South Africa. In this regard I can refer for example to the Village of Happiness in Natal. This is probably one of the finest schemes in the country. Next week I am attending the opening of another scheme in East London which will function on the same basis as the scheme in Natal. Wherever it can the Government is doing its share. Of course I am not suggesting that the Government is doing enough. I do not think that any Government will ever be able to do enough to compensate the elderly in its country for their contributions in the years when they were still strong and energetic. However, the South African Government cannot be accused of being lax and doing nothing for the elderly or not coming to their assistance when they are in need.

I repeat that the Government is aware of all the problems and that it will do its duty to the elderly. The Government will do so with all the means and with all the money at its disposal.

Mr. Chairman, while the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare are both here, I should like to raise a rather technical point relating to the means test.

At the present moment, a White social old age pensioner can qualify for a maximum social old age pension of R122 per month. He also receives two bonuses amounting to R5 per month making a total of R127 per month. As from 1 October a White social old age pensioner can qualify for a maximum pension of R138 together quite possibly with the additional two bonuses amounting to R5 giving him a total of R143 per month. If one is a White social old age pensioner one is also entitled to certain benefits such as cheap medical facilities as well as other benefits which the private sector or municipalities make available. I mention cheaper bus fares as a particular example. However, the specific problem I wish to raise is that under the present means test a single person receiving in excess of R116 per month from a pension fund does not qualify for a social old age pension. In this regard we are reaching the situation where a person who has made no provision for his old age could be better off than a person who tried to make some provision. When the social old age pension is increased to R138 per month, the person who is receiving R117 from a private pension fund who does not qualify for a social old age pension under the means test is going to be worse off than a person who has made no provision at all. I think that this is an anomalous position that has to be looked at. As the social old age pension has increased, the means test, particularly with regard to income from pensions, has not kept pace and I think it is a very bad principle that a person who has tried to make some provision for his old age, however inadequate it may be, could be worse off than a person who did not make such provision. I feel this is particularly so when one looks at it from the point of view of pension funds because I believe that we should be giving every South African every encouragement we can to belong to a pension fund. Unfortunately, this anomaly could tend to discourage them.

Mr. Chairman, to reply briefly to the hon. member for Edenvale, I want to say that I think that the point he has raised is a very valid one. I want to tell hon. members that every year all aspects of the means test are scrutinized very carefully because we are very concerned about the position sketched by the hon. member, namely, that people who have made provision for their old age may find themselves worse off than those people who are receiving the social old age pension. An important facet of this matter that we must accept is the fact that the social old age pension that is paid by the Government is simply in order to help people to make ends meet. It is not intended to be a vast amount to enable people to enjoy all the luxuries of life. Unfortunately, we cannot do that. We have to accommodate the person who has made some sort of provision for his old age. However, as I say, the important thing is that we are continually looking at the means test bearing in mind the fact that we wish to encourage people to put money aside for their old age. We also want to ensure that when people do qualify for a social old age pension, it will be something additional to make life a little easier for them. We encounter many problems. We find that people are inclined during their lifetime to try to dispose of their assets so as to bring the total of those assets down to below the sum of R34 000. This is happening all the time. Therefore, when the means test is applied, one finds that some people fall into this category while others fall just outside it. These are the facts that we have to bear in mind. We want to give particular attention to the principle that the person who has made some provision for his old age will have to be treated in such a way that he will not be worse off than a person who has not made such provision. I have taken that point.

Sir, while the hon. the Minister is dealing with the question of the means test, I should like to ask whether he has calculated what the loss is in the value of money since the last occasion on which the means test was raised. Has that actually been taken into account?

The hon. member must give me a chance to look at that properly; I would not like …

All issues must be looked at.

Yes, I shall look carefully at all issues relating to the means test. I shall bear this in mind, but I cannot at this stage give the hon. member an answer on that particular point.

A point of interest which I found in the hon. member for Edenvale’s speech earlier was the fact that the official Opposition has changed its view about a national contribution pension fund. During the first two or three debates on the Vote immediately after I had become the Minister, the official Opposition spoke about a national contributory pension fund run by the Government. I am very glad to notice that this idea has been dropped in favour of an idea which I put two or three budget debates ago when I said that we should rather see that the private sector is co-ordinated on some basis or other, for instance on a similar basis of third-party assurance to which the hon. member has also referred. During the initial stages it could be done on a voluntarily basis and later on it could become compulsory, but there must at least be an equitable fund. One should not need to shop around to find one; one must be able to walk into any place and find some sort of a pension fund. There was even a suggestion—the department is looking into this at the moment—that the fund should be run on such a basis that if one has enough money to pay in more, one must be allowed to do that. If one can do that instead of paying in a fixed amount every month, one will be able to build a better pension for oneself in the end. I just want to point out that we are in full agreement in so far as that particular change of direction on the part of the official Opposition is concerned.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendments to Vote No. 20.— “Agriculture and Fisheries”:

Mr. Chairman, at a time when practically every important food commodity has increased in price, the decreased subsidy on bread comes as a shock to the consumer, and it is a disgrace to the Government. At a time when many of those who have limited skills will find themselves jobless or potentially jobless as a result of the economic slow-down and therefore without an income, one would have expected that a civilized Government would have attempted to make basic foodstuffs available to the consumer at a reasonable price. At a time when inflation is soaring to the highest level yet in the history of the RSA, this Government stands indicted of a very callous disregard for the poor for whom bread is the major part of their staple diet. When one notes that the price of food has increased by more than 14% during the first five months of this year, then one realizes that the anticipated 20% to 30% increase in the price of bread in October this year is enough to break the spirit of many South Africans who today already are living on or below the breadline.

To me it was clear, when the Government set its priorities on expenditure, that the hon. the Minister and his colleagues turned their backs on the poor. The reasons for doing so, I believe, are quite clear. I believe there are two reasons why they did this. Firstly, this is a post-election budget, and from the point of view of the NP, they do not really mind very much if they lose the support of the voters, because before the next election I am sure attempts will be made to buy those voters back again. [Interjections.] That is why the 1978-’79 subsidy was lower than the 1977-’78 subsidy and, in turn, that is why the subsidy this year is lower again.

I believe the second reason for the low subsidy can be found in the fact that the Blacks, many of whom are poor, do not have a vote at all. Therefore they do not really count in the eyes of the NP. One must warn the Government that when people can no longer afford to pay for the food they have to eat it can spark off unrest. Governments have been broughts to their knees before now because of food prices.

The bread subsidy has decreased over the years in real terms while at the same time the Government has by way of general sales tax placed higher and higher taxes on the commodity itself. Normally it is said that a Government gives with the one hand and takes with the other, but that cannot be said of this Government. This Government grabs with both hands. With the one hand it takes by reducing the subsidy and with the other hand it takes by increasing GST on foodstuffs, including bread, by as much as 25%. Over the past three years the subsidy on bread and wheat products was reduced from R175 million in 1980-’81 to R160 million the next year, and it has now been further reduced to R158 million. It has therefore dropped year by year and this at a time when bread consumption is probably increasing at something like 7% per annum and when inflation is running at an average of 15%. The question arises as to what the subsidy should be if the Government is serious about doing its job properly. I think this is a legitimate question.

If one accepts that the increase in consumption is about 7% and if the assumption that inflation is running at about 15% is correct, and inflation works its way through on the price of bread ingredients and on production costs, then the 1981-’82 subsidy should have been in the region of R215 million and the subsidy for this year should have been approximately R264 million. When one works this out, one finds that the Government has therefore short-changed the consumer by something like R100 million.

When one links this to the recent increase in the price of maize, which in itself started an unprecedented price spiral, the seriousness of the situation becomes even clearer. Animal feeds which have maize as a basic ingredient have all increased in price. The price of eggs has increased by between 7 cents and 8 cents per dozen. In order for milk producers to stay in production the price of milk has to be increased, probably with effect from this month. Maize, which is a major component in meat production will very soon be affecting the production price of meat as well.

We are not alone in our criticism of the reduction in the wheat subsidy. The General Manager of the Wheat Board agrees with the prediction that the consumer price of brown bread will increase from the present 28 cents per loaf to 37 cents per loaf, which represents a price rise of approximately 32%. The subsidy per loaf will in fact be reduced from 13,3% to a meagre 9%. Nobody is satisfied with the subsidy. The consumer is not satisfied because it is far too little. The millers and the bakers claim that the 15% return on capital which they have been allowed since 1974—when it comes to calculating the cost price for subsidy purposes—is so low that they would get a better return by selling out and investing their money some where else such as in a building society or a bank. The approximately 26 000 wheat farmers are not satisfied because the wheat subsidy holds out no advantage for them. In fact, I believe that the subsidy should not even be shown as part of the agricultural budget as I believe is done in the case of all other consumer subsidies. The farmers claim that the subsidy being reflected where it is, simply prejudices their case when they have to negotiate with the Government for an increase in the wheat price in October. I have on several occasions, by way of questions to the hon. the Minister of Finance, tried to establish what the sum of money is that is raised from the sale of bread by way of GST. So far the hon. the Minister has not or has not been able to answer that question. I almost believe that the Government does not want the public to know what this figure is. [Time expired.]

That is absolute rubbish!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said here that the Government was unsympathetic towards the poor. He also maintained that the subsidy should have been much higher. The hon. member argued that for the previous financial year the subsidy should have been R215 million and, after he had made certain adjustments, he said that the subsidy on bread should have been R264 million for the present financial year. The hon. member argued from the standpoint that bread is a staple food. I find it strange that the hon. member did not also argue for a subsidy for the consumers of maize meal. After all, this is also a basic staple food in this country.

I can only speak about what is in front of us.

The hon. member omitted to make an appeal for the other farmers in the country as well. He made an appeal from one specific angle only and tried to turn this into a political issue. He also tried to curry favour with the consumers. If one considers that the staple food of the Asiatic community in South Africa is rice, why did the hon. member not advocate a subsidy on their staple food? The hon. member should at least be consistent. When he wants to use a specific point of departure he must at least make an appeal for the other people affected by these things. The fact that the Government still succeeded this year, in the midst of the prevailing tight financial situation, in voting R158 million as a subsidy for consumers of bread, I think it is something we need not feel ashamed about. As a matter of fact this proves the Government’s bona fides to the consumers, and as such it can be seen as an achievement. If one takes all the problems in consideration which the hon. the Minister of Finance had to overcome in a difficult financial situation in order to balance his budget I think that we should be particularly appreciative of the extent of the subsidy on bread.

I also want to state that no responsible government, under the circumstances in which this year’s budget had to be drawn up, could have increased the subsidy on a single product to as much as R264 million, as was requested by the hon. member. I think that this would have been financially irresponsible and it would also have testified to a lack of financial discipline. I think it would also have led to demands for higher subsidies by the consumers of other staple foods. This year however, we must all tighten our belts.

In addition the hon. member compared the increased amount of R158 million as though it were the only subsidy which was going to be paid this year. However, that figure is subject to review, and it depends to a great extent on what the increase in the bread consumption will be. The fact that there was such a considerable increase in the bread consumption is in my opinion one item of proof that bread was not priced out of the market. I think the increase in the consumption of bread is in fact very good proof that this commodity is still entirely within the reach of most people.

The hon. member raised an argument here which I did not like very much, and now I am speaking to him as one agriculturist to another.

He is not an agriculturist.

Yes, but he does have a few pigs. When the hon. member speaks about food prices he must not bring up this story about all the poor people who supposedly cannot afford food. After all it is a fact of life that there are poor people and it goes without saying that one has great sympathy for them. However, if one uses this as a point of departure, it is actually as I understand the hon. member, a sin to increase food prices, because there are poor people in the country. I want to appeal to the hon. member not only to emphasize that aspect but at the same time to draw attention to the fact that the producers are also subject to price increases.

I did that.

What is more, the hon. member should do this in a balanced way by also saying that the secondary industry which processes that product is subject to cost increases. This also applies to the tertiary sector which distributes the product. He should also admit that the increase in food prices is unavoidable as a result of inflation.

The hon. member also tried to suggest that there was no such thing as brown bread in this country. He created the impression that we all eat white bread, and white bread only. What are the facts of the matter? At the moment we subsidize white bread by 5,7 cents per loaf, and the hon. member knows after all that this is double the amount of the general sales tax paid on a loaf of white bread. The subsidy is therefore almost double the GST paid on a loaf of bread, and the consumer gets that general sales tax through the subsidy in any case. When we come to the matter of brown bread …

Yes, and the poor quality of brown bread in the Transvaal.

We are not bakers.

The hon. member is now saying that the Transvaal bakers cannot bake bread. [Interjections.] I do not think it is politically very clever to say that. [Interjections.] I do not think such an experienced politician as the hon. member for Yeoville should say that the bakers in the Transvaal cannot bake bread and that their bread is of a poor quality. On behalf of the bakers of the Transvaal I take the strongest exception to this. [Interjections.] After all, I know a few decent people who are bakers; they are good people. I assume that even in the hon. member’s constituency there are decent bakers.

He insulted the bakers.

Sir, I cannot allow the bakers to be insulted like this. [Interjections.] Because the bakers are not here to defend themselves, I want to take up the cudgels for them. I think the hon. member is being very unfair to the bakers. [Interjections.] I want to pay tribute to the bakers … [Interjections.] They render an exceptional service. [Interjections.] If it were not for the bakers …

Pietie, you are the biggest baker of all!

… we would not have had fresh bread every day in this country. Millions of people would have had to go without fresh bread in this country. What is more, those bakers work at night. [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon. member has noticed how early bakers get up. [Interjections.] They also work over weekends. [Interjections.] However, the thanks they get from the hon. member for Yeoville is the allegation that the Transvaal bakers cannot bake bread or bake only poor bread. [Interjections.]

It is the poor man’s food.

Yes, brown bread is the poor man’s food.

That is why it is of such poor quality.

I really hope the hon. member for Yeoville is going to withdraw this uncalled for attack on bakers. [Interjections.] Whether the hon. member for Yeoville’s brown bread is poor or bad, it still remains cheap. The subsidy per loaf of brown bread or whole wheat bread is as much as 13,7 cents per loaf. I think we should mention these facts. Consequently there is a subsidy to the consumer of 13,7 cents on the price of 28 cents. This means that we are paying a subsidy of 49% on the selling price of a loaf.

And it has risen considerably.

I do not know of any other place in the world where food is subsidized by almost 50%. This testifies to a Government which is very sympathetic in its approach to this important staple food, in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville says it is poor food. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Wynberg referred to speculations by the manager of the Wheat Board. The hon. member almost spoke as if he accepted that this would be more or less the amount by which the price of bread is going to be increased in October. I want to give that hon. member some good advice. He must not make the same mistake his hon. leader made during the election when he announced the maize price in advance but unfortunately announced the wrong price. I am going to tell him the same thing I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I do not care if he takes over my job, as long as he does things the right way! He must not announce the wrong prices, because I may be blamed for this.

What is the price of maize at the moment?

R134 per ton.

That is correct.

Yes, I know. However, last year the wrong announcement was made before the time. [Interjections.] What does the hon. member for Yeoville suggest the price of maize should be?

What do I suggest?

Yes.

If you appoint me as Minister I shall tell you. [Interjections.]

The Government is extremely sympathetic in its approach to this staple food. Tremendous amounts are being spent in this connection. One need only think of the subsidy of R158 million for a single product. Surely this is an indication that the Government is doing its level best to be of assistance to the consumer in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister censured me for only referring to the subsidy on bread and wheat products in my speech. However, the hon. the Minister knows just as well as I do that if I began discussing the subsidy on maize, rice or any other products today, I would have been ruled out of order. Since the hon. the Minister raised those matters, however, I just want to indicate that it is clearly my party’s policy that these products should be subsidized. They are basic foodstuffs. We are in favour of going so far as to say that milk ought to be subsidized under certain circumstances, because without milk one cannot raise a healthy child. I think the Government should consider going much further with regard to subsidies.

The hon. the Minister also raised another very interesting point. Reading between the lines, he seemed to suggest that the subsidy of R158 million may not be the last word and that if the consumption of bread increases at the rate at which it has been increasing during the past few months, in October—I think the hon. the Minister referred to October—we shall be lucky enough to receive further subsidies, because it is in October that the new wheat prices will be announced. That is when the shortage is going to occur and when the bread prices will be increased, as the general manager of the Wheat Board himself predicted.

I should like the hon. the Minister’s attention so that he can reply to a question. I want to ask him whether in fact, by way of this statement, he wanted to tell this House that the subsidy on wheat will be revised again this year, or whether we can expect a larger subsidy on wheat to be made available by the Government.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief. What I said is that the R158 million cannot always be accepted as the final figure because one cannot predict the exact consumption of bread in advance and that the sale of any agricultural product is to a great extent linked to the economic and financial situation in the country. For this reason it may be that more bread has been sold than was projected. In that case the Government will not go back on its word to the consumer and will look into the matter. That is all I said—nothing more and nothing less.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Vote No. 19.— “Defence”:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

I just wish to provide a brief explanation. Hon. members will recall that I said in my budget speech that as in the past, defence and security remain one of our highest priorities and that it is the Government’s objective to place the Republic in as powerful and secure a position as possible with the resources at its disposal.

The cash flow of the Defence Force, and consequently its vote, has been subject to considerable uncertainty for some time, due to operational factors on the one hand, and the rate at which large consignments of equipment are being delivered on the other. This matter has already been dealt with in the Select Committee on Public Accounts and an arrangement has been made whereby this problem is reconciled with the requirements of parliamentary control. Legislation to give effect to this particular decision of the Select Committee has been included in this year’s Finance Bill, as hon. members will have noticed. In terms of this arrangement, and the resultant statutory amendments, it will in future be necessary, as has, in fact, already been done in the printed Defence Force Vote for 1982-’83, to specify, apart from the cash grant of the Defence Force, the total commitment authority of the Defence Force and its estimated under-expenditure as well, in order to arrive at the estimated cash flow which has to be voted.

This commitment authority is the maximum amount to which the South African Defence Force can commit itself, with parliamentary sanction. The real cash flow will, of course, be lower during the financial year, and it will depend on the real under-expenditure. This technique enables the Defence Force to achieve a high degree of preparedness, while the cash assets which have to be voted, are confined to a minimum. If, as in the past, Defence Force activities are confined to the cash grant, this means that due to the inherent uncertainty of defence actions, an even lower level of achievement is attained. This also means that every infringement of the cash grant as a result of unforeseen and urgent operational actions will not be unauthorized, but will be covered by the commitment authority. The printed vote of the Defence Force at present shows the total commitment authority as R2 900 million, while the estimated under-expenditure is fixed at R132 million. The estimated cash flow—this is the grant—is set at R2 668 million, after provision has also been made for estimated available funds of R100 million.

The requirements of the Defence Force have been subject to an intensive review over the past few months, with a view to restricting expenditure to the minimum, against the background of the present financial situation, without prejudicing our preparedness. While there is not yet certainty about the final cash flow, it is already apparent that an increase in the commitment authority of the Defence Force will be unavoidable. Accordingly I have agreed that the total commitment authority of R2 900 million be increased to R3 068 million, and that the estimated under-expenditure, as printed, be adjusted from R132 million to R300 million. Amending pages of R.P. 2—’82 have already been laid upon the Table, and will be included, together with the amendments resulting from the supplementary budget, in the second edition of the Estimate of Expenditure.

I believe that it is my duty to inform this House about the change at the earliest possible opportunity, and to obtain its approval of the increased commitment authority and the increase in the estimated under-expenditure. At the same time, I should like to give the assurance that the adjustment is essential to ensure the country’s security. Although this adjustment causes the general cutback of R100 million, as printed in the Budget, to fall away, I wish to emphasize that the Defence Force, in co-operation with the Treasury, is still doing its utmost to keep the cash flow as low as possible in view of our general policy to limit State expenditure, and to keep the burden on the taxpayers as light as possible. The situation is being reviewed continually, and if necessary, the final adjustments will be submitted to this House in the appropriate way before the end of the financial year.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to state immediately that we in these benches naturally approve of the concept of the commitment authority, largely because, I believe, we are entitled to receive credit for the idea. This idea was after all put forward by us in the Select Committee on Public Accounts. It was accepted by that Select Committee and the purpose was, of course, to ensure that the stigma of unauthorized expenditure should not be attached to expenditure in respect of activities which could indeed be foreseen. Therefore as far as we are concerned, we appreciate the fact that our ideas have indeed been realized and have now become part of the process.

I do have to state, however, that I believe the hon. the Minister should have had this debate after the debate on the Finance Bill, which is the next Order of the Day on the Order Paper. I say this because the authority to do what we are doing now, is actually contained in the Finance Bill, which means that we are now actually going to pass a Budget while the authority to do so has not yet been granted.

I am getting two authorities.

The hon. the Minister says he is getting two authorities. This one is actually slightly irregular though because the Finance Bill should have been passed first in order to obtain the authority to pass this budget. That is, however, merely a minor debating point I believe. The problem that we have in regard to the actual document that has been placed before us is that when we look at pages 19.1 and 19.2 which are the two new pages forming part of the Defence budget, we see that in a number of cases, two of which we are particularly concerned about, there has been a rejuggling of figures. We find that the figure of R3 000 million in the original printed Estimate has now become R3 068 million but, as I say, in the process there has been a rejuggling of the figures. This is the factor that disturbs me. When we look, for example, at a branch of the service which is very close to my heart, viz. Air Defence, we find that the original figure was R73 833 000 while now the figure stands at only R69 770 000. I do not understand why we should now be spending less in this respect. We can take Maritime Defence as another example. The previous figure was R152 million and it now stands at R134 million. The matter becomes even more confusing because, as I say, we only have before us pages 19.1 and 19.2 of the Estimates. Therefore, when one tries to find out what the reason is for the reduction of this amount in respect of Air Defence in Programme No. 3, one is unable to do so. Therefore I do not know and, as far as I am aware, nobody else in this House knows, what aspects of this branch of the service have been affected by this reduction.

The same thing holds good as far as Maritime Defence is concerned. Where have the cuts been made? When one goes through the various Programmes one finds in regard to Command and Control that it shows a decrease while Landward Defence shows an increase. There is a decrease in regard to Air Defence and Maritime Defence and an increase in respect of General Training. There is a decrease in regard to Logistical Support as there is in regard to Personnel Support. With great respect, Sir, we are unable to get to the bottom of this because we do not know what has actually happened here. Because of this, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence who is concerned with this matter, and not the hon. the Minister of Finance, how it is that he has accepted the cuts in these Programmes because he is now going to have to deal with the situation where he is going to have less money.

I want to refer again to the two particular examples I mentioned earlier, viz. Air Defence and Maritime Defence. We have recently suffered the loss of an important naval unit and I would assume therefore that we are going to do something in regard to maritime defence. We have aircraft involved in long-range sea reconnaissance which urgently need replacing from some source or other. We are going to need money in order to deal with these matters. We also have a “fight” on our hands in which we are using aircraft to an increasing extent. How can we actually cut down under these circumstances? I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence to give us an explanation in this regard.

When we look at the change in the commitment authority with regard to the Special Defence Account, we find that in the original printed estimate the amount was R1 482 million while it is now R1 754 million. However, when we look at the amount of anticipated expenditure we find that it was originally R1 350 million and it is now R1 454 million. Therefore, in the final analysis the difference between this amount and the actual amount as set out in note b is relatively small. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Defence would explain this to us so that we can be put into the picture. I was under the impression that what would happen with the commitment authority was that we would get authority to spend more money than we anticipated spending and that, depending upon operations that could be embarked upon or purchases that would have to be made, the commitment authority would be there so that one would not have to report such expenditure as being unauthorized expenditure. However, because of the way in which this has been presented to us, it does not appear to me as though Defence is receiving any more money. That is the first point.

Secondly, I am very concerned about particular items which are cut down. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister of Defence will explain the one set of circumstances to me and that the hon. the Minister of Finance will explain the other, and that between the two of them we can get some agreement as to where the money is coming from, where the commitment is and why the cutbacks on these items.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Yeoville for the support he gave on the Select Committee on Public Accounts to the financial technique of authorization of over-commitment. I want to support everything he said in doing so, because this is a very essential technique when one is dealing with defence, where equipment has to be bought which has to be ordered long in advance. It is important that one should then have more flexibility so as to be able to meet one’s financial obligations.

The hon. member wanted to know what had happened here. He said later that he was concerned about the rearrangement of the finances involved in the items and then questioned whether defence was getting enough money. I want to deal with the last aspect first. I do not believe that defence can ever get enough money, but I think one should establish a sense of balance in one’s financial requirements. This is a very important factor which we discussed at length last night. I can assure the hon. member that the Defence Force is always mindful of the fact that we must have a healthy, growing economy in the country. The demand for funds is considered, planned and negotiated in the light of that consideration. That is also the reason why, in the reprint which is now before the Committee, two basic changes may be observed to which the hon. member referred.

The first one is that there has been a rearrangement of items or programmes. Amounts initially indicated against certain programmes have been moved, with the result that the provision for certain programmes has been reduced and that for certain other programmes has been increased. The reason why this has happened between April and the present time is that the Defence Force has taken the recessionary effect into consideration. It has realized that against this background, it has to effect certain basic changes.

But why do the Air Force and the Navy have to …

I shall explain that presently.

The second aspect which arises from this and to which the hon. member referred is the fact that the over-commitment authority has increased. That is the refinement of the technique in terms of which this amount, which was originally R132 million, has now been increased to R300 million. It is perhaps important to ascertain what an over-commitment authority is. It is nothing more than the right to overdraw one’s bank account. Therefore one can go in one’s planning from a smaller amount of R132 million to R300 million; in other words, R168 million more. This does not mean that one needs the cash, but one can do this in one’s planning facet, for in this type of planning—I am coming back to it once again—and in this kind of determining of one’s requirements, matters have to be arranged well in advance. One is not always sure when the product can be delivered. Therefore one must have money available so that a specific need may be met at a later stage.

I shall now deal more specifically with the questions put by the hon. member. He referred, among other things, to air defence. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member always talks about the Air Force. He is a former Air Force man and he has a very good association with the Air Force. I want to assure him that if he were to analyse these programmes and if he were to look at air defence, he would find that those aspects of offensive air support are not included under air defence. Offensive air support is included under landward defence. When one looks at landward defence on the basis of the amendments that have been made to this programme, one will find that the provision for landward defence has actually increased by R130 million. So there has been no reduction here, but a very great increase.

But it is not for the Air Force.

The Air Force is included under this. It is the top priority.

†We are talking about air defence and not about air support or the Air Force. Part of the expenditure on the Air Force is included under “landward defence”. [Interjections.]

*I do not have the details available as to what amount has been allocated to every subdivision of every part of the Defence Force. However, I can assure the hon. member that landward defence, including air support, is the top priority and that there is an increase of R130 million in the expenditure on this.

As far as air defence is concerned—the hon. member asked a question about this—there is a reduction in expenditure of approximately R4 million. This nominal reduction is as a result of certain economies that have been practised with regard to air transportation, Air Force training and air passengers and freight. Therefore I can assure the hon. member with regard to the aspect he is worried about. There has been no curtailment of the expenditure in respect of offensive air support.

The hon. member also made a very important statement when he referred to maritime aircraft. I share his concern in that connection. Funds required for that kind of weaponry system are not reflected on an annual basis, but will appear in the 5-year plan. When provision has to be made for the spending of these funds, it will be included in the programme.

The hon. member also referred to maritime priorities and pointed out that we had recently had the tragic accident where we lost one of our ships. The hon. member pointed out that when the estimate of maritime expenditure approved in April 1982 is compared with the figures that have now been submitted to this House, there is a decrease of R18 million. Here we are definitely concerned with priorities. Our greatest threat at the moment is in respect of landward defence, which has a bearing mainly on the Army and the Air Force, and not so much on maritime defence, which obviously includes the Navy. As far as the Navy is concerned, we have already obtained missile boats, and other facets have also been completed. In this way, for example, the resettlement of Salisbury Island has taken place and the necessary infrastructure has already been created there. As a result, the decrease in respect of maritime defence is acceptable this year.

The hon. member also referred to the Special Defence Account. I want to refer him to page 19-2, item J, in the estimate of expenditure. The amount in April was R1 582 891 000, while today it is an amount of R1 745 000 000. This represents an increase of R172 million. I think the hon. member for Yeoville was quite right, because it is this aspect which is very important. It is this account which is used to provide the Defence Force with armaments that have to be ordered long in advance.

Question agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Severity of current world economic recession

During the two and a half months which have elapsed since I delivered my Budget address in March this year, the analysis of the economic situation and prospects in South Africa which I presented on that occasion has I believe stood up well. As I shall indicate, the developments in the South African economy during this period have closely followed the lines we anticipated at that time.

On the broader international front, however, the information which has become available during the past two and a half months has been disappointing and disturbing. The anticipated economic recovery in the United States and the other major industrial economies has not materialized. On the contrary, during the first quarter of 1982 the real economic growth rate was minus 4,3% in the United States, minus 0,8% in the United Kingdom and minus 4,0% in West Germany, to mention only three important examples. The unexpected severity of the current world recession has clearly become a matter of great international concern and was intensively discussed at the summit meeting held in Versailles over the past week-end. The anticipated economic recovery in the United States and several other important industrial countries is now only expected to commence late in 1982 at the earliest and clearly cannot gain much momentum before well into 1983. For us in South Africa it would therefore only be realistic to accept that the favourable impact which this upturn in the world economy is bound to have on our exports, will not be felt to any material extent until sometime next year.

Impact of world recession on South Africa

It is common knowledge that as an important trading nation South Africa has been adversely affected by the world economic recession. First and foremost this recession has clearly contributed to the sharp decline in the gold price from an average of $613 per ounce in 1980 to an average of $460 per ounce in 1981, and to its present level of around $320 per ounce. A closely related factor has been the persistent application during the past two years of restricitve monetary policies in the United States and many other important countries, involving strict control over the money supply and high real rates of interest. In the United States this strategy has had the effect of sharply reducing the rate of inflation and increasing the value of the US dollar on the world’s foreign exchange markets. By reducing both the investment and the industrial demand for gold, these developments, in turn, contributed significantly to the decline in the price of gold.

In addition to its effects on gold the severe world recession has brought about stagnant conditions in the international markets for many of South Africa’s other exports, including diamonds, platinum, iron ore, chrome, manganese, maize and sugar. The result has been a marked decline in our total foreign exchange earnings from gold and other exports.

In these and other ways the world recession has had a marked adverse impact not only on our balance of payments, foreign reserves and exchange rates but also on domestic expenditure and income generation. Just as South Africa’s upward cyclical movement of 1978-’81 was an export-led boom, the present phase is clearly an export-led downturn.

Latest economic developments in South Africa

Against this background, the latest developments in the South African economy and the short-term prospects can perhaps be summed up briefly as follows: Although economic activity is still at a very high level, the South African economy has since August 1981 been in a downward phase of the business cycle. Precisely when the next lower turning point will be reached, is impossible to predict at this stage. It is of interest to note, however, that in the past the average duration of downward cyclical phases in South Africa has been about sixteen months. In the meantime, while the present downward phase lasts, most economic indicators, including investment and consumer spending, manufacturing output, wholesale and retail sales and imports, will either tend to level off or to decline in real terms, that is, after correcting for price increases. I might just interpolate that investment at this moment is still holding up extremely well which is a very good thing for our economy because it denotes continuing confidence on the part of the investing public. Reflecting this downward cyclical phase, the annual rate of growth of real gross domestic product, which on average amounted to 4,6% between 1949 and 1981, seems certain to decline from the high levels of about 8% in 1980 and 4,5% in 1981 to a lower figure in 1982. The growth rate in 1982 will, of course, also be adversely affected by the moderate if not negative contribution expected from the agricultural sector as a result of the drought experienced in certain areas.

The rate of inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, was of the order of some 14,8% for the year ended April 1982 as compared with the corresponding previous year. It is true that this relatively high figure was distorted to some extent by the effects of the introduction of the 10% import surcharge and the increase in general sales tax from 4% to 5% earlier this year. It is nevertheless unacceptably high, particularly in relation to the rates of inflation in our main trading partner countries, which for the most part have declined appreciably during the past year or so. Inflation is, as we know, a complex phenomenon, but the relatively high rate of increase of the broad money supply during the past two years and the accompanying depreciation of the rand in terms of other currencies must be counted among its more important causes, together with substantial general increases in costs and prices and in salaries and wages in the private sector, and continued escalations of “administered prices” in the public sector.

Despite the slowing down of the economy, the deficit on the current account of the balance of payments, which last year amounted to about R4 billion or 5,5% of gross domestic product, increased during the first quarter of 1982 to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of about R6,7 billion, or 9,0% of gross domestic product. This deterioration was largely the result of the further sharp decline in the price of gold during the early months of 1982 and the weaker performance of our other exports. Imports still increase in value terms but, in comparison with the third quarter of 1981, showed a decline in volume terms of 7,5%, and that I think is to be welcomed in the circumstances.

Despite this large current account deficit, the gross gold and other foreign reserves held up well, mainly because the tightening of the short-term financial markets and the accompanying further rise in interest rates induced the banks to bring in funds on a considerable scale from overseas. Largely as a result of this increase in the banks’ short-term foreign liabilities, however, the net gold and other foreign reserves declined by a further R1,4 billion during the first quarter of 1982.

In these circumstances the rand continued to depreciate against other currencies. Between the end of 1980 and the end of May 1982—nearly 18 months—the rand depreciated by an average of about 20% against all other currencies and by about 30% against the United States dollar. Of course, one could put it the other way around by saying that the United States dollar appreciated to that extent against the rand. The United States dollar has in fact appreciated by 30% against the rand. It has indeed appreciated very substantially.

*From the summary I have just given of the most recent economic events, it is clear that the correct economic policy for us will still have to be one of consolidation of the domestic economy and adjustment of the balance of payments.

There is one dangerous misconception which seems to exist in certain circles and which I want to try to remove today. This is the idea that the real economic growth rate in South Africa has declined because the Treasury and the Reserve Bank have been implementing an unduly stringent and restrictive fiscal and monetary policy, and that therefore we can now increase the growth rate again by adopting a policy of stimulation or reflation. If anyone still believes this, he is certainly making a great mistake. It is not the Treasury, the Reserve Bank or any other authority in South Africa which has caused the gold price or the prices of South Africa’s other exports to decline, or which has brought about the high real interest rates overseas or the drought conditions in certain parts of our own country. We are not as influential as all that! These unfavourable developments have been caused mainly by the world depression and other external events over which no one in South Africa has any control. What we have done is to point out the need for consolidating the domestic economy and adjusting the balance of payments to these unfavourable external developments. Accordingly, we have adjusted our policy in respect of Government expenditure, taxes, loans, interest rates and exchange rates to the altered circumstances. In the light of what has happened since, we may be grateful today for the fact that we began to implement a policy of consolidation and adjustment in good time, otherwise, I believe, South Africa would have found itself in a serious financial crisis by now. If the Government had not exercised strict control over its expenditure and increased certain tax rates, if interest rates had not been allowed to rise to their natural market-related levels, and if the exchange rate of the rand had not been allowed to depreciate naturally against other currencies, South Africa would never have been able to absorb the unfavourable effect of the world depression as well and with as little disruption as it has.

While I am dealing with this subject, I should like to refer to criticism which is sometimes levelled at the Government because it has also been forced to curtail some of its export incentives in its attempt to keep Government expenditure within financeable limits. I want to emphasize again that the Government attaches great importance to the major contribution made by exports to the national product and to the dynamic role that exports play in our economic life. For this reason, export promotion is a top priority in our economic policy. Exporters have benefited greatly from the downward adjustment of the exchange rate, especially in the last 18 months. The unavoidable step of curtailing certain export incentives must very definitely not be seen as a negation of previous statements made and standpoints adopted by the Government in respect of the importance of exports as an element of economic growth and the stimulation of exports by means of certain fiscal measures and other forms of more direct assistance. On the contrary, exports are and remain of vital importance to the continued economic development of the Republic, and the Government will continue to promote exports as far as it possibly can. This is one of the top priorities which will receive further attention at an early stage as soon as the position has returned to normal.

By definition, a country cannot adjust to a sharp drop in the prices of its major export products without making certain sacrifices. For a country like South Africa, which has a deficit on the current account of its balance of payments and which therefore has to make use of foreign credits and other loans, a sharp rise in overseas interest rates obviously cannot be painless either. Naturally, any exchange rate depreciation must also take its toll in the form of higher inflation. When these hard realities are considered, it is clear that South Africa has absorbed these external economic shocks very well indeed and has adjusted to them.

Of course, this does not mean that our fiscal and monetary policy has been ideal in every respect. It is always possible to see, in retrospect, where the policy could have been improved upon. With all the information which is available to us now, it is true that we should perhaps have implemented the policy of consolidation and adjustment sooner and more intensively. Viewed in retrospect, our policy in recent years has been too lenient and too accommodating rather than too strict. As lender of last resort, the Reserve Bank created money or had money created for several bodies, such as the National Supplies Procurement Fund, for the Land Bank, for the financing of the record maize crop in particular, and for the banking system as a whole. In the process, the banks were fairly generously provided with both cash reserves and liquid reserves, which enabled them in their turn to expand their own money creation considerably. The result was that in 1981, the money supply rose by 25%, compared with 27% in 1980. In the first quarter of 1982, this rate of increase temporarily rose to 41%. Although, for certain technical reasons, the latter figure is not an accurate reflection of the real monetary demand, it is obviously too high.

In the light of these facts, there is absolutely no justification for accusing the authorities of having followed an unduly restrictive policy and of so-called overkill. The opposite was closer to the truth, i.e. we were too successful in protecting the domestic economy against the cold winds of the world depression, for the sake of economic growth, and in so doing we may have somewhat delayed the essential adjustment of the balance of payments.

†No premature stimulation of the economy

Taking all these facts and figures into consideration, I wish to stress today that the Government intends to stand firm and to persist with its present policy of what we call consolidation and adjustment for as long as might be necessary to ensure the strength and stability of the South African economy. There can be no question, at this stage, of any artificial stimulation or reflation of the economy by means of increased money creation, still higher Government spending, relatively low interest rates, lower taxes and so on. These things must be left to the normal working of a basically sound economy.

As I have indicated, we realize that the economy is now in a downward phase of the business cycle and that the real growth rate has declined, but this so-called “cooling off” in the economy forms an essential part of the required adjustment process.

It is, I believe, imperative that the South African economy should adjust to the changed circumstances, even if this requires some measure of sacrifice. As a nation we simply cannot live beyond our means. The longer we postpone the inevitable adjustment, the more disruptive it will be in the end, and the economy might then be unable to avoid a deep and long-lasting recession. Any premature artificial stimulation of the economy will, in the medium and long term, reduce and not increase the average real rate of growth.

As I stated in my budget speech, the laws of economics cannot be evaded. One way or another, the decline in the gold price and other adverse external developments must affect the real disposable income of the average South African resident. During the past two years this influence has been exerted largely through inflation and currency depreciation, a process which would be intensified through premature so-called “stimulation” of the economy. This would, I believe, be a very bad way of “adjusting”. Among other things, it would place too much of the burden of adjustment on pensioners, widows, small savers, civil servants, teachers, nurses and other fixed-salary workers and wage-earners who are not always in a position to have their incomes timeously adjusted in times of inflation.

The present policy aim is therefore to achieve a better form of adjustment to all the factors I have mentioned. This can only be done by an appropriate combination of fiscal and monetary policies designed to restrain the monetary demand for consumer and capital goods to the extent required. Failure to apply such policies effectively would mean a continuation of the present very large deficit on the current account of the balance of payments, a still further depreciation of the rand and continued inflation at an unacceptable rate. Monetary and fiscal policies, in the months ahead, must be aimed at permitting the prevailing economic tendencies to take their natural course, and not to try to reverse them prematurely or arbitrarily. In short-term economic policy in the period ahead I believe that timing will be of the essence.

Domestic loan financing

Regarding the thrust of our present fiscal policy, it remains the aim of the authorities to finance the budget “deficit before borrowing” in a sound and non-inflationary manner, i.e. avoiding the use of additional bank credit for the purpose of financing the Exchequer.

The available figures on the progress of the Exchequer Account during the first two months of the current financial year show a somewhat higher rate of deficit than expected for the full year. This, however, can be ascribed to the seasonal nature of both tax receipts and expenditures, which result in relatively large deficits on the Exchequer Account over the first few months of the financial year. Although it is still early in the new financial year, I do not expect that the deficit before borrowing for the full 1982-’83 financial year will exceed the amount originally budgetted for.

Because of this seasonal development in the Exchequer Account the Treasury has, in collaboration with the Reserve Bank, seriously attempted to sell the maximum amount of Government stock possible to the non-bank private sector during the first months of the financial year in order to ensure that this deficit would not contribute towards an increase in the money supply. It therefore affords me much pleasure to inform the House that almost the full amount of R1 414 million which has been provided for in my budget speech for re-investment of stock redemptions and new Government stock issues, has already been obtained through the sale of Government stock during the first two months of this financial year. These results cannot be described other than as being highly successful, and have made an important contribution to the sound financing of the so-called deficit before borrowing in the budget. Incidentally, they obviously also show that the credit rating of the Government is extremely high.

In this regard I wish to inform the House that the following scheduled Government issue will take place during the last week of June. This issue will entail a tender offer of R400 million of Government stock as follows—

This issue is partly aimed at the holders of stock amounting to approximately R261 million which is due for redemption on 1 July. When this amount of R400 million is added to the stock already sold, the Treasury will, by the end of the first quarter of this financial year, already have borrowed more than its originally budgeted amount for stock issues for the full year. That is, of course, in the domestic market.

The success of these issues must to a large extent be attributed to the more realistic and market-related interest rates connected with the more effective application of monetary policy. To my mind this underlines the point that a conservative fiscal policy cannot succeed without the effective use of monetary policy and that the optimal combination of monetary and fiscal policy is of the utmost importance to ensure the necessary policy in practice of consolidation and adjustment of the economy.

Since the beginning of this year a number of policy changes have been effected to enable the authorities to exercise more effective control over the money supply. For instance, the Treasury Bill rate was allowed to exceed the Reserve Bank’s bank rate, which contributed to the investment also of nonbank funds in Treasury Bills. Also, since February, Government stock was for the first time issued with signal success on a tender basis. Furthermore, the link which existed between the prime overdraft rates of the commercial banks and the bank rate itself was severed, which permitted the prime rates to rise with other rates to their natural market-related levels and in this way resulted in positive real interest rates, i.e. nominal interest rates above the inflation rate. These higher rates form an indispensible component of our policy to restrain domestic demand and to attract sufficient foreign funds to finance the deficit on the current account of the balance of payments. In this important objective I believe we have been signally successful.

In their recent report, the authoritative mission of the International Monetary Fund, which came to South Africa for the purposes of the 1982 Article IV consultation earlier this year, welcomed this phenomenon of positive real interest rates in our economy. This group of international economic experts also expressed their support and commendation for our present fiscal and monetary policy strategy and especially for our policy to control Government expenditure realistically though without curtailing essential spending, to permit interest rates to rise to their natural market-related levels, and to allow the exchange rate of the rand to adjust to what we believe are realistic levels in the circumstances. To us this report is an encouraging commendation of our financial policy under difficult circumstances.

* Public Debt Commission

Another point which I should like to touch on briefly is the problem which we have experienced in the past, but particularly last year, with regard to Treasury financing. As I have said before, the Public Debt Commission was unable, for a variety of good reasons, to contribute the full amount provided for in the budget to the loan requirements of the State in 1981-’82. This forced the Treasury at times to make use of Reserve Bank credit, which, of course, had the undesirable effect of increasing the money supply.

For this reason, and because the Public Debt Commission is such an important provider of investment funds to the Treasury, and is itself a major investor in the market, I decided to appoint a committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of Prof. D. J. Franszen, one of its instructions being to examine the organizational problems, as well as the policy-making and implementation procedures relating to the investment of funds of the Public Debt Commission. I trust that this committee will produce some useful ideas which will help to prevent, as far as possible, a recurrence of the difficult position in which the Treasury found itself last year.

Auditing of Secret Accounts

There is a further matter in connection with the Treasury accounts which I should like to bring to the attention of this House, because I do not want any uncertainty about this.

The question of the auditing of secret accounts was recently raised in this House, and, I understand, in the Select Committee on Public Accounts as well, and I very briefly want to say something in this connection. In terms of section 42 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, the Auditor-General has the power to audit all the accounts of all accounting officers, as well as the right of access to all the books, records, vouchers and documents of accounting officers. He has the right to obtain, investigate and inquire into such documents. In terms of section 42(7), I may, after consultation with the Auditor-General, determine to what extent the audit of an account can be excluded from a detailed audit.

I have not excluded any secret account or project from any audit by the Auditor-General. I have repeatedly said in this House that all secret accounts will be audited by the Auditor-General, and I adhere to that standpoint. I do not intend to use the provisions of section 42(7). Now, in his report for 1980-‘81, Part II, paragraph 16(2), the Auditor-General stated, with reference to his previous report and the subsequent evidence given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, that—

The Auditor-General went on to report that arrangements had however been made which would ensure the auditing of those sections under his supervision, and he expressed his satisfaction with that situation.

At my insistence, these arrangements were in fact made, and they provide for the Special Defence Account to be properly and fully audited by the Auditor-General. The auditors are working on this audit at the moment, and as far as I am concerned, the matter may safely be left in the hands of the Auditor-General. I want to add that we had the full co-operation of the Department of Defence itself. Naturally, there were certain delays. The fact, is, however, that this matter is being dealt with very thoroughly and that a full audit is being done.

Agricultural Financing and Aid

The question of agricultural financing and aid is still receiving the full attention of the authorities. It is known that the abnormal increase over the past year in the advances made by the banks to the Land Bank, to an amount of R2,3 billion, considerably complicated the implementation of monetary policy, as well as creating problems for the banks. A further amount of approximately R800 million is now required by the Land Bank. This means that the total amount will now go up to more than R3 000 million. The Reserve Bank and the Land Bank are at present working in close co-operation with the Department of Finance and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in attempting to put together a new package of financing arrangements for the Land Bank, which must inevitably be based on more realistic and market-related interest rates than in the past; at least, while interest rates remain as high as they are.

Arising from the interview which a delegation from the south African Agricultural Union had with the hon. the Prime Minister and other Ministers on 10 March 1982 concerning possible aid to farmers in the summer rainfall regions who had suffered crop damage as a result of drought conditions, the Jacobs Committee investigated the matter in consultation with the South African Agricultural Union, and it has already formulated concrete proposals concerning financial aid to the farmers. A formal announcement in this connection will be made shortly. It is expected that the proposed programme of aid to wheat farmers in the summer rainfall areas will largely take the same form as similar aid programmes instituted in 1979 and 1980. They involve the payment by the State of an interest subsidy on the outstanding debts of farmers in respect of the 1981-’82 production season and supplementary aid from the Financial Aid Division of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to those farmers who are experiencing serious financial problems.

The nature and extent of the aid must inevitably be adjusted to the financial means of the Treasury. However, the Government fully sympathizes with the farmers who have suffered great damage to their crops as a result of the drought conditions, and it is consequently prepared to help them recover financially. I believe, Sir, that it will be seen that this aid may be very effective.

†Looking further ahead, one cannot help being optimistic about the prospects for the South African economy. It is expected that the United States and the other major industrial countries will move into a recovery phase in the not too distant future. All the comment I see and hear at the present moment is that this could well happen within the next six to nine months. When this happens, the demand for primary commodities is bound to increase sharply. I believe South Africa is better prepared to benefit from such an increase in demand than ever before in its history. We have in recent years expanded our railway and harbour facilities and our other infrastructure—notably that connected with the large-scale provision of power and the production of synthetic fuels—to such an extent that we should have the capacity to increase the aggregate volume of production throughout the economy and exports substantially when the time comes. As has happened many times in the past, South Africa should then benefit enormously from the improvement in world economic conditions. Since I am also optimistic about the prospects for gold during the next world economic upswing, I have no doubt that, once the stresses and strains of the current world economic depression comes to an end—and, Sir, it is a depression, nothing less—a period of rapid growth and prosperity lies ahead for South Africa’s versatile economy and all sections of its dynamic population. That is my conviction.

Mr. Speaker, I am rather pleased that the hon. the Minister ended his speech on an optimistic note for the future because during the speech itself he really had us in a fairly sombre mood. I could not help but draw a comparison in my own mind between the sombre picture painted by the hon. the Minister today in telling us his tale of woe at this stage, June 1982, and the picture we had of an ebullient Minister in February of 1981. In making this comparison I thought to myself how marvellous it was at election time! [Interjections.] I wonder what actually would happen if we had an election today. It would be a most fascinating situation if we were about to have an election. What do we have? We have had a really remarkable session of Parliament. We have passed almost 100 Bills. We have a brand new political party sitting here on my left. [Interjections.] We have a President’s Council report that is being debated all over the country. We have the hon. the Minister’s sombre picture of the economic position of South Africa. We have the Minister of Defence who sits smiling there because his Defence Bill is about to be passed. We have a new manpower situation. Sir, we have a whole new bail-game within a matter of 12 months. We really are in a different bail-game politically, socially and economically in South Africa within a matter of a few months. Within a few months the whole game in fact has changed.

If we look at the situation as the hon. the Minister of Finance has painted it, it is, with respect, a sombre picture that he has painted. He says, looking back maybe there would have been things they could have done better. He said that one could always do that with hindsight, but he is in power. He has to be judged by his results and he cannot say that he is not obliged to have foresight. Of course he must have foresight, of course he must plan correctly. That is the reality of things.

There are a couple of things however, on which I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister. I think the fact that he has raised the sums of money which he has by Government stock issues, is more than satisfactory. I think this success is due to the fact that the Government appreciated, contrary to what it did at the end of last year, that if one wants to raise money, one has to raise it at market-related rates. That, I think, has been the real reason for the success, and I think he is to be commended for it.

I also want to tell him that we are very happy that he has asked for the inquiry in regard to the Public Debt Commission. We raised that issue. We also welcome the fact that he is going to ensure, as far as he is concerned, that there will be no exemption in respect of the auditing of the Secret Account. Those things we welcome.

When it comes to the question of agricultural credit, there I think we are still going to differ with the hon. the Minister because part of the reason for the problems in regard to the raising of funds for farming is the fact that the financing of the agricultural needs of South Africa is done outside of the normal market sector. The normal market mechanisms do not apply. I do not say that farmers should not be assisted in regard to finance, but then it must be done by means of a system of subsidization. The market mechanism in regard to finance should, however, be allowed to operate, and until that is accepted, I think we are not going to find that we solve the problem of the financing of the farmer.

If it comes to the question of export, we recognize the problems that exist, but one of the things I think the Government has to realize is that if growth of the economy is dependent substantially upon exports and if in fact a very substantial proportion of the gross national product is related to trade—in other words, to imports and exports—then one has to examine the structure of the economy in order to deal with that particular problem, not only from the point of view of economics, but unfortunately in our position from a political point of view too because our dependence for that very large proportion of our gross national product upon imports and exports has very serious political implications for South Africa as a whole in the international scene. I believe that if the Government does not look at that and does not examine that situation, it will be failing in its duty because it is one of the most important things for the survival of South Africa.

In the time that is available to me, which is very short, I should also like to have a bit of a go at the constitutional position. Right at the beginning I want to say that whereas I believe that constitutional change in South Africa is important, the fundamental reason for the existence of politics and for the activities of people in regard to constitutions is to achieve two things for people. Firstly there are the personal freedoms and the rights of the individual and secondly the economic and social welfare of the particular individual. I believe these three things go hand in hand: Constitutional change, personal freedom and economic and social reform. If one does not deal with all three together, one cannot solve the problems of a country. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that it is actually unfortunate that at a time when there is a demand for economic change in regard to the allocation of resources in South Africa and for the removal of discrimination in regard to social services, we are going into a recessionary phase. I believe that if economic conditions were better we would be better able to solve not only economic problems but also political problems. I think this is an unfortunate thing that has happened to us and it is something which we have to bear in mind as a reality.

As the hon. the Minister has correctly pointed out, the time is appropriate for the examination of the state of the economy. The position actually is not encouraging. As far as we are concerned inflation is at a far too high a level. Secondly, the reality of life is that the growth in the gross domestic product is at a very low level. The forecasts of many economists are that we will have a nil or negative growth next year and perhaps even longer than that. If one bears in mind population growth, the reality is that our per capita growth is already in negative terms and is likely to be far more negative in the future. This means that the average living standards in South Africa will drop.

The rand stands at almost a historic low. I looked at the rate only an hour or so ago and I must say that I am very unhappy about the state of the rand. This is a factor which we cannot ignore.

Interest rates remain at relatively high levels. It is part of the fiscal policy of the Government that interest rates should be in real terms today, but one also has to bear in mind that this always goes hand in hand with hardships for the smaller businesses, homeowners and individuals who rely on credit.

When one turns to the labour field, one still finds, strangely enough in these times shortages of skilled manpower. However, this is combined with indications of growing unemployment in respect of those with lesser skills.

The business mood is described by optimists as being cautious and by those with less positive approaches as being pessimistic. The state of mind is terribly important when it comes to the whole question of how an economy is dealt with.

The hon. the Minister has dealt with the current account and the balance of payments and has also referred to the world market conditions which are sluggish and remain so, particularly in so far as gold is concerned, except for the occasional hiccup when there are world tensions. However, at the moment it remains at a low level.

The picture therefore is not really a happy one. The individual, the ordinary man in the street, is faced with high mortgage rates and with the high cost of domestic credit. If he invested in shares and he did not sell in time, he will be showing losses. Inflation is eroding the savings of ordinary people. Retired people and those living on fixed incomes are not doing very well despite the high interest situation. However, the most important of these things is inflation. The question which has to be asked pertinently in this debate is whether the Government has done enough to deal with inflation. I believe the answer is “no”. We have repeatedly been told that action has been taken in regard to the money supply situation. The hon. the Minister said it again just now, he said it in his Budget Speech and he also said it last year. Yet, when the statistics appear, it is clear that the rate of increase in the money supply has been at far too high a rate. Little wonder that the question has been asked by economists whether there is a stringent monetary policy or even a momentary policy at all. One economist—I do not want to mention his name but I am prepared to give it to the hon. the Minister if he wants it—is reported as saying that the first quarter’s increase in the money supply is explosive. Another very reputable economist—in fact, he serves on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council—called the increase “extraordinary”. The problem is that the increase has not occurred in the first quarter of this year only. It is not just an isolated occasion. The pattern over the past 18 months has been consistent and demonstrates an overall level which shows on the one hand an inability or unwillingness really to tackle the problem. On the other hand, it may well be that the Government has taken a decision that we will have to live with high levels of inflation and that a restrictive monetary policy is not the correct medicine for our situation. That really is what the hon. the Minister has to answer. I think that we should get some indication from the hon. the Minister as to what his real policy in relation to this is because the concern over inflation is real. It is a factor which we have to bear in mind. As one economist puts it: Once a high rate of inflation becomes embedded in price and wage expectations, it is difficult and costly to reduce it to more acceptable levels. In other words, the higher it gets the more difficult it is to bring it down.

There are various things which are relevant to this. Assocom, for instance, has expressed its concern in regard to the way in which administered prices are being handled and with the degree of self-financing of certain key State institutions. All of these things have been dealt with. Even in this session of Parliament we have had the self-financing on the part of the Post Office and the Transport Services and we have had a stream of increases in administered food prices which appear to have no end.’Inflation feeds upon itself. In a country with a commitment not only to large defence expenditure but with expectations for the righting of historic imbalances in social services, the risk of its getting out of hand is real. While there are now certain self-correcting mechanisms operating, which have come about as a result of the recessionary conditions, we believe that there need to be more Government action to deal with inflation. We call for it and we ask the hon. the Minister to deal with it.

I would also like to deal with the political situation because this is the last debate that we really have for that. There have been appeals by the hon. the Prime Minister for the holding back of final judgments on the recommendations of the President’s Council. There has been a call by my own leader for a constructive debate in respect of the constitutional position in South Africa. There is also quite clearly a need to find consensus between groups and there is a need that people who are leaders of moderates in South Africa should find each other in regard to consensus. There are some problems in regard to this debate to which one would like to have an answer. Firstly, who are the parties to this debate going to be? Is it only the Government and certain Coloured and Indian leaders, or is there going to be an endeavour in the White community to find consensus in the White community as well? [Interjections.] Secondly, is there going to be an endeavour to have this kind of debate with Black leadership as well? The reality is that even although the recommendations of the President’s Council place the Blacks in a particular category, no-one can say that the Blacks are not affected by this situation. The question is therefore: Are they also going to be part of the constitutional debate in South Africa?

We had the meeting of the caucus of the NP on Saturday, a meeting of its MPs and MPCs, and we are relying to a considerable extent on leaks which have come from that caucus as to what guidelines we decided upon. [Interjections.] The question that one needs to ask … [Interjections.] I do not know why hon. members are so excited. I am trying to conduct a reasonable debate, but they do not seem to want it. [Interjections.] The question that I want to ask is: What is there to debate? Why do we not put the cards on the table as to what the guidelines of the Government are so that we can decide what there is to debate in South Africa? What is there to debate? I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister specifically today: Is there now, in the light of the guidelines that he presented to his caucus, any need to consider a referendum at all? Are we not virtually back to the 1977 proposals? That is really the issue, because if we are in a situation where we are going to have a referendum I believe we should know about it and we should be able to see that the cards are on the table and the issue should be debated. I agree that if there are endeavours to find consensus one needs a degree of flexibility. I think that there should be that flexibility, but let us at least see where the guidelines are. Let us debate them and let us have them on the table. Then we can see where we go from there. The reality that faces the NP today—and it faces it so clearly bearing in mind the members of the CP who sit here—is: What is actually the role of the NP? Is it a party of reformers or is it a party of people who stand for the status quo?

What is the role of your party?

That is the question that we need to ask because we all know about the 1977 constitutional proposals. But how much further are we as a result of the President’s Council recommendations than we were in 1977? That to my mind is a crucial question.

I want to deal with one aspect of the President’s Council’s report which to my mind has not been debated to that extent. On page 18 of the first report of the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council they say the following—

On the same page there is a footnote which states—

A little later they refer to the fact that according to Prof. Young’s thesis—

On page 25 of its report the committee opines that White South Africa is multi-ethnic and is also almost completely voluntaristic. It states—

Therefore this question arises. If it is adequate for the White community which is multi-ethnic to be voluntaristic, is it in fact the recommendation of the President’s Council that it should be voluntaristic for the other colour groups, and if so, in those circumstances, is it then necessary to have the Population Registration Act and is it in fact the intention of the Government, bearing in mind the comments it has made on the President’s Council’s report, to repeal the Population Registration Act in so far as it concerns the White, Coloured and Indian people at the present moment? In other words, is it going to be voluntaristic? Will one be able to choose to which group one belongs in accordance with the definition accepted by the President’s Council or will one be forced into a group? I ask this because this is one of the vital questions for South Africa.

When one looks at consociational democracy one realizes that it can only function if one accepts this voluntaristic concept. This is one of the things to which I believe we should get an answer in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville commenced very calmly and ended somewhat heatedly. I shall begin with the more heated part of his speech and then go on to the calmer part. The hon. member asked: “Why are the cards not put on the table” as far as this constitutional matter is concerned? Who really initiated this investigation? The Government initiated it, and those hon. members do not want to be part of it. However, now they want the cards on the table. It is the Government’s prerogative to place the cards on the table when it deems it necessary to do so. In the meanwhile, the hon. member for Yeoville will just have to wait patiently. [Interjections.]

He made a great fuss of the fact that the inflation rate is high. We are all still of that opinion and meanwhile, we are still waiting for the hon. member for Yeoville to tell us how we can cause a drop in that figure. Thus far, we have heard nothing from him about this.

Furthermore, the hon. member for Yeoville made an incorrect statement in his speech, and I should like to rectify it. He said: “The financing of farming is done outside the market mechanism”. However, this is not correct. Part of the financing of farming may be done outside the market mechanism, but if he is perhaps thinking of financing by the Land Bank, he should realize that a very large portion of the financing of agriculture is not done by the Land Bank, but, in fact by the commercial banks, and at normal, market-related interest rates. [Interjections.] A moment ago, before I came to the House, a farmer told me that he was having problems with a commercial bank which had now increased his bank interest to 20%. It is therefore a generally recognized fact today that much of the financing of agriculture is done by normal banking institutions.

The hon. member for Yeoville also remarked that the hon. the Minister of Finance was in a “sombre mood”. And so was the hon. member for Yeoville, Sir, only much more so.

When one comes to the end of the session, one asks oneself: With what are members going home after this session? What are they taking home to their voters? What is the message they are going to convey to their voters from this highest council chamber of the nation? We could consider what the message is going to be which the members of the NP are going to convey to their voters. I shall come to that just now. What is the message which the PFP are going to convey to their voters? What is the message which the CP and the NRP are going to convey to their constituencies?

The message of the NP will be positively optimistic.

Why? Have you then changed your policies?

On the financial and economic front, the NP has many positive things to say to its voters concerning a wide variety of matters, so many, in fact, that I cannot outline them all in the time at my disposal. [Interjections.] Let us just look at a few outstanding achievements which the Government has to its credit this session. The hon. the Minister of Finance was very honest today. Perhaps it could be said that he was in a “sombre mood”, but he was definitely very honest and sincere by saying exactly what we in this country are faced with, and not only in this country, but throughout the world. What has happened in South Africa as regards the financing of the State, despite the unfavourable economic circumstances in which South Africa, as well as the rest of the world, find themselves? The way in which the hon. the Minister of Finance succeeded, under difficult circumstances, to provide the authorities with the necessary funds, is deserving of praise, since he did it by means of a finely balanced combination of taxes and local as well as overseas loans. No one can deny this. This is indeed appreciated by the private sector today; it is even appreciated outside the borders of this country. It is an extremely difficult and delicate exercise to determine which portion of State revenue should be collected from direct tax, which from indirect tax, which from foreign loans and which from domestic loans, since each one of these methods of financing has a particular effect on the country’s economy. Taxes, for example, limit private consumer expenditure, while financing by way of loans is more inclined to force interest rates up, thereby having a negative influence on growth. The question is: What are we striving for? What is important, is that the Government, with its new form of financial management, is succeeding in continually monitoring changes or trends in the country’s economy, and then making the necessary adjustments, by means of monetary and fiscal measures, to the benefit of the country.

As in the majority of Western countries, the State’s problem is to narrow the gap between revenue and expenditure but with the least possible disruption. The important question is: Should the State increase its revenue by imposing taxes, or should it cut back its expenditure drastically? Different people have different approaches to this issue. President Reagan, for example, chose to cut back on taxes at first, and then simply hope that he could adapt his expenditure accordingly. However, I am not so sure that that is going to work. This Government first exercised self-discipline by strictly controlling its expenditure, and was afterwards able to make reasonable tax concessions without resorting to a deficit budget, the so-called “deficit financing”. I would say that this is extremely responsible government.

On the economic front, one could further refer to important tax reform measures which are to the benefit of the country and its people, measures which were announced during this session. There is the final deduction system we spoke about in previous debates, a system whereby the Receiver of Revenue can achieve more streamlined administration and as a result of which a large percentage of taxpayers will no longer be burdened with returns. I do not wish to go into the details once again of the financial benefits the budget entails for the public, but one cannot omit to mention a few exceptional aspects.

There are the incentives for regional development, which create a new dispensation for industrial development in this country. [Interjections.] This new dispensation attests to an unselfish policy for the future of this country. I say that it is unselfish because it is based on an element of co-operation with all the various peoples and population groups in South Africa. Eventually it must lead to the realization of the ideal of a constellation of states in Southern Africa, which could bring peace and prosperity to this subcontinent. This is part of the positive message which the NP can take back to its voters. [Interjections.]

The Government has a message of compassion for all its people with regard to matters such as housing. The NP has a fantastic record in this regard. When a policy of imposing cutbacks was implemented in all state departments this year and it became clear that there would be insufficient funds available to meet all the needs of community development, the step was taken of allowing the National Housing Commission to negotiate a loan in its own right in the capital market, and the hon. the Minister was able to announce that an agreement had been reached with a group of banks for loans to the value of R150 million. There is sympathy on the part of the Government for the aged, the handicapped and those in need of care. It was indicated in the previous debate this afternoon how proposals in this regard are being implemented. This is also apparent from the proposals for the improvement of social pensions and allowances, and for military and civil pensions for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. Improved salaries have been announced for nurses, the police, teachers and public servants. In this way, in conjunction with the subsidies on basic foodstuffs, which certain hon. members said this afternoon were insufficient, the burden of inflation on the population, which we are all concerned about, is being alleviated to a large extent.

The Opposition parties may continue with their negative criticism if they wish. The NP Government looks after the people of the country and has a positive message to convey to the voters, because what I have pointed out does not pass unnoticed by the intelligent voter. He will take more notice of the important matters I have raised than of the lesser points of criticism. Is it not true that the Government has obtained the co-operation of the private sector by way of consultation? Is it not true that businessmen, even those who do not agree with the political philosophy of this party, often look to the future with more optimism than the official Opposition? Was it not Mr. Harry Oppenheimer who said recently in a chairman’s address that “the long-range outlook, judged from the consumer market, gives good reason for optimism”? This is the kind of attitude one would like to see on the part of the official Opposition as well. If things are not going so well in the short term, surely it does not mean that we should all wear sackcloth and ashes and go into mourning. The long-term prospects for this country are fantastic. However, we do not hear this from the Opposition.

The South African energy supply programme seems to be a huge success. Our Sa-sols, our Koeberg, our stockpiling programme, the success of Escom, the Atlantis diesel engine project—all are the achievements of an NP Government. Is the preparedness of our Defence Force, together with the meaningful reform we are achieving, and the success of our armaments industry, not the pride of every citizen of this country? Who is responsible for the peace which prevails in Southern Africa? Is it not the NP Government? Is it not true that we can look with optimism at the channels of communication with Africa which are being kept open by an ever-growing trade with African countries? Was it not this hon. Prime Minister who very recently had an extremely successful meeting with President Kaunda of Zambia? Is it not the NP that is working on a new constitutional dispensation to accommodate the political aspirations of White, Brown and Indian in a just and peaceful way? It is this party which initiated that and which is working on it. That is why I say to the official Opposition that they will have to wait until it pleases this side of the House to lay the proposals upon the Table.

We are on the threshold of a new future. We are all facing a new future in this country, and it is required of all of us to enter this new future with great responsibility. Our options are few, and I wish to say that incorrect decisions at this stage, could bedevil for ever the possibility of peaceful co-existence and the survival of Christian and civilized standards and ways of life in this land of the south.

The NP projects a message of hope and optimism, based on the firm principle that one does not deny to others what one claims for oneself. After all, it is with this message that the NP is going to its voters. This is the message we are going to convey, and we shall do so with more common sense and less emotion. The question for the PFP is now: What is their contribution to the future of South Africa going to be; to the continuance of a Christian, democratic way of life in this country? Their policy, as far as we understand it, entails nothing but eventual Black domination, because it will eventually lead to a policy of one man, one vote.

Our question to our hon. friends in the CP, is this. What is their contribution to the future of this country going to be? They still have to tell us this. However, there is one thing they must realize, and that is that when the NP disappears one day, the problems we are struggling with, will not disappear too. Moreover, the options for peace will then be not more, but fewer.

Mr. Speaker, I concur with a great deal of what the hon. member for Malmesbury had to say. In general, the hon. member for Malmesbury is greatly appreciated, also by hon. members of this side of the House, and we, too, concur with much of what he says. We have little or no fault to find with the speech the hon. member has just made here. He put a serious question here: With what message will the various hon. members of this House return to their constituencies? He also referred in passing to the constitutional changes. I shall be dealing with that shortly, when I shall also refer to the speech by the hon. member for Yeoville.

I agree with the statement of the hon. member for Malmesbury to the effect that we must live with a view to the future. Therefore, even if there are hon. members on the Government side who think that the CP is so conservative that it has got stuck somewhere along the road, I now want to give them the assurance that the CP is prepared to consider the problems of this country together with all the positive thinkers in our country, even if we have to think out certain problems ab initio, and, also ab initio, identify problems and find ways out of problems in which we may have become trapped.

The hon. member for Malmesbury also said—and I agree with him—that we must not make mistakes at this stage which could bedevil the road ahead for all of us.

I believe it would probably be appropriate if I were also just to make mention on this occasion of an event that occurred last week. I refer to the fact that the hon. member for De Aar joined the CP. Now, it is true that hon. members can differ with the choice made by the hon. member for De Aar, with the standpoint he adopted. If I may refer to this in a somewhat lighter vein, I would point out that we are of course pleased that the CP’s representation in Parliament has grown by 6% in the course of the weekend. [Interjections.]

Without inappropriately and unnecessarily arousing the rancour of hon. members, I do also wish to point out that as far as our representation in the Cape is concerned, we have of course had a growth of 100%. [Interjections.] I believe that I can also say—and I believe that my arithmetic is still correct—that even if one does not agree with the standpoint of the hon. member for De Aar, I believe that every unprejudiced person would nevertheless agree that for anyone to stand up at a meeting of approximately 250 people and all alone adopt a standpoint—whatever the nature of the standpoint—according to merit, at least attests to daring and courage. [Interjections.]

In passing, I do also want to refer to certain allegations made against the CP and hon. members of this party. I have listened to speeches by hon. members of the NP in particular and at this point I should like to confirm that we are prepared to endure attacks made on us. We accept that as part of the political cut and thrust in this House of Assembly. However, some of the allegations made, and the use of words such as “undermining”, “intriguing”, “conniving”, “dishonest” and “lie”, have in my humble opinion far exceeded the bounds of decency and fairness in a number of respects.

Did they find their mark? [Interjections.]

If the hon. member Mr. Van Staden is asking whether they hurt, I want to point out to him that we are not so insensitive. Our skin is a little thinner than that of a tortoise. If they were meant to hurt; well, insults leave their mark on one, particularly when one is told that, as a former clergyman, one should not lie. In reply to those who say that we should not lie, I want to say that they should not lie either. I do not want to elaborate on that, but I have a great deal at my disposal which I could produce in this regard. I shall be able to hit back if necessary. I do not really want to concern myself with these unpleasant matters; I want to try to advance a point of debate on this occasion.

I want to refer to what, according to a newspaper report, the hon. the Prime Minister said last night to prove that members of the CP had already been undermining the NP when they were NP candidates during the past election—I take it it was the 1981 election. If this can be proved in chapter and verse, then let it be done, but I do not think that the reproach of undermining and disloyalty on the part of people who bore the NP banner in 1981 can be allowed to pass unqualified.

As far as I am concerned, I do not think there is anyone in the NP, as I knew it, who did more for that party during the election than I personally did. [Interjections.] I am not patting myself on the back. There are hon. members present who are sitting making jokes now, but I can ask various hon. members on that side whether, when I spoke in their constituencies, I said anything which was in conflict with the policy of the NP. And if I did say it and they did not react, then why did they not react?

The hon. the leader of the NP in Transvaal said in the Waterberg constituency that I had fed the Transvaal a starvation diet. I need not even go into that, because the hon. members opposite who invited me—I am very grateful to them—to come and make speeches in their constituencies, apparently did not cease to like that diet. I could mention various hon. members in this regard, but I need not do so this afternoon.

All I want to say is this. If we begin to accuse one another of undermining etc. or of secret meetings, then we must surely put forward better examples than have been presented in some of the publications which have now seen the light, because according to those publications, it seems to me that when there is talk of intrigue, we should take care in which direction we point a finger, because usually when one points a finger at someone, three are pointing to oneself. As far as that is concerned, we could carry on with these tales ad infinitum.

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is not present at the moment, because he has made many ill-natured remarks about me—selfishness, greediness, White exclusivity, dishonesty, scheming and intriguing etc. One gained the impression that if one merely spoke to someone or merely received a visit from people, then all of a sudden that constituted scheming and intriguing. I just wish to say that I reject that kind of allegation with contempt, because the hon. the Minister, more than anyone else, was the one who accused us of scheming and intriguing; he even interrupted the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs when he spoke about the little party that had been founded without his being consulted. But how are we to consult him if there was no such plan? However, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs put in his oar and spoke about scheming and intriguing. I would have wanted to ask him what, in that case, he was doing in his office when he invited the backbenchers of the House of Assembly there and spoke to them. And what was he doing in his house when he invited those people there for a meal? How far does it get us to when we concern ourselves with this kind of thing? Surely that is not the level at which the political debate is or ought to be conducted. If that must be so, I am prepared to be addressed by anyone if I infringe this rule.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister of Law and Order is welcome to address me to the effect that I infringe my own norm in this regard. If it is the intention that people should summarily be given a dressing down, then I want to say that while people are doing so they might find themselves floundering about, and the public at large will notice that. I am not going to dwell on that any further.

Now you are really being sanctimonious.

No, that is not so. We can address one another in that regard. If the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development would only speak a little louder, I should like to have a discussion with him as well. I should like to ask him across the floor of this House how certain Cabinet decisions came to the notice of newspapers.

The insinuation is in the first place wrong and in the second place dirty.

It is not dirty in the ordinary sense.

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

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon. member may continue with his speech.

I shall not plague the hon. the Minister further, but when a report appears in Beeld entitled “Toe het dr. T. nog ja gesê” and Cabinet decisions are quoted, and one day a journalist’s article appears on one’s table which had apparently been left on newspapermen’s tables, entitled “Persverklaring van Piet Koornhof oor die Aanloop en Verloop van Hoofartikel in Nat 80” then one begins to wonder what took place here. I mention this merely to show that we should take care when we look one another in the eye.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to react to a report in our newspapers yesterday commenting on the NP caucus meeting. According to the report, one of the resolutions of the caucus meeting read as follows—

I am aware that public mention has been made of certain guidelines—the guidelines themselves have not been mentioned—and that the guidelines have been discussed in camera. Therefore it is not appropriate to comment on the guidelines here or to hold a debate on them.

However, there is a certain connection between the resolution of the caucus meeting and the proposals of the President’s Council. I wish to state here that the standpoints relating to principle adopted at the beginning of the year which the hon. member for Lichtenburg and I opposed, were given shape in the proposals of the President’s Council.

In this regard one could say that the Government is responsible for those proposals of the President’s Council. No one can dispute that. It is true that one could differ as to the details, but in broad outline, the recommendations of the President’s Council are the principles worked out at the beginning of the year. The child which is now lying wrapped in a shawl looks like its father. As long as it lies wrapped up in the shawl, it looks like its father. It seems to me now that the appearance of the child does not please the parents and that a little plastic surgery is necessary.

The child looks like Andries!

That hon. member is really talking through his neck. If I am not mistaken, it is the chief information officer of the NP who made that remark. That hon. member has already praised these proposals in glowing terms. However, it seems as if in the meantime, the party of which he is the chief information officer has begun to hesitate.

The Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council put the matter as follows in one of the statements it accepted (P.C. 3/1982, p. 84)—

This is one of the statements which the President’s Council accepts as a basis, and on the basis of this model, as it were, the President’s Council formulated its further proposals.

One could, of course, level considerable criticism at the consociational model from a scientific and philosophical point of view. I refer to this because it is the model accepted as a basis by the President’s Council and because these proposals are still to be incorporated, accepted or rejected in future proposals of the governing party. At this stage, however, one can already say that there is no adequate guarantee that a government by the elite of the various groups will bring about political stability. The scholars who study this matter say that this is a crucial fact. Even Lijphart, who is actually the foremost authority in this field and is quoted by the President’s Council in many important respects, tells one this. His theory is that an elite Government of a deeply divided society with diverse political conceptions brings the groups in that society closer together. In other words, the belief is that once one has got the elite groups together, they will bring the groups closer together. Therefore the political problems will decrease in the course of time.

The hon. the Prime Minister has referred to this model and even launched an attack on it. I associate myself with that. I refer to column 242 of last year’s Hansard in which he rejected the consociational model.

Now I say: Research indicates that the converse is true. In other words, one must first achieve political stablity; one must, as it were, have a growing together of various population groups, until one has a unit the members of which are more or less acceptable to one another; one must first achieve greater acceptability and a decrease in political problems, and only then can one establish consociational governmental institutions.

Secondly, I wish to say the following: That is the reason why politicians oppose the nationalism of peoples. They oppose group identity and group self-determination. It is in this regard in particular that, in my opinion, our friends of the official Opposition make a mistake with their approach. They cannot afford to have any emphasis on the nationalism of peoples. I now also refer to one of their authors, one of their kindred spirits, Prof. Degenaar of Stellenbosch who, rather than stressing the nationalism of peoples, stresses State nationalism. He stresses State nationalism instead of the nationalism of peoples, because the nationalism of peoples stands in one’s way when one seeks to bring about a successful consociational government.

Once one has undermined the self-awareness and nationalism of the ethnic groups, their political integration is easier, power-sharing is easier and the consociational model can be achieved more easily. Then, however, one first has to water down and destroy the identity and endeavour to achieve autonomous political self-determition.

An author by the name of L. E. Dutter contends that leaders do not play such a key role in any change in the values of a plural society. In other words, this whole grasping at the consociational model, viz. that success can be achieved if one establishes a kind of elite government, is rejected by various prominent scholars. Dutter contends that leaders do not play that key role.

Another, by the name of Barry, says that in the European consociations the indication is that leaders tend rather to articulate more clearly the values, interests and demands of their own peoples and their own communities. After all, we have seen this for ourselves. We see over and over again that when a leader of a specific group within such a plural system in a country is more concerned with the reconciliation of his people with other groups, and this means that the identity and the right to self-determination of those people is jeopardized, he is rejected. He is not followed; he is rejected, because his actions are in conflict with the basic interests of those people in terms of self-determination.

What is more, ethnic and racially divided societies are not so easily, or even at all, politically stabilized by consociational élite government. Allow me to quote in this regard the words of A. J. Venter, a scholar of the University of South Africa, referring to the theory of Lijphart—

I should like to criticize further the typical characteristics of such a consociational approach. The typical characteristics of this consociational model are; government by coalition; it embodies the mutual veto rule; it embodies the principle of proportionality and a high degree of autonomy for each segment with regard to management of its domestic affairs.

If the hon. members think that these characteristics are not relevant, then I want to say that whatever one may hold out as a prospect, the moment one has accepted power-sharing, and the moment one has accepted the principle of mixed government for South Africa, one encounters all these typical characteristics of the consociational model. Once they have accepted a mixed government and top management, whether one calls it a federation or a consociational model, then one encounters all these factors, namely government by coalition, the mutual veto rule, proportionality and so on.

As far as coalition is concerned, we surely know from practical politics that even when one has political parties that belong to the same national group, the White political parties, and one wishes to establish a kind of coalition between them, one already has major problems. Just imagine a coalition between the Np and the PFP. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would say at once that that would not work. And indeed, it would not work. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development should just give the matter a little thought. If he accepts the principle of one mixed Government in South Africa, then surely that Government has to be composed of representatives of the various population groups. If those people are chosen by their own people in their own way and have to be accommodated within one Cabinet, then surely one must have a coalition government. [Interjections.] The hon. member states that I am talking nonsense. I said that if it was the point of departure of the Government to have a mixed Government for South Africa …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs maintains that I do not know what I am talking about.

Of course! [Interjections.]

I am pleased that there is a little gaiety from that side of the House.

Where were you in 1977 when we considered those things?

If the hon. the Minister wants to go back to 1977, I wish to point out that we never accepted power-sharing in 1977, nor did we ever accept mixed Government. [Interjections.] I can now also say to the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development across the floor of this House that I spoke in those terms on a platform together with him and together with other hon. colleagues on that side of the House. Wherever I spoke, I stated that categorically, and not one of them told me that I was wrong. From platform to platform we stated categorically that power-sharing was out. We also went from platform to platform stating that there would not be a super-government. However, hon. members suddenly come here and say that I, too, voted for a super-government. We voted for that? That will be the day! It was last year that we began to hear noises to the effect that we had in fact accepted power-sharing. We heard those noises last year, until that discussion took place at the Cabinet meeting to which the report in Beeld referred.

I said in public in November 1978 …

Since the hon. the Minister of Law and Order is interrupting me, he must decide what he said. The one moment he says that power-sharing is not the policy of the NP …

The day before you were elected as leader in the Transvaal…

Oh no! The hon. the Minister had better decide what he wants to say. It is on record in Hansard that he said that power-sharing was not the policy of the NP.

It was an interjection.

We all joined him in saying that. Where does this come from all of a sudden?

When there is a coalition Government, one has problems even within the same ethnic context. There are conflicts as to policy. There is no disciplinary authority over Ministers that do not belong to one’s party. There is a checkmate situation as regards every clash about important issues in the country. This will also be the case in regard to the principle put forward by the Governments, viz. the principle that the Council of Cabinets will have the same powers as regards matters of common concern as members of the present Cabinet. Hon. members would do well to give the matter some thought. Wherever there has been a coalition among parties belonging to different peoples and races, the result has been failure, virtually without exception.

I really hope that no one is going to put forward the federations in Africa or even the Government of Mr. Dirk Mudge of South West Africa as models of the success of this kind of Government.

A few years ago Prof. Ben Vosloo of Stellenbosch carried out a very penetrating analysis of these things, namely, political expression within a plural society. He analysed various models of pluralism. One of them is the consensus model; another is the consociation model and then there is the conflict model. His analysis is that South Africa, with its racial and ethnic diversity and its conflicting political dispensation and endeavours, is a conflict model and that one creates cumulative, growing conflict when one seeks to bring those people together within a unitary pattern. I could also quote what Calvin said on one occasion, viz.: “The forcing together of the dissimilar is tyranny.” [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I quote these opinions to you with approval. The hon. member need not get excited; I no longer take any notice of him.

Handling any Cabinet is difficult, but then there is an author that says, for example—

It was …

That was indeed the recipe. That was the argument of that side of the House to show us on this side how wholeheartedly they stood behind Adv. Vorster, who supposedly said that the Council of Cabinets would be an executive Cabinet. They tried to make us believe that, and if they were to take such a step, they would appoint a mixed Cabinet from the representatives of the various population groups, and then all the objections and problems I have just been sketching would arise.

One moment you embrace Adv. Vorster, and the next you away run from him.

The hon. the Minister of Law and Order should just keep his wits about him for a moment. I urge him rather to try not to contradict himself.

I am talking about your tendency to contradict yourself.

Even as regards the principle of the so-called mutual veto which is characteristic of the consociative model, the scholars have the following to say—

Lijphart himself readily acknowledged that the mutual veto could give rise to a minority tyranny that could place a coalition under tremendous tension.

Justice will also have to be done to proportionality. After all, one cannot appoint a mixed Cabinet and merely appoint a token Deputy Minister or Minister from the other population groups. Surely one would have to grant the people proportional representation in accordance with numerical strength in such a Cabinet. However, if one were to do so, then one would have a power struggle from the outset, and one would have built all these prejudicial factors into that system.

Mr. Speaker, when I was a student a Stellenbosch 25 years ago, we always took great pleasure in listening to Dominee A. P. Treurnicht because he always had something new to say to our congregation. However, I find it disappointing that this evening we heard nothing new or original from the hon. the leader of the CP and there was no indication that he has any thoughts of his own. [Interjections.] As a matter of fact, I almost got the impression this evening that the hon. the leader of the CP is seeing through a glass, darkly. This is the hon. member who, when he was the leader of the NP in the Transvaal, said last year on 3 November—

Is that not exactly what the hon. members were already doing at that stage?

One can continue in this vein and quote a few interesting passages from that speech. For example, the hon. member also said—

[Interjections.] Is this not precisely what these people are doing? [Interjections.] As far as the 1977 proposals are concerned, to which the hon. member for Waterberg has just referred, he himself said—

However, the most interesting part of this speech was his concluding words which were—

[Interjections.] Does he still stand by that?

He never means what he says.

I should very much like to draw the attention of this House very briefly to one specific aspect of the CP which, as far as I am concerned, is the best example of their lack of originality. I want to refer to something which happened just over 100 years ago in Paarl. [Interjections.] This was one of the most important events in the history of South Africa, and more specifically of the South African nation. I am referring to the founding of the Genootskap van Regte Afrikaners on 14 August 1875. One of the results of the founding of this genootskap was the fact that the very first Afrikaans newspaper was established, Di Afrikaanse Patriot. I have here the original official minutes of the meetings of the Genootskap van Regte Afrikaners for the period 14 August 1875 until the first newspaper appeared on 15 January 1876, and I have here a copy of that newspaper. In actual fact it was a unique newspaper which appeared on that day. I should also like to quote a few sentences from that first newspaper. The leading article begins as follows:

It then goes on to encourage people to subscribe to this newspaper—

Reference is also made to the Afrikaans anthem of the time. I shall only quote the last verse—

In 1878 this newspaper was transferred to a new firm, namely D. F. Du Toit Printers. The first editor was “Oom Lokomotief”, and everything went very well until a former clergyman by the name of S. J. Du Toit took over as editor, paid a visit to the Transvaal and was subjected to the wrong influences there. [Interjections.] Then Di Patriot began to decline and eventually the Eerste Taalbeweging came to an end. The assets of that business were later taken over by a firm which still exists today in Paarl and which still uses the name Die Afrikaanse Patriot in its letterhead. However, I do not want to suggest for a single moment that the name Die Afrikaanse Patriot legally belongs to any specific firm. As a matter of fact, the Registrar of Newspapers confirmed that the name has also been used for the past 10 years by an obscure little company in Pretoria. However, a newspaper called “Die Patriot” has now been established in Pretoria.

A gutter rag!

Once again it is not an original idea. It is an old name and I do not want to suggest that the name has been stolen, but it is very unoriginal. However, it is also a unique newspaper. You wonder whether you should buy it and when you have bought it and read it, you wonder why you did. You wonder how anyone could write such rubbish. I also wonder where the money comes from to publish that newspaper. [Interjections.]

Now I should like to make a few statements on behalf of the Afrikaanse Taalmonumentekomitee of which I am a member. I do not dispute the legal right of anyone, and that therefore includes the CP, to use this name. However, I have serious doubts about the moral and ethical right of a sectional political splinter group to misuse a name which is sacred to the nation …

Which nation are you referring to now?

… and which is synonymous with the birth and struggle of the Afrikaans language, for a section of the population. I have the permission of the chairman of the Afrikaanse Taalmonumentekomitee to quote from a letter he addressed to the leader of the CP in which he wrote as follows—

1. (1) Die naam “Die Patriot” is onlosmaaklik aan die taalstryd van die Genootskap van Regte Afrikaners verbind. Dit was die naam wat hierdie patriotte aan hul mondstuk gegee het.
2. (2) Ons gee toe dat die GRA en hul Di Patriot geveg het vir ons taal, ons nasie en ons land. Dit is so dat hul koerant ook polities ingeklee was, maar namate die geskiedenis aangeloop het, het die naam “Die Patriot” sinoniem geword met die Afrikaanse taal en dít wat gedurende die Eerste Taalbeweging daaromheen gebeur het.
3. (3) Ons innige begeerte is dat hierdie uitsonderlike naam tog nie nou nie, en ook nie hierna nie, in die politieke arena betrek word nie. Die naam behoort aan die taalstryd, aan die taak om Afrikaans te handhaaf, te bevorder en te veredel.
4. (4) Ons wil nie graag hierdie naam af-staan of selfs deel met enige politieke party nie.
5. (5) In die Afrikaanse Taalmuseum in Paarl beklee Di Patriot, sy drukpers en sy bevorderingsaksie ’n ere-en ’n prominente plek.
6. (6) Nou sal u seker kan waardeer hoeveel verwarring Di Patriot van 1875 en Die Patriot van 1982 sal bring.

In the year 2075 when we celebrate two centuries of the Afrikaans language, people will not be able to differentiate between what actually gave birth to the language and this aberration—

1. (7) Ons welwillende oordeel is dat as dan op die politieke pad teruggekyk word, die name van sy Persbakens enigiets anders buite Die Patriot moet wees.

May I quote the reply of the hon. the leader of the CP to this?

You are welcome. I was just going to ask whether you had my reply there.

I have the hon. the leader’s reply here and …

The word “misgewas” (aberration) did not appear in that letter.

No, that is my word. I should now like to quote the reply given by the hon. the leader of the CP.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Mr. Speaker before business was suspended I had pointed out that the Di Patriot I was referring to was truly patriotic. It was the brainchild of the Genootskap van Regte Afrikaners, and belongs to the nation. It therefore belongs to every Afrikaner and every South African in this country. I therefore want to ask hon. members of the CP who they think they are, to claim this name, which is sacred to us, and sacred to the Afrikaner nation, as their own. [Interjections.]

The hon. the leader of the CP replied as follows—

The reference here is of course to the first Patriot—

Now I should like to ask all hon. members to judge with me whether the reasons given by the hon. the leader of the Conservative Party are worthwhile. Do they justify their step in claiming this name, which is sacred to the entire Afrikaner nation, as their own? I quote further—

I am quoting again—

Mr. Speaker, … [Interjections.] Let us however take a look at today’s Patriot. As far as today’s Patriot is concerned I can only say its use of Afrikaans is extremely poor. As far as I am concerned the use of the Afrikaans language in the new Patriot is extremely poor. It leaves much to be desired. I am not a language purist, but even to me it is quite clear that this publication disgraces the Afrikaans language, and the first Afrikaans newspaper, Di Patriot, which first appeared in Paarl in 1876. Now the CP, a splinter group, comes along and claims this name for itself. [Interjections.] Let us consider the editorial content of that newspaper. Let us consider the form of its journalism. I must say it is not worthy of the highest ideals of journalism in this country, and now I am not even speaking of the photographs duplicated on the front page. I shall rather not comment on what the new “unique” newspaper’s influence will be on the name “Die Patriot”, but I want to make a serious appeal to so-called rightwing Afrikaners not to run the risk, through their actions, of treating something which is sacred to the Afrikaner nation with contempt.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the leader of the CP. Tomorrow night he is holding a public meeting in my constituency. I want to point out to him that he is going to hold his meeting in the birthplace of the Afrikaans language. As far as I am concerned it is a sacred place where Die Afrikaanse Patriot first appeared, and it is sacred to us. I want to appeal to him to have the courage tomorrow evening to announce in Paarl that his party will be prepared to give up that name.

But did you not hear that it is another company? [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to tell the CP that they are going to commit an outrage against the cultural heritage of the Afrikaner. I conclude by putting the following question to the hon. the leader: Is nothing sacred to you, except the achievement of your selfish political aims, not even this jewel of the Afrikaans language which is sacred to everyone in this House and to everyone in the country?

Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to interfere in a struggle about the Afrikaner culture. It is a matter to be settled between Afrikaner and Afrikaner. As a South African, however, I may interfere in the political dispute, but not in a language issue, or affairs concerning a language that is not my own home language, however much I respect Afrikaans as a language and a culture. I do not consider it my task to interfere in a cultural matter of this nature. I do consider it my duty, however, to interfere in the political side of the matter. [Interjections.] I do not want to become involved in this fraternal feud; I should rather leave it to those two parties.

Nevertheless I want to state very clearly and unequivocally that we regard the CP as a party so far removed from us philosophically that we have nothing in common. We regard the CP as the original NP, the NP of the 30’s and the early 40’s. I regard it as a party which is incapable of keeping abreast of changing circumstances, moving or changing and which is still trying to live in that archaic world, the old dream world of those days. Those dreams were of White “baasskap”, of total apartheid etc. What is in fact happening now is that the CP is reaping the fruit of what both parties, the CP as well as the NP, have sown together. They have sown those seeds together and together, over the years, they nurtured the original nationalism of apartheid. Now the NP—I want to refer to this in particular tonight—has outgrown those times and has moved closer to the times of today. The CP is not going to move like that, however. There fore, I want to state very clearly that we regard the CP as a party which can do South Africa no good, but as a party which can only lead to confrontation and conflict. We regard the CP as a party which will cause the destruction of South Africa should it ever come to power. [Interjections.] That I want to state very clearly.

Where do we stand today? I should like to quote from Rapport of the day before yesterday, the 6th of June. This newspaper, in referring to the present Parliamentary session, says—

Obviously, we in this party agree that we are on the threshold of the new Republic for which this party was founded.

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to the hon. the Prime Minister by and by.

You would make a good executive President.

Yes, undoubtedly.

†For 3½ wasted decades the Government—including hon. members of the CP—was chasing after slogans. Back in 1948 the slogan was “Apartheid” and nothing else. Then they started seeking a policy and eventually found the new vision of the late Dr. Verwoerd—which turned into a nightmare—and which has now failed. What has happened is that the NP has realized that that policy can no longer be expected to work. The CP believes that it still can work. That is the fundamental difference. However, there is still time, hope and goodwill in South Africa as we start moving with our own winds of change before the hurricane which is building up sweeps the country and destroys everything before it. The significant thing about the times in which we live is that the forces of goodwill are still dominant in South Africa. There is throughout the country, with the exception of radicals to the left and the right, a willingness and a desire to give the new political era a chance. When one finds a party such as the Labour Party of the Coloured community, Indian leaders, the PFP and Inkatha, whose policies are diametrically opposed to the proposals of the President’s Council, stating that they are prepared to listen, prepared to give it a chance and prepared to take part in a debate on the recommendations of a body which they denied and denigrated, it shows that there is a residue of goodwill and a desire in South Africa not to let this possible last chance slip through our fingers. Behind that willingness, I believe, is the silent majority of the mass of the South African peoples. The hon. the Prime Minister is quite correct in his decision that he will not now lay down a final decision but that he will negotiate with the Coloured people and the Indian people. It is correct that he should do that because the essence of the success of the proposals of the President’s Council is to take the majority of the people who are affected in South Africa with them. However, there is unfortunately a corollary that goes with this. It is unfortunate but it is a danger and it is a danger that I assume the hon. the Prime Minister faced when he made his decision. I refer to the danger of the public confusion which reigns among the ordinary people of South Africa not involved in politics. The danger of this confusion, is the fact that the Government, because it is waiting to negotiate, is unable to give a lead. That gives to the radicals to the left and to the right, those who deny any moderate solution, a head start of at least six weeks or more to undermine, to sow suspicion, to speculate and to try to destroy while resting their attack solely on the concept of power-sharing. That is a danger that we have to face.

The hon. the Prime Minister must realize that his own caution, his own inescapable hesitation in giving a lead, whilst it may be essential, does not change the fact that he also has to take with him as many as possible of the mass of the White people of South Africa along the road to this new constitution. I want to make it clear that he has to take with him not only the members and supporters of the NP—he cannot take the CP with him—but that he has also to take the mass of the White people of South Africa, as well as the Coloureds and the Indians, with him on the road which lies ahead.

What is your point?

My point is that the White people of South Africa are looking for leadership from their own party leaders.

Why do you not give the leadership?

I am going to do so now. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and we ourselves are waiting to hear what the Government has decided with regard to the President’s Council. However, the hon. the Prime Minister cannot wait until the other parties have taken up stances from which they cannot deviate. We cannot have the situation where other parties have laid down non-negotiables which then commit them to a course of action. We are lucky and it is the significance of this party that we are the only party of all the parties in this House which has no problem at all with the basic principles and philosophy of the recommendations of the President’s Council. We are the only party whose own principles and philosophy accord to a large extent, with certain differences, with the recommendations of the President’s Council. Therefore, Sir, we have the least difficulty in giving advice to our supporters. However, I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that he must not think that he can just wait, negotiate with the Coloured and Indian peoples and then come to the White people, the White electorate, who belong to parties other than his own and say: “This is it; take it or leave it.” I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister—and I ask him to take note of this—should talk to other political parties that are willing to co-operate in establishing the new Republic of South Africa. The method I propose is that the Select Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, should be instructed to consider the recommendations of the President’s Council so that when the final decisions are taken they will take into account the views of the official Opposition and of this party; its terms of reference could possibly be further extended to enable it to get other views as well.

In the aftermath of the CP breakaway and the President’s Council’s recommendations, there is a great deal of euphoria and jumping to conclusions. There are those who say that the breakaway of the CP has liberated the NP and the hon. the Prime Minister and that they are rearing to go in order to create a completely new dispensation. There are others who say that it has not changed anything. There are those who say that the CP is sweeping the country at grassroots.

What do you say?

I say that it is not so. I say that that is the impression. I say that there are people who are saying that and there are people who are treating them too lightly because they represent a South African school of thought that is there and, no matter what one wishes, will be part of the political process.

Not if you listen to them.

One cannot ignore them. Some of those hon. members will find this out when they get back to their constituencies. However, I do not think that they are the danger that they are made out to be. Therefore I do not go along with those who say that one must join the NP now in order to keep Andries Treurnicht out. I do not think he is going to come in. I do not think that is a realistic prospect. In any case, I do not think that that is the way to deal with the present situation.

There are plenty of hints, leaks and speculation on what the Government decided on Saturday. They are two a penny but they are all speculation. They are all speculation and this is not the time to react to newspaper speculation, leaks and hints. It is however time to react to the situation flowing from the President’s Council’s recommendations. That reaction must come now, not after the NP congress.

What is your complaint?

My complaint is that there is confusion in South Africa which is giving the radicals a head start on those who want to see a negotiated and agreed solution. My complaint is too that the hon. the Prime Minister says that he will talk with Coloured and Indian leaders, but he is only going to give other White political parties a cut and dried programme after his congress on a take it or leave it basis.

Aren’t you in Parliament?

Yes. Parliament is adjourning on Friday. I do not know whether the hon. the Prime Minister was listening or not, but I have asked that the President’s Council’s report be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution of this Parliament so that it can be discussed on an inter-party basis before a take it or leave it situation is offered to the opponents of the Government.

Since when must I consult you on the policy of my party?

You do not have to. The hon. the Prime Minister does not have to consult the Indians on the policy of his party, neither does he have to consult the Coloureds on the policy of his party. He certainly does not have to consult us. There is no obligation on him to consult the various parties but last night the hon. the Prime Minister complained at Parow, and the newspaper report states—

What are you quoting from?

From Die Burger.

Is that Die Burger?

This is not Die Burger, but a quotation from what appeared today in Die Burger. In this morning’s Die Burger it is alleged that the Prime Minister complained that the NRP was refusing to co-operate.

I never used those words.

It is in this morning’s Die Burger.

Then you must quarrel with Die Burger, not with me.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister should repudiate this statement. [Interjections.] However, if he makes an accusation like that against the NRP, he should make it possible for all South Africans who may differ with him on other matters, to co-operate in building the new Republic. The NRP is prepared to co-operate in building the new Republic but we are only prepared to do so in support of what we believe to be right and in the interests of South Africa.

†I want to make it quite clear that we are not prepared to give blank cheques, or, on the hon. the Prime Minister’s terms, to become fellow-travellers to an unknown destination. That is why I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to tell those who are not his supporters what the destination is going to be because only then can we play our part as we believe it should be played. In the meantime all we can say is that, although we shall take no hasty decisions, this party is committed to certain principles and those are the principles that will guide us.

The first principle is a corporate federation of race groups in South Africa which the President’s Council defines as consociational democracy, one body where those groups will meet and take decisions together, and this is not yet known in the thinking of the Government or the Cabinet.

The second principle is that there must be self-determination and control by each group over its intimate affairs. That is what the President’s Council defines as segmental autonomy.

Thirdly, there must be joint decision-making at all levels of government, on the first, second and third tiers.

The local government proposals are almost indentical to the “Natal plan” that was agreed upon in collaboration with Coloureds and Indians, and obviously we support it. It is, however, meaningless without the metropolitan authority.

We agree with the hon. the Prime Minister on the question of the maintenance of stability, maintenance of civilized standards and of progress in the process of change. [Interjections.]

Let me then quote from Die Burger. The report states—

No, those are not the words either.

I quote further—

Ah, so you have a Burger too!

That statement, Sir, is a lie.

I shall quote my words to you tomorrow.

Well, I say that report is a lie, because we have gone out of our way to indicate that whenever it is in the interests of South Africa, we will support any action of the Government.

Do you accept my word that I did not use those words?

I accept the hon. the Prime Minister’s word unequivocally.

I repeat that where any action is taken that we believe to be right for South Africa, we will support it, but I also repeat that does not mean a blank cheque. [Interjections.] There are many problems, many problem areas in connection with which there still has to be a lot of talking. I now want the hon. the Prime Minister to listen to what I have to say. When he looks at us as eight MPs, he must also remember that we have 250 000 to 300 000 supporters in all the constituencies of South Africa, and the time could come when those supporters could play a major part in promoting a new deal for this country. I therefore ask the hon. the Prime Minister not to slam the door, with an all-or-nothing approach, in the faces of those who are prepared to work with him—and I accept that he did not say those words—but rather to seek their support and co-operation. Let me end with the thought that there is no member in these benches who needs this job to live or to exist. We do not have to live on political patronage. I could have been on full pension for the last 11 years. I would be better off … [Interjections.] Yes, as the hon. the Prime Minister is. We are here because we want to serve South Africa, because we want to make our contribution to South Africa. Our members are all independent in their own right. We are not here looking for a job. We are trying to serve the people and the country we love, and we are prepared to make that contribution. Despite the sneers, jeers and insults, we are prepared to make that contribution, as we see it.

Vause, have a good night’s rest; I shall quote my words to you tomorrow.

Thank you. I accept the hon. the Prime Minister’s assurance, but let him remember that the spirit in which we are prepared to work is one in which the identity of this party remains intact, yet still making our contribution—which I believe can be a major one—because the proposals of the President’s Council are so close to our way of thinking that ours is the only party that feels for them philosophically and emotionally.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point concluded with a statement I should like to put to the CP. He contended that his party served the country and its people. The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the NP as a party in the process of adjustment, as if it was strange to him, as if it was a novelty to him. However, over the years the NP has been known as a party engaged in renewal because it is responsible for the government of this country, for the future of this country. The hon. member for Durban Point must know that that is nothing new. However, he says that his party is the only party in this House that can associate itself fully with the basic points of departure or recommendation of the President’s Council. It is easy for a party like that, which is not responsible for the government of the country, to make any statement imaginable. The difference between the leader who spoke this evening and the leader of the CP, who also spoke this evening, is that the hon. leader of the CP reads too much while the hon. leader of the NRP perhaps thinks too much and reads too little. The hon. member for Durban Point and his party do not govern the country. They need not, therefore, take responsibility for it. In contrast, it is the governing party that has to take matters into consideration with great responsibility.

I wish to address the hon. members of the CP. This afternoon we listened to the hon. leader of the CP, the hon. member for Waterberg. I listened to him attentively, and it is certainly true that he is a word expert, a verbal virtuoso. That is excellent. It is our language. The language used by the hon. member for Waterberg is a rich one. However, his speech lacked substance and failed to indicate to us the direction and the policy of that party, the policy he sets as an alternative to the policy of the NP Government. There is another great truth: No one can escape what one has done. Surely that is a simple fact.

That applies to you, too.

It applies to me, too, and I am responsible for my past actions. I am prepared to account for each one of them. I shall come to the hon. member for Brakpan shortly.

Last year the hon. member for Waterberg was elected Transvaal leader of the NP. While he occupied that post I, as a Transvaal member of Parliament, was never ashamed of him. At our congress in Pretoria last year a motion of thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Prime Minister was proposed. It was a lengthy motion, couched in fine language. I shall just quote a few paragraphs from it. One of the paragraphs in which gratitude was expressed—it was paragraph 1.8—reads as follows—

That is the first paragraph I wanted to quote. Paragraph 2.4 reads as follows—

Do you accept that…

That hon. member must please be quiet. I ask myself, and I now wish to put the simple question to the hon. member for Brakpan, how one would want to complete the picture of the concept of a realistic political system.

The right of self-determination and the rejection of power-sharing. [Interjections.]

We are coming to that. The statement is further qualified as follows—

That is really a comprehensive and far-reaching statement. Forty divisional committees, apart from branches and ward committees, submitted that, and among them appear the following names: Barberton, Brakpan, Jeppe, Meyerton, Nigel, Pietersburg, Rissik, Waterberg and Waterkloof. [Interjections.] Now I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is an old saying that “Words are there to conceal thoughts.” [Interjections.] I really do not want to believe that our former hon. leader in the Transvaal, the hon. member for Waterberg, had any motive for this other than sincere honesty towards our hon. leader-in-chief, the hon. the Prime Minister. I say this because the name of the hon. member for Waterberg is also linked to this motion of appreciation addressed to the hon. the Prime Minister. It is a long motion and I am not going to quote it. In view of this I wish to know from the hon. the leader of the CP this evening …

What is your point?

I want to know whether the hon. the leader of the CP believes that he is serving the cause of South Africa. Is he serving the Republic of South Africa and the people of this country, or is he only serving his own party? At that same congress a resolution was addressed to the hon. the Prime Minister. That resolution concerned the function of the official Opposition. It contained an accusation. I know this because I attended that congress. We still stand by the same principle.

Quote it to us. Are you not ashamed of it?

No, not in the least! We are not ashamed of what we do in public. [Interjections.]

You should rather stay out of this fight, Van Zyl. Just leave it to us! [Interjections.]

I shall merely quote certain extracts from it. However, the hon. member for Waterberg is in possession of all these documents.

I am in possession of all the documents. However, your problem is that you do not know what happened in 1982.

I am fully aware of what happened in 1982. It is unnecessary to try to inform me about that. [Interjections.] Since the hon. member for Rissik is also getting so excited now, I want to refer to him as well. I am pleased that he is present this evening. On the previous occasion when this matter was being discussed, he was absent. [Interjections.] The resolution affecting the function of the official Opposition is contained in this resolution. The CP at present also forms part of the Opposition, and accordingly it, too, has a responsibility in this regard. I am therefore pleased that the hon. member for Waterberg is present in this House. It is as well that he is present in this House for a change, here where he ought to be. [Interjections.] I say these things because I believe that the CP is a part of this House and of the responsibilities of this House. [Interjections.]

The resolution to which I refer reads as follows, and I quote briefly—

Hon. members of the CP were part of that congress. Therefore they know what it was about. They are also acquainted with the full text of that resolution. However, do they not read in the newspapers about what happened here in the city centre of Cape Town? Do they not also read about what has happened in other places, and in cities elsewhere in our country? Do they remember 16 June 1976? The hon. member for Waterberg was intimately involved in that situation. As a people and as peoples of South Africa we all have to be aware of certain currents. However, they are not concerned about that. They can simply laugh it off. It does not affect them. Whatever happens, it does not affect them at all. [Interjections.] Those hon. members, who maintain that they pray that the President’s Council proposals will be realistic, nevertheless immediately attack the President’s Council in the little newspaper in which they vent their spleen on the proposals of that council. They roar their disapproval, as if they had never wanted anything to do with them. In the meantime, they put their names to the resolution to which I referred. Why are they evading their task? Once again I ask hon. members of the CP whether they serve this country and its cause or whether they are merely serving their own little party. [Interjections.]

I want to put it clearly to hon. members of the CP that there is no possibility of their surviving as a party. I say this on the basis of two elementary points. In the first place, it is because the hon. the Prime Minister is fearlessly honest towards his people. The resolution I put before hon. members here was replied to by the hon. the Prime Minister. He replied to this at last year’s congress in Pretoria. He spoke the plain truth in the outspoken language of the NP. The hon. member for Waterberg would do well to re-read that document. He who is so fond of reading, would do well to re-read that document. He would do well to read what the hon. the Prime Minister said on that occasion. He said—

That is what the hon. members must go and read. How ironic that the hon. member for Waterberg rose that morning as chairman and thanked the hon. the Prime Minister after those resolutions had been dealt with. He thanked him cordially for his open, comprehensive, honest answer. Our Leader is honest with his people. That is the truth, and can be tested in any respect.

The second reason why the CP cannot exist as a party is its own weakness of selfishness. The hon. member for Rissik is present this evening. It is not only selfishness in regard to other peoples; it is also selfishness in regard to other language groups in this country.

Tell us about Majuba.

Yes, I am going to cast it in the hon. member’s teeth, because it is the truth.

The whole truth, please.

I shall tell him.

But it must be the whole truth.

I shall tell the whole truth. We were busy arranging the Majuba celebration, where the English-and Afrikaans-speaking people were able to meet on a mountain where, on an historic day, a fierce conflict occurred between two peoples, but the fighting and bitterness of that day have been forgotten. That mountain has become the symbol of two White language groups that hold out their hands to one another in this country for the sake of the continued existence of our country and its people. Surely that is the truth, but what did the hon. member for Rissik say to me when I asked him whether he was coming to the celebration?

I said that I was not going.

For what reasons? Tell me across the floor of this House for what reasons? Because the hon. member said that English-speaking people would also be on the mountain.

Because the approach was wrong in principle. My people died there. You also wanted Black and Brown people there.

There sits the hon. member for Umbilo. He was part of the organization which assisted to make the celebration possible, and I want to thank him for that this evening.

The hon. member for Rissik refused to put his foot there because English-speaking people would also be there. He missed the occasion where there was to be a strong feeling of unity. In the course of that same discussion I asked him: “What about the ballot box? It is good enough that they vote for you in Rissik.”

English-speaking people vote for us too.

Now the hon. member is courting English-speaking people. They do so in the newspaper. The hon. member must be honest. After the emotions aroused by the origin of the CP have subsided, after the dust clouds have settled, not much will be left of the CP. I want to use an image I once read: The CP have bricked up the outlets to the air and the light like termites.

Do you include me in that?

You do not need the light. [Interjections.]

If I still have time I shall deal with the hon. member for Jeppe. The cocoon around the CP hardened, and no one was able to extract from it to allow them to share in the capacity to help work out a future for the peoples of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is inevitable because the split between the NP and the CP took place during this particular session that we should have the kind of speech that we have been hearing during the course of this session and that we have just heard made by the hon. member for Standerton. What I do not understand is that if the CP is so inconsequential, misguided and wrong, why the NP is so concerned about them.

That is a good question.

Why do hon. members of the NP spend so much time talking about the past and what happened at various times? Are the hon. members of the CP not today saying the very things that the traditionalist Nationalist said yesterday? If not, why is it necessary for the NP to spend so much time on them? Why do they not leave them alone and get on with the real job, the job of reform?

We are even spending time on you.

That is understandable.

I want to say to the hon. member for Durban Point that I was astonished to hear him say that his was the only party that had no difficulty whatsoever with the President’s Council, because emotionally and philosphically they were bound to its recommendations. In the course of the few remarks which I will have time for tonight, I will refer to some of the weaknesses of and questions we have in regard to the proposals of the President’s Council. I am quite certain the hon. member and his party do not seem to have any questions at all and that they are prepared to embrace the recommendations and accept them.

Another phenomenon during the course of this session was the report of the President’s Council. There is no doubt about it that it has aroused a variety of emotions and responses. It all depends who one is and where one figures in the South African setting as to what one’s response is. For some Coloureds and Indians the report undoubtedly evoked considerable excitement.

The President’s Council’s recommendations are of no interest to you because your party boycotts the President’s Council.

The hon. member for Simon’s Town is quite wrong. He says that we have no interest in the President’s Council. But he need not listen to me and is welcome to leave the Chamber, where he belongs. Understandably there were some Coloureds and many Indians who were very excited at the prospect that this was going to bring something new to them. It is true also that the members of the President’s Council themselves clearly derived a great deal of pleasure from their report if one is to judge by the way they were discussing the report on television and over the radio.

For many hon. members of the NP the recommendations of the President’s Council marked a time of great anxiety because they really did not quite know what was going to happen, who was going to leave and who was going to stay. [Interjections ] For the man in the street it created a great deal of confusion.

You belong in the street.

If I do, so does the hon. the Minister.

At least the hon. member for Pinelands will be on the sunny side of the street.

I will not suggest where the hon. the Minister may find himself, but it will not be on the street. He will find himself alongside the street. For a number of Blacks, however, judging from comments which have been made—many comments came from moderate Blacks—the reaction is a mixture of deep anger and boredom. As far as the PFP is concerned, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has made a number of statements regarding the proposals as we see them. Let it be said at once that we are deeply troubled about some of the aspects of the recommendations. We have expressed our concern against the background of acknowledging that there is a need for a constitutional process and constitutional reform and that we are committed to that. Therefore we have expressed these questions without being “bloody-minded”, as it were. We have raised a number of questions, always adding that in the final analysis we would wait for the Government’s response before reaching our own final decision.

That way it is so easy.

The report flowing from the meeting of the NP caucus of MPs and MPCs on Saturday makes us even more disturbed. If we are wrong in our deductions I hope the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, who will probably speak after me, or the the hon. the Prime Minister tomorrow, will tell me so. We have to go by reports which reach us and by fragmentary reports that are appearing in the Press. So if there is something else, we would like to hear it. It would appear however, that the hon. the Prime Minister, acting under pressure, has retreated to what can only be called a “jazzed up” version of the 1977 proposals. [Interjections.] If that is wrong, we would like to hear it from the hon. the Prime Minister because the worn out promises of one Parliament and three racially segregated Chambers are once again in vogue. Does this Government not realize that the 1977 proposals are unworkable and were unacceptable to the majority of Coloureds and Indians then, and I am quite sure will be now? If we have that wrong, let us in heaven’s name hear from the Government or somebody in authority who will tell us it is not so and that there is a new development, a new plan and this is what it is. We can then respond and debate it meaningfully. However, up to now the unwrapping of the package has caused a general gloom, not euphoria, except of course, for NP members because their party is almost intact at least for the time being. The proposals, as we have received them and certainly the books that I have read with some care, appear to me, in terms of constitutional process, to be nothing more or nothing less than half-baked. They have been taken out of the oven too soon and they leave too many crucial questions hanging in the air, questions dealing specifically with the executive President and central Government; half-baked, I say, because they set out constitutional proposals for South Africa but deliberately exclude the overwhelming majority of people, namely the Blacks. I refer to the first report and I want to quote from page 84, as follows—

They tell us in other words that one cannot include Blacks otherwise democracy will be difficult, in fact impossible. But how on earth do you exclude Blacks and reach any kind of democracy whatsoever? It simply blows the mind. I want to remind this House that when the hon. the Prime Minister spoke at Springbok he said to that sole interjector: “If you are not prepared to take the place of the Coloured in South Africa, you have no case.”. I must also say to the Government if they are not prepared to stand where the Black man stands today, then they have no case either.

The President’s Council, however, cannot be seen in isolation. It is true that they enjoy a central place on the stage of our affairs, but we must not overlook the setting in which these proposals have been published. In Parliament itself we only need to glance at the legislation we have been discussing over the past few weeks to see how ominous the background is, and I want to list them. We talked for a long time in this House about the Internal Security Bill with its very severe measures; we talked about the Demonstrations in or Near Court Buildings Prohibition Bill, the Intimidation Bill, the Protection of Information Bill, the Defence Amendment Bill where, despite the fact that there was a Select Committee we had at least two Opposition parties and the Government in confrontation; and today we had the First Reading of a Bill which we have now been able to see for ourselves could well mark the first step towards statutory control of the Press.

We must not imagine, however, that Parliament is our entire world. There is a wider horizon outside this Chamber and we often overlook that, and there are events taking place there which help us to see the President’s Council’s recommendations in better perspective. We are told firstly that an act of sabotage takes place at least once every three days in South Africa. The exploiting bomb almost drowns out the rhetoric of the politicians and competes with them for headlines. How many more deplorable acts of violence must occur before we come to our senses? Secondly, at the same time outside of this House, we have the rejection of the recommendation made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition concerning the Buthelezi Commission and the President’s Council’s recommendations. We admit immediately that there are technical problems in the way, but if our heart was in it and if there was the will, a way could have been found. I am persuaded that in years to come this Government will look back on that rejection as an act of great folly.

Thirdly, we have the new Aggett inquest which I cannot go into now, except to say that we watch with horror as it unfolds.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to refer to the Aggett case and to say that they view it with horror? I submit that the hon. member is commenting on the case by suggesting that they view it with horror.

Order! The hon. member for Pinelands may not refer to the matter as it is sub judice.

Mr. Speaker, I actually said that myself.

I ask the hon. member therefore to contain himself and to make no reference to or comment on the Aggett case.

In our insularity we exclude Blacks from this House and from the President’s Council. Yet we are told that in 1990 there will be 40 million Blacks in South Africa. They will be very difficult to sweep under the carpet. It will be impossible to ignore them and if we do not accommodate this growing, strident voice we have only ourselves to blame because, God knows, we have had long enough to do so.

Fifthly, overshadowing even all these warning lights, there is the simple, basic, inhuman indignity and suffering which continues. The Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act still do their dirty work. District Six still stands as a grisly eyesore and a grim reminder that the Group Areas Act is still on the Statute Book. If we are going to introduce constitutional change, the aim should be to introduce it in a spirit of goodwill and an atmosphere of goodwill. There is a desperate need to raise this level in South Africa. Hand in hand with constitutional change must go genuine reform. Here too it would appear, however, that the hon. the Prime Minister has retreated. The words are sweet and they come to us often, but the action is stillborn. I am grateful for the hon. the Prime Minister’s good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with these.

You should know. You are right on it now.

I grow even more afraid that in the midst of the fanfare of the President’s Council’s trumpets we are moving further along the road at an ever-increasing pace. We can no longer afford the kind of exchange that takes place between the NP and the CP when the problems before us are enormous. I say to the hon. Minister who interjected a moment ago, the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members on that side of the House that if they have a view, a way or a plan then in heaven’s name let us hear about it so that we can get on with the job.

Mr. Speaker, towards the end of his speech the hon. member for Pinelands raised the same old arguments which he usually raises in a debate of this nature. In the first place he told us, “one can only have real change in South Africa if one comes with genuine reform.”.

†He went on to say: “We still have all the human indignities and the suffering. The Group Areas Act, the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act still remain on the Statute Book.”

That is right.

Unless we make all these changes, according to the hon. member for Pinelands, there will be no real reform in South Africa. He said that unless we did that we would have continuous polarization in South Africa and that the future would bring only one thing, i.e. an increasing number of acts of violence in South Africa. I think that was more or less the trend of the hon. member’s argument. Am I correct in saying that?

In part, yes.

I want to deal this evening with a number of points that the hon. member raised in this debate. In the first instance he said that there was a lack of reform in South Africa, and that we have continuous polarization. Political polarization means that because irreconcilable philosophies are adopted, that various communities are at loggerheads, and this can eventually lead to violence and civil war. That is what is involved when hon. members of this House and political commentators refer to polarization. It is even suggested—and I think hon. members must have seen it in the Press, especially in newspapers that support hon. members of the official Opposition—that the proposals of the President’s Council will lead to further polarization in South Africa and, as basis for that argument, they use the fact that the Blacks are excluded from the President’s Council. The hon. member also made that point this evening when he said that 70% of the population of South Africa were excluded from participation in the President’s Council. I want to point out, however, that it is not the President’s Council or the policies of this Government that are encouraging polarization in South Africa.

Are you speaking for the President’s Council?

I do, however, believe that it is the attitude of radicals like the hon. member for Pinelands and some of his political associates that is creating and furthering political polarization in South Africa. I believe—and I think all hon. members on this side of the House share that belief—that the President’s Council is a tower of strength, a political lighthouse indicating continuously where the rocky and treacherous coastlines are. It can act as a beacon of light where the ship of state can sail without getting into trouble.

It flashes Black and White.

My clear feeling is that the NP Government forms a buffer between the two opposite poles in South Africa and, if it forms that buffer, how can it create political polarization? It is our only guarantee that two opposing forces will not meet when we have a strong, solid, reasonable and sensible buffer between those two opposite poles in South Africa.

You are stealing Vause’s speech.

The two opposing forces are, on the one hand, those who clearly want no differentiation and who are striving for a non-racial common society in South Africa and, on the other hand, those who want White “baasskap” and no movement away from discrimination. That, I believe, is the road to confrontation and that certainly will further polarization in South Africa. The official Opposition should realize that their policies will not prevent confrontation but, in fact, promote it.

Who is running the country?

One is entitled to ask on whose side the hon. members of the official Opposition are. I should like to know on whose side people could be who, in the first instance, advocate common rolls for all in South Africa without any qualification. Secondly, I want to know on whose side people are who do not recognize that we already have four independent Black States carved out of South Africa, whilst at the same time—as that hon. member did this evening—continually talking of 70% of the population having been excluded from decision-making processes in this country.

I did not use that figure at all.

The four independent Black States are, in fact, already participating in decision-making processes, but the hon. member continues to project the image that South Africa excludes all Blacks from the decision-making process in South Africa. He knows, however, that that is not true because, as I have said, there are four of them already on the road to independence, and more of them to follow.

Tell us about the 10 million outside the homelands.

I believe that that hon. member and his associates deliberately invite the interference of the Blacks in the affairs of the non-Blacks in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, I should like to know on whose side people in South Africa are …

They are not going to go away, you know!

… who firstly do not recognize any group identity or ethnicity and who, at no stage, recognize the right of communities to deal with their own community affairs.

Whose side do you say they are on?

No, I am asking the question. Let me tell that hon. member on whose side he is.

Yes, tell me.

He is on the side of the leftist radicals in South Africa. [Interjections.] That is whose side he is on. [Interjections.] He is deliberately creating polarization … [Interjections.] I am sorry—perhaps I should have excluded the hon. member for Yeoville. I am not referring to him personally, but rather to his party, in particular the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Sea Point. [Interjections.] I want to know …

Old Harry is a verkrampte terrorist. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to say that an hon. member on this side of the House is a “verkrampte terrorist”?

Order! The hon. the Minister must please withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know on whose side people are who have such an obsession with all forms of differentiation that they want a Bill of Rights to provide for legal redress whenever people feel that they have been aggrieved on racial grounds.

What about the United States of America?

I want to know on whose side people in South Africa are who want everyone to enjoy the same kind of citizenship, the same voting rights, with no separate institutions, schools or residential areas. [Interjections.] I want to know—and I think this House is entitled to know—on whose side MPs and their supporters are, who—to crown it all—shy away from the institutions that are looking for solutions to our problems in order to accommodate the aspirations of all of us, e.g. the President’s Council, people who are trying to minimize the role played by bodies such as that body.

I would like to know on whose side people are who are continually warning us of possible violence if radical changes are not made, as if the occurrence of violence would be the very best thing that could happen in South Africa. I should like to know on whose side people are who continually scare the Blacks by saying that the Whites in South Africa have ugly motives and should not be trusted when they talk of reform because it means nothing when they talk of reform, it is nothing but cosmetic change. Without any fear of contradiction I want to say that the hon. members of the official Opposition are the worst offenders in this regard. They are promoting very dangerous polarization indeed and the strategy they are following, wittingly or unwittingly, is not one of reconciling the hopes of all groups and of all people in South Africa. They are energetically trying to promote the image that they are the spokesmen for those who are not represented in the House. They have had a measure of success which has given them some status—a status which I believe they do not deserve—in the eyes of a section of the electorate, but that is a short-lived measure of success, it is a passing phase. I believe that the hon. members of the PFP dread the day when more Coloured and Asiatic moderates come out in support of keeping up dialogue with the Government. That is what they dread.

*The moment when those people support the NP in larger numbers and conduct dialogue with it and speak openly to it, as Curry and others said they wanted to do, the PFP will begin to lose the basis from which it operates. The more this happens in South Africa, the more rapidly they will lose that basis. The only basis they had was to tell the people that they were speaking and preaching on behalf of the non-Whites in South Africa. There is no other political party in South Africa but the NP that is able to bring the politics of negotiation in South Africa to a successful conclusion. While the NP is engaged in following a strategy of negotiation politics, we are, at the same time, upsetting the basis of those people who want to conduct intimidation politics in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to react directly to the speech by the hon. member for De Kuilen. I may come back to him in the course of my speech. We looked forward to this debate which is actually the last important debate of this session. However, I fear that thus far there has been no dialogue at all, particularly between the Government and the CP. What have we had from the Government party thus far? The hon. member for Standerton said that the hon. member for Waterberg was a word artist—I shall not deny it—but honestly, the verbal virtuosity of the hon. member for Standerton left him in the lurch this evening, because he lacked adjectives with which to try and smear the CP. If that is the level at which a political debate is to be conducted in South Africa, then we have reason to be concerned about the future of South Africa. We have been accused during the past few days—names have not been mentioned, however—of having undermined the NP during last year’s election while we were candidates of the NP. I recall that after the election last year we held a council of war in Transvaal. Of course, Transvaal had no reason to hang its head in shame because the NP in Transvaal had not lost a seat; on the contrary, it gained one, and that was under the leadership of the hon. member for Waterberg. [Interjections.] I clearly recall that occasion, and I call the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs to witness that he personally conveyed his thanks to the hon. member for Waterberg for the important contribution he made to the victory of the NP in the Transvaal. If I remember his words correctly, the hon. the Minister said to him: “Andries, as dit nie vir jou was nie, het ek nie die paal gehaal in Delmas nie.” I also recall what happened on the occasion of the by-election in the Fauresmith constituency in the Free State. That was not so long ago. At the time an emergency meeting of the executive of the NP in the Free State took place because the NP in the Free State had encountered stronger resistance than they had expected. On the occasion of an emergency meeting they made an appeal to the hon. member for Waterberg to come and assist them in Fauresmith. [Interjections.]

If I had not been Administrator at the time, that would never have happened! [Interjections.]

At the time there was an acute need for the starvation diet which the hon. member for Waterberg supposedly gave the voters of South Africa. [Interjections.] Now, however, we are being accused of having deviated from our standpoints. I challenge any hon. member on the Government side to accuse me of having deviated from the standpoint I have always subscribed to and advocated. [Interjections.] There is one thing in particular that I find surprising. The other day the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development held a meeting in my home town. He tried to explain to my people there what the 1977 proposals really meant. This reminds me, of course, that in 1977 that very same hon. Deputy Minister of Development asked me to explain the 1977 proposals to his voters in his constituency. His words to me on that occasion were: “You know, Cas, I do not understand these things so well.” [Interjections.]

You did not understand them either.

The hon. member for Yeoville now tells me that I did not understand them either. Several references have already been made this evening to the Transvaal Congress of the NP last year and what was done there by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Waterberg. I have before me the minutes of that congress, and they indicate that there were certain resolutions that were addressed to the hon. the Prime Minister. I also have before me the notes containing the answers of the hon. the Prime Minister, with specific reference to the 1977 proposals.

He did not understand them either.

What, according to these minutes, was the explanation of the 1977 proposals provided by the hon. the Prime Minister? Let me quote what he said in paragraph 3.2—

Well, well!

It was not joint decision making or power-sharing. The Council of Cabinets would be there for consultation on matters of common concern.

It seems to me that no one understands these things! [Interjections.]

According to these minutes the hon. the Prime Minister went on to say that there would be three parliamentary institutions, that would be established to deal with the special needs of each population group. However, there would be means and instruments to provide for consultation among the groups in respect of matters of common concern. That was last year. At the time there was no question of power-sharing, healthy or otherwise. At the time the idiom of the NP was only “consultation”. Let us go a little further back. My hon. leader has already referred to this this evening. I wish to draw attention to column 247, Hansard, 1980. The hon. the Prime Minister himself was speaking in the House—

He then referred to the Housing Commission, the Group Areas Board and the Road Transportation Boards as examples and went on—

In that regard the hon. the Prime Minister said that he conceded that at that level there was joint decision-making. Then the hon. member for Durban Point asked him—

This was the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply—

The hon. member for Durban Point then asked—

The hon. the Prime Minister replied—

[Interjections.] Hon. members in the Government benches can kick up a fuss, but the question of the hon. member for Durban Point was in simple language. The hon. the Prime Minister conceded that there would be joint decision-making in the Housing Commission. When the hon. member for Durban Point asked what about the high level, the hon. the Prime Minister replied that he was not prepared to jeopardize the self-determination of his people at that level. That is the point at issue.

Earlier this evening the hon. member for Malmesbury asked with what message the various parties and representatives would go back to their constituencies. We in South Africa are waiting to hear what the message of the NP to the voters is going to be. We are waiting, because initially we were told that the President’s Council was being awaited, and after that they would say what it was. Subsequently the nation was told—this was announced from public platform to public platform by NP spokesmen—that it was necessary to wait until 5 June; the NP caucus would meet then and then the people would know. The fifth of June has been and gone, and South Africa still does not know what the NP’s policy in this regard is.

In the meantime, the Press which is well disposed towards the Government has been harnessed to tell the people of South Africa that the proposals of the President’s Council are wonderful. It is not only the Press that is well disposed to the Government that is being harnessed for this purpose; radio and television have also been used for this purpose for weeks now, blatantly used …

Are the newspapers unable to think for themselves?

I am now referring to radio, television and, of course, Radio RSA, which has been blatantly used for this purpose for weeks now. Members of the President’s Council are using the opportunity not only to praise themselves but also to try and sell the wonderful proposals of the President’s Council to South Africa. I now put this question to the Government: If you do not want to accept the proposals of the President’s Council, why, then, do you not also take the White South African into your confidence? The hon. member for Durban Point pointed out that the Government has told the Whites that they must be patient at this stage; they must wait because negotiations are first taking place with the Brown people and the Asians.

And with the Nationalists.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp has just made an amazing admission. He says that the Government is first negotiating with the Nationalists. [Interjections.] And I had always thought that the Nationalists endorsed the policy and standpoint of the NP. Now I must hear that the mighty NP has to negotiate with Nationalists to have the new policy accepted. [Interjections.] That, then, is the factual situation we are faced with today. With a few exceptions, the NP representatives in this House are trying to tell the White public that the NP has not changed its policy. I say “with a few exceptions”, because I know of NP members who are prepared to concede that the NP has changed and adjusted its course radically in this regard. They have the courage of their convictions to acknowledge that. Unfortunately for the NP, there are still several hon. members in its ranks who, unless they have changed their opinions over the past few days to the extent of being unrecognizable, are far more “verkramp” than I am.

That is impossible!

Surely the hon. the Minister knows it. After all, we were very good friends and we spoke a great deal. Over and over again we are asked to state our alternative. [Interjections.] It is a fair question, but it is just as fair to counter with the question: An alternative to what? [Interjections.] To a caucus secret? To a caucus secret in terms of which the White people of South Africa do not have the right to know what the policy and standpoint of the NP is? [Interjections.] What is more, hon. members on the other side of the House asked us what message we have to convey to the people of South Africa. I am told that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs recently said, in reply to a question in my home town, that he did not accept a mixed Cabinet. This is being said to the people on the platteland. We shall wait and see what those hon. members opposite who have said that they are not prepared to accept a mixed Government are eventually going to do.

I shall go and put the matter to your people in Carolina.

The hon. the Minister is welcome to come and do so in my home town, but then I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he was not prepared to associate himself with a motion which rejected mixed Government in South Africa during the meeting of the chief executive of the NP in the Transvaal. Why was he not prepared to accept that? [Interjections.] Our people are now being sanctimoniously told that matters are delicate and that we first have to negotiate. That may be a good argument, but the same applies to our people as well. What about the Whites? In what privileged position are the Brown and Asian leaders being placed now? We should like to know who the leaders are with whom negotiations are taking place, and what mandate they have received from their respective peoples.

On 31 July the NP is holding a congress at which all MP’s, all MPC’s and five additional respresentatives from every constituency will be present. Three days after that we, too, will be holding our congress. Policy will be spelt out against policy. [Interjections.]

Is that another promise?

We are still awaiting a promise from the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] Sir, I have no doubt as to what the decision of the Whites in South Africa is going to be.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Barberton said that I had supposedly said that if the hon. member for Waterberg had not come and held meetings in Delmas, I should have lost my seat. The hon. member did not hold meetings for me and I never said that if it had not been for the hon. member, I would have lost Delmas. I fought the seat alone and I won.

The hon. the Minister can have a turn to speak. Then he can put his case.

They do not want to give me one, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Barberton did not understand the 1977 proposals, and he must decide about this matter for himself. What I do know is that he accepted those proposals. I suppose he has not yet realized that these proposals are not a law of the Medes and Persians and that negotiations are extremely important before one can reach clear decisions on these proposals. I want to tell the hon. member for Barberton that he need not have been worried about the decisions of the Government and their standpoints in connection with the proposals of the President’s Council if he had still been a member of the NP-caucus. He will just have to carry on guessing at his leisure until the Government is ready to state its standpoints in public. I cannot understand why the hon. members of the CP are so worried about the 1977 proposals. Is it not their hon. leader who said that the CP is no longer wedded to the 1977 proposals? Why are they having sleepless nights about them? I do not understand it.

He lived in sin with those proposals.

A word which is extremely important in the present political discussion, particularly when the relationship between various population groups is involved, is the word justice. This evening I want to speak in particular to those former colleagues of ours who are now in the Conservative Party about this concept, because when one is planning and structuring a new constitutional dispensation, what is in fact involved is doing justice to all the people who are involved in that new constitutional dispensation or who are going to or have to be involved in it. When the concept of justice is discussed, we must understand that it is only in its original meaning—as theologian and former clergyman I can say this to a former theologian and clergyman on that side of the House—that this word has a solely concrete meaning. Actually it is even better to say that in essence justice is concrete. It is therefore totally wrong and unacceptable to see justice as a theoretical idea, as a philosophical concept which has nothing to do with the harsh realities of every day. I am well aware that this hon. House is not the place to give a lecture on theology, but this evening I should like to say with all due respect that our behaviour, also in day-to-day politics, must be measured by the concept of biblical justice. In the Bible justice refers to the character or personality of God himself. It is concerned with His deeds—concrete, visible and tangible. Almost 2 300 years ago His justice towards us was expressed in one of the greatest and most concrete deeds of all times. That deed proved to us that the aim of justice must be a self-forgetful sacrifice. If one is striving to be just and one is not prepared to make sacrifices, then one’s justice is false. One must not even think of one’s own rights first; one must not first ensure in a petty-minded and selfish way that all one’s own rights are guaranteed and then take a cursory glance at other people’s rights. One must first ensure that other people’s rights are guaranteed because therein lies a guarantee of one’s own rights. When we now say in the political sense that we are being just, we must not be satisfied to say that we must only comply with certain people’s legitimate demands. If we want to carry justice to its logical conclusion in politics, we must in reality give to others more than they deserve. After all, the sun does not only shine and the rain does not only fall upon the just, but also upon the unjust who do not really deserve it. In justice there dwells a concrete and sacrificing love. This is my problem with the CP, and with theologians who cannot visualize this concrete reality of justice in practical politics and as far as ethnic relations in South Africa are concerned. These are the people who are trying to set themselves up as faultless, untouchable and sacred priestlike figures. The hon. the leader of the CP must therefore not be angry if an altercation develops.

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

No, Sir. I think the hon. member should keep quiet and first listen to me. It is no use our feeling incensed about sharp words. It is not the voters of the NP in my constituency who are convassing from house to house, telling people that they should become members of the CP as soon as possible because within a few years the NP is going to integrate all schools in South Africa and then only people who are enrolled members of the CP will be allowed to send their children to White schools. It is not the Nationalists who are saying this; it is CP canvassers. [Interjections.] On 25 March 1981, in the Potgietersrus constituency, the hon. the leader of the CP—who was then still leader of the NP in the Transvaal—and I were on the same platform. It was an excellent meeting. On that occasion he said that Aksie Eie Toekoms was making things difficult for the NP. He then said the following: “Hierdie Aksie Eie Toekoms lyk vir my meer na ’n Aksie Sonder Toekoms”. The audience present there that evening applauded him, and I also applauded him. As a faithful and loyal supporter of my provincial leader I rejoiced with him in the fact that this Aksie Eie Toekoms was in fact an Aksie Sonder Toekoms. In the latest book by Messrs. Ries and Dommisse entitled “Broe-dertwis” I read the following on page 95—

[Interjections.] What I want to prove by this is that those people who were an “aksie son-der toekoms”, held discussions with the hon. the Leader of the CP on 21 February, and are now in his party. We are now warned to be wary of the credibility of the NP; we must not trust our leaders. Is this a classic example of credibility? Are these the people we must trust? That is what I should like to know at this stage.

Should we have confidence in a party which is culturally and religiously so conservative that on Ascension day they sent a young boy from house to house in Acacia Park to deliver their political publication, Die Konserwatief, complete with its doctored photographs? [Interjections.] It was delivered to our homes on Ascension Day.

My two sons and I delivered them.

The inconsistency of this sort of behaviour makes the word “conservative” ridiculous and a curse. If this is the way in which we must be conservative, I do not want to be conservative. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Jeppe entitled to refer to the hon. member for Potgietersrus as a “mislike predikant” (disgusting clergyman). [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Jeppe say that?

Yes, Sir, I said that.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I do not withdraw them. [Interjections.]

I am asking the hon. member again to withdraw them.

Because you are asking me to do so, I withdraw them, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw them unconditionally!

I withdraw them unconditionally, Sir. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Did I understand the hon. member for Potgietersrus correctly when he referred to the CP as a curse?

Mr. Speaker, I did not say the CP is a curse. I said if that is what the word conservative means, then we are making the word ridiculous and we are making it a curse. [Interjections.] I was discussing the word conservative. [Interjections.]

In this debate I should also like to refer to the hon. member for Pietersburg, my political neighbour. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietersburg … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member for Potgietersrus an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

It is Chris who has no manners! [Interjections.]

Order! When the Chair calls for order, hon. members must kindly obey.

Political sects do not know the meaning of the word obedience!

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member for Potgietersrus a chance to complete his speech now.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Pietersburg, my political neighbour in the Northern Transvaal. In Die Noordelike Revue of 4 June of this year he wrote an article, and I am quoting from page 15 of that newspaper. The hon. member first referred to the NP which, according to him, is supposed to be trying to sit on two stools at the same time, and he said—

I maintain that this is an absolute lie the hon. member for Pietersburg proclaimed here. [Interjections.] I do not know whether he took the trouble to read this speech of the hon. the Prime Minister. I am now referring to the speech the hon. the Prime Minister made at Springbok. I have read every word of that speech. I did this with other hon. members on this side of the House, and I challenge the hon. member for Pietersburg to show me where in that speech the hon. the Prime Minister made any mention of total political integration. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, do we not see in suspicion-mongering of this kind the result of blind hatred of the NP and its leaders? [Interjections.] Do we not see in this the result of political frustrations and of self-justification for rash deeds committed? [Interjections.] Hon. members of the CP may continue with their rumour-mongering and their politics of dissension. However, they must realize that their behaviour is driving the Whites into two opposing camps, and that they will be blamed for causing a rift and hostilities in church and cultural circles. [Interjections.] They will be blamed for driving a wedge between friends and relatives and driving them into opposing camps. [Interjections.] They are also harming the good relations which have been built up over the years between the nations of this country. These do not seem to me to be achievements any political party may be proud of. [Interjections.] Through this behaviour of the CP they are not furthering the cause of the Whites in general and of the Afrikaner nation in particular; on the contrary, they are in fact prejudicing the Whites and the Afrikaners by their behaviour and these deliberate attempts to bring about polarization between Whites and Whites and between Whites and people of colour in this country. They are not the saviours of the Whites, but a danger to the peaceful continued existence of the Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The voters of South Africa are becoming ever more aware of this. The hon. member for Barberton said the voters of South Africa have learnt to think. Those are the wisest words he has ever uttered. They are also thinking wisely about the CP. That is why workers in my constituency are coming back with a single message, namely that the voters are saying that they were misled by the CP. [Interjections.] The CP’s political honeymoon trip is drawing to a close. [Interjections.]

In the world of political realities the hour of reckoning is approaching for the CP. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I have a constitutional proposal to make: Instead of one House with three Chambers, I think we must have one House with four Chambers and that the fourth Chamber must be used by the NP and the CP so that they can carry on this vendetta of theirs in private in that fourth Chamber. This thing started as being quite interesting; it then became amusing; it is now futile and boring and it is not a constitutional debate at all. It is a waste of the time of this House.

People for a long time already have come to believe that the Government has thrown in the sponge and accepted an inflation rate of somewhere between 10% and 16% as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation. Why has inflation taken such a hold on society that now its growth hardly falters, even in times of recession? Its immediate evil, I think, is social and not economic. The intelligent businessman can live with inflation. To quote Orpen: “Learn from Machiavelli: Find ways to make inflation work for you, not against you.” This ties in well with the live-for-the-day philosophy of the NP Government. Inflation will white-ant our economy and our society. This applies more to us than to other countries because of our complex society, its tensions and divisions and the fact that the impoverished 80% of our population still has to reach a decision as to the type of system under which it is prepared to live. Jill Nattrass says: “The Government’s approach to the economy reflects the political powerlessness of the groups who bear the brunt of cut-backs.” The affluent, and those people with bargaining strength, find inflation an inconvenience. It is the poor, the retired, the pensioner’s who watch helplessly as it destroys the fabric of their lives.

It takes great courage for a Government to take the necessary steps to act against inflation. I have a feeling that this Government lacks that courage and has decided to let the burden of inflation lie on the shoulders of those people least able to bear it. These people are either voteless and consequently do not threaten the NP or they are old and out of the mainstream of the economy and have lost their bargaining strength. All the time, however, inflation is insidiously at work. It sucks the little they have from those without bargaining strength. It cuts at the root of the free enterprise system in that it destroys people’s confidence in savings, and our system is based on the marshalling of these funds in businesses and institutions where they become resources of enterprise. However, if one’s after-tax return is less than the depreciation in the value of the sum invested, it does not pay one to save. As a result, investment is channelled into speculative and non-productive projects. Inflation causes currency devaluation. The price of our imports rises, our manufactured exports, long term, become less competitive and we observe one of the many ways in which inflation feeds upon itself.

In his budget speech the hon. the Minister said that higher inflation cannot be an acceptable outcome, but higher inflation we have. One has the feeling that the Government watches the inflation rate month by month like a farmer watches the weather. He fervently hopes it will change, but does not feel there is much he can do about it. If the Government wants the confidence and co-operation of the electorate, it must spell out for us how it intends to fight inflation. The organizations that control the supply of goods and services have grown so powerful that they no longer respond to market forces. Consider the goods to which administered prices apply. There is steel, oil, coal, fertilizer, maize, wheat, dairy products and sugar—in fact, all the staple agricultural products. Except for the price of oil, which is the wild card in the pack, the prices of these products are as good as indexed to the rate of inflation. Other important products have their prices established by the Government, or organizations so powerful that they fear no competition. Examples of these are timber, cement, bricks, chemicals, beverages and paper. Six per cent of South African manufacturing companies own 80% of the country’s fixed manufacturing assets; whilst 2,7% are responsible for 50% of the manufacturing turnover. This indicates how dangerously centralized the situation is.

Monopolistic!

The South African Transport Services showed clearly, in its Vote, that it regarded fighting inflation as someone else’s problem. It leapt right ahead of the field with a 15% increase in rates. Over a year this would bring in approximately 60% more than if its tariffs were indexed to the rate of inflation on a monthly basis, and of course even that would do nothing to stop inflation. The cost of power is the other great administered price. Here there must be a question mark placed over the policy of setting tariffs to supply capital requirements.

Now I want to consider labour. White labour draws its negotiating strength from two sources. Firstly it is part of a body of voters that elects the Government. Secondly, it has organized itself into powerful unions. The Government’s stated policy is that wages are a matter between unions and employers, and we endorse that policy. Union wages are, however, no more responsive to market forces than the products I have listed above. Thirty per cent of all workers in the non-agricultural sector work for the Government or quasi-Government institutions. To a large extent the NP depends on the support of these people. Can hon. members therefore see this Government making the type of difficult decision that Mrs. Thatcher made when she attempted, in Britain, to keep the increase in wages at between 3% and 5%, at a time when inflation was running at between 14% and 15%? The report of the South African Transport Services shows that the remuneration of White employees on the Railways increased by 61% over the past two years. A 44% boost in personnel expenditure, planned for the Police Force, indicates a similar sort of increase. Is it the intention of this Government to give 30% of South Africa’s workers increases exceeding the inflation rate in future? If that is the case, how does it believe the inflation rate can be reduced? There are some difficult and painful decisions that have to be made. The Black labour force has never had any negotiating power. It has been immobile, unskilled and prevented, by law, from effective organization. This is, however, changing, and that change will ultimately be to the good of our society, but the initial impact of increased industrial power for the Blacks will be inflationary. To the degree that professional associations defend their members’ relative shares in the economy, they fall into the same category as do the unions, and consequently their fees will tend to go up on a similar basis to that of the increase in the rate of inflation.

What should be done and what should not be done in the circumstances described? In another gold bonanza we must not again spend money like the winner of a football pool. The Government should have allowed surplus money to be invested overseas through the agency of the Reserve Bank. Secondly, the Government can give itself no credit for the manner in which the money supply was allowed to grow at the end of 1981. Thirdly, monopolies, cartels and other groupings of businessmen cannot be allowed to conspire together to the disadvantage of the helpless public. The Competition Board should have its powers and resources reviewed and strengthened. The free enterprise system is based on competition and the profit motive. Businessmen cannot enjoy profit without subjecting themselves to trial by competition. Fourthly, the National Productivity Institute report gives a list of 25 countries showing growth in productivity between 1972 and 1979. South Africa features 23rd on this list. It is necessary for our people to appreciate the fact that once the wage gap has been closed, increases in wages and salaries must be tied to productivity. Fifthly, we welcome the Small Business Development Corporation as an attempt on the part of the authorities to address itself to the shortage of entrepreneurs. My advice would be to create the environment where they can take root and grow. If restrictive regulations were removed, the entrepreneurs would identify themselves. Sixthly, efforts should be made to phase out administered prices and possibly consideration given to a future market for agricultural products.

We realize that there is no magic solution to the inflation problem. It has many causes in many places but few people would deny the relationship between organization, education and training, motivation, productivity and a stable currency. The Government’s apartheid policy has built into the structure of our economy such distortion, such discrimination and, consequently, despair and disincentive in our Black population, that high national productivity is impossible and climbing inflation is inevitable. We are reaping the fruits of 30 years of policies so wrong that they are the prime cause of the peril in which our nation finds itself today. What are these fruits? Firstly, there is the Defence budget that has just been passed by this House. The inflationary impact of that R3 000 million spent completely unproductively is irresistible. It is money that should have been pumped into housing, education and training and community betterment. Secondly, there is the fact that one-third of the economically active Black population have no education at all. Thirdly, there is the backlog in Black housing; fourthly, the shortage of entrepreneurs; fifthly, the shortage of people to man the Public Service; sixthly, the lack of skilled workers; and finally, the developing Black-White polarization.

Mr. Speaker, it would be wonderful if we could turn our backs on the sordid history of the past 30 years and concentrate on new initiatives to create a new society. However, that is not possible. The problem is still with us. The exclusion of Blacks from a common political dispensation in the Government’s latest political proposals and the inclusion of Indians and Coloureds with a status analogous to that of minority shareholders in a private company proves that despite all attempts to disguise it, apartheid still flourishes. While it does so, inflation will continue to record the temperature of the patient.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer devoted his entire speech to financial aspects. I think the hon. the Minister of Finance will reply to his problems. The hon. member was particularly concerned about inflation. At the end of his speech he alleged that the apartheid policy of the Government was responsible for the impoverishment of people in South Africa. That is not a correct statement.

Surely it is a well-known fact that in this country, where Black people are in contact with the NP Government, their standard of living is amongst the highest in Africa and they experience the fewest financial problems. This Government is a positive government which is governing in South Africa to the benefit of all the peoples in the country. This Government is also taking the initiative in respect of financial and political aspects.

When one is talking about giving of Black people their freedom, one need only think back to 1959 when Dr. Verwoerd declared in this House that he was going to give Black people their freedom as well as the franchise. That is what Dr. Verwoerd said, and that is what the NP is doing today. A year or so later Dr. Verwoerd proclaimed a Republic according to the wishes of the people.

One need only look at the remaining fragments of what was once the powerful United Party. On the opposite side of this House there are eight fragments of the original tree. They are people who will have to seek a niche for themselves in South Africa one of these days, either with the NP or the PFP. This evening the hon. leader of the NRP referred to the new Republic. Can hon. members still remember how these people agitated and adopted a “Natal stand” against the new Republic? [Interjections ] Why does that party have to seek a new political home today? They will sing their swansong—they have already begun to sing their funeral dirge this evening—because that party adopted a standpoint which was opposed to the wishes of the people. That is why the people dealt with them. The people did not forget. [Interjections.] The other day the NRP burnt its fingers with the Buthelezi report. After all, I know their chequered history. They are now looking for a new political home.

I want to dwell for a moment on the matter we are dealing with at present, viz. the search of solutions to the problems of South Africa. There are certain people who are trying to cause the solutions to these problems to miscarry. The hon. members of the official Opposition, as well as their newspapers, are the people who are doing everything in their power to try to wreck the constitutional proposals on which we are working so hard. I shall tell hon. members why I say this. If one talks about the spirit pervading the PFP, one need only refer to the conduct of the hon. member for Constantia. During this session the PFP has vehemently opposed various pieces of legislation. The hon. the Minister said of the hon. member for Constantia that he came as close to treason in this House as a person could possibly do. [Interjections.] I just want to remind hon. members of what that hon. member said. Some time ago he addressed the students of the University of the Witwatersrand. On that occasion the hon. member, after what he had done in this House, said the following: “There are no Russians on the border of South Africa”. This is what he said to the students at Wits. [Interjections.] I want to quote further from what he said. He said: “South Africa is fighting Black nationalism, not communism, on the borders of South Africa.” That is what he said before a student audience at Wits. [Interjections.] Of these words the hon. the Minister said: “The nearest thing to treason I have ever heard”. However, the hon. member also said the following: “The South African Government claims it needs the forces to defend the country. The PFP says scrap the points of friction”. I must also tell hon. members that there was a certain other person with him on that platform. Another speaker appeared with that hon. member on the platform, and that speaker was a certain Z. M. Mussain, of the Students’ Council of that university. When the latter began to speak—and this is the hon. member’s bosom companion—he gave the raised fist amandla salute. [Interjections.] This was done in the presence of that hon. member. He said: “Face a voluntary revolution by 1985”. That is what this man said. He went further and said: “Then you have the ‘kragdadigheid’ to join the army”. This man proclaimed before all the students that they should not support the Defence Force, and should not join the Defence Force. This is the bosom companion of that hon. member who appeared with him on the same platform. [Interjections.] Together with him on the platform there was also “the Reverend D. Bax” of Cape Town. The latter asked: “Are we fighting in Namibia to keep the National Party in government?” That is what he asked the students. He went on to ask: “If there was a settlement, would the National Party lose power?” That was the next question which he asked. In conclusion, this bosom companion of that hon. member said the following: “If we think it an unjust war, it is our duty to refuse to fight, and to begin a fundamental resistance against this military call-up”. In conclusion he added: “We must not only know the truth; we must also do the truth”. Consequently he said that they should not join the Defence Force. That is what that party insinuated here, while the hon. member for Yeoville continues to sit amongst them … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Order! Will the hon. member reply to a question?

No, Mr. Speaker. That hon. member for Yeoville who always proclaims that he is for South Africa, is one of those who are wrecking the search for peace, security and prosperity for all the people of this country. Let me show you … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Vryheid must please resume his seat when a point of order is being raised.

Mr. Speaker, is an hon. member allowed to quote from a document without stating what he is quoting from? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member stated at the beginning of his speech what he was quoting from. The hon. member for Vryheid may proceed.

That party has now become so irrelevant … [Interjections.] The hon. member behind me here must give me a chance. That party has now become so irrelevant and leaderless that they have crept under the wing of Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. [Interjections.] They are now seeking affiliation with the Zulus, in the hope that that will get them somewhere. [Interjections.] The Chief Minister of KwaZulu said the following at Ulundi: “It was only a question of time before the Black majority of South Africa exercised their rights as a Black majority.” It is their partners who want to accomplish this. I want to indicate further who is obstructing our plans to seek peace in Southern Africa. The Indian people are complaining that the Zulus are threatening them with death if they accept the President’s Council proposals. The Indian people say: “We have already been threatened by the Zulus and we are told that we would go the same way as other Indians elsewhere in Africa if we accept the system of power-sharing and a White Government from which Blacks are excluded.”

Who said that?

They are their instigators, after all.

I want to know who said that.

Chief Buthelezi said: “There is something obscene about Coloureds and Indians throbbing their limbs next to the dying beast of apartheid.” Those people are their bosom companions, Sir. Those are the Zulus with whom they are seeking affiliation to try to wreck the proposals which will be to the benefit of everyone in Southern Africa. The other group of people that is trying to wreck the proposals, is the terrorists who have already made several attacks in my constituency. Hon. members must not think that we are beating a retreat as a result of those attacks. They do not frighten us. The people in my constituency have not become afraid as a result of the attacks. We have been expecting these things to happen for a long time. There are people in this House—the official Opposition and the Carnation Brigade sitting over there—who are responsible for certain actions on the part of terrorists. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member says that the official Opposition and the NRP are responsible for certain …

Not the NRP. [Interjections.]

Order! A point of order is being raised and it is being raised by the hon. member for Yeoville, and not by the whole House. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I raise as a point of order the fact that the hon. member has said that certain acts were being committed by the terrorists which in fact were being caused by the official Opposition and the NRP. I say that is unparliamentary.

Not the NRP, the CP.

Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a lot of noise. Hon. members do not appear to obey you, Sir. I think you should make them respect the Chair.

Order! What did the hon. member for Vryheid mean by that?

Mr. Speaker, I said that the actions and the deeds of those two parties had led to that.

The hon. member may proceed. [Interjections.]

Sir, that is not what he said. If he denies having said it, I ask you, Sir, to call for his Hansard tomorrow, and if in fact he has wrongly denied having used those words, I ask you to take much stricter disciplinary action against him. [Interjections.]

Order! The Chair will decide what steps to take.

Mr. Speaker, I am making a submission to you. If an hon. member denies what he has actually said, he commits a very serious offence.

The hon. member for Vryheid has given an explanation and after that it is for the Chair to decide what steps to take and not the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Vryheid may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, we are living in times of political violence. We are living in times of terrorism and sabotage. I said that to us this was not unexpected. The objectives of the terrorists are threefold. The first is to attract maximum attention. The second is to demoralize the people, and the third is to wreck a peaceful settlement. As we move closer to a peaceful settlement, they will act more quickly. My submission is that the members of the two parties I have mentioned are impeding the activities of the police. They are impeding the activities of the Defence Force as well, and the result of this is that the public cannot prepare itself to ward off the onslaught, which those hon. members negate and dismiss.

You are a nincompoop.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Yeoville allowed to refer to the hon. member for Vryheid as a nincompoop? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, will you please allow me to tell you what the word “nincompoop” means before you ask me to withdraw it? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must withdraw the word.

Harry, you are also a nincompoop! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for East London North must also withdraw that word.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I too withdraw it.

The hon. member for Vryheid may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Yeoville is a nincompoop. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Vryheid must withdraw that immediately.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, only this morning we read in the new-papers about Mozambique’s National Director of Security, Mr. Jorge Costa, who applied for political asylum in South Africa. Does Mr. Costa appear to be agreeing with the hon. member for Constantia or with the PFP or the CP when they try to negate the onslaught on South Africa? Mr. Costa says the Russian influence must disappear …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is too limited, Sir. I cannot reply to any questions now. [Interjections.] Mr. Jorge Costa admits the Russian presence and influence in Mozambique. He says the Russian influence must disappear from his country. Furthermore he says that the Russians are destroying everything in his country.

Like Hulley.

And the CP.

Yes, both! [Interjections.] Mr. Costa also says that he no longer sees his way clear to working for the interest of the Russians, and that general deterioration, political and economic, is the Russian goal in South Africa. Mr. Costa also pointed out that the necessities of life had become unobtainable in Mozambique. And then he had even worse news for hon. members of the Carnation Party, sitting there on the opposite side.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

No, sit down, Harry! My time is almost up and there is still a lot I want to say … [Interjections.]

Could the hon. member tell the House how many people in his constiuency have volunteered for the commandos? [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. member for Vryheid prepared to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Yeoville?

No, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] Mr. Costa went on to talk about the scarcity of the necessities of life, and pointed out that this was the direct consequence of the Russian influence in his country, something which the hon. member for Constantia naturally propagates. Mr. Costa, on the other hand, said that the Russian influence was having a destructive effect on his country. He also said that the goal of the Russians was control of the wealth of South Africa. That is the objective of the communists now in Maputo, not very far from our own border. Their next target is South Africa. However, before the Russians finally concentrate on South Africa, they will first, as they did in Mozambique, unobtrusively infiltrate the country and weaken the infrastructure here. For this they naturally need certain “voorlopers” (precursors) and “wegbereiders” (fifth columnists). Do hon. members know what happened the other day? After the hon. member for Constantia…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Vryheid says the Russians have certain “voorlopers” and “wegbereiders”. The hon. member for East London North …

Order! When a point of order is being raised the hon. member raising it should not be interrupted by other hon. members. I ask the hon. member for Yeoville to put his point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vryheid said there were certain people who were the “voorlopers”, those who prepared the way for the Russians, and the hon. member for East London North, by way of interjection, said it was “Harry”. [Interjections.]

Order! For what is the hon. member for Yeoville paving the way, according to the hon. member for East London North?

For the enemies of South Africa, Mr. Speaker. That is what the hon. member for East London North said, and I ask you to instruct him to withdraw that remark. [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon. member for East London North please explain what he meant by that interjection?

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Vryheid said that there were certain “agterlopers” of the Russians …

The hon. member for Vryheid spoke about “voorlopers”! [Interjections.]

Very well then, “voorlopers”. What I meant, however, was that there were certain Dicks, Toms and Harrys who brought up the rear (agternaloop). [Interjections.] That does not mean to say, of course, that the hon. member for Yeoville is one of them. I was speaking in general of “Dick, Tom and Harry”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I was travelling in an aircraft the other day…

Order! The hon. member can tell us about it some other time. We sat here until a very late hour last night, and I think that this is an appropriate time for us to go home.