announced that with effect from 21 February 1983 vacancies had occurred in the representation in this House of the following electoral divisions:

1. (1) Soutpansberg, owing to the resignation of the Hon. Stephanus Petrus Botha.
2. (2) Waterberg, owing to the resignation of Dr. the Hon. Andries Petrus Treurnicht.
3. (3) Waterkloof, owing to the resignation of Mr. Thomas Langley.

Mr. Speaker, just before the debate was adjourned on Thursday I was dealing with the political excesses of the CP during the last by-election in Parys. I could continue to deal with this subject at length but unfortunately time does not permit me to do so. I should just like to repeat that I found it a great pity that the hon. member for North Rand and the hon. member for Sunnyside were not present in the House at that stage. Nevertheless, I want to request those two members to examine their consciences. In fact, I think it is very necessary for them to do so.

Finally I should like to ask hon. members of the CP a few probing questions. In the first place I should like to ask them whether they think that their conduct during the by-election in Parys reflected any credit upon our fatherland, and in particular the Afrikaner nation. I should like to hear from them whether they condone the conduct of some of their members when a senior Cabinet Minister was jostled by them in a public place. I should like to know whether they condone the fact that people were spat upon. I should like to ask whether they condone the fact that the person of the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa was maligned and denigrated from almost every platform. Do they condone the conduct of their candidate in Parys when he made disgraceful remarks about our hon. the Minister of Defence? I should also like to inquire from them whether they condone the conduct of the hon. member for Rissik when he, together with his hon. leader, from a public platform in Hennenman, called the Vice State President of the Republic of South Africa a liar.

Why do you not bring a charge against me? [Interjections.]

I should like to know whether hon. members of the CP realize what the struggle in South Africa today is all about. Do they not realize that the struggle in South Africa today is concerned with the soul of our people? Do they realize that they are siding with the left-wing radicals in our country when they malign South Africa’s figures of authority from one platform to another?

I said it, and I shall say it again. Why do you not bring a charge against me? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, these are things hon. members would be well advised to reflect on. The CP. is a party of absolute extremes. On the one hand they side with the left-wing radicals in our country; on the other hand they are bowing and scraping to the right-wing parties. [Interjections.] What is happening though? They are being rejected there because they have become too “verkramp” even for the HNP. [Interjections.] I want hon. members of the CP to realize that if there was ever a time in South Africa for everybody to stand together, a time in which we cannot afford the luxury of these things, that time is the present. Now is the time for us to realize that a house of strife, which is divided against itself, cannot make progress.

We want to make it clear to the voters of Soutpansberg, Waterberg and Waterkloof that now is the time for us to put our loyalty to our fatherland and one another on a sound footing again. The NP is reaching towards the future. We are reaching towards the future with faith, with hope and with confidence; with faith in a Creator who will determine the destinies of this nation, but also with hope for the future. We also go into those by-elections and the future of South Africa with confidence, because the NP and South Africa have a leader who does not have to peer anxiously over his shoulder, a leader who knows and will carry out to the letter his responsibility not only to his own people but the whole of South Africa and all the people who are living in South Africa. We have a leader who knows that every decent, every educated and every reasonable person in South Africa stands squarely behind him.

Mr. Speaker, the speech by the hon. member for Kroonstad is relevant on the political platform in Kroonstad, and possibly in Waterberg and elsewhere as well. I wonder, however, what relevance it has to the work of this House at this time in the political history of our country. [Interjections.]

† During this session so far we have had a number of political debates, and in each political debate two things happened. In the first place there were interesting and constructive debates dealing with the constitutional development of South Africa.

From the NP side.

From all sides. I believe that the contributions made in those debates were valuable, and I also think everybody listened to them with interest.

So often, however, those debates were interrupted by unpleasant and unseemly squabbling between the NP and the CP. It was during one of those squabbles that the hon. the Minister of Manpower after an uncharacteristic rush of blood to the head issued the challenge across the floor of the House which plunged South Africa into by-elections at a time when the country and the Government cannot afford by-elections. At this particular time the Government and its initiatives are vulnerable and sensitive to what might be said on the political platform. We cannot afford to have the initiatives of this hon. Minister undermined by internecine warfare at Waterberg and Soutpansberg or the racist remarks that may be made there and will be recorded for everybody in this country to read. I believe that it was an irresponsible act. I think the hon. the Prime Minister should have reprimanded the hon. the Minister and I think it was the duty and the responsibility of the hon. the Prime Minister to use his authority in order to prevent those by-elections from taking place. If as a result of those by-elections the initiatives of the Government, which are tentative but are nevertheless reform initiatives, should sink then the responsibility for this will rest squarely upon the shoulders of the hon. the Prime Minister who had the authority and the opportunity to stop them. [Interjections.]

When I take this line in respect of the hon. the Minister of Manpower, I do so under circumstances where he knows that he is one of the Ministers who has on many occasions received the praise of this side of the House for the fearless manner in which he has routed apartheid from the labour legislation in this country. After all, he must take the credit for doing away with job reservation for Whites. He is the man who created equal trade union rights for Blacks in South Africa. More than any other hon. Minister on that side of the House, he is the one who had the guts to throw the policies of Strijdom, Verwoerd and Vorster into the trash-can where they belong and who produced labour legislation in this country which came very close to the basic principles of the PFP. I think many of us will be sorry to see him go. I think that instead of sitting in his bench over there, he should be tramping the streets of the Soutpansberg and visiting the farms there in order to see whether he can get some support.

I think that all hon. members will agree that a new note has been sounded during the debates on constitutional affairs during this session—and in this regard I want to refer particularly to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon. member for Innesdal. Even the hon. member for Overvaal said that we could not have discrimination in economic legislation, and that coming from that hon. member! It was almost as though it was the hon. member for Pinelands speaking!

*I just hope that the NP is not “over die wal” as a result of the speech which the hon. member for Overvaal made. Even that hon. member came here with a new emphasis in terms of NP policy.

† There were new voices and new subtle changes in direction and subtle changes in emphasis. Sometimes this was clear and unambiguous and sometimes one had to read between the lines. Nevertheless, I did identify them because I studied very carefully the speeches made by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. When one studies these speeches, one realizes that he emphasizes the fact that reform is absolutely urgent and he does so on behalf of the Government. This is no longer something with which the Government is playing. The Government accepts the fact that this is urgent and has to be carried out as soon as possible. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning spells out the realities that make these changes necessary. If one closes one’s eyes in order to dispel the vision of the hon. the Minister, one may almost think it is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who is speaking when one hears the words used by the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. They have spelt out the realities as the PFP has been trying to spell them out ever since we came into this House.

The hon. the Minister speaks about the need to protect minorities. The protection of minorities is fundamental to PFP policy. He made some interesting contributions in talking about the limits to reform, the emotional limits to reform in South Africa. He also referred to the danger on the right. I am convinced that the Government is in fact constrained in its reform efforts by the emotional restrictions created by the growth in the rightist elements. The hon. the Minister spoke about economic limits to reform. He also said that security and prosperity were vital prerequisites for reform. This is absolutely correct, Sir. On many occasions the hon. member for Yeoville has spelt out precisely those prerequisites. What is the most important and most significant fact that has been revealed by the speeches on the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning? One can study his speeches. He makes the point clearly and with emphasis in each one of the three major speeches that he has held in this House this year. He says participation of all groups; not only all racial and ethnic groups, but all political groups in South Africa as well, in joint responsibility and joint decision making in all matters of common concern affecting them is a vital prerequisite of constitutional reform in South Africa.

I think that is the most significant aspect of the points of view which this hon. Minister has put to the House as the basis of his constitutional reform proposals, viz. that all groups in South Africa must participate in all decisions that are taken which affect them in their daily life. By saying that, the hon. the Minister has, in the clearest possible language, accepted the concept, with all its implications, of the sharing of power amongst all the people of this country, the meaningful sharing of power. He uses the words “volwaardige deelname”; not just participation, but “volwaardige deelname”, and we thank him for it.

He has the courage—I think it is important that other people too should have the courage—to accept this clearly because it is vital, significant and absolutely fundamental to change in this country. Thereby he has thrown overboard the twelve point plan of the Government on which they fought the 1981 election and which today the NP is still handing out throughout South Africa. In the Transvaal Provincial Council there was recently on the desk of the librarian a pack of twelve point plan pamphlets of the NP. Point No. 3 or 4 says the party’s policy is the division of power between Whites, Coloureds and Indians. Now it is clearly the sharing of power.

When the hon. Leader of the Opposition challenged the Government to say whether its policy was a policy of sharing of power, it caused a very interesting little scene in the House. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs turned his face to one side and very shyly and quietly said “yes”. He said it so softly that Hansard did not even pick it up. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was obviously irritated by this and he said, “Ja, dit is”. He is proud of it; he is the father of this concept and he is not going to let it go by the board.

He does not look very happy about it now.

Well, it must be born in mind that I have to look squarely into the face of the hon. member for Bryanston while the hon. member for Groote Schuur sits behind him; not opposite him.

I think the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs was practising his answer in Waterberg to this particular question. It was like a shy schoolboy admitting paternity … [Interjections.] … modestly and apprehensively.

Then the question was put to all other hon. members on that side, and has one ever seen a scene like that? Immediately every one froze and all of them looked straight ahead; not a word was said and not a head was shaken, either from side to side or up and down. There was absolute consternation in the ranks of the hon. members opposite.

I have never credited him with modesty, but what I appreciate from the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is that he has also admitted that the Government’s policy is inadequate, that his constitutional proposals are not the full answer, not the whole answer and there are many problems. According to the Afrikaans Hansard he used the word “gebreklik”—

*Perhaps he meant “gebrekkig”, but the policy is “gebrekkig”—it is to a large extent “gebrekkig”—as well as “gebreklik”. The policy which the hon. the Minister is proposing for South Africa is “gebrekkig” and “gebreklik”. I should like to say a few words about that.

† If one studies what the hon. the Minister said, one finds that he exposed the fatal flaws in the policy. He exposes them himself and therefore it is not necessary for us to expose them. If one reads his speeches, it becomes quite clear to one that he clearly exposes the fatal flaws in his policy. There are glaring contradictions in their policy. Let us look at a few of them. The Government saysthat Coloureds and Indians will now share power with Whites in so-called White South Africa; in other words, the Government accepts the full citizenship of Coloureds and Indians in this country. If the Government, in saying that, is sincere and really means it, it must accept the full implications of that particular step, and then we must ask the Government some questions. Will the Government scrap, amend or negotiate on those other legislative measures on the Statute Book in South Africa which discriminates against, humiliates and hurts the members of the Indian and Coloured race groups in South Africa? What about the Population Registration Act and all the hurt and humiliation that it causes? Is it going to stay or are the Government going to amend it? Is it negotiable?

What about the Group Areas Act? One of the Government’s arguments is that there are no land areas for the Coloured and Indians in South Africa, and because there are no land areas for them in the common South Africa, they have to be included in a common Parliament for South Africa, but in a different Chamber, of course, even though in a common Parliament. But why then have a Group Areas Act, if they do not have their own land areas? Why have a law that forces them into, or confines them to, certain specific geographic areas in the country? That is a contradiction that the Government has to clear up.

The Government also says that the dispersed Coloured group areas cannot be used as a homeland area for the Coloureds—that is the argument used against the CP—but at the same time the dispersed, fragmented Black areas must serve as Black homelands. There is a contradiction there which they may explain to themselves and to their own supporters but which they cannot explain to normal, intelligent, sensible people. [Interjections.] How do urban Black townships differ, in essence, from the group areas in which Coloureds and Indians live? They do not. They are residential areas. People have their homes there, their children go to school there, they play there and work there. So there is no difference. People have all their political interests in the areas in which they live. So why treat those areas differently? If the Coloured and Indian areas can be represented in this Parliament, why not the urban Black areas which, in every essential aspect, differ not one iota from those of the Coloureds and Indians? Is it possibly a matter of numbers.

Ah!

Let me put a question to the hon. the Minister sitting opposite. If there were only one million urban Black people in South Africa, would that hon. Minister have proposed a Black Chamber for them in this Parliament as well? Then we would have had a White Chamber, a Coloured Chamber, an Indian Chamber and a Black Chamber. [Interjections.] Parliament would then have been even more potty than the one this hon. Minister is planning at the present moment, but at least that would have made sense, have had some sort of logic attached to it. To exclude the urban Blacks, however, makes no sense at all.

Then what about the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act? Are they going to be scrapped or amended? Are they negotiable? Will Gerrit Viljoen say the same thing in Waterberg as he is saying in Water-kloof? The Government must be very careful. When their speakers go onto the platforms in these different places, they must be handed two little bits of paper, one saying “Kloof, hou links” or “Berge, hou regs”. [Interjections.] Otherwise I see huge problems coming up.

Now just one final point. Meaningful political rights are political rights in governing bodies that take decisions in regard to the areas in which people live, work and play and where their children go to school. [Interjections.] Meaningful political rights are the only ones people want, are the only ones that mean anything, are the only ones that are worth having, and they have to apply to the activities in the areas in which people live. Will the urban Blacks have representation in the Parliament that decides what general sales tax and other taxes they pay? Or will they not? Will they have representation in the Parliament which decides on the rail fares between Johannesburg and Soweto? Or will they not? Will they have representation in the Parliament that decides how much money is going to be spent on their children’s education, on housing for them and on pensions for their people? Will the Blacks themselves have representation in the Parliament where the decisions are taken that affect their daily lives, the decisions that determine their daily lives, shape their existence—their prosperity, happiness and security? Or will they, in a constellation of States, have to make representation, via satellites, to people in other Governments, in other bodies, in other countries, people who can do nothing whatsoever for them.

Until the Government addresses those questions, it is not yet in a position to convince people other than those in their own ranks of the validity of their policy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay the hon. member for Bryanston a compliment. Although I do not think we will remember him in this House for his contributions towards the solution of the constitutional problems of South Africa, he has at least sometimes been irresistibly funny. I want to remind him that when the hon. the Minister of Manpower issued his challenge, he was the first member to get up and accept the challenge on behalf of the PFP.

Yes, and he is still sitting here.

There is also something more to his effort today to reverse the debate back to the constitutional reform programme. You see, Sir, we on this side of the House have seen that the hon. members of the PFP, since they boycotted themselves out of the real discussion, have not really concentrated on the constitutional reform programme. They have been nit-picking, they have been picking out small things. They even go so far as to involve themselves on the front pages of leftist newspapers, visiting illegal shacks being demolished, and so on.

Have you been there?

No, I was not there. However, I want to ask that hon. Chief Whip a question. He is so worried about the demolishing of illegal shacks, but what is his view on the “demolition” of innocent people? Where are his condolences in respect of the people who died in Bloemfontein, in respect of the “demolition” of innocent people going about seeking a job in a lawful manner? We have not heard a single word of condemnation against the perpetrators of such a dastardly, despicable act. We have not heard a single word of condolence.

Do not be so silly. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Condemnation from hon. members of that side of the House is apparently reserved for the authorities in this country and not for the subversive people who “demolish” people and who demolish offices. That is indicative of the kind of politics they practice in this country today.

*I want to turn to the CP. By-elections are going to be held which we on this side of the House consider to be very important. Before I come to that, however, I just want to ask the hon. member for Langlaagte where he gets the idea that my standpoint is that we should be considerate towards minorities just because we are going to be a minority too one day. I want to say that the person who told him that is a barefaced liar. [Interjections.] I want to tell him and the hon. member for North Rand the truth today. Neither of them attended that meeting. I was misreported in a newspaper and I reacted to that in a newspaper as well. I said that those words were a cynical remark made by certain people. Although this is not my standpoint, I nevertheless believe that one should be considerate towards other people. Whether they are minorities or majorities, one treats all people with consideration. We on this side of the House do not believe, as Dr. Treurnicht does, that treating people decently amounts to sentimental humanitarianism. The point I want to make in connection with that remark, however, is that I did not say that we should treat them with consideration because I have a fear of numbers, but because it is the right thing to do. Because I had adopted that standpoint, which was misreported and then taken by the hon. member for North Rand to be my true standpoint, he accused me of a lack of faith. This is the first time I have heard anyone being accused of a lack of faith because he has acted in a humanitarian way. Some people tend to forget about the horizontal component of the Christian doctrine, i.e. one’s relationship with one’s fellowmen. I want to tell the hon. members of the CP that we shall put them to the test in the forthcoming by-elections. We shall test the strength of the horizontal component of the religion they profess.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

We shall see whether they call upon their voters to stop talking about “Kaffirs” and “Hotnots”, for since that kind of right-wing radicalism has become active in this country …

A respectable person does not talk like that.

… we have been having this vile sort of thing in our country again. They bedevil the relations between population groups without which no peaceful constitutional solution is possible in this country. There they are sitting today: They are on the slippery slope to the HNP. What is there to prevent the hon. members of the CP sitting over there from accepting the policy of the HNP?

You are a black Prog.

The hon. member for Langlaagte can say whatever he likes about me. I have learnt the lesson in life that one can always expect a kick from a mule. So he had better keep quiet; I am not going to take any notice of him. There the CP is sitting today. Do hon. members know what is keeping them from reaching an agreement with the HNP? Not policy, but the division of an imaginary number of seats, seats which not one of them is ever going to win. That is all that stands between them and a pact with the HNP. The hon. member for Rissik and his leader are finally sitting where they have belonged since 1969. We should ask the SABC to make a new “Ver-speelde Lente”. There the hon. member is sitting, and he has reached middle age. He could have joined them in his youth, when he could still have been worth something to them. Today, however, those hon. members are a lot of political rejects and they are going back to the party in which they actually belong. With them it really is a case of a “verspeelde lente”—they wasted the springtime of their lives.

Tell us about your secret meeting with the Americans.

Oh, the hon. member is being ridiculous I have no secret meetings with anyone.

I have read something very interesting. I have looked up the speech which the previous hon. Prime Minister made at Waterberg two days before the 1971 election in which Dr. A. P. Treumicht was elected MP for Waterberg. We on this side of the House want to say to the electorate of Waterberg today that they should remember the things which Mr. Vorster said that day and which, in other words, formed the basis on which Dr. A. P. Treumicht was elected MP for Waterberg. Fortunately he is no longer their MP, and one hopes that he will never be their MP again. It is unbelievable how history repeats itself. Mr. Vorster said, among other things—

He is talking about the election—

Mr. Vorster is referring to Jaap Marais—

Mr. Vorster goes on to furnish proof of this egotism, and we see that this slogan is already being used in the Waterberg campaign, i.e. “Treumicht for Waterberg”. Listen to what Mr. Vorster said in 1971—

Since those days that little man, Jaap Marais, has been wandering around in the political desert without any hope of the political promised land. Today that little man is the one who manipulates the CP. So far he has won every round against the CP hands down.

[Inaudible.]

I have nothing to hide concerning the SABC. We can discuss that during the debate on the Vote. The hon. member for Kuruman had better do his homework for that debate. We are looking forward to his contribution.

Mr. Vorster went on to point out an untruth, and is it not incredible the way that history repeats itself? Mr. Vorster went on to say—

Is this not the same story we are hearing from the CP? One lot says that we expelled them from the party, as though they left it against their will. Then the hon. member for Koedoespoort said to me: “Do you know Martin Luther?” I said: “Which Martin Luther? The great Martin Luther?” He said: “Yes, the great Martin Luther.” I replied: “I do not know him, I know of him.” He said to me: “Like him, I say: here I stand, God help me, I can do no other.” Surely both cannot be true. They cannot have the best of both worlds. One of the two sides must stop telling lies. [Interjections.] They say that we expelled them from the party. But what is the truth? The Transvaal general committee presented them with an ultimatum, and they expelled themselves from the party, for like a lot of third-rate politicians from a Third World country they scorned the judgment of democracy. Hypocrites! When they had finally left, they pretended that they were the ones who were being faithful to the party’s policy and to the resolutions of the congress. In spite of that, the congresses overwhelmingly accepted everything which they had rejected and which had turned against them democratically. This, then, is the morality on which that party is founded.

However, there is yet another side to the matter. Mr. Vorster spoke of slander that night. This is a thing which we on this side of the House find very upsetting. The hon. member for Kroonstad spoke about it a short while ago. Is it not true what Mr. Vorster told those people—who are the political partners of the CP today—in 1971, and is it not happening again today? He said that when they had to serve Verwoerd, they wanted to go back to Strijdom, and after Dr. Verwoerd’s death they supported him again. Mr. Vorster went on to say—

Is that not true? We shall be watching those hon. members, and the hon. member for Rissik in particular. What else did Mr. Vorster say? He said—

Today we are witnessing a repetition of this, with the HNP and the CP striking up imprecatory psalms against the person of the hon. the Prime Minister. The old story of sell-outs and treason has been around for a long time. I just want to tell the hon. members an anecdote about that meeting that night. Mr. Vorster told how, when someone said that Dr. Verwoerd had betrayed us, the group of “gestigtes”—as Mr. Vorster called them— applauded. So the HNP supporters applaud when someone says that Dr. Verwoerd betrayed us. Therefore I want to ask the hon. member for Rissik: Are these his political bedfellows now, the people who applaud when someone says that Dr. Verwoerd betrayed us? Is he proud of them?

However, those things passed and matters concerning the Coloured people were coming to a head, for this is a question which has been causing unrest and uncertainty in the NP for a long time. I think it is very necessary that we should examine the political statements made by Mr. Vorster and by others during that time, the time when Dr. A. P. Treumicht became the MP for Waterberg.

What did Gen. Hertzog say about the Coloureds in 1925? He said—and this is absolutely in line with the 1977 plans and with the Government’s proposals today; i.e. his words were prophetic—

This is the 1925 description, which, in my opinion, accurately describes today’s proposed dispensation. There is no better example from the past of the two elements, those of self-determination and of shared decision-making.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort quotes Dr. Malan against us. He is like those people who try to prove anything from the Bible. We really should stop using texts from our political history as ammunition against one another. Before we write the final chapter, however, I want to read to the hon. member for Koedoespoort a quotation from Dr. Malan. [Interjections.] In 1929 Dr. Malan said of the Coloureds that they had to share the same political rights with the Whites. It is recorded in the Hansard of this House. Dr. Malan said that the Coloureds living in the northern province would be given representation in this House and that we could deal with the “Natives” in terms of the principle of segregation. The position of the Coloureds was different.

But who got rid of the Coloured representatives in this House?

The question of the Coloureds has been kicked around like a football in White politics. In the NP, too, it has been kicked around, and several methods have been tried in an attempt to resolve the political position of the Coloureds. At last, in the early ’seventies, a sense of direction began to develop, and the former member for Waterberg was co-responsible for that. The hon. members of the CP must prove to us that they have the courage to accept the consequences when they have taken a stand on a matter. They have yet to prove this to us. In 1961 Dr. Verwoerd said that in the case of the Coloureds, a homeland offered no solution. He went on to say—

Those words were spoken by Dr. Verwoerd. Since that time, certain clear guidelines have begun to emerge, guidelines for resolving the political problem of the Coloureds. The most important of these guidelines is based on the character and objects of the NP as set out in its constitution, i.e. that the interests of the Republic should receive priority over those of any race or people which forms part of its population.

Then Mr. Vorster outlined a few further guidelines, and how I pleaded with the hon. member for Waterberg—I was the NP’s information officer in the Transvaal at that time—to take a stand against racism. Surely it would not have militated against his Christian principles. But it was not possible to persuade him to do this. Mr. Vorster, however, did take such a stand. At Stellenbosch he addressed students and said: “Who am I to consider myself superior to other people? Who am I to think that I am better than others?” Mr. Vorster did not hesitate to go from platform to platform and to take people to task for their racism.

But the political history of the hon. the leader of the CP contains no such statements to serve as guidelines. He was a master at the art of telling us what was not going to happen, while he seldom had the courage to tell us what we should do to solve South Africa’s problems.

But you voted for him three times in succession as leader of the NP in the Transvaal.

I did not vote for him. The day he was elected leader of the NP in the Transvaal I remained seated. [Interjections.] Mr. Vorster said in 1971 that an understanding should be brought about between the Whites and the Coloureds when each of the groups had obtained full self-determination. Mr. Vorster laid down another guideline as well, and I want to put it to the CP today for their consideration. Mr. Vorster said that the solution he was seeking did not have to satisfy himself only, but also the people involved, i.e. the Coloureds. We must remember, he said, that the Coloureds are people who want to and who can join in the deliberations. He went on to say that when they had been given full control over their own affairs, some matters would still remain which would affect them directly and in which they would have no say. Since the hon. members of the CP are now having a little chat among themselves, I just want to ask the hon. member for Pretoria Central to help me to regain their attention. [Interjections.]

I want to know whether hon. members of the CP remember what Mr. John Vorster said when their leader was elected to the House of Assembly. Mr. Vorster said that when the Coloureds had obtained full control, some matters would remain in which they would not have any say. Therefore, Mr. Vorster said, they should be given a joint say. Now the hon. member for Koedoespoort indulges in a little semantic exercise in this House. At the end of the day he wants to know whether co-responsibility equals shared decision-making, equals a joint say, equals elements of power-sharing.

You know as well as I do that power-sharing means a mixed Government.

Really, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Treumicht began making his little protesting noises as far back as the early seventies, noises which he made here and there. One could always recognize Dr. Treumicht. He would fire just one shot and then withdraw from the battle. He was always doing that. [Interjections.] Mr. Vorster spoke to him and told him in so many words that the Coloureds would be given a joint say. During the same time, however, Dr. Treumicht said that the Coloureds did not belong with us; they would not be given a joint say. This was recorded in black and white in 1971. How badly Mr. Vorster, too, wanted a homeland for the Coloureds! Here he said, however, that it was absolutely impossible. Now they talk in the lobby about the big rally they are going to have at Monumentkoppie together with Mr. Vorster … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! Does the hon. member for Bryanston wish to ask a question?

Yes, please, Mr. Speaker.

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister wish to reply to a question?

No, Mr. Speaker.

Order! Then the hon. member for Bryanston must please resume his seat.

He can ask his question later, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] However, there was a day when Mr. Vorster said that he wanted to sound a warning. He said it was criminal to promise a population group something which you knew very well you could not deliver.

You would do well to remember that!

Mr. Vorster sounded this warning in 1971. What has changed since then to make a Coloured homeland possible today? Nothing. If one thing has happened, it is that circumstances today would make it even more difficult to establish a Coloured homeland than it was at that time. Mr. Vorster sounded another warning in 1977 and said that the new dispensation was more important than becoming a Republic, because it was concerned with the future. He said it would determine how long we were going to remain in this country and how long we would survive, as well as how long we would be safe in this country. Mr. Vorster warned here that if the new dispensation—the 1977 dispensation—was not introduced, it would lead to revolution, bloodshed and loss of life, even an end to our existence.

But when the hon. members of the CP rushed out of the NP, they rushed right back to a pre-1977 position. They did it all with pious words, however. Very pious words. Oh, Mr. Speaker, they are very eloquent. They know all the right things to say. Here we have the words of Dr. A. P. Treumicht as reported in Die Burger of 24 February 1982: “Hierdie lede staan by die beleid van die NP soos deur sy kongresse goedgekeur, en ons is nie voomemens om die party te verlaat of te skeur nie.” Look where they are sitting now. Pious words!

As far as we are concerned, you are no longer a party.

Just listen to these pious words, Mr. Speaker. “I want to state here this morning,” Dr. Treumicht said last Friday, “that this party commits itself to the implementation of the principle of justice.” It really is heart-warming. He went on to say: “What one grants others one demands for oneself as well.” He said: “Veiled domination, too, is objectionable and indefensible.”

When it comes to his Coloured homeland, however, I ask him what is to happen with regard to GST, to taxation, to a say in transport tariffs? If it was not possible in the past to give the Coloureds a separate country in which they alone could decide about these things, as can be done in Bophuthatswana, for example, why should it suddenly be possible today? With regard to a homeland for the Indians, Dr. Treumicht says that there should be absolute sovereignty for the Whites, but not for the Indians. In connection with immigration, the Indians will have no say, according to him. He adds: “We shall keep an eye on them.”

However, let us examine Dr. Treurnicht’s speech on Friday a little more closely. Let us examine that story about the domestic servant, when Dr. Treurnicht joined issue with the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs with regard to co-responsibility. What do we notice when we study that passage in his speech? As long as co-responsibility means naked White supremacy, as long as it means the relationship between master and servant, the concept of co-responsibility is acceptable to him. They can shake their heads as much as they like. That speech by Dr. Treurnicht about the domestic servant showed us what their idea of supremacy is. However, the most cynical part of his speech on Friday was when he said: Let us get away from the onesided economic evaluation of things. He said: Group identity is a fact, faith is a fact. The will to survive as a people is a fact, and all these things must be taken into consideration in speaking of peoples. When Dr. Treurnicht makes out his case for a Coloured homeland, however, what does he do? He ignores the fact that the Coloureds consist of seven groups. I have the regulations with me. What is the ethnic identity of seven groups which will enable them to strive for an identity in their sovereign fatherland? Then he ignores the emotional aspect, concentrating only on the economic side. All of a sudden he wants an investigation of the economic potential of Coloured areas. He wants an investigation like the one conducted by the Erika Theron Commission.

I want to quote something to him from this little book.

James Hadley Chase.

Mr. Speaker, this book contains more wisdom on its back cover than that hon. member will accumulate in his lifetime. I just want to read this quotation of something which was said to Marcus Tullius Cicero more than 1 000 years ago—

They do not learn from the Erika Theron Report. I read further—

There lies the Erika Theron report, but they want a new investigation. There it lies, it is unassimilated, it has not been converted into wisdom. Therefore I say that they are not the CP, they are a hijacked party. The HNP has hijacked them in their entirety. [Interjections.] We must not be too hard on Dr. Treurnicht, for Shakespeare said—

I want to make a final quotation for the benefit of those hon. members. I want to warn them of what is going to happen to their election campaign in Waterberg. Here Cicero’s grandfather says to him—

And then I want to give them this final piece of wisdom for their consideration—

And this is what we are going to tell the voters of Waterberg—

I see the hon. member for Rissik and Dr. Treurnicht before me when I read these words—

including a Coloured homeland—

There you are. We want to tell them that they must prove to us that they have the courage to make the sacrifices to keep their word. The only positive sacrifice they have made so far is that when the hon. member for Waterkloof woke up, they sacrificed him. [Interjections.] That is all. We want to ask them to make the sacrifice of Dr. Verwoerd’s word, to make the sacrifice of Mr. Vorster’s word. We shall be listening to every word they say in Waterberg. We shall measure their patriotism and their Christian values against every word they say and the contribution they make towards keeping South Africa stable. They must not sacrifice the blood of our sons with the guns which they hide in the maize-fields of the Waterberg along with their AWB henchmen. We shall be watching them.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we had a wonderful example of a wonderful speech by a wonderful hon. Deputy Minister. It was his first speech in his present capacity. I maintain he set us a wonderful example. The example he set us was that of how one could bluff oneself into believing that the achievements of the NP in Waterberg and in Soutpansberg would assure them a victory there. The hon. the Deputy Minister is also a person who can set us wonderful examples of Christian justice—I grant him that—in his capacity as Deputy Minister. When he does and should deal with and look after the SABC and the television programmes, he is the most wonderful example of Christian justice, as illustrated by the one-sided, blatant NP politics dished up to us in television programmes. [Interjections.] What a wonderful example of justice! The hon. the Deputy Minister is also an example to us of the typically American way of participating in politics; you play the man, not the ball. In this debate we have had this in all the speeches of hon. members on that side. They are not answering political arguments with political arguments; they humiliate and criticize the person. During the recess the hon. the Prime Minister in fact called on us to refrain from committing character assassination. But where can one find a better example of this than in the speeches of those hon. members throughout this debate? They do not attack your political argument; they attack you personally because they want to destroy you. They want to commit assassination of our people. That was also precisely what that hon. Deputy Minister was doing. I consider the speech that the hon. Deputy Minister made this afternoon to have been nothing but a smear speech. However, I do not want to waste much time on him.

In this debate thus far there have actually been only a few speeches on the subject under discussion, namely the hon. the Minister’s Part Appropriation. As is customary the other speeches immediately turned into political discussions in which the various parties tried to score points. In the process there was of course also a great deal of noise from certain quarters. It was really a case of more sound than substance.

The fact that this debate turned into a political discussion nevertheless served a good purpose. To tell the truth, it definitely served a very important purpose and it had a good function, because it reaffirmed that at the moment a political discussion is in fact taking place between only two parties, in this House namely the NP on the opposite side and we in the CP on this side. I think I am justified in saying that the CP which is now participating in this political dialogue has succeeded, in its contributions to this debate and the members’ motions that have come up for discussion thus far, in emphasizing the most important question in politics today: Is the Government still able to ensure a future for the Whites in South Africa? This is the most important question with which South African politics is concerned today. Of course those hon. members will answer in the affirmative and say: Yes, the NP can and will ensure a future for the Whites in this country. [Interjections.] Does the hon. the Minister of Law and Order want to say yes?

I beg your pardon, but I was listening to something else and did not hear what the hon. member said.

I said the most important question today was whether the Government could ensure a political future for the Whites in this country.

Of course.

They say yes while glancing nervously over their shoulders at the PFP and pulling their hats down over their eyes because it is not easy to tell the truth in that way. The NP is no longer able to give an unqualified “yes” to that question. No, the NP cannot, as in the past, give the Whites the unqualified assurance that in 20 or 40 years’ time they will still have a say in their own fatherland. [Interjections.]

In the past the main political discussion was a discussion between the old United Party and the NP, and in those days the NP regularly put that same question to Gen. Smuts and Jannie Hofmeyr. Yes, the question was then put to the Government of the said Minister Jannie Hofmeyr, with his policy of total integration. When the NP took over the Government in 1948, Dr. Malan could give a definite “yes” to the Afrikaner nation, to the White nation, in this country. Strijdom, Verwoerd and Vorster could also give the same reply to the voters of South Africa, because Malan, Strijdom, Verwoerd and Vorster already knew that the political philosophy of Field Marshall Smuts and Jan Hofmeyr, which is expressed in the following words—

could only become a reality if there was a clear and unqualified division of political power between different nations and national groups in this country. They knew that this could only be achieved by means of separation with justice. Those premiers knew that this could be achieved by means of separate development and not by means of the division of political power, not through healthy power-sharing. Healthy power-sharing has only one true meaning. If one wants to share political power—and if one is honest and sincere about this—one must do it purely and without qualification, the way the PFP wants to do it. However, if one wants to apply healthy power-sharing as the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning wants to apply it, one is deceiving the other nations in this country. [Interjections.] Then no matter how good one’s intentions may be one is not turning inter alia the Coloureds, Indians and urban Blacks into a political football, but into a political powder-keg. I shall return to this statement of mine in a moment.

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

No, I have already given enough time to the hon. the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] As I have said, in the past the discussion was a discussion between the NP and the old United Party. However, the old United Party has disappeared, and today we have only the remnants of that party sitting here in the benches next to us …

In front of you too.

They are sitting here ready and waiting for the hon. the Prime Minister to give the word and then they will rush over to that side of the House. [Interjections.]

During the past decade the political dialogue has been between the PFP and the NP. This was the case because the PFP was a political symbol of the threat to the survival of the White man in this country. Do hon. members opposite agree with that? Do they agree today that that is still the case? [Interjections.] I want an answer. [Interjections.] Will the hon. the Minister of Community Development reply to that question?

Yes, both you and they together.

I think they agree with me—even if it is not openly—but this is in fact the case. Since 24 February of last year a new main discussion has begun to take place in this House between the CP and the NP, and this afternoon this was again clearly demonstrated by the hon. the Deputy Minister who immediately began addressing us in this connection. There is a dialogue between us and the NP. I know the NP does not like this dialogue between them and us, because the fact that they are constantly having discussions with us involuntarily places the CP in the limelight. We appreciate this and thank them. We know they do not like it. The NP, and in fact the whole of South Africa, knows that the real Opposition in this House—I should actually say the only real Opposition—comes from the ranks of the CP. The other Opposition parties welcome the NP’s integration policy. That is why they no longer oppose the political philosophy of the NP and that is why there are sincere and “healthy” relations and feelings between those parties and the NP today. I honestly do not think that this is wrong: It is a good thing to be on friendly terms with one’s colleagues in this House. However, I also feel it is quite natural for there to be sound relations between the NP and the PFP, as well as the NRP, because nowadays these parties are politically and philosophically on the same wave-length.

What nonsense you are talking now!

The political discussion between the NP and the CP will increasingly become the most important discussion in this House, because the CP is the voice of the conservative sector of our nation, of the Afrikaner nation in the first place, but also of the conservative sector part of the White nation in this country.

You are making a mockery “of conservatism.

While we are on the subject of our nation, I just want to say we really had a pathetic exhibition of an egg dance by the hon. member for Mossel Bay and the hon. member for Helderkruin last Friday, when they tried with great verbosity to get around the real meaning and idea of “nation” (volk) and “national group” (volksgroep) so that these concepts fitted into the NP’s political philosophy of togetherness. I thought that they really fitted the description Prof. Hermann Giliomee gave of a certain type of Afrikaner when he said—

When we speak of the political discussion of the day, everyone knows that in the main it concerns the new constitutional proposals of the Government, the future of a new South Africa, a new South Africa which the NP is so fond of talking about. We hear how everything must be renewed and how everything must be changed or has already changed. As a matter of fact it was on Friday that the hon. member for Mossel Bay trumpeted forth with great enthusiasm here: “The NP has changed. The NP is a party of change. There are new horizons; there are prospects and there are new challenges.”

Hear, hear!

However, the moment the NP begins canvassing votes in a conservative constituency like Germiston or Parys—and as sure as I am standing here the same thing will also happen in Waterberg and Soutpansberg—it becomes the “old” National Party of the good “old” days. The NP says all the CP is doing is to gossip and tell lies when we say that it is no longer the old NP but a new NP. In Waterkloof and Stellenbosch they will say they are the new NP, but the NP of Dr. Malan and Dr. Verwoerd is no longer the NP we are dealing with today. That is why the advice one of the PFP members gave the hon. member for Mossel Bay was so good. He told him: “Whatever you do keep away from Waterberg and Soutpansberg with your story. Do not let them send you there with that story.” I want to add to that: Rather send the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to Waterberg, Soutpansberg and similar places. Send him there. Rather send the hon. member for Mossel Bay to Waterkloof, because there he will compete against the PFP to see which of the two parties has changed the most and has moved furthest to the left. In the “bergs” the NP will tell the voters, as they said in Parys and Germiston: “That is so much nonsense. The NP has not changed at all. The White House of Assembly will remain the same. Actually the President is the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister is the President. The Whites will still remain in Parliament as it was.” That is what they are going to say. What will they tell the voters about self-determination and sovereignty? They will say: “These are relative concepts. Self-determination is actually joint determination.” That is what they are going to say. That is what the canvassers, the MPs and the organizers of the NP are going to tell the voters in conservative constituencies. If the voters ask what all this means they will be told: “What belongs to the Coloureds will continue to belong to them and what belongs to the Whites will now also belong to the Coloureds.” That is what they are going to tell them. [Interjections.] The NP will not get away with that sort of policy that easily. Not in Waterberg, Soutpansberg or Carletonville.

Not in Waterkloof either.

I want to make haste and react for a moment to the hon. Minister Chris Heunis’ challenging question he is always putting to this party as to whether we still stand by the 1977 proposals. Long ago the hon. the Minister appointed himself the NP’s spokesman and main judge on morality. At all hours he wants to give me and other members of my party a lesson in morality. We are sick and tired of it. The time has come for someone to tell the hon. Minister that the CP stands by the 1977 proposals to the same extent as the NP of the hon. Prime Minister P. W. Botha still stands fully by them. There was a time when we thought that we could stand by some of the proposals, but since the end of the John Vorster era in Parliament and the start of the P. W. Botha era, since the apostles of power-sharing, of whom the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is the main apostle, together with the Willie Esterhuizens, Sampie Terblanches, Ben Vorsters and Wimpie de Klerks, began their onslaught on the political thinking of the South African voters, and since we became aware that the hon. the Prime Minister’s planning in respect of the 1977 proposals would lead to nothing less than the destruction of the White man’s self-determination and the sovereignty of our Parliament, we knew that we could not accept such a dispensation. From the time it became clear to us that the implementation of the National Party’s constitution plan would lead to the greatest polarization in relations among South Africa’s peoples …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member is standing there reading his speech. I do not think that is in accordance with the rules of this House.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen may proceed.

From the time it therefore became clear to us that the implementation of the NP’s constitutional plans would cause the greatest polarization in relations among South Africa’s peoples— Black against Black, Coloured against Coloured, and White against White—we have believed that the CP’s standpoint of separation with justice was the only solution for this country.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member Mr. Theunissen delivered a tirade which in actual fact was aimed against himself and the CP. He accused everyone accept himself and the CP of no longer standing by the 1977 proposals of the NP. Surely that is what this debate is about, and that is what these hon. members will have to reply to us on in the course of our discussion in this House. It sounds to me as if that hon. member was never a member of the. NP. He does not seem to have an idea of what the 1977 proposals were about. This afternoon he kicked up a fuss and said that the NP had changed and that he saw new horizons. But of course that is so. However, those new horizons and changes do not date from yesterday. They go back to the 1977 proposals of the NP.

To what party did you belong then?

I belonged to the old United Party and I am not ashamed of it.

The hon. member for Rissik must really stop disgracing us former United Party supporters.

The hon. member, Mr. Theunissen, is the last person in this House who should talk about morality.

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I have too little time. The hon. member Mr. Theunissen was elected a member of Parliament by the hon. members sitting here on this side of the House. Why does he not resign his seat.

Mr. Speaker, does that hon. member have the courage of his convictions to allow me to ask a question?

Order! The hon. member may not make a speech.

Sir, I merely want to ask a question.

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein does not want to reply to a question. The hon. member for Turffontein must proceed.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen no longer even resides in the Transvaal. The hon. member now resides in the Free State. If, therefore, there is an hon. member who does not have the right to put his standpoint in this House it is that hon. member who comes here and talks about morality. However, that is all I have to say about the hon. member and his tirade, because it is only people with a guilty conscience who can kick up such a fuss.

In South African politics today it is becoming increasingly clear where each political party in South Africa stands. It is not only a matter of the speeches they make in this House. It is also a matter of the attitude they display in politics. Listening to those hon. members, it becomes increasingly clear that long before 1977 they were no longer members of the NP as we know it in this country.

There are three categories of people in the politics of South Africa. In the first place there are those people who stand for reconciliation in South Africa. Then there is a second group of people who stand for conflict and confrontation in this country. In the third place there are those people who stand for capitulation, like the hon. member for Parktown. One can also apply this categorization outside this House. One can listen to the statements of Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks outside this House too, and one thing becomes quite clear. One of the most wonderful developments in South African politics is that for the first time we have a difference in standpoint, a difference in attitude across the colour bar here in South Africa. There are people of all population groups in South Africa who are in favour of reconciliation. At the same time there are also people of all population groups in South Africa who want to pursue the course of confrontation and conflict. That is a fact. That is the reason for the extreme reaction, of the Black Alliance, for example, because the Coloured Labour Party offered to participate in the new constitutional dispensation in South Africa.

Sir, the time has come for us to be honest with each other because there is too much at stake in South Africa. We must know where we stand. In this regard one must be grateful that the number of responsible and moderate people seeking reconciliation in South Africa is increasing every day. At the same time it is also quite clear that the PFP is leading the way waving a white flag to capitulate in respect of our political problems. They are so irrelevant that for all practical purposes we can totally ignore them in the political discussion in South Africa. Merely because they are afraid that they will incur the wrath of people like Bishop Tutu, Dr. Motlana and Dr. Boesak, they are prepared to capitulate totally in the face of pressure for Black majority government. They have excluded themselves from the creation of a new constitutional dispensation in South Africa. They cannot resist constantly passing snide remarks about the Black national States in South Africa. Day after day they behave towards the TBVC countries with contempt and are simply not prepared to consider any alternative to the urban Black people being directly involved in the decision-making processes relating to the whole of South Africa. They have bowed down to Inkatha and Dr. Oscar Dhlomo, to the S.A. Council of Churches and Bishop Tutu, to the Azanian Student Organization and to this newly-formed United Democratic Front against the Government’s constitutional proposals, and to the Black Alliance and the “Release Mandela” committee in South Africa. We still remember how, when Mugabe took over, those hon. members ecstatically held up Zimbabwe to us as a model of what could happen to a country where people of different races were able to work together. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North is on record in this regard.

Unfortunately there are also minority groups among the ranks of the Coloureds, the Asians and the Black people who are simply not prepared to try to seek solutions to South Africa’s problems and who, through blatant intimidation, have also bowed to the pressure for Black majority government.

I now come to another group of people in South Africa, a group I want to describe as the adder in the bosom of South African politics. I am referring to those people in the ranks of all population groups who each claim a say for their own group only and deliberately ignore the rights of others. If they were given the opportunity, they would irrevocably place South Africa on the road to conflict and confrontation. The statements and attitudes of those people are spelled out to us every day. Just think of the statement of Bishop Tutu when he issued a veiled threat to the Coloureds and Asians that if they dared co-operate with the Whites, their throats would be cut when a Black majority came into power in South Africa. Think, too, of the tirade of Chief Minister Buthelezi when the Sunday Times—of all newspapers, Sir!—dared to praise the standpoint of the Coloured Labour Party in a report under the heading “This moderation must be rewarded”. What did the Sunday Times say in this report? It said the following—

And what did Chief Minister Buthelezi have to say about this? He said—

He went on to say—

Surely here we have a deliberate claim for a sole say by the Black majority in South Africa. And this is also reflected in the standpoint of the CP, because they also blatantly claim a sole say for the group of people they represent.

We know what the standpoint is of the leader of the CP. Last week he told us here that 1983 would be the year of the White man’s political life-or-death struggle. He then uttered a blatant threat of revolution by the Whites in South Africa. Revolution is not a word to trifle with. In South Africa it means chaos, and it is blatant intimidation of the integrity and intelligence of the vast majority of White voters in South Africa. After all, that type of speech was made and that attitude adopted in Germiston District, in Parys, in Walvis Bay and Stellenbosch and, thank heavens, went from bad to worse for that party. But now they are going to use that slogan again in Waterberg and Soutpansberg, and I predict here and now that last Friday we saw the final performance of the A. P. Treurnichts in this hon. House. Just as Gatsha Buthelezi claims a sole say for the Black man, they claim a sole say for the White man. In this way they, along with the left-wing and right-wing radicals, are preparing for confrontation in this country.

Sir, all these things are symptoms of a desperation that is clearly evident among these people. The more right-wing they are, the more radical they become. As someone said, “so regser, so radikaler”, and they are heading straight for Jaap Marais. After all, the hon. the leader of the CP said that there were no differences in principle between them and the HNP. The hon. member for Lichtenburg told us here that the point was not whether they were fighting the HNP. The point was that they were fighting the NP. In other words, we must accept that they are now part of radical right-wing politics in South Africa.

Sir, the statements of these people are nothing new in South African politics. As far back as 1977 the HNP said in one of its documents, and these words are also being used by hon. members of the CP today—

These words are the same as those used by hon. members of the CP. The HNP went on to say that what Mr. Vorster was planning meant the subjection of the Whites to a multiracial Government in South Africa. We now hear the same standpoint from hon. members of the CP. I predict that within a few weeks they will have passed the HNP as far as their political standpoint is concerned.

One can understand why Jaap Marais does not want to touch these people with a barge pole. Just consider what he said in The Citizen of March of last year—

Then Mr. Jaap Marais went on to say the following—

After all we also remember the letter—I see it was published in Beeid—that Dr. A. P. Treurnicht himself wrote. He is no longer present here today, but surely people recognize his handwriting. In this letter he said, inter alia “Ai, wanneer sal die politieke sekte tog verdwyn in Suid-Afrika?” That is what he said with reference to the HNP. [Interjections.]

However, I now wish to refer briefly to the hon. member for Rissik. [Interjections.] As far as his politics are concerned, I want to say that the hon. member for Rissik is probably one of the most honest people in the CP. [Interjections.] I have known him for many years now. Mr. Speaker, throughout his life he has been as “verkramp” and as obsessed with conservatism as he is now. [Interjections.] While he was talking the other day I wanted to ask the hon. member for Rissik a question. However, he did not want to reply and I therefore wrote him a note in which I asked him whether they still stood by the 1977 proposals. For the purposes of this debate the hon. member will probably forgive me if I quote his reply to this House. He wrote—

If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I now want to ask the hon. member for Rissik whether he still stands by the 1981 manifesto of the NP.

My reply is the same as the one you have just read out.

If the hon. member for Rissik no longer stands by the 1977 proposals, does he still stand by the principles of the NP?

I shall write you another note. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, one really wonders how one can trust such people. It is no wonder one has a constituency like Pietersburg, which has a member of Parliament who does not want to resign after he promised to do so. [Interjections.] I have in my hand a telegram sent by his divisional committee to the hon. member for Pietersburg. It reads as follows—

It is not my divisional committee. [Interjections.]

It is the NP’s divisional committee. After all the hon. member was also a member of that divisional committee. That was the divisional committee that saw it to that he was sent to Parliament. [Interjections.] The divisional committee of the NP in Pietersburg says that on 3 September 1982 the hon. member publicly undertook to resign as the MP for Pietersburg if Minister Fanie Botha would resign as the MP for Soutpansberg.

Then he did not want to do so!

However the NP of Pietersburg, now challenges the hon. member to keep his promise. The Nationalists maintain that he was elected to Parliament under the banner of the NP and that for that reason he had no right to transfer the seat to another party. They go on to say that if he is an honourable man he will now keep his promise. [Interjections.]

I also have here the original statement issued by the hon. member for Pietersburg to a Pietersburg newspaper after this telegram was sent. He is, however, hiding behind two aspects. He says, inter alia, that at the same public meeting he issued the same challenge to the MPC for Soutpansberg, Mr. Hein Kruger, and that Mr. Niemand, the MPC for Pietersburg would then do the same. In the second place the hon. member says that five months have since passed without the invitation being accepted.

Read further.

For the hon. member’s sake I shall read further. The hon. member went on to say—

die meerderheid van die kiesers van hierdie kiesafdeling die KP steun.

Do you see, Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] That is the hon. member for Pietersburg’s excuse. However, a Press statement was also issued by the divisional committee of Pietersburg. The divisional committee of Pietersburg said the following—

I have here the newspaper report referred to. Mention is only made of the hon. the Minister of Manpower; there is not a single word about Mr. Hein Kruger. [Interjections.] Pietersburg’s Nationalists went on to say—

Now Pietersburg is saying that if the hon. member for Pietersburg has been canvassing there and the Nationalists of Pietersburg Have been canvassing there and they both claim suport—

There is the answer. I think the hon. member must now do the honourable thing and resign his seat.

Mr. Speaker, it is just as well that I wear glasses because no matter how much one ducks in these benches one is still hit by the mud that flies around in this “broedertwis”. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that it is becoming a little monotonous and one can only despair at the depths to which the level of this debate has descended.

I should just like to reply to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen in regard to his statement that there is no difference between ourselves and the NP. There is a difference and that is that we are about seven years ahead of them in our political thinking. That is the difference.

The hon. member for Turffontein who has just sat down made a number of comments in regard to morals and honour. He suggested that the hon. member for Pietersburg should resign because he has not been elected by the voters there. However, I should just like to refer to Hansard on Friday, 16 April 1982, Col. 4596. The hon. member for Turffontein is speaking and he says this—

[Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon. member for Rissik wish to ask a question?

I should like to, Sir.

Then the hon. member must ask the hon. member for South Coast whether he wishes to reply to a question.

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

Very well.

Would the hon. member be so kind to read that passage to me again? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the time to answer the question. I do want to say, however, that when one speaks about honour and integrity, terms that have been thrown backwards and forwards across the floor of this House, I believe they are applicable to both sides.

During his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister made certain references to the United Kingdom and the United States of America in regard to unemployment and growth rate. He pointed out that these countries as well as West Germany and Japan had managed to reduce inflation but they were still involved in depression conditions. I should like to quote him in this regard. He said—

If that is so, I should like to pose this question: Why cannot South Africa reduce its inflation rate as the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries have done? Let us look for a moment at the inflation figures of the United Kingdom and the United States and take the averages over the past four years, from 1979 to 1982. In the United Kingdom the average was 7,8% while in the United States of America the average was 10,7%. In South Africa the average was 14%. We have been told in the past that our inflation is imported and I should like to know whether we can continue to believe this story. We are more or less 75% self-sufficient in respect of our energy needs. Why then do we in the Republic still have this high inflation figure? Is the Government really doing its best to combat inflation? There can be no doubt that governments everywhere have by far the greatest effect on inflation and they are in the best position to determine its future level. Financially speaking, I say that they have a vested interest in a high inflation rate. Of course, the longer the necessary measures are delayed, the harder it is going to be for everybody concerned. In some overseas countries they have bitten the bullet; why can we not do the same thing?

I agree that the Government are doing the best they can, but are they trying hard enough? Maybe they should read those advertisements of one of our car rental companies: “We try harder.” One can recall that magnificent commission under the chairmanship of Lawrence McCrystal whose object was to cut inflation. I think the budget of that commission was approximately R1 million, but what did it cut? It cut precisely nothing!

I am of the opinion that there is far too much talking and not enough action … [Interjections.] … about inflation. After all, it is only deeds that are going to count; not words. I should like to quote the hon. the Minister again. I am sure he will remember saying this—

Good, strong stuff, and I think everybody in the House can agree with it, but let us go back to the words “unjustified protectionism”.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us the figure of what protectionism costs us in this country every year. I wonder whether I would be far out if I said it was approximately R1 000 million a year? The trouble is that those who are being afforded the protection are not playing the game. I do not think they are because they are the ones who are taking the excessive profits.

Let us just place the spotlight on the fertilizer industry. Can the Government say that they are satisfied and happy with the situation in this industry? If they are, then I believe they have lost touch with the farmer in South Africa. I should like to quote some figures from yesterday’s Business Times. From 1975 to May 1982 the price index for agricultural requirements rose by more than 330%, or 15,7% per year. The price of intermediate goods used by farmers accounting for 66% of all farming requisites rose by 341%, or 16% per year. The cost of fuel accounting for about 10% of farmers’ total production input costs rose by 742,5%, or 23,8% per year.

Let us take that spotlight and put it on the monopolies. Let us have a look at just two of them. The first one is the liquor industry and the second one the building industry. May I also ask whether the fruit farmers are not being held to ransom by the canners? I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism is only too aware of the problems in these fields of industry—all inflationary! What is more is that it boils down to the man in the street paying more money for less goods.

Do we, as we sit or talk here, realize what ever-increasing inflation means to the man in the street? I am not referring to the rich because the rich always get richer; I am referring to Mr. Average—the policeman who guards the gates of this House, the messenger in the green jacket who fetches and carries water, the artisan wno repairs one’s motor-car, the young couple who are being denied the opportunity of buying a home. These are the people who can no longer afford to save because of rampant inflation. They are all paying more to eat less, they are paying more for less clothing, they are paying more for everything—you name it, you got it. They are the people who can no longer afford a holiday. Some of them rely on their holiday or bonus pay to square up the credit they have had to involve themselves in over the previous year. These people usually get an annual increment that tries to keep pace with the inflation rate, but notwithstanding that, there is still a relentless battle to make ends meet.

One just has to look at the purchasing power of the rand—no more and no less. Let us have a look at the official figures. Using a base line of 100 for 1975, the purchasing power of the rand dropped to 49 cents in 1981, less than half of its value in 1975. I was unfortunately unable to ascertain the figure as at the end of 1982. The Business Times summed it up very pertinently yesterday, I thought, and I quote—

The consumer price index from 1975 to 1982 rose by 130%, i.e. an average of 18,5% per annum. If those who are employed are struggling to make ends meet, what is the plight of the pensioner? [Interjections.] That is what I want to know. One quite often reads in the paper of the growing incidence of baby-battering, but with inflation at the level allowed in South Africa, what we have is nothing more or less than pensioner battering. Those are perhaps harsh words, but hopefully they will bring home the seriousness of the plight of our pensioner population. I defy anyone in this House to tell me that anyone who has an income of less than R300 per month enjoys a reasonable standard of living.

Ask Lapa.

I shall come to him just now. On the contrary, for those people it is just a question of existing from day to day. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. When he replies, could he give us the percentage of the globular total of his budget that is spent on the social and military pensioner? I would really just like to see what the percentage is. If he could do that, I would be obliged.

A very small figure.

A pension of R138 per month buys one what today? If one’s accomodation is R90—and one would be very lucky to get accommodation for R90—one is left the grand total of R48, and that R48 has to pay one’s fuel bill, water bill and telephone bill, and a telephone, one must remember, is a lifeline for some. Thanks to the hon. the Minister, however, telephone charges are going up again! What is left over must then pay for food, to say nothing of clothing and other personal requirements. I am not advocating a socialist State. On the contrary. We have seen what has happened in countries that have socialism. All I am asking for is a square deal for our many pensioners. That is all I am asking for. The Government must never forget that the fate of tomorrow’s elderly is dependent on what the Government does or does not do today, right now, to solve the problems of our aged. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to give serious attention to certain points which, in my opinion, need his kind consideration. He must surely realize that our pensioners should be able to live independently, with dignity, in an enivironment with which they are familiar and in which they are comfortable. The older generation is increasing in number. That represents a biological success for humanity, but what about the living conditions? They are lagging far behind those enjoyed by the economically active population.

Let us look at the question of nutrition. Proper nutrition is a prerequisite for good health, but are older people able to afford proper nutrition? The aged are more likely to be frail, to five alone and to be poverty-stricken, and those factors militate against proper nutrition. What is more, inflation increases the price of food—as I have just said—and there again the pensioners are having to pay more for less to eat.

Adequate housing and accommodation are an absolute necessity. Here let me give the hon. the Minister of Community Development the necessary kudos. Although his department is doing the best it can, it is hamstrung because of a lack of funds. Waiting lists for existing low-income and moderate-income housing for the aged are extensive and are growing. Local authorities must be involved more in providing accomodation for the elderly, but to be able to do that, they must be afforded the necessary finance. Furthermore I believe that local authorities must be forced to allow the erection of granny flats—in single-unit dwelling areas—for genuine cases. [Interjections.] Funds must be more freely available for the service-centre concept for the elderly. The service centre today is a meeting-place for older people, it serves the elderly with dignity and respect and, what is most important, it facilitates their continued involvement in the community. Subsidies being paid to the organizations that run the service centres should be looked at and I believe they should be considerably increased. The State should also pay an additional subsidy towards the salaries of social workers attached to these service centres.

What I want to know is how one copes with inflation if one is living on a fixed income. The State must set up some type of investment vehicle for the aged the returns of which must keep pace with inflation. It is done in the United Kingdom. It is done there by way of a linked loan to the index and it is referred to as a “granny bond”. It is issued by the British Government. Could not the hon. the Minister look for something similar for our pensioners? I also believe that, to assist the pensioners, the Treasury must increase rebates to people over 60 years of age. The present means test formula needs drastic revision in order to eliminate the anomalies concerning income from other sources and investments where the White aged are concerned. In addition the means test for various population groups should be on a uniform basis to eliminate the present discrepancies.

The elderly are most vulnerable in the face of the criminal element. Hundreds of our aged are virtual prisoners in their own homes, self-confined. Potential victims, they are afraid to go into the streets. The lives of our elderly are demeaned not only by the violations that occur of property and to one’s person, but also by the threat of such crimes. There is no doubt that to those over 60 or 65 years of age crime and the fear of crime is, second to inflation, their most serious problem. I am glad the hon. the Minister of Law and Order is here. I hope he will take notice of what I have said. The personal freedom and security of the Republic’s nearly 1 million older citizens must be ensured. All I am asking is no more than what is due to our senior citizens and it is a lot less than what most people would like to see for our pensioners.

In conclusion, Sir, I want to refer to an election pamphlet I have here. It was issued by the NP in the election of April 1981. First of all, however, I must say that the photograph on this pamphlet certainly does not do justice to the hon. the Minister. I think even his wife would agree that he is better-looking than this.

Did you issue it?

I should like to quote from this pamphlet. Under the big headline “Pensioners, a personal message to you from the Minister of Finance himself’, it says—

I do not know why the two Ministers did not get their act together before this came out. I wonder whether the poor official who wrote that speech for the then Minister of Health and Welfare has come back from Siberia yet.

I read further—

It is now nearly two years since that promise was made. When the hon. the Minister presents his budget in March this year, it will be all but a month short of those two years.

And he said “I do care”!

In view of the statements in this pamphlet, and to prove they were not election promises, I call on the hon. the Minister to honour them. I am sure I am going to get a thousand words back from the hon. the Minister—I accept that— but, in plain language, what I am asking the hon. the Minister to do when he presents his budget this year is to put his money where his mouth is.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down will excuse me if I do not follow him in detail because of the limited time available to me. I know that my hon. colleague will reply to him in full and I shall also reply in the course of my speech to one or two aspects he mentioned.

*I should like to say to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen, who is a good friend of mine, that I quite enjoyed his speech this afternoon and I certainly do not intend quarrelling with him about it, although he knows that my views are in diametrical opposition to the essence of what he said. There is just one idea I want to put to the hon. member. As one of the hon. member’s voters—I voted for him—I want to say that he need not resign his seat and by so doing cause a by-election. But since he has now moved to the Free State and left the Western Transvaal I think it would be friendly of him to leave the scene honourably and go to another province.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. I must formulate it a little because it concerns … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member has already had an opportunity to address his voters this afternoon, and therefore he cannot do so again. If he wishes to put a question he must only put a question.

Does the hon. the Minister think that the hon. the Minister of Manpower has the moral right to sit in this House?

I did not ask the hon. member to quarrel with me. I am speaking to him in a decent way. But now he is quarrelling again.

The official Opposition moved an amendment to the question before the House and with specific reference to the fourth part of the amendment I should like to exchange certain ideas. The hon. member for Yeoville dealt specifically with that part of the amendment and I should like to reply briefly to what the said, because it is of importance. To begin with, the hon. member referred to the growing disquiet on the part of the public concerning crime in urban areas, and referred in particular to the increase in housebreaking and motor theft. In this regard he referred to the Commissioner’s report. The combating of crime is at all times a primary task and function of the S.A. Police, and they are at all times doing everything possible to combat crime. If the hon. member has worked out the percentage increase in serious crime he will note that it is approximately 6%. This figure is far lower than in any comparable country in the Western World, and we are grateful for that. It is also illuminating to know that even the increase in house-breaking and the increase in motor theft is also considerably lower than in other comparable countries. Interestingly enough, in those countries—for example the USA and Britain—there is a serious increase in the incidence of these types of crime. If we compare our situation with that in those countries then we still have a great deal to be thankful for.

As regards the prevention of crime as such, the S.A. Police realize full well that they cannot perform the task if they do not have the full co-operation of the public. Accordingly we do everything possible to obtain and retain the co-operation of the public.

As regards vehicle thefts we have seen that in the first half of 1982 this was becoming a very serious matter. We gave immediate attention to the matter and special units were established to concentrate on this particular type of crime. The first units go under way in June 1982, and since then these branches of the Police—apart from units responsible for the combating of ordinary crime—recovered 7 845 stolen vehicles. That is the figure for approximately the past eight months. The value of those recovered vehicles is more than R28 million. In the process 4 492 arrests have been made. This is a fine achievement. Due to the success we are achieving, we envisage establishing more of these special branches. We recovered these vehicles from as far away as Ovambo, Windhoek, Walvis Bay, our neighbouring States, other independent States and even our national States. The hon. member says that in certain urban areas there is a particularly high incidence—almost an epidemic—of motor thefts. It is understandable that the majority of vehicles are stolen in places like Hillbrow, Yeoville and places in Cape Town and Durban because they are among our most densely populated areas in South Africa. These people live in blocks of flats in their thousands and there are no garages for all the cars. The vehicles stand outside in the street and are accordingly more exposed to theft. These branches of the police have already achieved a recovery figure of between 60% and 70%. That is an outstanding achievement. Over the past nine months they recovered more stolen vehicles in Soweto and the West Rand than the number notified. The reason for that is, of course, that the vehicles are brought into that area from elsewhere. Therefore, in reply to the hon. member’s question, I say that a very notable degree of success has been achieved and that very earnest attention is being given to this matter.

The hon. member and the hon. member for South Coast championed the cause of the elderly. We are very much aware of this. For more than three years we have had special aid campaigns for our elderly and in this regard we co-operate with the National Council for the Aged and with religious bodies. The police hold seminars and talks for our elderly people and distribute brochures which provide them with important information, so that they may be on their guard at all times. We also have the co-operation of the Press in instilling in the public a general awareness of the danger. Police patrols are organized in such a way that points where pensions are paid out are always specially covered by those patrols when pensions are being paid.

The hon. member also asked me what we were doing to withdraw more police from administrative posts so that they could be utilized for policing tasks. Over the past two to three years we have been making a positive effort to withdraw trained policemen from administrative posts and to fill the posts with female police officers and female clerks. Hundreds of posts have already been filled in this way. In the past year, 1982, 202 posts have been filled in this way.

The hon. member again raised an old subject of his, a subject he raises every year, viz. the issue of foot patrols and vehicle patrols. Perhaps we can discuss this at greater length under my Vote, but at this stage I just wish to say that I agree with the hon. member that one would prefer to see more foot patrols on the streets. One would also like to have more vehicle patrols on the street. However, there are two important reasons why this is not possible at the moment. The first is a manpower shortage in general, not necessarily in the Police Force alone, and secondly, a shortage of funds. As the position improves in this regard, more foot patrols will be put on the street and there will be more vehicle patrols as well.

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

I have so little time. First let me finish. Perhaps I shall have a minute left.

Just a brief question.

I should like to answer the hon. member. Just give me a chance first. The hon. member also referred to the large number of purchases of discharge from the Force. The figure was taken from the annual report, but let us look at the balance, at the picture as a whole. The other day I spoke to the managing director of a large building society. I discovered that his staff turnover was higher than that of the S.A. Police, and this phenomenon was not limited to his building society alone; it applied to other building societies as well. Therefore the S.A. Police are not alone in this regard. What is in fact our position? In 1981 there were 3 243 purchases of discharge and resignations. In 1982 there were only 2 422; in other words, a drop of 821 in one year. The number of appointments increased from 6 014 in 1981 to 7 097 in 1982; in other words, an increase of 1 083. However, one should also consider the number of reappointments, and this is important. One looks at the purchases of discharge on the one hand, but what about the reappointments? In 1981 there were 469, and in 1982 there were 735, 676 of whom were Whites. In 1983 so far we have already received 279 applications. This has been over about the past six weeks. Our recruitment and employment campaign as at 1 February 1983 is already showing a profit of 905 in comparison with 1 February of last year. In total we have had a staff gain of 2 884 in one year from 1981 to 1982. The hon. member can now rest assured. The S.A. Police are doing well as far as staff are concerned. As the hon. member knows, salary and conditions of service were favourably adjusted 18 months ago and are now equivalent to the rest of the public sector. This information shows hon. members that the matters about which they are concerned, are matters which are not only being given positive attention, but are matters in which excellent progress is being shown. Moreover, the S.A. Police will carry on on this basis. I do not have time to give more examples at this stage as I should so like to have done, because I should like to discuss another subject as well.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is possible that in those densely populated areas which the hon. the Minister mentioned—the areas in which so many crimes occur—members of the S.A. Police Force could be placed on a proportional basis.

Mr. Speaker, I know what the hon. member means: Two or three years ago I established a Police advisory and planning committee under the leadership of a very senior general, to advise the Commissioner and myself concerning matters of this nature. This is one of the important matters that the committee is dealing with at the moment. They have already made a great deal of progress in this regard. The essential question is, of course, the correct distribution of members of the S.A. Police Force throughout the country. The question is whether the distribution is justified or not. In this regard the question which the hon. member for Yeoville put to me will be given positive attention and this will be taken into account in future as well. The hon. member may therefore rest assured in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to exchange a few ideas concerning another matter, a matter to which hon. members have not yet referred but which does form part of our task. I wish to do so because I believe that this is of great importance. It concerns security matters in particular. As has consistently been the case in recent years the S.A. Police Force has been very closely involved over the past 14 days in the combating of the threat to our security in South Africa. During the past few days alone, from 14 February to 20 February, altogether 98 terrorists have been shot and killed in the operational area in South West Africa, whereas five have been captured by the Security Forces. In those operations the S.A.

Police acted as an important part of the security forces and also made a significant contribution to the exceptional success achieved there. Unfortunately we, too, have suffered losses. Over the past week we lost one White member of the Force. Four White members were injured. Two special constables were killed whereas 25 special constables were wounded in those operations. That is as far as the S.A. Police Force is concerned. In the Republic itself we have arrested seven ANC terrorists over the past two weeks, whereas three ANC terrorists have been shot dead in skirmishes with the S.A. Police. We have found large quantities of arms, explosives and other equipment at various places in the country, in particular in the vicinity of Durban and in Northern Natal. This has been during the past week. Over the past year there has been a drop in the incidence of terrorism in South Africa. In the past month there have been a few successive incidents. However, one need not be unnecessarily concerned about that. There has been a drop, and the most important reason for that is the effective Police action taken in the execution of their duties to protect the internal security of the Republic of South Africa.

The objectives of the S.A. Communist Party, the ANC, the PAC and other similar organizations are still, however, the violent overthrow of all present systems of democratic government in the Republic and their replacement by a Marxist, socialist system in which the Black man can exercise autocratic power. These people place bombs or explosives in buildings or in places where a large number of innocent civilians may be at a given moment, e.g. shopping centres, parking areas, offices of the administration boards, railway lines which may carry fully laden passenger trains at any time, e.g. on the Witwatersrand and in the vicinity of Durban. These people murder unarmed members of the Police Force and witnesses in court cases. Murders of totally innocent White citizens committed on the instructions of Joe Slovo of Maputo have also occurred. They operate from Maputo and Maseru against the Republic of South Africa, Transkei, Ciskei and cause all these things to happen. Although the security forces—and in this regard particularly the S.A. Police Force in the interior—are playing a successful role, there are certain things which do not always make matters easy for us. I wish to identify a few of them. When identifying them it is not necessary to create the impression that we attack one another unneccessarily. However, these are realities of which mention must also be made in this House.

In the first place, the Government has for some time been issuing warnings relating to the presence of leading ANC figures in Maseru. We know about terrorists that have committed acts of sabotage in the Republic and in other countries and subsequently fled across the border to Lesotho. We have identified some of those people. However, our exchanges with Lesotho yielded no results and when we acted to look after our own interests and protect ourselves there were hon. members of the PFP, e.g. the hon. member for Houghton, who reproached us for doing so. The hon. member and perhaps other hon. members too—I do not know how many of them—still do not agree with the statement which the hon. member for Wynberg issued on behalf of the PFP. These things are observed. It is not only the public that observe these things but also the members of the security forces.

Did you ask that the hon. member for Houghton be present today?

Does the hon. member wish to ask me a question?

Do you not know the elements of courtesy?

If the hon. member does not wish to ask me a question, I shall not waste my time on him.

*There is a second matter to which I should like to refer. In the Rand Daily Mail of 21 December last year, reference is made to a lecture given recently in the USA by a certain Mr. Tom Lodge of the University of the Witwatersrand.

In his lecture, Mr. Lodge is reported as having said, inter alia, the following—

Then he identifies the 150 cases—

And so this person continues. Then Mr. Lodge says the following—

The following two parts are important. He says—

Here we have the standpoint of armed propaganda. This is how the ANC are identified. They are engaged in armed propaganda rather than murder and other acts of terror. This was followed up personally in The Star under the name of a journalist, Mr. Trevor Jones. On 31 December 1982 Mr. Jones referred to the ANC actions during 1982 in the following terms. He says—

Our newspapers are now already speaking of “the strategy of armed propaganda”. He goes on to say—

This kind of article is certainly the responsibility of the editor of such a newspaper. I should like to ask this question: Is the blowing up of railway lines which may carry fully laden trains, and the blowing up of office buildings, of shopping centres, even the statue in front of the city hall in Durban and the Administration offices in Bloemfontein a few days ago, examples of armed propaganda, or are they examples of deliberate murder and terrorism committed against people? This kind of apologetic description of these people is exactly what they want, and it emanates from such influential sources in South Africa as I have quoted to hon. members.

However there is another important matter that concerns hon. members of this House, viz. the description of a terrorist. To me, having had certain experiences over the past few weeks and read certain reports, the question is one I should like to put to certain hon. members and others, namely: What is a person who undergoes training as a terrorist? Such a person crosses the country’s borders armed with an AK rifle, hand grenades and possibly limpet mines, or he comes unarmed, with the aim of obtaining arms and explosives here in order to commit acts of terrorism. There are some of these people who, after being arrested, openly admit and boast to the police that they are fully trained terrorists and they have already committed acts of terrorism. I say that that person is a terrorist. Surely he is a terrorist, and as a terrorist he is a prospective murderer. In this regard I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Houghton, but unfortunately she is not present at the moment. I shall therefore put the question to the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition. Does he agree with me that the person I have identified for him is a terrorist, and that one is therefore entitled to refer to him as a terrorist? [Interjections.] I could put this question to the hon. member for Wynberg too. If I put it to the hon. member for Berea, he will not argue with me. The same applies to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—I am sure of that—the hon. member Prof. Olivier and also the hon. members for Umhlanga and King William’s Town. There are others who will indeed argue, and I shall furnish examples.

It so happened that I referred to the people that I have identified as terrorists, and I need not only have the knowledge to refer to them in this way because we all know that people that may be detained by us in those circumstances are people who may be identified as terrorists. What happened then? The hon. member for Pinetown attacked me in the most acrimonious language in various Natal English-language newspapers, and particularly in the Pretoria News of 18 November, for having dared do so. I know the hon. member for Umhlanga and I am sure that when that newspaper editor phoned him, he did not understand it in that way and I believe that that was why his comment was so strongly worded. As far as the identification is concerned the hon. member will certainly not argue with me, but what he said in the newspaper was just as strongly worded.

The hon. members and the newspaper editor insist that the rule of law should first be considered. Someone should first be found guilty in a court before one can refer to him as a terrorist. I now want to know whether these peoples’ guilt should first be proven in court. Must I have the people of the ANC who murdered people in Natal and committed sabotage there found guilty in a court before I say they are terrorists?

However, what are they doing? Bishop Tutu goes to the USA and makes a speech in public in which he says that in South West Africa the real terrorists are the members of the Defence Force. No-one opposite, nor our English-language newspapers, say a word about it however. [Interjections.] Now the members of the Defence Force are all of a sudden the terrorists! However, when we on the Government side refer to the terrorists as terrorists, then that is the reception we get. On 18 November the editor of the the Pretoria News almost had a fit because reference was made to these people as terrorists. But what did the editor himself do in his newspaper of 6 January? This is what he wrote—

But they did not appear before a court. Where is the rule of law now? He went on to say—

Surely they had not yet appeared before a court? Surely what we have here is an absolutely hypocritical insistence on the so-called rule of law.

I think that we should identify these things to one another, because if this is the kind of discussion that is to be conducted, if these are the kinds of reports to be written, if this is the kind of comment that is made, then it makes it very difficult for our Security Forces and for the S.A. Police to do their work successfully in practice. There are many other examples that I could quote. There are examples of incorrect reporting in our newspapers and incorrectly quoted figures which one manages to have corrected only with the greatest difficulty, if they are corrected at all. Perhaps on a later occasion when there is more time, perhaps when my Vote is discussed, I should discuss this matter at greater length. There are also examples of newspaper editors who ask permission to quote leaders of the ANC, and when the permission is refused, what the man said and what they wanted to quote is still published, but prefaced with the words “An ANC source said …”

I wish to conclude by saying, with reference to the amendment moved, that the S.A. Police are doing well. The S.A. Police are a winning team in the execution of their duties. We have crime reasonably under control and we have been extremely successful in the combating of the onslaught on the internal security of our country. We should like to achieve even greater success and we shall be able to achieve greater success if we have the full co-operation of all responsible people in all the different races in South Africa and if we also have the full co-operation of that section of our media whose sole and constant aim is to disparage and destroy. Those people are only benefitting our enemies and they are not doing us any favours.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege—indeed a very great privilege—to rise to speak in this house for the first time as a member of the party being led by the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] Moreover, it is a privilege to be standing here as the member representing Stellenbosch. My predecessor represented this constituency in this House for a period of nearly 24 years. To us in the constituency he was an outstanding MP, hardworking, approachable, always helpful, a man of great integrity. To those of us who know him intimately, he has always been a true and loyal friend. Hennie Smit is a stable, well-balanced, reliable person. It is good to know him and I take pleasure in paying tribute to him.

My constituency is a very small one as far as surface area is concerned, probably one of the smallest in the Republic. It covers approximately half the town of Stellenbosch. There was a time, of course, when the Stellenbosch district covered virtually the entire Cape Province of today. In 1780 its northern boundary used to be the Buffels River in Namaqualand, and in an easterly direction it extended to where the Fish River flows into the Indian Ocean. Consequently the sphere of influence of the magistrate at Stellenbosch covered an extensive area. Today I still represent a constituency, the influence of which extends far beyond its boundaries. I say this in view of the fact that the University of Stellenbosch is situated in that constituency. [Interjections.] Research done at that university enjoys international recognition and respect. Its former students are leaders in their local communities, both in the national and international spheres. Of its approximately 60 000 ex-students who are alive today, no fewer than 38 are members of this House, i.e. more than 21% of the total. When one speaks of Stellenbosch in South Africa, the word is accepted as being synonymous with the university situated there. It is the same university of which a committee, of which the late Dr. D. F. Malan was a member at the time, said in 1913—

This university that has also been rendering a service to the broader South African cultural life as a result of its being allied with and intent on the special needs of the Afrikaans-speaking community. The University has assisted in shaping an Afrikaner people which has come of age culturally and which, in turn, has been able to contribute to the development of an independent, self-respecting South Africa. It still remains the endeavour of Stellenbosch today to continue to be a source of strength and a think-tank for the Afrikaner. However, we do not want to make our primary academic function subordinate to a mere sectional group interest. Stellenbosch’s strength as a centre of education has always been derived from its ability to avoid alienation from its social matrix without excluding essential changes under changing circumstances. Consequently, critical thinking, uninhibited investigation and constant renewal of the academic system are being encouraged and deliberately stimulated. This is an essential element of the idea for which Stellenbosch still stands.

In this House I represent large numbers of young people. In fact, I represent approximately 10 000 student voters. They represent approximately 65% of the total number of voters of Stellenbosch. I want to break a lance for them in this House today. With young people such as those whom I represent, South Africa has a fine future. Public opinion regarding students is very often influenced negatively by the actions and behaviour of a few who deviate. The overall picture is, however, an extremely positive one. For example, the Afrikaans CSV is the society with the largest membership on the campus of Stellenbosch. Church attendance is increasing to an unprecedented level. Missionary week, voluntary mission work on Sundays and voluntary participation in the upliftment of the community are activities which are more popular among the student community than even the carnival at the University or Intervarsity. I am able to give many more examples. Stellenbosch and South Africa have reason to be grateful because of the quality of its youth.

From the oldest town in South Africa, the town looking after the largest concentration of national monuments, monuments which belong to the people, which are, so to speak, the title-deed of our right to this land, I bring to this House today a youthful message of good hope. If our generation lays the foundation for a glorious South Africa with a place in the sun for everyone living here, our youth will not let us down, but will continue to build on our foundation and South Africa’s future will be assured.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Stellenbosch on his maiden speech today. He explained to this House the major contribution which had been made by the people of his constituency to South Africa in the past, and I am very sure that he will continue in the tradition of his predecessors.

† I should just like to refer very briefly to a few of the comments the hon. the Minister of Law and Order made a few moments ago in the House. I should like to point out to him and state the policy of this party very clearly: This party has always been against violence in any form whatsoever …

“Provided that…”.

We are against violence on the part of anybody who wants to use that to achieve his political objectives. We will therefore in fact support him in any actions he takes against violence at the political level.

Listening to debates over the last few days, I have often wondered what a Coloured man, an Indian man or a Black man sitting up in the Gallery would think. I should imagine he would be quite shattered. The hon. member for Bryanston in his speech today made a plea that we should try to get away from the squabble that is developing between the NP and the CP on my left or, as the hon. member for Yeoville has said, on his political right. The vast majority of South Africans—Black, Coloured, Indian and most Whites—are not interested in what Dr. Malan said, in 1950 or who has deviated from what he said, in what Dr. Verwoerd said, or in whether this party or that party has deviated from the 12-point plan. That is irrelevant to the vast majority of South Africans. If there is any plea we on this side of the House would make to the Government, it is that they should please ignore the party sitting on our left here. They are political fossils. They are fast dying out. They can make no contribution to the political debate.

All I can say is that, if we were ever to follow their party’s policy, disaster would be absolutely guaranteed in this country.

Who are you talking about? [Interjections.]

You have been promoted to chief fossil.

I also want to refer to a few comments made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information today. Firstly, there is the continual refrain of boycott politics directed at this party. One should in fact look at the actual record of the party. What party has been for reform in this country? What party has been for reform on the labour front? What party has been for reform on the sports front? What party is now fighting for reform to include Blacks and all people of South Africa in the political dispensation? Therefore, to call us a boycott party is merely to confuse the issue, to draw a red herring across the path and to put a stumbling-block in the way of reform. The most frustrating thing for the Opposition during this particular debate is the number of questions that the Government will not answer, cannot answer or does not know the answers to. For example, we have asked repeatedly—perhaps one of the hon. Ministers or perhaps the hon. member for Mossel Bay will tell us—what about the Group Areas Act? Is this negotiable? Will the Government look at it in the future? Is it negotiable in certain circumstances?

One fool can ask more questions than a 1 000 wise men can answer.

Answer the question because then everybody in South Africa will know the answer. This is a cardinal and important question. It is a simple question and the Government should tell us whether it is “yes” or “no”. What about the Immorality Act? Is that negotiable, “yes” or “no”? Everybody just sits there and we cannot get an answer out of them. It is vital that all South Africans hear the answer because then we will know whether in fact we are really headed for genuine reform or not.

Let us get away from that debate and get onto economic issues because I think the hon. the Minister of Finance is feeling rather neglected today. What is he doing about inflation? The hon. member for South Coast asked a number of questions in this regard. The hon. the Ministers of Transport Affairs, Post and Telecommunications and Agriculture all preside over bodies which administer prices in South Africa. Everyone acknowledges—I hope the hon. the Minister does— that administered prices are one of our problems. What is being done about that? It is an important question in the political debate.

What is the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism doing about curbing the monopoly powers of companies? That is also important. We know that the South African economy is riddled with cartels and monopolies. What is happening in that regard? That is what the man in the street wants to know.

Mr. Speaker, getting down to the ordinary man in the street I would like to highlight this afternoon the position of the poorer sector of our society. Historically this is the Black community. In this regard I would like to refer to a report issued by the Bureau of Market Research in February 1982 on the minimum and supplemented living levels of non-Whites residing in the main urban areas. For the information of the House I would like to read out what is defined as a minimum living level. It is defined as follows—

This document is an authoritative one given out by qualified researchers. I think there are very few people in the House who dispute their definition of what a minimum living level is.

What report is that?

Bureau of Market Research, report No. 96. In the report they then go on to work out what a minimum living level is and they arrive at an amount of R237 for the average Black household living in an urban area. What is interesting in breaking down that amount is that on average R155 of the total amount is spent on food. That means that something like 55% of the household budget is spent on food. If hon. members in this House wish to work it out they will probably find that for the White population group the figure is under 20%.

It is also interesting to look at what has happened to incomes over the same period. The average Black income over the period amounted to R243, slightly more, one might say, than the minimum living level. However, if one analyses this figure one sees that, first of all, R243 is the average amount. Therefore, on average at least half will be below the amount. We also know, of course, that incomes are very skewed towards the bottom end of the distribution. Therefore based on that, more than half of the population are in fact below that minimum living level. Again the figures I quote do not include rural Black people, Black people in the self-governing States or in the independent States; and they also relate to wages in commerce and industry. We know that wages in the self-governing Black States are far lower. What is of great concern is that well over half of our population fall below that minimum living level as defined in this research publication. That is why any changes in food prices are such a sensitive issue to those people. It is also why any changes in transport costs are such a sensitive issue to those people. This is compounded by the fact that we are facing higher unemployment at the moment, as was highlighted by the hon. member for Yeoville the other day.

At the same time, wage rates have not kept pace with the increases in food prices, and wage rates have also not kept pace with the general consumer price index. This again merely serves to emphasize the point I have been making.

I want to do a little more this afternoon than highlight the problem to the hon. the Minister but also wish to suggest two steps that I think he could take to alleviate the question particularly with regard to food prices for people in the low income bracket.

The first suggestion is one that has often come from this party—it has often come from our spokesmen on finance—we again appeal to the hon. the Minister here this afternoon—and I can see that he knows what is coming—to reduce or eliminate GST on basic foodstuffs. Basic foodstuffs form a large component of the food basket that each household buys and, therefore, a 6% reduction would help a lot.

The second appeal I should like to make, and this is an appeal which the hon. the Minister will be aware of because he has received it from organized agriculture and from a number of groups, is to please have a look at the input structure in agriculture. If we can reduce the input costs we can also look at curbing the increases in the price of foodstuffs in the future or perhaps even reducing some of them. In South Africa, as part of Government policy, we have a policy of self-sufficiency in some inputs. The first thing is that it is the Government’s right to implement that policy of self-sufficiency, but let us implement it for the right reasons. Let us, for example, take atrazine. Our local price of atrazine is 35% more than what it is overseas, but, we in fact have to import the raw materials to make atrazine. Let us also look at phosphates. Our local price of phosphates is approximately 38% more than what it is overseas. However, to make phosphates we have to import sulphur. Therefore the self-sufficiency argument does not really hold good there. Where the argument does not hold good, I believe that a policy of protecting local industry should be phased out. Where the self-sufficiency argument does hold good, then, of course, we do not need to be self-sufficient in respect of more than our local consumption needs because if there is a boycott we would not be able to export the surplus in any case. The other matter with regard to self-sufficiency is that where we need to be self-sufficient the Government should consider subsidizing inputs. It has been estimated that this would cost something in the region of R200 million. The cheaper inputs would enable the benefits of this to be felt right throughout the economic system. I therefore suggest a subsidy on those inputs where we must in fact be self-sufficient.

In conclusion, I want to say that I have made a few calculations. Looking at the price of imported inputs and comparing these with the local prices that farmers pay, I have worked out that the cost of production of maize on a typical farm in the Natal midlands, for instance, is at the moment of the order of R450 per hectare for a 5 ton yield. This could be reduced by R115 per hectare or R23 a ton, all other things being equal at imported prices. This would immediately be felt in a lowering of the price of basic foodstuffs such as maizemeal and wheaten products. Not only that; if we look at the maize situation it is clear that the cheaper maize, which is a main input for many other products—meat, milk, eggs; we can go through them all—will result in a reduction in the price of those products. I have also for example estimated that broilers, in which maize is responsible for over half the cost, could be reduced in price by up to 5%.

In conclusion I again appeal to the hon. the Minister to look at these two issues. I believe the lowest group of wage earners could be assisted by bringing about a reduction in GST and by lowering agricultural input prices. I am sure such steps would make a contribution towards alleviating their situation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South devoted his speech to a technical argument addressed to the hon. the Minister of Finance, who listened to him attentively and who will no doubt reply to him. To begin with, however, the hon. member bowled a few loose political balls at the leg-guards and the wickets of some hon. colleagues of mine on this side of the House. He leaves me no option, therefore, but to defend myself. It is true that they were just a few odd runs, but I do not think we can allow the official Opposition to get away with this impression which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South tried to create.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was protesting against certain statements made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information in this House earlier this afternoon, including his reference to the PFP as a party with a boycott mentality. Then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said that this refrain should rather be abandoned. [Interjections.] Is it not true, however, that all of us sitting in this House saw and heard hon. members of the PFP being expelled from that party when they decided to participate in the proceedings of the President’s Council?

What has been happening yesterday and today, however? Members of the Labour Party, which is also a member of the Black Alliance, have had their membership suspended because they want to participate in the new constitutional dispensation. I do not think we can allow that impression to go unchallenged. Hon. members of the PFP try to escape by pointing out their opposition to anyone who makes out a case for violent change. That is not our argument against them. Our argument against them lies in the fact that we believe that the standpoints they advocate indicate that they are soft on those who go along with or participate in such actions. Let us examine the PFP’s attitude towards the Maseru raid, and towards some other matters as well. We cannot help coming to that conclusion, the conclusion that their standpoint, i.e. that they are opposed to people who advocate violence, is undermined by the softness of their conduct. We cannot allow these impressions of the PFP to go unchallenged.

Thirdly, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South made a statement which I do not want to ignore. No-one in the CP would accuse me of wanting to take up the cudgels for them. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South says that we should put a stop to this debate between the CP and the NP. I believe there is something which has escaped the hon. member’s notice. I get the impression that the hon. member does not understand the nature of the dialogue between the NP and the CP. The importance of the debate between the NP and the CP lies in the fact that for the first time in this House of Assembly, the NP is debating with people to the right of the NP. In the past we conducted a fictitious debate with members of the PFP, but now the NP is getting the opportunity to demonstrate how its policy should not be implemented in a right-wing framework. Indeed, the CP is an ally of the NP when it argues that we are a party which is irrevocably committed to reform. Now, however, we can argue and demonstrate what our policy is not. I want to leave the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South at that.

It is a pity that I too shall occasionally have to resort in my argument to saying who said what when. The question in South Africa is not whether we should change the constitutional dispensation of this country; more and more the question is whether we are going to do so by means of violent change or by means of peaceful change. It is becoming increasingly difficult to classify advocates of either of these directions as belonging to a particular population group or a particular colour group. We shall only be able to avers the threat of violence when we range ourselves irrevocably on the side of law and order in this country. Therefore it is of vital importance that law and order should be obeyed and maintained at all times. It is equally important that we should try to demonstrate specific policy successes along the road of peaceful change. Mere talk about policy changes will get us nowhere. Policy changes must also be successfully demonstrated, and it must be made clear that those who participate in the process of peaceful change have good reason to believe in the direction of peaceful change. This reform to which I am referring can only be successful if we succeed in reconciling two things, i.e. the aspirations of groups and their need to feel secure. I think this affords ample opportunity for all political parties in this House to move beyond the confines of their studies. They should not engage only in armchair politics, they should also demonstrate that this policy of peaceful change has a chance of success.

It is disappointing to say this, but not all aspirations can be accommodated by means of peaceful change. That is why there is no room for participation by the ANC, and why we do not even take cognizance of their standpoints.

The hon. member is repudiating Ton Vosloo.

My argument is that the PFP takes a strong stand on the one leg of this matter, but it has repeatedly failed to take the opportunity of demonstrating that I am wrong. Repeated challenges to the PFP to demonstrate that its concept of a national convention is viable, that there is no impediment whatsoever to such a convention, have been completely ignored by those hon. members. Advocates of this policy suggest that before beginning with the convention, they will appoint a judicial commission to indicate who is to participate. In terms of that, they say, decisions will be taken on the basis of consensus and not by majority vote. The hon. members have former judges in their ranks; why should we conduct this armchair debate with one another about who is going to participate and who is not? There is the constant argument about whether or not there should be violent change. Why does the PFP not demonstrate its standpoint by telling us, through its judicial commission, who is going to take part in the convention? Why do they not demonstrate that consensus could be achieved at such a convention? Our argument is that it could never be achieved.

I want to make the other leg of the argument applicable to hon. members of the CP. The standpoint of the hon. members of the CP is that, they operate under the banner of the right to self-determination of the White people, which must not be undermined. This is an acceptable idea, and it is a standpoint which is supported by the NP as well, i.e. that it must be possible to give effect to the right to self-determination of the Whites and of all the other population groups. When one examines self-determination more closely, one cannot help coming to the conclusion that in any right to self-determination there is a subjective test. Therefore the person concerned must also give his own opinion concerning his particular right to self-determination. What is more, the right to self-determination of a specific group affects the right to self-determination of any other population group. I think I find myself in the company of experts on constitutional law in putting this construction on this argument. As an authority I may call on Prof. H. Booysen, who says on page 405 of his Volkereg: ’n Inleiding—

What is more, no less a figure than Dr. Connie Mulder supports this standpoint. I quote from Wesrand Echo. 13 August 1982, in which Dr. Connie Mulder is reported as follows after a personal interview—

So Dr. Mulder also grasps the argument of a subjective right to self-determination, i.e. that the Coloureds must support this policy. We indulge in mutual recriminations when we argue about who said what where and when. Let us demonstrate our policy successes. When will the CP come forward and demonstrate to us the viability and the vigour of its policy by telling us where the principal seat of its Coloured homeland will be? Furthermore, it must mention by name, as its leader did in an interview with the SABC, the Coloured leaders with whom it wants to have talks. It must say that it will enter into an agreement with those particular leaders to vitalize its particular concept of the right to self-determination.

In the minute or two I have left, I want to discuss this subject. The CP relies on a certain clause which appeared in the First Report of the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council. The impression is created that the evidence submitted to the Constitutional Committee contains the possibility that the policy of the CP may show forms of vitality and viability. My argument is that this is an misconstruction. I am referring to paragraph 4.25, on page 39 of the First Report. On closer examination it appears that that evidence was given before the Du Preez Committee and that it was given by none other than Mr. Robert van Tonder of the Boerestaat Committee. The construction placed on this by Mr. Robert van Tonder is that 75% of the area of the Cape Province should be set aside for this. It is my belief that the only party which aspires to leave its armchair, to demonstrate policy successes, to accommodate the aspirations of groups on the one hand and to preserve the feeling of security of minority groups on the other, is sitting on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, in any person’s life there are times when he has to go through a baptism of fire, but it is not easy to come to terms with so many ordeals as I have been through over the past few months. However, with the help and support of the Almighty, one gets through it, particularly if one believes and if one undertakes the task assigned to one with faith.

I wish to thank hon. members of this House for their friendly welcome and for their offers of assistance. One feels strange when one arrives here and this greatly assists one in finding one’s way and one’s feet. I greatly appreciate the offers made by hon. members. I enjoy working in a team with people who make the ideals of South Africa—the ideals of peace and prosperity—their highest priority, and I promise not to look back in this process.

My gratitude and appreciation go to my predecessor who represented the Parys constituency here with great distinction. We greatly appreciate the services he rendered, as well as the respect he had for his voters and the respect he had for the task he had to fulfil on their behalf. My best wishes to go him and his wife for the new task that has been assigned to them. We know him and we know that he is competent and that he will carry it out with success, in the interests of South Africa.

The Parys constituency is a complex rural constituency made up of widely differing interest groups. There are large, as well as small industries. There are three gold mines, two coal mines and a large Escom power station. It is also a fine agricultural area, with field husbandry being the most important branch, although stockbreeding is also an important facet. In passing, I could mention that there are 76 registered cattle and sheep stud farms situated in this constituency. This constituency borders on the Vaal River for a distance of more than 200 km. The Balkfontein water scheme in this constituency supplies water to six nearby towns as well as to the Free State gold fields. The increase in water consumption because of the openings of two new mines between Welkom and Theunissen, resulted in an additional pipeline more than a metre in diameter having to be laid from Balkfontein to Welkom at an estimated cost of R7 million. It is also public knowledge now that three new mines are being envisaged, and with the accompanying increase in the number of inhabitants, there will also be a tremendous increase in water consumption. Consequently some of the riparian farmers are concerned about the fact that too little water will be made available to them. I made inquiries after arriving here, and we have been promised that the normal flow of the Vaal River will not be adversely affected by this additional demand. We trust that in future meticulous care will be taken not to prejudice the interests of these people.

Furthermore, there are 19 grain silos with a storage capacity of 28% of a normal maize crop as well as 16% of a normal wheat crop in various places in this constituency. Apart from Vaalharts, it is also the area which produces the most peanuts. At present, however, there are problems because of the drought. Certain parts of this constituency had no crops at all last year and some parts had extremely poor crops. This year the situation is even worse and 70% of this constituency will have no crops. The rest may perhaps produce 15% to 40% of a normal crop. The inputs of grain producers are extremely high. It is interesting to note that in many cases the inputs for production are equal to the Land Bank valuations of the land concerned. This is certainly not economically justifiable, but these are the facts and we shall have to consider with great sympathy the position of the farmers in that area in this connection. I am confident that since history has proven that the NP Government is sympathetic towards the farmers and that it takes all possible steps in order to accommodate them, it will also meet the needs which have arisen here with sympathy.

We have many young farmers in this area. While I am speaking of young farmers, I wish to point out that the Parys constituency is the only constituency in the Free State which still has six farm schools with an average number of 78 pupils. One is concerned about the fact that we are also going to have to deal with a tendency to depopulation if these steps which are being taken are not sufficient to keep these people in the rural areas. There are a total of 13 primary schools and six secondary schools in this area with a joint total of more than 8 000 pupils. This is truly unique for a rural constituency. Of course, the town of Parys is known as a haven for retiring pensioners, but hon. members must not think that there are no young people there.

In referring to the diversity of people there, I wish to state categorically that the people of this constituency are its most important asset. I can illustrate this. The Post Office awards prizes for the neatest post office and the neatest engineering yard in the Free State, and both these awards went to offices in the Parys constituency. In the cultural sphere there is also a great deal of interest in the preservation of that which is our own and of what is important to maintain an ethical and traditional national orderliness and in not being carried away on the popular wave of irresponsibility. It was striking that while I was canvassing from house to house during the recent election, concern was expressed that an institution such as the Publications Board comes under fire from time to time from authors who, when their works are banned or rejected, or when it is decided that such works may not be distributed, claim that uneducated objectors are responsible. This constituency objects strongly to this kind of disparagement of the moral and spiritual attributes of our people.

The people of the Parys constituency, whom I take pleasure in representing in this House, are people who exercise self-discipline and who maintain high ethical and cultural values.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to congratulate the hon. member for Parys on his first speech in this House. I made the acquaintance of the hon. member during the recent by-election. He is no political infant, and I think that in future he will be able to make a fruitful contribution to debating in this House. I should like to wish him a happy and fruitful sojourn in this House. He was entitled to boast about the attributes of his constituency. Personally, I should very much like to own a farm near Viljoenskroon. It is probably one of the most important farming areas in South Africa. I think it is a privilege to represent such a constituency as Parys in this House.

During the course of this debate we, the CP in particular, have received lessons in morality, Christianity and so on from the NP ad nauseam. This afternoon we received a lesson in morality and decency from the hon. member for Turffontein in particular. We know that the hon. member for Turffontein is a man of exceptionally high moral standards. We have come to know the hon. member as a person who does not make demands of and set standards for others which he himself is not prepared to fulfil. But, like some of us, the hon. member’s memory does not always serve him well. This is a forgivable weakness which many of us probably have. This afternoon we heard how the hon. member, in his moral zeal, called upon the hon. member for Pietersburg to resign his seat as a result of a challenge which the hon. member for Pietersburg was supposed to have issued to the hon. the Minister Fanie Botha. I am sure that, if his memory had not been so poor, the first thing the hon. member for Turffontein would have done—being a man of exceptionally high moral standards—after the hon. the Minister of Manpower had issued his challenge to Dr. Treurnicht, would have been to inform the hon. the Minister that he had also issued a challenge to the hon. member for Waterkloof. Unfortunately, the memory of the hon. member for Turffontein did not and still does not serve him well. However, the hon. member’s memory has been refreshed this afternoon.

Where is Tom going to stand? He is running away from his own constituency.

I have now refreshed the memory of the hon. member for Turffontein and he now knows that last year he issued a challenge in this House to the hon. member for Waterkloof that he would resign if that hon. member resigned. Now that this has been done, I wish to appeal to the hon. member for Turffontein, being a man who always appeals to the moral standards of others, to apply the same moral standards to himself. We shall see what the hon. member for Turffontein is really made of.

He would not have done that if he were still in the United Party.

During the course of this debate the standpoints of the CP have repeatedly been referred to as being indecent, unchristian, and a great deal more. This afternoon the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information presumed to judge the Christian standards of this side of the House in the forthcoming by-elections.

I said that we would keep an eye on you. Do not misinterpret my words now.

I think the time has come for some of the Pharisees on the opposite side of the House to go and read the book of life once again.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member refer to hon. members on this side of the House as Pharisees?

No. The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. I do not know whether this kind of debate serves any purpose, the kind represented by the speech which the hon. member for Kroonstad made. Listen to the language the hon. member used when he said for example, that every educated and decent person was a follower of the hon. the Prime Minister. He was therefore saying by implication that every other person in this country who was not a follower of the hon. the Prime Minister, was not a decent person. One can draw no other inference. This kind of debating in this House really serves no purpose whatsoever.

I should now like to come back to the speeches of the hon. member for Turffontein and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. The hon. member for Turffontein alleged here that my hon. leader had said that there were no differences in principle between the HNP and the CP. That is not true. The converse is true. Last week the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs put a number of questions to us. Inter alia, he asked whether we supported the HNP’s policy of only one official language in this country, viz. Afrikaans. Our reply to this is an unqualified “no”. It is stated in the programme of principles and in the policy of the CP that we shall maintain the bilingual principle in South Africa at all costs.

Why do you wish to co-operate with the HNP?

Give me a chance. I shall put forward my argument in a moment. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs went on to ask us whether we agreed with the HNP with regard to their standpoint concerning the independence of Bophuthatswana as well as that of other independent Black States.

Is that non-negotiable?

We differ from the HNP as far as this is concerned as well. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. By way of repetition we wish to state once again that it is the standpoint of the CP that all the Black nations in our midst should be granted independence, and that we shall do everything in our power, if the Government still wishes to carry out that policy, to assist it in this regard. I wish to state this unequivocally this afternoon.

It is interesting to see how people argue. Because we entered into negotiations with the HNP in order to form a right-wing front against the new constitutional proposals of the Government—and this is the issue here—we are now being dismissed as having accepted in full the HNP policy and principles. However, the same people who level this accusation at us, are in the process of negotiating with the leaders of the Coloured parties …

The NP congresses approved it.

… with the leaders of the Indian parties … [Interjections.] They are in the process of negotiating with those people, not for the purpose of concluding an agreement, but in order to change the constitution of South Africa, in terms of which in future not only members of the NP—and they believe that they will always be in power—are going to be included into the Government of the day, but members of any other party as well. Regardless of which party wields power in the Coloured Chamber or the Indian Chamber, and whatever its policy, it will be included into the government of the day. Does this then mean that in such a case the NP will accept the principles and standpoints of every political party possible in the ranks of the Coloureds and/or Indians as the policy and principle of the NP? [Interjections.] Surely this is an absolutely ridiculous argument. During this debate hon. members in the Government benches have repeatedly been asked whether the Group Areas Act is negotiable.

The President’s Council said no.

Is the Population Registration Act negotiable?

No!

Is it not negotiable?

No!

The leader of the Labour Party, as well as the leader of the ruling party in the Indian Council, have stated unequivocally that they were going to make it their task to abolish the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] The same NP which is accusing us of forsaking our principles because we entered into negotiations with the HNP, is nevertheless prepared to negotiate with those people who are saying in advance that they reject the NP’s policy. [Interjections.] And then, Mr. Speaker—and I have experienced this after all…

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

No, my time is limited. [Interjections.] Now we are being reproached for our conduct in the Parys constituency. I did, in fact, have the privilege of serving my party and holding meetings there. [Interjections.] Now I challenge any hon. member sitting on the oppositie side of this House to accuse me of that which the hon. member for Kroonstad accused us of earlier today.

Why do you not repudiate the people who did so? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it was my dubious privilege to attend a house meeting of the NP in that constituency. That meeting was addressed by an hon. member of this House. When he was asked whether Coloureds would serve in the new Cabinet, what was his reply? He said that it would not happen. When it was pointed out to him that in the NP’s pamphlet it stated that this was, in fact, going to happen, his reply was that the Coloureds first had to be trained. [Interjections.] According to him, they first have to be trained, since at present there is no one who is qualified to be included in the Cabinet. [Interjections.] When it was pointed out that in terms of the NP pamphlet there would, in fact, be Cabinet committees which would have to deal with certain matters of peculiar concern in the Cabinet, and the question was put to him as to how it was possible that the Coloureds would first have to be trained to serve in the Cabinet, to set up the Cabinet committees, since a person who is a member of a Cabinet committee must be a member of the Cabinet as well, that hon. member could not furnish a reply.

Do you have the courage to tell us who that man is, Cas?

The man who said that is now sitting next to the hon. member for Kroonstad. He is the hon. member Dr. Odendaal. [Interjections.] I myself was present at that meeting. [Interjections.]

We must therefore not allow certain people on the opposite side of this House to accuse us piously of being misleading. Mr. Speaker, what was my experience in that constituency? While canvassing, I visited an old couple, fine Afrikaner Nationalists. I asked them: “Are you satisfied that a Coloured may serve in the Cabinet?” The reply was: “P. W. Botha, the Prime Minister, would never allow such a thing”. Then I would produce the pamphlet of the NP and say to them: “My dear friends, did you receive this pamphlet?” The reply would then be yes. When I asked them whether they had read it, they told me that it was not necessary. Then I said: “My dear Sir, do me a favour; read what it says here”. The old man did so and then he looked at me and said: “My dear fellow, this cannot be true, I think you have forged it. The National Party would never do such a thing”. [Interjections.] In the forthcoming by-elections in Waterberg and Soutpansberg and elsewhere we shall state our standpoint fearlessly. I ask the NP to speak the same language in the northern Transvaal as they did at Stellenbosch. We shall see what happens. [Interjections.]

However, this is a budget debate and the hon. member for Paarl asked us last week why we were so concerned about the economy of the country. I was under the impression that the hon. member for Paarl represented a partially agricultural constituency. Then he asks us why we are concerned. The agricultural sector of South Africa finds itself in a financial crisis, not only as a result of the drought but also as a result of many other causes. Let us consider for a moment the actual assistance received by the agricultural sector from the Government over the past year or two. In 1965 the budget of the Department of Agriculture as a percentage of the total budget was 6,6%. In 1982 it had dropped to a mere 2% or less. What is more, in 1981 the agricultural budget was R460 million, of which R249 million was budgeted for food subsidies, something which does not belong under the Agriculture Vote since this is not expenditure in the interests of agriculture, but in the interests of the consumer. Last year the budget for agriculture was decreased—when everyone knew that there were tremendous financial problems in the agricultural sector—from R460 million to R399 million. The result was that only was the budget for agriculture decreased in figures, but the real budget for agriculture was drastically decreased. I think the time has come for the farmers of South Africa to know whether the Government is in earnest. Our farmers are repeatedly being told: We shall look after you, and one commission of inquiry after another is instituted.

And the hon. member supported them.

Of course I did, but the time has come to take positive action and to give attention to the financial crisis existing in agriculture, not only as a result of the drought, but also as a result of the tremendous increase in the input costs in agriculture which is disproportionate to the rest of the economic activities in South Africa.

May I put a question?

No, I have no time, and in any case there ought not to be time in this House to reply to the questions of jokers.

I wish to conclude by appealing to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. The situation in agriculture in South Africa is alarming. In my area there is a feeling of despondency among the farmers. I think it is essential, not that critical measures be taken, but that essential reform measures be taken to place agriculture on a sound footing once again.

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with the hon. member for Barberton in a moment. Like me, he is from the Eastern Transvaal and we like to speak to one another openly, without mincing our words.

This is really a financial debate. We know the hon. member for Yeoville to be a speaker with a shrewd, analytical mind, but in this debate we found that he quietly left the field of economic and financial affairs, like a jackal who had failed to catch a sheep. He dropped everything and fled to other sections. [Interjections.] We appreciate the fact that the hon. member, as chief spokesman on finance, had praise for the hon. the Minister of Finance, but he could at least have openly attested to the fact that the country’s economy and finances were being correctly handled and were well looked after.

I said nothing about inflation, nothing about unemployment …

That was just in passing. On the one hand he and his party advocate increases in salaries, and on the other they moan about inflation.

You should rather keep to the CP.

I now wish to move into the political terrain. When one enters an election, one has to have a slogan. We on this side of the House have the exceptional privilege of being able to tell a man: “I stand as a Nationalist”. That is a word that finds favour.

“I do not know what my policy is, but I stand as a Nationalist”. [Interjections.]

If a baboon looks in a mirror and sees a baboon, that is not the mirror’s fault. [Interjections.]

When we as Nationalists enter the struggle and say that we stand as Nationalists, then that means something. The CP man, when he comes to a house, says that he is a CP. This confuses the voters. Like me, the hon. member for Barberton is from the Eastern Transvaal. There sits my honoured predecessor in the Standerton constituency, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. Look, they both know that it is in Standerton that the headache powder is made which bears the following name: KPP. [Interjections.] If the party of these hon. members want to change their name to KPP—Kriel’s Pain Powders—then when they come to a house and the people do not agree with them, they can still at least say: Look, I do not agree with you, but anyway here is a headache powder. [Interjections.] I say to the hon. member for Barberton: Casper, you would have done better with KPP than with KP (CP).

The setbacks of the PFP are also due to their slogan of the PFP. It does not make sense. The only one that makes a bit of sense —we have worked in that part of the world too, has been the hon. member for Edenvale, because he had a fine slogan: “Go, go for Goodall, or blow all!”. [Interjections.]

I want to point out another element which is concealed in the CP as they are sitting there. It is a pity that the hon. member for Meyerton is not present at the moment, but at least the hon. member for Brakpan is here. These two hon. members show a special piety, appreciation and affection towards the leader of the CP. However, there is another part of that party that instigated the manoeuvring that was taking place over the past week with a specific aim, viz. to get rid of the leader. He must be eliminated, because there is an important person that they want to bring in. [Interjections.] I know that is the truth. The hon. member for Barberton is laughing so heartily because he, too, knows it is the truth. I note that the hon. member for Rissik is also laughing heartily. [Interjections.] Look, I say this in a friendly frame of mind; I am not on the warpath. [Interjections.] Before the 1981 election one of the branch chairmen of his party told him; “I shall work for you; I shall do street work in this constituency as long as you undertake to dissociate yourself expressly and unconditionally from the HNP and wholeheartedly and unconditionally throw your weight behind the Prime Minister, Mr. P. W. Botha." However, the hon. member for Rissik was not prepared to do so.

What you are saying now is untrue.

The hon. member for Rissik was not prepared to do so. [Interjections.] At that stage the Transvaal leader, dr. A. P. Treurnicht, was the symbol of the leadership of the supreme leader of our party, but I shall not discuss that.

Last year, in a speech in this House, the hon. member for Meyerton used a very striking image. He said that if the wind blew in a certain direction so that the poplars looked white, that was a sign that one should bring one’s people—one’s flock—home. I, too, want to use an image. The hon. member for Koedoespoort must listen to this.

Tell us about the wood with which you make the chairs for the Coloureds.

When a head clashes with concepts and there are hollow sounds, the sounds do not necessarily emanate from the concepts. [Interjections.] It was the hon. member for Meyerton who used that image. They herded their political flock into that little camp with the poplars, that poplar camp. In that camp there are large trees, because those trees have been standing since 1948. However, has that hon. member ever been in a poplar camp? [Interjections.] Then he must please tell me what grazing one finds under poplar trees. He can go and ask the hon. member for Barberton. There is no grazing. [Interjections.] They have neglected their political flock under the poplar tree of 1948, and the lush grazing of renewal which nature also provides in the life of the politician has been lacking among those people; I know what I am talking about. A part of Meyerton is under my stewardship. The farmers there are the finest farmers one could encounter anywhere. I think that when we have the next delimitation I am going to make a plea that that region be incorporated in Standerton, since we are now concerned with incorporation! Unfortunately the hon. member for Meyerton if not present here today. However, I wanted to ask him whether he was able to have one branch established for his party where he enjoys his strongest support. He was unable to do so because he had neglected his people politically. Does this not also, perhaps, apply to the hon. member for Barberton?

I am going to stand as a Nationalist in order to do recruiting, because the concept that we as Nationalists project is the right one. Go and look it up in any dictionary of definitions and you will find that although love of what belongs to one is necessary in the first instance, this love is not possessive. Nor is nationalism egoistic and selfish. This love is not haughty. They speak disparagingly of the so-called “little room” in which, with our guidelines for the other population groups, we wish to allocate areas in a respectful way. This nationalism does not consider itself superior, and is not haughty or disparaging. [Interjections.] However it fills one with pride and we do not begrudge it to others.

Two specific concepts are woven into this concept of nationalism and I should like to refer to them; every people or population group has an express need for them. These two concepts are a sense of one’s own value, and self-respect. The hon. member for Innesdal referred to human dignity, and that is so appropriate. Where these concepts are negated, where these concepts are flouted, the greatest tragedies in the world have occurred.

At the time of the Peace of Versailles, President Woodrow Wilson of America took the lead. He drew up a fourteen point plan which was put before his congresses in the first instance and then to the deputations at the peace conference table. One of the components of that peace plan was the granting of independence to smaller powers and, if not independence, a dispensation which would give them back their human dignity, sense of their own value and self-respect. Several points in his fourteen point plan were accepted. That is noted in our history books. Even we had a freedom deputation there which was largely initiated by Tielman Roos. President Wilson’s request was, however, rejected with a view to Germany. At that peace conference table Germany, as a people, experienced the greatest humiliation and revilement. At that peace conference table—the hon. members of the CP would do well to listen-—was born the seed of the next world war. In that spirit of disparagement the spirit of Hitler awoke.

Are you for or against Hitler?

The hon. member must not be facetious about this now. I say that we are aware of these things. History teaches us about this and the past of our own people has been considerably affected by those events. I do not wish to dwell on that.

We in this country are going to be faced by the truth. The truth is a naked little old man. The truth does not have many clothes. Least of all does the truth have the woolly garb that the hon. the leader of the CP seeks to cover himself with. The truth is a lean, naked little man. There are two great truths that I want to mention today. In the first place, we live in Africa, which is a Black world. We do not live in a White Europe.

Then South Africa must become Black.

No, Sir. This is a clear concept and we must plan meaningfully. When the hon. members of the CP were still part of a meaningful discussion group, the Government and our party adopted the course of making allocations to peoples. There are the independent States. Over a period of 30 to 40 years the Coloureds and the Asians have also been educated by way of training facilities such as schools, colleges and universities, with the result that they are now wellbred people with self-respect.

Oh no, man!

Does the hon. member wish to argue with me? [Interjections.] Now, however, the hon. members are hesitating and stopping short. They become afraid when one takes this further and gives him a share in a meaningful dispensation so that he, too, can have a say in the appointment of the highest office in the country in which he lives, where he was born and where some of his people have been for centuries.

The second great truth is that our time is running short. This work that we have to do, is something we must do as quickly as possible, because we live in a world that is not well disposed to us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Standerton talks about a nationalism which is not a selfish nationalism. I should like to see that hon. member make that proposition in places like Mitchell’s Plain, Lenasia or Kwa Mashu. If he says the seeds of the Nazi revolution were sown at Versailles, I want to say to him that the seeds of a different kind of revolution have been sown in this country by this Government for years and years. If he has at last come to a realization of the implications, I wish him well.

I have listened to this debate, an economics debate, ranging back and forth over general party-political matters. It is an irony that in this country, with its special economic problems of the First World and the Third World having to coexist, this hon. Minister of Finance appears to have one of the easiest finance portfolios in the Western World. In any other part of the Western World the finance portfolio is the Government’s hot seat, but this hon. Minister is able to relax and sit back in a benign way in economics debate after economics debate …

Our policies are so successful.

I am coming to that. As I say, he can sit back while the political debate washes across him. He has hardly anything to respond to at the end. I wish there was time to scrutinize the hon. the Minister’s policy of “financial discipline”.

Why don’t you do it.

I wish time allowed me to do so but my time is so limited. The hon. the Minister has been riding on “financial discipline” for five years or so. Does it really take us much further than good bookkeeping? It is like a motherhood principle. Is it an economic programme for the solution of this country’s economic problems? I doubt it. We must scrutinize it much more thoroughly in future.

Unfortunately time only allows me to discuss one specific economic matter and that is the question of the Government’s policy in respect of the pelagic fishing industry.

It is hardly financial.

It is an economic management issue. The hon. the Minister laughs at this but it is a R70 million industry.

Yes, that is true.

I see the hon. the Minister is going to take it seriously. It is a R70 million industry and it employs thousands of people in the Western Cape. It is an industry which used to provide for all the fish-meal requirements of South Africa. Our fish-meal requirements in 1982 were 133 600 metric tons. While we used to be self-sufficient as regards fish-meal, which is a vital component of animal feeds in the country, last year we had to import 81 000 tons, about 60%. At current prices that represents an import bill, which the hon. the Minister of Finance should take account of, of some R40 million. In terms of present Government policy, and in the light of the changes which have been brought about, this import bill is going to increase substantially.

When one talks about pelagic fish there are three general areas of consensus which exist among people who follow this matter. The first area of consensus is that the industry is in a parlous situation. All the leading indicators are there to prove this. Twenty years ago we caught almost 500 000 tons of pelagic fish and these days we struggle to catch 380 000 tons. Twenty years ago just over 400 000 tons of pilchards were taken and last year it was less than 10% of the catch at 33 000 tons. One can also look at the mackerel situation. Twenty years ago 87 000 tons were taken and last year, if the figures are correct, 3,8 tons were taken. It is only a fraction. The pelagic fishing industry is in a parlous state, the same as the South West African fishery was some time ago and which has now collapsed. It collapsed from a 1,5 million tons catch in the late ’sixties to less than 250 000 tons in 1982. We are on the brink of the same situation in South Africa, particularly if the policy of the new hon. Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries is applied.

The second area of consensus which applies in respect of the S.A. pelagic fishery is a general consensus about the reason why we have arrived at this parlous state. It is the same reason which applied in other parts of the world where fishing industries have also collapsed. Fishing industries have collapsed in South West, on the west coasts of North America and South America and also in other waters. The main villain can be summed up in one word: Over-fishing. Of course there are other factors such as environmental and temperature factors etc., but the main factor, the main villain is overfishing. The industry for years and years has been taking out interest, if I can term it that, as well as capital. They have been taking out the annual recruitment plus some of the basic stock.

This brings us to the third area of consensus, which is in respect of the solution to the problem. This is the one area where controversy arises, but the broad majority of authoritative opinion is that the solution is fairly simple. The solution to over-fishing is to cut back on the fishing effort to allow the stock a chance to recover.

That brings us to the reign of the new hon. Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries and his Deputy to whom he seems to have delegated all responsibility in this matter. These two hon. gentlemen came into their portfolios carrying fairly high hopes among conservationists and people who have the interests of this industry at heart, but what has happened is the precise opposite of what should have been done. The broad consensus seems to have been ignored and the views of one known dissident whose views have been discredited, have been applied and enshrined as official policy. It has brought us to the brink of a disaster in the pelagic fishing industry—and I choose my words carefully. To enlarge on my argument, a new dispensation has been brought about—by the hon. the Deputy Minister— which I would describe as the Wiley/Lochner experiment, an experiment which has three elements.

The first is that the fishing season should change from a winter fishery to a summer fishery. That is a critical element. The second element is that there should be a 50% transition quota of 190 000 tons for the first half of 1983, plus a further 190 000 tons made up in the second half of 1983 when the new season starts in October. The third element is a quota in terms of which only pilchards and anchovies form the quota and all other species which used to be part of the quota are now excluded. Those are the three elements and this experiment which is based on the theory of Dr. Jan Lochner of Port Elizabeth who seems to have only one prominent admirer and that is the hon. the Deputy Minister. One might well ask what is wrong with the theory of Dr. Lochner? It is a theory that has been knocking around for well over a decade. It has been published and shot down, but one might still ask: What is wrong with the theory? Is it perhaps worth giving it a chance? I say that there is something very wrong with that theory. There is much that one can say, but in one particular respect it appears to be based on a disastrous misstatement of fact. I do not want to be accused of misquoting Dr. Lochner, but I have the article which he published in the S.A. Journal of Science in January 1980 where he makes the following clear statement—

I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries a question in this House on 9 February and his reply produced evidence that is directly contrary to that proposition.

It is a fishy story.

When the hon. the Deputy Minister made the announcement of a new deal in December—I have his statement here—he said that the available evidence was to the effect that the spawning season is over by October—when his proposed summer fishery comes in—which Dr. Lochner has made quite clear is the basis of his theory. However, when the hon. the Deputy Minister answered my question in this House he said that the Sea Fisheries Research Institute had been doing research based on more than 10 000 plankton net hauls and gonad studies since 1950. The net conclusion of all this research is that the spawning season progresses thoughout the summer and that the peak takes place from October through to February. This is a direct contradiction of the basis of this new policy. I am amazed the hon. the Deputy Minister was able to give that reply with a completely straight face. One wonders how the hon. the Deputy Minister squares his claim that all the available evidence points to a spring spawning season when he gets up and gives a reply that points to a summer spawning season. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister owes the public an explanation. If the scientific evidence of the past 30 years is correct, what is actually going to happen now is that the primary fishing season will coincide with the prime spawning season. It is an unthinkable proposition. It is not only I who am saying this; there are other authoritative sources also saying this. The Financial Mail, for example, describes the hon. the Deputy Minister as the “butcher of the sea”. It says that he is going to permit a form of genocide with this new policy. I can also quote from a better authority than that, namely from the Hansard of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries last year. In column 643 of 4 May 1982, (Standing Committee) in response to the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Simon’s Town—as the hon. the Deputy Minister then was—the hon. the Minister gave a very full response to the question as to whether Dr. Lochner’s theory had been properly scrutinized by the Government. The hon. the Minister said the following—

Sir, we pleaded for the Government to say whether it had properly analysed this theory which has been knocking about, and after receiving this explanation I can say that my party excepts that the matter has been properly handled. The hon. member for Wynberg can confirm that.

Have you read his speech?

Yes, I have. Everybody is convinced that this theory is discredited and is of no use except one person, i.e. the Deputy Minister of Fisheries. It is incredible that the Government’s considered position in 1982 can be totally reversed in 1983 because one person has pursue that policy relentlessly. The hon. the Deputy Minister has the characteristic of single-mindedness. If the harnesses that single-mindedness to a good cause he could serve a good purpose in this country but if he harnesses it to a bad cause it may prove dangerous.

Let me address myself to the hon. the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Fisheries. He cannot wash his hands entirely of this affair.

I don’t.

He should have a good look at the foundations of the new policy because it cannot stand up. I have waded through all the evidence and have spoken to a number of reputable people in the industry. The hon. the Minister will have to fear just as much responsibility as the hon. the Deputy Minister if the industry is destroyed.

I accept my responsibility.

This policy can also have far-reaching implications for our economy. Time does not permit me to go into great detail now. I shall have to wait until the Vote comes up. I refer now simply to the split quota, the dislocating effect on the industry, the wide-open invitation to corruption and malpractices in the form of dumping and mis-identification. Mis-identification in regard to South West Africa was a problem when the split quota was introduced. In South Africa it is now being done and whereas quota fish caught last year were ten times the mass of non-quota fish, so far this season the catch of quota fish and non-quota fish are running neck and neck. That raises a big question-mark and I would like the hon. the Minister to give the assurance that there are indeed no malpractices taking place which may act as a further drain on this resources.

One could go further and talk about the problems that the industry is going to face in having to operate for a few months and then to have to close up shop. They then may face an unemployment problem as a result of changing seasons. These are matters which will have a ripple effect throughout the economy, especially if this industry collapses.

I am afraid that my time is up. I therefore want to end up with an earnest request that this matter should be reviewed and that this experiment should be scrapped forthwith. It is a dangerous experiment. The hon. the Deputy Minister when he announced the new deal said that “if this new dispensation succeeds” we will have revived an important ailing industry, or words to that effect. I say if this experiment does not succeed it would be a disaster because the anchovy is the last pillar of the industry. If this experiment does not succeed there would be no second chance. The industry would collapse for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia could have made a constructive and a helpful contribution on something which constitutes a very complicated subject indeed. It is, as I say, a complicated subject and their’s is regarded by scientists in this particular field as being an inexact science. But the hon. member, instead of making a constructive contribution, has been not a little arrogant, wholly contradictory and has displayed his ignorance. If I may give the hon. member some advice I would tell him that he would command more respect and interest in this House if he were to outgrow the gaucheness and bad manners that he so often displays and which he must have learned on his university campus as an activist.

To strike a balance between conserving a marine resource and permitting it to be safely exploited is a very complicated matter indeed. Therefore I would suggest to the hon. member for Constantia that he prepares himself to debate it with me in some depth when the relevant Vote is discussed here in the House later during the session, by which time, first of all, the current fishing season will have advanced sufficiently for us to ascertain with some greater accuracy than at present the state of the pelagic resource, and, in the second place, the hon. member will also have had time to learn a little more about the subject than he knows now. I suggest that he is a little bit out of his depth! Interjections.] For the benefit of other hon. members, however, who are just as concerned as I am about the future of this particular marine resource, and who are not given to political extravagance, politically extravagant language or statements in tame newspapers, I shall give the House an explanation of the motivation for the present pelagic seasonal changes.

The pilchard is the most important of our pelagic fish. The pilchard resource has collapsed since 1962, and today it constitutes only about 15% of the total pelagic fishing catch. In regard to the anchovy, since about 1965, the anchovy catches have increased while the pilchard catches have decreased dramatically. Mainly immature anchovies are being caught. I believe, for example, that over 90% of the anchovies that are caught during the winter months—that is to say from May, and including May, onwards—are caught before they have had an opportunity of reproducing. The immature anchovy, for example, according to our scientists, constituted 82% of the 1982 catch, and 75% of the 1981 catch. The pelagic quota of 380 000 tons has remained fairly constant for some time.

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

No, I have no time to reply to questions now. [Interjections.] It has remained fairly constant at a low level of development compared to previous years. In other words, the picture I am painting is one that the catch has been reasonably constant, although there has been no growth and no growth potential. With this situation being what it is, what is confronting us? First of all, the scientists have urged the department over the last three years to cut back on the quota. During past years they have urged the department to cut back the quota to 325 000 tons. On the other hand the industry has urged that the quota be maintained. That has been the conflict that has occurred for some years. [Interjections.] Let me tell those hon. members who have interrupted me now that I am not unfamiliar with this subject, having dealt with it since I first came to Parliament.

Let us have a look now at the dispute. [Interjections.] The reason for the annual dispute between the scientists on the one hand and the industry on the other hand is our inability to establish quantitatively the state of the resource and thus de termine what is a “safe catch” that can be made. The scientists willingly concede this. Marine biology, in this particular field, has made a great contribution to our knowledge of the sea but marine biologists will be the very first to admit that theirs is an inexact science in so far as this particular pelagic resource is concerned. There is no known conventional marine scientific method, first of all, to control and to ensure maximum production or, secondly, to predict when a marine resource is in danger of collapse. Only analysis after the event can be undertaken in this particular field of fisheries.

What has been done to date? First of all, as a precautionary step, we have heeded the red lights that are flashing for everyone to see, and we have cut the quota to 190 000 tons for the first half of the year. In this way, we hope to rebuild the resource and to avoid the worst consequences of a possible anchovy spawning failure or recruiting failure, about which our own scientists in our department have cautioned us from time to time.

Secondly, we aim at rebuilding the anchovy and the pilchard resources, which are the backbone of the pelagic fishing industry. In terms of this policy more fish are being given more time to grow, to recruit and then to spawn than was previously the case. We do not want an industry that will simply “coast” along at a low level of exploitation always facing a possible collapse and always being subject to periodic quota cuts. We want growth and we want to try to re-establish a once flourishing fishing industry. I am talking this afternoon particularly about the pelagic industry.

Our third objective—and this is our ultimate aim—is to go for a nine to ten month season, perhaps even an all year round season. However, then the resources must have been assisted to recover first. Fourthly, we have successfully encouraged the industry to catch non-quota species. Bearing in mind that the most important species are the anchovy and the pilchard, the non-quota species are fish that usually appear sporadically from time to time. One of these is the mackerel, another is the redeye, a third specie is the maasbanker and the fourth is a specie which, according to our scientists, apparently exists in great quantity but has not thus far been adequately exploited by the industry, viz. the lantern fish. That is why the scientists asked us this year to exclude the lantern fish from the quota. I went further and I also excluded the mackerel, the maasbanker and the redeye so far with some success. The purpose of this is to relieve the pressure on the anchovies and the pilchards and to assist the industry during a transition period to overcome its financial problems as well. That is why we are allowing non-quota species to be caught.

Let us look now at some of the criticism that has been levelled at us, including that of the hon. member for Constantia today. First of all, it is said that the quota has been increased. This is a misstatement of fact. The anchovy and pilchard quota has been cut to half of what it was previously, viz. to 190 000 tons for a season that commenced this year on 1 January and, for the information of my hon. friend for Constantia, will end on 30 June. We believe that mainly adult fish and not juveniles will be caught after 1 November this year. This is an entirely new fishing experiment and for that reason it cannot be compared with the previous dispensation.

Let us look now at the second argument. It is said that the spawning will continue during the summer. Nobody argues—and I would be the last one to do so—that spawning does not continue in the summer.

It reaches its peak.

However, what is important is the evidence that it begins in the spring, which makes common sense—something that my hon. friend over there may not have in great quantity—and it peaks near the end of the spring in October. Spring spawning is a common natural phenomenon.

May I please ask a question?

No, I do not have the time. However, what to my mind is more important is an aboslutely undisputed fact among scientists, and also in the industry, that the previous catching season was also spread over the recruiting period which takes place in June, July and also probably in August, the time when the young anchovies and pilchards enter the shoals prior to spawning. Therefore, all the evidence shows that these young fish have up to now been caught before they have had an opportunity to spawn. If the hon. member for Constantia would like to have further supporting evidence for this, I suggest he read the article of his friend in the South African Shipping News of 5 July 1982 in which he also refers to the problem of catching immature fish.

The third criticism is that I have brought into being what Dr. Jan. Lochner of Port Elizabeth has long advocated. My views on this particular scientist are on record in speeches in this House and in a minority recommendation that I made as a member of the Treurnicht Commission. All I want to say about him is that in the late 1960s Dr. Lochner issued a warning in regard to what could possibly happen in South West Africa.

So did lots of other people.

Including myself. Again, in the middle 1970s he warned that only 13% of the pilchard resource in South West Africa was left. Today, that resource in South West Africa is caught under quota and that quota is 1% of the catch it was at the time when Dr. Lochner first started issuing his warnings. I say no more, except that the sooner marine scientists realize that others can also make a contribution to a very, very inexact science, the better will be the prospect for rebuilding our fishing industry. We need to pool the talents of all our scientists, not only the scientists in a particular field, but scientists in general. With that in mind, I wish to make an announcement.

*On 7 December last year I decided to announce the quotas and catching seasons for pelagic fish for 1983. I am convinced that by doing this it will be possible once again to establish a flourishing fishing industry on the West Coast. I am very pleased to be able to say that I enjoy strong support and co-operation from within the industry itself. On the other hand, I am aware of an intensive debate amongst scientists about the consequences of my decision. As they say in Latin: quot homines tot sententiae.

I have great appreciation for the good work done over many years by scientists in the interests of our fishing industry. However, I am not at all convinced that scientists can best resolve their mutual differences of opinion by conducting a debate in the public media. Consequently I intend offering our scientists a special opportunity to state their views on the quotas and on the catching season for pilchards and anchovies. I therefore intend appointing on 1 March a committee of eminent scientists in which the various scientific disciplines will be well balanced.

Is this now a type of national convention for fish? [Interjections.]

It may be, but the big difference is that I know who will be represented on that “national convention” for fish, whereas the hon. member is not prepared to tell me who is going to represent him on his national convention. [Interjections.]

The committee will report to me not later than 31 May. The committee will comprise nine members, appointed as follows: The chairman designated by myself; two further members also designated by myself; and the Marine Development branch; the Fisheries Advisory Council and the Council for National Scientists will each be invited to submit a short list of three names to me, and from each of these lists I shall select two names.

I am determined to do everything in my power to place our fishing industry on a sound footing once again. I trust that the appointment of this special scientific committee consisting of eminent scientists will investigate the problems of the pelagic industry and help me in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to enter into a detailed debate on pelagic fishing in South Africa, but it is interesting to note that while the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted with approval what somebody said in July 1982, that same person, in January 1983, under the heading “Dangerous experiment” criticized the intentions of the hon. the Deputy Minister and in fact said—

Somebody who the hon. the Deputy Minister feels supports his points of view is not as enthusiastic now as he was in July last year.

I was interested in the speech which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information made earlier this afternoon. In an earlier debate during this session an hon. member on that side mentioned that ethnicity was a reality. With that I concurred and I went on to say that that was fine but some people used ethnicity as a rationalization for racism.

The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning during one of the debates this session mentioned that a reason why it was impractical to have Blacks in a fourth chamber in the new constitutional dispensation was that there was not just one Black nation but that there were 10 or more. Therefore one would need 10 or more chambers to accommodate them, which, he said, was obviously impractical.

However, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information today, in responding to Dr. Treurnicht’s speech, said it was impractical to have a Coloured homeland because the Coloureds were not one “volk”. I think he said there were seven groups as per the population register so that one could not have a single homeland for Coloureds. He said that if one were to have a homeland, one would actually have to have seven. In terms of the proposals he supports they will of course have one chamber in the new parliament. How this is to be reconciled with the Coloureds not being one “volk” is a bit beyond me.

Unlike Blacks and Coloureds, the Whites, who come originally from numerous countries scattered around the world and amongst whom there are different languages, different religions and different cultures, are of course treated as one group in this country. Coloureds and Blacks, however, are treated, as we now hear, as seven groups in the case of Coloureds and more than 10 in the case of Blacks. Yet, despite this kind of logic, we are asked to believe that Government policy is not based on skin colour and nothing else in many respects.

The topic I want to talk on in this Part Appropriation debate is something that concerns me greatly and has done so for some while. It is a question of unethical behaviour. I am not referring to the accusations and counter-accusations that have been going on in debates between the CP and the NP members as to who said what when and who is telling the truth today and who not. I am referring to things such as consumer exploitation, bribery and corruption, sharp practices and preferential treatment.

I believe that this occurs in the private and the public sectors and I regret to say that the evidence points to it being on the increase rather than on the decrease. It alienates ordinary citizens from the free enterprise system and also from government at all levels, central government, provincial government and local government. It results also in indifference, cynicism and hostility and that in turn gives rise to a rejection of the free enterprise system, calls for intervention at every turn and the attitude that beating the system, which is often a euphemism for cheating, is morally acceptable.

Let us look at some examples of consumer exploitation and of irritations the consumer has to put up with. I should firstly like to make the general point that the world we live in today is a very complicated one. Many of the products we use are sophisticated and therefore I believe that greater consumer protection is needed. It is not needed so much for relatively low-cost items, consumable items, such as fruit, matches or even clothes, because if one buys the wrong product or if one buys it from the wrong store, one does not have to go back there next time. It will not have cost one a large proportion of one’s income and one will be buying the product again in the near future. Where I believe it is required, however, is in regard to durables such as television sets, washing machines, sewing machines and so on, and also in regard to contracts such as hire-purchase agreements and property leases. Caveat emptor—let the buyer beware—is in 1983 not enough. It is unreasonable, I believe, to expect even a prudent consumer to be in a position to consistently make good decisions. Some progress has been made in this field, but I believe it requires more attention. I accept that the State cannot protect people who are greedy or who are shortsighted, but the reasonable consumer must be given a good chance of obtaining a fair deal.