Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday I was in the process of drawing a few comparisons between the American and South African situations. I began by referring to the intense feelings the ordinary American has for the symbols of his State—for his flag and his national anthem. It is truly impressive. The American flag flies over every building in that country. We find it in every office, and see it fluttering on every occasion. Every dinner commences with a tribute to the flag.

What have you got there on your lapel?

I pinned this little flag to my lapel on purpose today. This is a little flag which I bought in New York. This gives one a good impression of what those people make of a flag. Incidentally, this is the flag of the Republic of South Africa; it is not an American flag. I believe that we should admit, to our own shame, that we do not make enough of our symbols. We do not make enough of our own flag and our own national anthem. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister recently set us a wonderful example at the opening of a new school—I referred to this yesterday—of what we could do in this connection.

In the second place I want to point out that we can never look at our situation in South Africa, politically as well as economically, in isolation from the rest of the world. I believe that South Africa’s immediate future depends to a great extent on what is going to happen in the USA within the next year or two, particularly in regard to the election of a new president. It is interesting that President Reagan has, up to this stage, not yet committed himself in regard to the question of whether he will make himself eligible for re-election. I suspect that the reason for his not having done this is that he first wants to see how the economy of the USA is going to react within the next few months. The problem is that President Reagan’s standing in the USA today is not really as strong as we should like it to be. The reason for this, of course, is that he does not hesitate to do what he considers to be in the interests of his country, and that he also does what he believes to be correct in the public interest; frequently, of course, at the expense of the short-term benefits of his own voters. Another interesting fact is that, halfway through his term of office, he is in fact less popular than the presidents just prior to him were. However, there are also a few things which count in his favour. One of them, of course, is the fact that he is today the undisputed leader of the Republicans, while on the Democrat side there is not really anyone who can occupy the same position. In reality it will be the American economy which will have to prove the decisive factor in the re-election of President Reagan, something which is so important to us.

It is important to us for two reasons. In the first place, I think that the present American policy of “constructive engagement” is in reality a policy of “constructive disengagement”, and it is so in the sense that the Americans are telling us that they are taking cognizance of our policy, that they like the direction in which we are moving with our policy, and that we must carry on in this way; they are watching us. In the second place, the recovery of the American economy will have a substantial influence on the recovery of the Western economy in general, something which in turn will be of the greatest value to us in South Africa. Now it is very interesting to note that there is a far greater interest in South Africa in the USA today than was the case in the recent past. Of course I am not referring now to the UN, which spends R40 million every year on 18 committees, with 200 full-time researchers, to investigate the South African situation. I am referring specifically to the opinion-shapers in the USA, people who in reality have a far greater interest in South Africa now than in the past because of their growing realization that peace and stability in South Africa is just as important to the USA as peace and stability in a country such a El Salvador or elsewhere in the midst of the American countries. There is a careful interest in the possibility that South Africa will be able to work out its own salvation and will be able to find solutions which will be able to offer results different to those which the rest of Africa was able to offer. There is also the realization that Africa’s failure was not only the result of the over-hasty capitulation of the old colonial powers, but that to a great extent it was also the result of the failure to give recognition to—and this the Americans themselves admit—a national identity, or, as they refer to it, the “tribal situation”, which is once again playing such a important part in Zimbabwe.

Last week I found it tremendously interesting to read an article in the Houston Post of 6 April, written by a certain gentleman by the name of Donald Morris, in which he sketched the situation in Zimbabwe. The caption to the article was: “Tension, conflict between Blacks in Zimbabwe breaks into the open”. In this article the author set out the whole situation in full, and at the end made the following interesting statement—

Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that one comes across admissions of this kind in American publications. However, this is something which is happening today.

There is a growing realization that South Africa is neither a Third World nor a First World country, but in fact a combination of the two, and that it should be assessed as such. In various American States today there are efforts at disinvestment. However, these are efforts which are being made for selfish personal gain by certain politicians, and really do not represent the feeling in that part of the world. I want to say that this idea of disinvestment will have a negligible effect on the existing channels and trade relations between the USA and South Africa. There is no doubt that South Africa is of the utmost importance to the USA as far as trade is concerned. In the previous year the USA exported goods to the total value of R2,6 billion to South Africa. What is more, these are high quality products which cannot easily be replaced. The important point, however, is that with the arrival of the American summer the economy of the USA is showing very encouraging signs of improvement and of revival. In its predictions of the economic growth rate the White House has just raised its figure from 3,1% to 4,7%, while their inflation rate is still calculated at 4%. Their industries are also expecting better days, there is a heavy demand for housing and consumer spending is on the increase. These are all signs of a growth in the economy. The National Association of Purchasing Management reported in New York last week that 43% of the people who participated in a random survey expect that there will be growth in the economy. The United States Chamber of Commerce told us that a wonderful spirit of optimism was prevailing in respect of their economy. I am mentioning these points to hon. members in detail to indicate that growth in the American economy will be of the utmost importance to the South African situation and to the hon. the Minister of Finance.

I wish to draw a third comparison as well, and this is in connection with over-concentration and decentralization in connection with which we in South Africa can take an example out of the American situation and emulate it positively. The Americans have precisely the same problem in respect of over-concentration, only they have it on a far larger scale than we do. One need only think of a State like California. The gross domestic product of this State is comparable with that of the sixth largest country in the world. One can think of a city such as Los Angeles with its population of 11 million, which is just as much as the population of the entire Cape Province, including the Transkei and the Ciskei. One can think of a city such as Houston, of which the population is equal to that of the total White population of South Africa. When we think of these things, our problem for the moment does not really seem to be all that serious. However, if one also considers that 80% of South Africa’s economic activity is concentrated in four urban areas of South Africa, then one realizes the tremendous task awaiting the South African Government through the Decentralization Board. Then one cannot but have very great appreciation for the efforts which are being made to obtain a better geographical distribution of the economic development, as well as to obtain a more equal distribution of income between all groups, to obtain closer economic co-operation across our country’s borders, and particularly for the encouragement of the smaller industries. I think one must place on record what the Decentralization Board has done in this connection over the past two years. Approximately 90 000 new employment opportunities have been created, and one cannot but have great appreciation for what is being done in this connection.

I want to conclude by stating this problem. The important question in the development of our economy and the expansion of our decentralization policy is to my mind whether the emphasis should be placed on capital or on labour. This is a very difficult question which this Government is coming to grips with every day. The question has been asked whether it is not counter-productive to make too much available in the form of tax concessions to capital-intensive industries in the form of initial and investment allowances. I think that what the hon. the Minister of Finance announced in this connection in his recent budget speech was a step in the right direction. The emphasis will simply have to shift to labour intensive industries where assistance and tax concessions should be and are in fact being granted. The problem in practice, however, is to maintain a sound balance at all times between capital and labour. In a specific industry it is of no avail if that one specific industry becomes totally labour intensive and then cannot compete with the rest of the industry which has become completely labour-extensive and capital-intensive and mechanized. The same applies to the country in general. It is of no avail our becoming totally labour intensive in this country if we are ultimately unable to compete internationally. In the industry in general it is still frequently being argued today that it would be better to mechanize, even if the initial costs are high, because labour always tends to become more expensive. That is why it is so essential that there should be a correct balance. I think the solution lies in a combination of capital and labour and in the training of our manpower to enable unskilled people to develop to such an extent that they are able to do skilled work.

South Africa has unique problems for which unique solutions have to be found in the political, social and economic spheres. In conclusion, I say that I am absolutely confident that the Government will be able to find those solutions.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat speculated vaguely about the possible economic and political developments abroad that could affect us in future. He also drew certain comparisons between problems and policies in the USA and those in South Africa. I think the statements he made are interesting and at a later stage I may elaborate on them, but I believe that the hon. member will excuse me if, in the limited time at my disposal on this occasion, I do not follow him up on what he said.

As far as his statements concerning the national flag are concerned, we recognize the importance of symbols in the life of every people and nation. We look forward to the day when our South African national flag will be something that all the citizens of South Africa can pay tribute to and honour. Having said that, it is true that whether our national flag is a symbol of unity or one of division depends largely on us who sit in this House, on how we conduct ourselves, in the sense that we either unify our people under that flag or drive them apart, away from the symbolic unity of that flag.

†I wish to return to the budget and raise certain matters which are directly related to it. The budget provides a financial yardstick by which the people of South Africa can measure, amongst other things, the will and the determination of the Government to carry out its policies. The budget determines whether the Government is going to give practical effect to its programmes and policies. Any evaluation of the budget, its financial implications and its fiscal measures must be read in conjunction with the socio-economic and the political policies for which the budget is designed to give effect. So the politics and the socio-economic programmes have to be read together with the financial statement of the hon. the Minister of Finance.

When one views this budget against this comprehensive background, not just of the financial measures, but also of the Government’s socio-economic and political policies, then one finds one outstanding feature. That is that this is a budget which is totally lacking in forward planning. [Interjections.] Let me immediately say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that it is not his fault on his own; he is merely part of a Government that no longer knows where it stands, or where it is going or where it wants to lead South Africa. This budget has been described as a marking-time budget. If it is a marking-time budget, it is not because the Government necessarily wants to stand on one place, but because the Government does not know where it wants to go. I want to show this this afternoon by putting a few points to the Government and the hon. members on the other side in respect of the political direction in which the Government is trying to lead South Africa.

We started this year as the year of reform. The catchword was that reform was the year of 1983. Now in the face of a right wing challenge and three self-inflicted by-elections, the Government is ignominiously running away from reform. It is running away from reform. [Interjections.] I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister: Gone are the stirring days of “adapt or die”; gone are the days when the hon. the Prime Minister to some people looked like a reformer; gone are the days when we were told from public platforms that we could no longer treat Coloured people like lepers. We cannot treat them like lepers on the sports field, because that might damage our image overseas. We cannot treat them like lepers in the work-place either because we need their economic effort. We cannot treat them like lepers in the theatres, museums and libraries because that might suggest a lack of cultural sensitivity. Apparently in our new Cabinet we are not going to treat them like lepers either because we need them to share power, healthily. Apparently, in terms of Government policy—now that the by-elections are on—this ban on treating Coloureds like lepers does not apply to our railway coaches, our cinemas, our beaches, our schools, our residential areas or our marriage altars. This is the distinction that is drawn. When it suits the Government to look like a reformer, we cannot treat the Coloured people like lepers, but when this Government is looking for votes in the “berge”, the admonition that we should not treat them like lepers falls away. [Interjections.] This Government must take a look at itself, and in particular the hon. the Prime Minister, who sets the tone. [Interjections.] He must take a look at the performance of his Cabinet and other hon. members during this session of Parliament. [Interjections.] I believe that it is an absolute disgrace! [Interjections.] We had the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs saying, in fact, that we have to perpetuate apartheid on the suburban trains in Cape Town. Why? Because the status quo will be maintained. Is that reform? We had the hon. the Minister saying that we will have Coloured Ministers and Indian Ministers, but in spite of the fact that they are Cabinet Ministers, at night they will return to their own separate group areas, and that is where they will stay. [Interjections.] Is that reform? We had the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning trying to bring Natal into line as far as beach apartheid is concerned. Hon. members will recall that he said that we wanted harmony on the beaches and that we could only have harmony if we had apartheid. That is treating people like lepers, I suggest. But then we had his great volte-face. He seemed to be saying to the people of South Africa that on the sports fields of South Africa we had to get rid of discrimination, and after the whole of South Africa had applauded him for two days, he then decided that this initial interpretation was wrong. So the Press stated “Heunis retires with a bloodied nose”, because he went on to explain that he had not meant that at all, but that what we would continue to have was apartheid on the sports fields of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Then we had the hon. the Minister of National Education simply telling the voters of South Africa not to worry about the “nuwe bedeling”, because the one thing they wanted to assure the voters of was that in the “nuwe bedeling” we would still have separate schools and separate education departments. [Interjections.] Is this reform?

We had the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, the new leader in the Transvaal, suddenly putting on his “verkrampte” smile. He has two smiles, but this time—with the “berge” battles on the go—we are seeing his “verkrampte” smile. We open the newspapers day after day and see things like: “Vrystaat bly taboe vir Indiërs”. Is that not a wonderful thing for that hon. Minister to announce! [Interjections.] That was a frontpage headline in Die Burger. This great reformer, this smiling “verligte” of the Transvaal, has to assure us that at least the Free State is going to stay free of the Indians. [Interjections.] We have had the hon. the Minister making one “verkrampte” speech after another. [Interjections.]

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

No, I am afraid I do not have the time. The hon. the Minister knows that whilst a very large part of the thrust of the constitutional proposals being put to Coloured and Indian leaders lies in the area of shared responsibility, common departments and single Cabinet Ministries, he and his Transvaal colleagues are going out of their way to say that that is not going to happen. It is said that the key aspect in the constitutional proposals is self-determination for each racial community. There have been disturbing rumours that members of the NP are actually repudiating the guidelines of their own Government. [Interjections.] In a pamphlet entitled “Guidelines for a new Constitutional Dispensation: First Tier” it is quite clearly stated that the following matters are going to constitute areas of common concern: Commerce and industry, transport, constitutional affairs, agriculture, internal affairs, foreign affairs, defence, finance, justice and—leaving this for last—manpower. This has been stated in an official Government publication. We want to know—it is not only “die Berge” at stake, but Waterkloof as well—whether the hon. the Minister accepts that those, at least, are going to be the common areas. Are those the areas in which it is going to be possible to have Cabinet Ministers who are members of any racial community, or are the hon. the Minister and his colleagues going around in “die Berge” saying: “Do not believe that pamphlet; that is put out by the Information Services”?

Yes, it is a misprint!

Is he saying that, that whatever this Government publication says, in terms of NP policy there are not going to be Coloured and Indian Cabinet Ministers? We want to know. We believe that the hon. the Minister must come clean. He must not appear as another Sir De Villiers Graaf. He must tell us whether this pamphlet is correct. Are these the common areas, or are they not the common areas?

You see, Sir, the Government wants it both ways. The Government is back-tracking. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development was instrumental in another banner headline appearing in Die Transvaler of Saturday, namely “Dertig Plase word Verblank”. We now have a new policy, viz. the “Whitification” of the Northern Transvaal. All I want to say is that, at the rate at which the hon. the Minister is going on, if there were more by-elections there would not be any homelands left. [Interjections.] That is what he is doing. I think the hon. the Minister should be ashamed of himself and of what he is doing.

Then the hon. the Minister gave a two-and-a-half-hour address to some unhappy audience and in the end he was reported as saying that there were no differences between the new proposals and the old ones.

I denied that, stupid. [Interjections.]

I am coming to that. The hon. the Minister spoke for two-and-a-half hours and, when it was all over, he had to issue a statement explaining what he did say.

Because some fools did not understand it. [Interjections.]

That after two-and-a-half hours! Can you imagine how many votes he lost for the NP? Can he come along to Waterkloof as well? What did the hon. the Minister say? According to his own statement—

Well, they know more than we do, because we have not seen them yet. I read further—

At the same time what does the hon. the Prime Minister say? He says we are going to have a referendum. [Interjections.] I find it all quite incredible.

The hon. the Prime Minister must come to terms with the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. In fact, the hon. the Prime Minister must come clean with the House. By his decision to have a referendum he has repudiated the undertaking he gave to the House last year. Last year he said—

The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development says he explained to the audience that there were no drastic changes and there was no need to have a referendum. However, the hon. the Prime Minister went back on his undertaking to the House in another way. Let me quote what he said.

Are you against the referendum?

I shall come to that. The hon. the Prime Minister said that after the referendum …

Are you against the referendum?

The hon. the Prime Minister must not run away. He will get his opportunity next week. All I want to say is that the hon. the Prime Minister is in one unholy political mess in his party and is now trying to fight his way out of it. I have known him as a political fighter. But this time he is using the constitution of South Africa in order to try to extricate his party from the mess in which it finds itself. Last year he said—

Last year he said two specific things. He said, firstly, that it had to be a drastic change before we have a referendum. So now he is admitting that there is a drastic change, and the public of South Africa is entitled to know what the drastic changes are before the by-elections take place on 10 May. Secondly, he said to this House last year that he would first have a referendum and then come back to the House for the House to decide on the legislation. Now, however, he says that we must first pass the legislation through this House and then have a referendum. You see, Sir, the referendum, the Second Reading or Third Reading of the legislation has nothing to do with the process of constitutional reform. It has to do with the political problems of the NP. That is what it has to do with. This Government is running away from every implication of its policy. I want to put it specifically to the hon. the Prime Minister that he is trying to hide from his voters, from his supporters, the consequences of bringing Coloureds and Indians into the sharing of political power and the decision-making process.

I have heard informally, and one hears it very often, that nothing is going to change; that there will be Coloured Members of Parliament in separate Houses but that the Mixed Marriages Act, the Group Areas Act or the educational system will not change. One hears that these things are not going to change. I say that either the hon. the Prime Minister is bluffing the White people of South Africa and that things are going to change, or he is bluffing the Coloured people of South Africa, and that things are not going to change. This Government cannot have it both ways. If the hon. the Prime Minister thinks that he can bring Coloured and Indian people into the decision-making process in Parliament…

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member sees this purely as an attempt on my part to save my party, is he going to participate in the referendum, “yes” or “no”?

There will be time next week when we discuss the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote … [Interjections.] This has nothing to do with the issue. Here we have had the hon. the Prime Minister who—no disrespect is intended—grew up as a party organizer and as party politician. [Interjections.] This will be dealt with next week by my hon. leader.

I put you a decent question. Please reply to it.

This will be dealt with in the fullness of time. What we are saying to the hon. the Prime Minister is that he is deliberately delaying the publishing of this Bill. This Bill was promised for early this year. I say the hon. the Prime Minister is deliberately delaying a debate on this Bill in this House until after the by-elections. I say the hon. the Prime Minister is trying to take the constitutional issue out of the by-elections because he knows he has severe problems within his own party on this issue.

You are a member of the Select Committee. So you should know better.

Which Select Committee?

The Select Committee on the Constitution.

This matter has never been referred to a Select Committee. I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister—he has a week to think about it—that he tells us whether I am wrong when I say that there are not going to be any changes. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us next week what changes in his policy of apartheid is he prepared to contemplate when the Coloureds and Indians become Members of Parliament.

Will they be allowed to eat in our dining room?

Yes, for example, will they be able to eat in our dining room?

What about the referendum?

I am not the leader of this party. When the hon. the Prime Minister announces the terms of the referendum we will make a decision on this. Is the hon. the Prime Minister prepared to change his policy away from apartheid when Coloureds and Indians become members of Parliament? This is a simple question. If he and his colleagues go around the country suggesting that apartheid can remain intact and that we can carry on with the old order as before, with the same degree of discrimination and apartheid, then I say that he is not only going to destroy the whole process of reform in South Africa but that he is also going to destroy his new constitution. That is what it is about. So the hon. the Prime Minister, under the impact of three by-elections, is running away and back-tracking. Here is the man—I give him credit from the side of the Opposition—who did respond to the pressures of change and who did indicate that South Africa had to start adapting or dying. But now, suddenly, in order to try to save the NP, it appears that South Africa instead of adapting is going to have to die.

We say to the hon. the Prime Minister that this Government is acting in a completely irresponsible way and that in fact it is damaging, if not destroying, the whole process of reform in South Africa, and in the long run, instead of having agreement and unity in South Africa, this Government is going to cause confrontation and conflict.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point says that this Government runs away from reform. But this Government has never flinched from its responsibilities. Moreoever, this Government has never undertaken to bring about Prog reform in this country. We will bring about reform, but according to the recipe of the NP. PFP reform is demonstrated in countries in Africa…

Where?

… of which Zimbabwe is the most important … Just ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. He called Zimbabwe a “miracle” of co-operation. His words had scarcely been uttered when what happened? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point suggests that unless everything in this country is given away on a platter, it is not reform. Incidentally, I see that at his party’s congress in Port Elizabeth somebody moved a motion concerning the Group Areas Act, and Die Burger of 11 November 1982 reports on this as follows—

This is what one can call “sham reform”. As they all did, the hon. member runs away from the financial implications of the budget, to the referendum. Why? It is because they are afraid of a referendum and because such a referendum is going to result in the greatest crisis of survival in the existence of the official Opposition. Yes, that is so. Yesterday I listened carefully to the hon. member for Yeoville.

What is the question in the referendum going to be? [Interjections.]

The question will be “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.] Actually I want to express a little political sympathy with the hon. member for Yeoville. In his speech yesterday the hon. member was in fact seeking a reason why he wanted to say “yes” to the reform which is being proposed by the Government.

But what is the question?

The hon. member will get the question when it is time.

How can one answer a question if one does not even know what the question is?

It will be a simple question. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. member that there is an easy solution to the problem put by him yesterday about the third group of people, and he supplied that solution himself, in the Sunday Times of 16 January 1983, when he asked a few questions. He asked for example: “In any case, what is reform?” His next question was—

If the hon. member for Yeoville would now apply this same attitude to himself, then he would have the answer.

I want to know the question. How can I answer without knowing what the quesiton is?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to come to the budget as such. The hon. member for Yeoville usually puts up a good performance, even if he has a bad case. But in this debate he really disappointed us. Right at the outset the hon. member quoted selectively from a magazine which he does not even want to name. Naturally his quotes were unflattering, because they dealt with “unfortunate consequences of hard times”. That is why the hon. member quoted them. But on the reverse side of the same page, the same magazine, namely page 26 of the Financial Mail of 1 April 1983, Dr. Johan van Zyl, the managing director of the S.A. Chamber of Industries, a well-known authority in this field, says the following—

Mr. Speaker, it could have increased the credibility of the hon. member’s argument a great deal if he had also quoted that and proved it wrong. However, the hon. member’s problem is that Dr. Van Zyl is correct and that the hon. member knows it.

The hon. member suggested certain plans. He says, for example, that we should partially abandon certain taxes, inter alia, the surcharge on imports, general sales tax and certain ad valorem taxes, and that we must replace the loss of income by way of loans. In the present circumstances this is the very worst plan imaginable. Firstly, by doing that, the State will forfeit part of its revenue. In any case, loans have to be paid back with interest. Secondly, it is a fact that internal loans push up interest rates, while higher interest rates, in turn, stifle business. Thirdly, it is a fact that financing of this nature, of the nature suggested by the hon. member, is still to a degree inflationary, because the person from whom or the agency from which one borrows still remains creditworthy and keeps on spending. The interest which has to be paid and which passes directly into the money flow, is also inflationary. Foreign loans are, of course, totally inflationary. In other words, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. member’s proposal one in fact undermines precisely what one is seeking to combat. Through his insistence on loans, the hon. member makes an important admission and that is the fact that State finances in South Africa are creditworthy, due to effective and correct management. I thank the hon. member for that admission. The fact of the matter is that if one takes into account the economic situation in the Western World—including all South Africa’s trading partners—South Africa is indeed privileged to be able, at a time such as this, to introduce a budget like this one of 1983-’84. Let us for a moment forget the critics and the pundits—positive and negative—and note the reaction of an impartial, objective medium such as the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, where an immediate favourable reaction set in in respect of gold shares, with 49 increases and no decreases.

The gold price has nothing to do with that. [Interjections.]

On 1 April 1983 it is reported in Die Burger that the shares owe their growth in the main to the previous Wednesday’s favourable budget.

And you believe Die Burger?

Mr. Speaker, with a budget such as this the attitude of the hon. member for Yeoville was indeed predictable. As has been the case with the last few budgets the hon. member vented his spleen about inflation, while knowing full well that the Government was doing everything possible that can be expected of any government to combat inflation without crippling the economy further and causing a still greater increase in unemployment.

On Friday 25 February 1983 we conducted a special debate on inflation in this House on the basis of a motion moved by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. It was an excellent opportunity for the hon. member for Yeoville to make a positive contribution here with regard to the solution of that question. However, the hon. member sat there in his bench, and what is more he sat there sulking, and the only contribution he could make was to allege in this House on the following Monday, in my absence, that allegedly said that at the moment we had the lowest unemployment figure of all time.

That is how it appeared in your Hansard. Therefore you know that it is true. [Interjections.]

No, just wait a minute. I never said that. My Hansard proves it too. The hon. member is welcome to go and read it. I refer him to column 1888. [Interjections.]

You changed your Hansard. [Interjections.]

Order! In what respect can the hon. member for Yeoville prove that the hon. the Deputy Minister changed his Hansard?

Mr. Speaker, I had his unrevised Hansard, which is what I referred to in this House. I quoted from the unrevised Hansard. There is a letter from the hon. the Deputy Minister to me in regard to this. There is also a letter from Hansard in regard to this matter. The unrevised Hansard was altered because the hon. the Deputy Minister contended that he had not said what reported there. I quoted from the unrevised Hansard. I have it here. I have the proof in my possession. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not say on Monday that he had quoted from that. However, we need not go into that any further. My Hansard is there for anyone to read. [Interjections.] I may just add that my speech is still on tape. The hon. member can go and listen to it. The speech of the hon. member is also still on tape. I made certain that it had not yet been wiped out. Recordings of both the speeches are still available on tape. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Yeoville allowed to allege by way of insinuation that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance effected substantive changes to his Hansard? After all, this is the impression the hon. member is creating. It is common practice that alterations are made to hon. members’ Hansard, but alterations which are not of a substantive nature. However, the impression that is being created by the hon. member for Yeoville is that substantive changes were effected to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s Hansard, something that would not be permissible. I think the hon. member for Yeoville owes this House an explanation.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this matter? The situation was that the unrevised Hansard was used by me in respect of this matter. I was subsequently informed that the hon. the Deputy Minister contended he had not said this. I then said that if he wanted to offer an explanation in the House I would have no objection to that. Be it as it may, Mr. Speaker, I have the hon. the Deputy Minister’s unrevised Hansard here, and that is what I relied on. If the hon. the Deputy Minister says he did not say it, I am quite happy to accept his word. [Interjections.]

The reality of the matter is, however, that according to his unrevised Hansard the hon. the Deputy Minister is reported to have said that it was “die laagste werkloosheid van alle tye”. That is what I referred to in my speech. I invited the hon. the Deputy Minister to state on a point of personal explanation that that was not what he had said. However, he must not tell me that he did not say what I referred to in his unrevised Hansard. That is the only point that I am making and that is the reality of the situation. I have no objection to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s denying that that was what he said. However, he in his turn must also not say that the unrevised Hansard which I have here does not say what it does say. It is here in black and white.

I did not say that.

Order! Was the hon. member for Yeoville aware of the fact that the unrevised Hansard had been changed by the hon. the Deputy Minister?

After the event, yes. After I had quoted from his unrevised Hansard, my attention was drawn to the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister contended that he had not said it.

Does the hon. member now accept the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister did not say it?

Yes, Sir. I accept the word of the hon. the Deputy Minister. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister must also accept the fact that I was relying on his unrevised Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Yeoville stated categorically that the hon. the Deputy Minister had changed his Hansard. [Interjections.] In the light of what the hon. member has now said, I believe that he should withdraw this categorical statement.

No. The hon. member for Yeoville said very clearly that the Hansard had been changed. It appears that the unrevised Hansard contained certain words which were subsequently changed by the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. member for Yeoville says that he now accepts it as such and with that the matter is closed. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

On a point of explanation: That is not correct. I approached Hansard and asked them to listen to the tape because I had not said what appeared in the unrevised version. They then listened to it and changed the Hansard according to the tape. The tape is available and that of the hon. member for Yeoville is also available. [Interjections.] Hansard also wrote the hon. member for Yeoville a letter in which it was said, inter alia … [Interjections.]—

†That is my speech—

[Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon. member for Yeoville admit that that is indeed the contents of the letter from which the hon. the Deputy Minister has just quoted?

Yes.

Then it is quite evident that the Hansard was not changed but that the hon. the Deputy Minister was incorrectly reported. In other words, his Hansard was not changed but was corrected.

Mr. Speaker, is there a difference between “changing” and “correcting”? [Interjections.] I should like to make a further quotation from the letter from Hansard which the hon. the Deputy Minister did not quote, namely—

I am in no pickle. [Interjections.] I replied saying that I had nothing to explain. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must allow the hon. member for Yeoville to make his explanation.

When I made my speech in this House I quoted from the hon. the Deputy Minister’s unrevised Hansard. That is the only fact I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept. He says now that I misquoted him. How can I misquote him when I am quoting from a document issued by Hansard? [Interjections.] That is the whole point. For the hon. the Prime Minister to say “Dit is ’n gemene ding”, is not only unparliamentary but it is also quite an objectionable remark for the hon. the Prime Minister to make. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville suggests that there is no difference between “correcting” and “changing”. The Chair maintains that there is a definite difference. As I see it, the unrevised version was corrected by the hon. the Deputy Minister. It was not changed. Therefore I must ask the hon. member for Yeoville to withdraw the word “changed”.

Sir, I accept your ruling and withdraw it.

The question of the referendum which has been announced has been referred to here a great deal, and I just want to say that the announcement of the referendum will assume a place of cardinal importance in the history of South Africa. In the process it will also clearly define the political motivation of the participating parties. The NP is constantly engaged in planning and arguing why we will succeed and survive in this country. The radical elements within the PFP, the CP and the HNP are constantly arguing and propagating why we in this country will succumb. This is the basic difference between the approach of the NP on the one hand and the extremist element on the other. It is therefore the difference between the “yes” people and the “no” people.

There are three aspects of the budget to which I want to refer briefly. The first is the extraordinary aid which the agricultural sector is receiving in a time of crisis. The enourmous amount of R371 million has been transferred to the Tax Reserve Account inter alia for the purpose of dealing with the drought crisis. Napoleon’s trust in State finances based on a good agricultural system is till a valid statement to this day. We who guide Black people to independence realize the truth of this statement more and more.

There is no industry which employs more people with less money, and in this regard, too, agriculture as such has a contribution to make, and is already doing so. A few weeks ago I visited the town Reivilo in the Northern Cape where, the farmers, as an emergency measure, had started a co-operative dairy factory in 1937. Today it is a modern and flourishing business employing 385 people. The important point I want to make, is that that co-operative has started providing services across the border to Bophuthatswana’s Black farmers. At the moment matters have progressed to such a degree that the first pilot plant for the mass supply of milk by Black farmers is under construction. During some of the summer months there are in fact more Black farmers supplying milk than White farmers. [Interjections.] The constant and reliable service rendered by the co-operative is a stimulus and contributes towards the settlement and expansion of that particular agricultural industry in the young State. On a small scale the co-operative is setting a giant example to establish agriculture in that young Black State as a basis for prosperity and stability.

The second point to which I want to refer, is the Small Business Development Corporation. One of the major factors contributing to inflation in South Africa is the lack of competition. South Africa’s market is too small to house a large number of competing macro-undertakings. Competition among more, but smaller entrepreneurs, if at all possible, is therefore the answer. Employers with businesses in which most or all of the employees are known by their first names, offer the key to another important facet in our economic life, and that is stability by way of personal contact and self-interest. Self-interest is the soul of stability, and this budget underlines it. That is the reason for the contribution of R5 million to the Corporation. I think the time has come for the small business sector itself to play a bigger role in the expansion of the activities of the Corporation, also in respect of the technical sphere and the field of extension.

The final aspect of this budget to which I should like to refer, is the interest subsidy on new dwellings for homeowners. I note that this is referred to in the Press as an “imaginative” plan to help young people to acquire their own home. I think that the scheme can indeed be regarded as being “imaginative”. The mere fact that it is being limited to new houses with a maximum purchase price of R50 000 underlines a few important aspects. Firstly, it helps the middle income group to acquire a house. Secondly, it contributes actively to increasing the number of houses and in that way eases the tremendous pressure on prices. Thirdly, it will of necessity stimulate the building industry, especially the small builder, and in that way give rise to greater employment. Because the purchase price of dwelling units is limited to R50 000 I note that it is being suggested in certain building society circles that the measure is aimed at encouraging non-White housing. Although the non-Whites are also included, for certain reasons this is not the case. In many rural White areas one can still build a house for less than R50 000. It is also possible in urban White areas, if young people are prepared to forego luxuries, and there are still young people who are prepared to do that. This scheme lends itself ideally to the idea of core housing—in other words, that one builds what one can afford at present, and then adds on as one’s means improve. In the past building societies specialized in the financing of housing, and they did so effectively. If in future building societies were to become imaginatively involved as developers or joint developers of new housing projects of this nature, then this industry could look forward to a great future in this field. They have the experience; they have the skills and they have the financial ability to be able to do it.

These are just three aspects of the budget, just a few facets of a budget which was very judiciously presented under difficult circumstances. These are aspects which can in the long term make enormous contributions to development and stability in this country. I now challenge the hon. member for Yeoville to go to the ordinary businessman and to tell him that the development of the small business sector is a non-event, or to go to the thousands of young married couples and to tell them that State aid to acquire a home of their own is a non-event, or even to go to the thousands of farmers of South Africa to tell them that State aid to enable them to survive is a non-event. [Interjections.] To label the 1983 budget as a “non-event budget” reveals a total lack of insight and experience of the problems of the specific time in which South Africa finds itself.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance. Recently we have seen many headlines and announcements in newspapers about the aid that farmers are to receive. Today we heard for the first time what that amount is, i.e. R371 million. [Interjections.] Yes, there are a few small amounts in addition. However, this is a drop in the ocean in comparison with the debt the farmers find themselves in. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave no indication of what the Government is going to do in order to alleviate the basic causes of the problem, viz. the tremendous cost inputs and the increases in cost inputs. This is the heart of the problem. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister must answer one question for us today. In this R371 million which is to be granted to the farmers going to be granted at the same interest rate as the loans which are being made available to the Black farmers in the national States, or will they be granted at a higher interest rate? We have no objection to Black farmers being assisted, but at what interest rate are they obtaining their loans, and at what interest rate are the White farmers obtaining their loans?

The hon. the Deputy Minister could not explain away the fact that during the past year interest rates have reached record hights in the history of South Africa. He said nothing to explain away the fact that ordinary couples who have purchased a house are now paying almost 50% more per month on the loan they made two years ago. His speech does not detract from the fact that the tariffs of the SATS and Escom have increased by 30% during the past year. His speech did not explain why, for the first time since 1948, Whites in South Africa have been dismissed from their work. That is a fact. It has happened.

Where were they dismissed?

For the first time during this years session the hon. the Minister of Finance compared South Africa with countries of the Third World and not with the countries of the First World, as has always been the case. Nor did the hon. the Deputy Minister advance any reasons to explain why, whereas South Africa had a record growth rate of 8% two years ago, it is now in the red and is showing a negative growth rate. The basic and most important reason for this is the political instability which the Government is in the process of creating in South Africa. [Interjections.] Of course!

I listened very carefully to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Today he let the cat out of the bag. He revealed something. He was annoyed with the hon. member for Sea Point because he was speaking about the referendum. He told him not to speak about the referendum, but to speak about finance. In doing so, the hon. the Deputy Minister revealed something. He revealed that the discord in that party … [Interjections.]

The discord is on that side.

One of their reasons for holding the referendum is that they are hoping that there will be discord in the ranks of the poor PFP, and that perhaps the NP may be saved in that way. This was obvious from the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Your party was born out of discord.

We are not going to ask the Government what should be discussed. We wish to discuss the referendum. This referendum will be about the Government’s constitutional proposals. What the Government is envisaging at the moment is the most far-reaching constitutional change in South Africa this century.

That is true.

The hon. member for Innesdal says that it is true. I am pleased that he agrees. At the beginning of this century we had a radical constitutional change at the Peace of Vereeniging. That was when the people and South Africa lost their sovereignty. However, they lost it to the force of arms of the mightiest power in the world. Now the Whites are once again going to lose their sovereignty, but this time they are going to do so voluntarily. It is going to be done voluntarily by a Government which is too weak, too faint-hearted and too powerless to maintain that sovereignty. Let me tell you what the difference is. At the Peace of Vereeniging the generals, even though they had been defeated by force of arms, still had enough fighting spirit left to force Britain to write into the peace treaty that Whites and non-Whites would not have a shared franchise in the two Republics. That is why this constitutional change is more drastic than that of 1902, since apart from giving up our sovereignty, we are going to have political integration and a multiracial Government as well. [Interjections.] Of course!

After the announcement of the referendum of 1961 on becoming a Republic, South Africa was excited. There was rejoicing among the people. A shiver of excitement ran through South Africa. However, what is happening now? There is no sign of interest. One does not even hear people speaking about the forthcoming referendum. What is the reason for this? [Interjections.] Why is there a difference? The difference is that with the referendum of 1960, the people were being asked to vote “Yes” for freedom, whereas now the people are being asked to vote “Yes” for giving away that freedom. That is why there will be no interest in or excitement about this referendum, and I wish to state unequivocally—we do not need to hold any committee meetings or any other kinds of meetings—that the CP will vote against the proposals of the Government in the referendum. [Interjections.] I wish to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to consult all the political parties in South Africa when the question is formulated to which “Yes” or “No” has to be replied. [Interjections.] They should be consulted in order to ensure that the voters will have the greatest degree of clarity concerning what they have to vote about.

The announcement of the referendum by the hon. the Prime Minister was a very meaningful announcement. The hon. member for Sea Point referred to the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister had said last year during the congress in Bloemfontein that a referendum would not be held because no drastic changes were going to take place. However, he has now announced a referendum, thereby acknowledging that there are drastic deviations.

Ferdi, you have strayed a long way since you left me. You are not yourself. Colin has done better than you have.

The hon. the Prime Minister has thereby acknowledged that there is a drastic deviation. One should also ask oneself why the Government has performed another volte-face since last year. This change in the Government’s attitude may firstly be ascribed to the fact that the CP has compelled them to call a referendum. The CP has compelled the Government to do so, particularly in the by-elections. That is why we will not allow the emphasis to be shifted from the constitutional dispensation in the by-elections. We wish to fight the by-elections on the constitutional dispensation and on nothing else.

Secondly, the announcement by the Government that a referendum is to be held is a desperate and panic-stricken attempt to alleviate the discord which exists in the NP. [Interjections.] One need not doubt that the NP is panic-stricken. There are excellent illustrations of that. There is the example of the interdict they requested last week. After the judge had dismissed the case with costs, the party which governs the country called upon the magistrate. They took their appeal from a judge to a magistrate!

That is absolute nonsense.

I wish to ask those hon. members whether they do not want to go a step further and call upon the chief law enforcement officer in Nylstroom, viz. the chief speed cop. Perhaps he will be merciful. However, it will be of no use, since he has more sense in his head than the whole Cabinet put together.

There is a second illustration of the state of panic in which the Government finds itself. Initially, the President’s Council made no recommendations in its reports concerning first-tier government, but it did make recommendations about second-tier and third-tier government. The Government takes no decisions about those matters concerning which recommendations have been made; instead, it takes decisions about those matters concerning which no recommendations have been made. After the Government has taken its decision, the President’s Council issues a report which is in agreement with the Government’s decisions. Surely this is topsy-turvy government of the worst kind.

There is a third illustration of the Government’s panic. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said at the beginning of the year that the Bill would be introduced before the recess. Subsequently, however, he said that the Bill would be introduced immediately after the recess, and now he is saying that he does not think it will be possible to introduce the Bill before the end of this month. [Interjections.] Of course the hon. the Minister said that. Look at him running away now. I would not be surprised if the Bill were only introduced after 10 May. Nor would I be surprised if it were only introduced after the referendum, because the Government is afraid. They are afraid to go to the voters. Where is that Bill? We want it. We want to show it to the voters in Waterberg, Soutpansberg, Waterkloof and Carletonville. We want it. Please give it to us.

But people who are afraid do not go to the country.

Never mind; you have never been anything but afraid.

Last night we saw some more proof of the fact that they are panic-stricken, viz. that for at least the fourth time Soekmekaar is going to become a White area. This is the fourth time that the Government has announced the same thing, and in between they have announced it a number of times on television as well.

Surely this is a panic-stricken Government. The Government has been unnerved by the policy of the CP in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians. At first they said that we did not have a policy. Then they said that our policy could not work. At a later stage they produced all kinds of misrepresentations by saying that the Coloured State would consist of 620 areas. That is not true. We did not say 620 areas. There are not even 620 separate Coloured areas in South Africa. That is the number of group areas there are, but many of them are adjacent to one another. We are saying that the Coloured rural areas, plus the large group areas in the Cape, in Kimberley and in Port Elizabeth, will form the main area of the Coloured State. Those areas constitute a surface area as large as that of Lebowa and they have the same number of inhabitants as Lebowa. Already more than half of the Coloureds in this country are living in that area. The other towns, the group areas, like the Black townships outside the homelands, will be treated like towns in White South Africa.

Where will they have their civil rights?

They will have their civil rights in their homeland.

But they are living here in the White area.

Where do the Black people who live in Potchefstroom and Ikageng have their civil rights and who governs them? That hon. Minister does not understand these things.

And what will be the position of the rural areas?

The same as that of the Black man who lives on the farm. Precisely the same; there will be no difference.

Did Dr. Verwoerd advocate that?

I shall come to Dr. Verwoerd in a moment. Furthermore, we say that the people will have the right to extend that area by purchasing land, and that will be their decision, not ours. The NP says that they are the people who are advocating change. But when they come to Waterberg, they turn around and say that it is the CP that has changed, not the NP. I ask: How can one reform without change? One cannot. The truth is that both we and the NP have changed. However, the NP has changed from separate development to integration. The CP, on the other hand, has changed in the direction of a greater degree of self-determination. The CP still stands for the same kind of change we have always stood for, whereas the NP stands for a different kind of change. They stand for change in the direction of integration. That is the difference. That is why the NP finds itself in the middle of the road, like all parties that accept integration in South Africa. That is why they show all the characteristics of all the parties that have accepted integration in South Africa, i.e. double talk and vacillation. Before an election they swerve to the right and then they succumb to the advancing tortoises. After an election they swerve to the left again, and then they are crowded from the rear by the Progs. This is the position into which they have manoevred themselves.

I say that the NP has changed. [Interjections.] In 1970, a senior NP Minister at that time, Minister M. C. Botha, advocated a homeland for Coloured people at a conference on the Witwatersrand. Hoofstad carried a front page report about it. The newspapers phoned the MPs. I have here a report which appeared in Rapport of 6 December 1970. It says—

Some of those members of Parliament are no longer with us, but I am going to mention the names of those who are still sitting in this House. One of them is Jan van Zyl of Sunnyside; another one is Daan van der Merwe of Rissik; a third is your obedient servant. Sir, of Lichtenburg, and the fourth one is advocate Louis Nel of Pretoria Central. [Interjections.] I am saying, Sir, that the NP is a double-talking party.

What about the manifesto which you endorsed?

The hon. member has never understood that manifesto. In it we referred to the division of power and not to power-sharing.

Sir, at the beginning of this session, in the no-confidence debate, the leader of the Opposition asked the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development whether there was going to be power-sharing under the new dispensation. The hon. the Minister’s reply to that was “yes”. Some time afterwards an NP rally was held and the speaker on that occasion was the present hon. Minister of Internal Affairs. He said it was time—

He went on to say—

The report I have here goes on to say—

Read the rest of it too. [Interjections.] You are quoting selectively.

No, Sir, I am not quoting selectively. What is unclear about this? Here in this House the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development said that the proposals amounted to mixed Government and power-sharing, and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs nodded his head to indicate that he agreed with that. But at this meeting, outside this House, he says that these are lies. To the question of whether there will be Coloured or Indian Ministers in the Cabinet, they reply in this House that there will be. In this little blue book of theirs they say that Coloureds and Indians will be able to become Ministers. But when Minister Hendrik Schoeman holds a meeting at Wilgerivier, he tells the Water-bergers: “Never; not as long as the NP is in power.” What does he subsequently say to the Sunday Times? To the Sunday Times he says that he did not say this, but that he said that they could become Ministers, but were not competent to do so. In Soutpansberg and Waterberg they go around telling people that this is only possible in theory. In practice it will not happen. I say that the NP is guilty of double talk. As far as the President’s Council is concerned, this blue book says on page 7 that the President’s Council must have the right to take the final decision in the event of disagreements between the chambers and that this right of decision will be binding upon all parties. On Sunday, however, I read in Rapport that Minister Fanie Botha had said at Louis Trichardt—

I ask: What is the NP up to? Whom do they think they are bluffing?

Are you quoting that report correctly?

Who wrote the report? It was written by Mr. Thinus Prinsloo. A little further down he writes that in addition to advisory powers, the President’s Council will have decision-making powers as well. So this newspaperman knew what he was talking about. I say that the Minister whom he interviewed deliberately gave him the wrong information, just as is being done in Waterberg at the moment. When they go to Carletonville, Soutpansberg and Waterberg, they talk about self-determination, but when the hon. member for Benoni, who got so worked up a short while ago, is interviewed by a magazine in America, he says—

In this country they talk about self-determination; in America they talk about a coalition rather than a federation …

Not a federation …

Sir, that hon. Minister needs another R20 to fix him up.

Just look at the double talk about the question of where Coloured and Indian Ministers are going to live. Minister Schoeman says in this Parliament that they will live in their own areas. The Minister of Community Development, on the other hand, says that the question has not yet been decided. I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development has to say about this. Where does he say those people are going to live? But we shall not easily get an answer out of him. Nor will they give an answer now. They will only speak after 11 May; or perhaps only after the referendum. In the Railway debate, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs tells us in a dramatic way of all the separate facilities on the Railways. But let us look at this beautiful document issued by the Transvaal NP in Die Kruithoring under the title of “Die Nasionalis aan die werk”. Here a big meeting of office-bearers and workers was held, at which everyone was briefed. And who attended that meeting? The Chairman was the hon. P. G. J. Koornhof. The leader of the NP in the Transvaal opened the meeting, while the policy guidance was provided by Dr. Willem de Klerk. Communications and methodology were expounded by Mr. Vlok, MP, and Mr. James Cunningham. The organization of the party was explained by Dr. Pieterse and Mr. Hanekom. These people are all NP supporters. Now I ask the NP members: Do they still support what is said in this publication? Do they still support that, or are they running away from it?

I shall reply to you in the course of the debate.

I should be very glad if the hon. the Minister would do that. It is reminiscent of what happened at Goudini, when Prof. Koos Roelofse bowled the NP over with Wilgespruit methods within the space of one and a half days, persuading them to support things which they had questioned in the past. They speak of separate residential areas, but this publication says that when they talk to the voters, they must tell them that it is essential that facilities be shared. They say they are courageously moving into the future, but in this publication they tell the workers of the NP to dishearten people; to make them feel despondent about the numerical superiority. These are the people of the Transvaal.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he approves of the idea that the people of the Transvaal should be disheartened. [Interjections.] I ask the hon. the Prime Minister what he thinks would have happened if Andries Pretorius’ commando leaders had told the Voortrekkers at Blood River: “Just see how vastly we are outnumbered.” What would have happened if they had disheartened the people even before Andries Pretorius could start fighting? [Interjections.]

The NP says it is moving into the future with courage. Meanwhile, they are disheartening the hon. the Prime Minister’s soldiers in the Transvaal. [Interjections.] They are disheartening them, but in spite of that the NP alleges that it is moving into the future with courage.

See how despondent FW is.

Mr. Speaker, we all witnessed the challenge issued by the hon. the Minister of Manpower to the leader of the CP. In Waterberg, however, the hon. the Minister says that he was not the one who challenged the hon. the leader of the CP, but that the challenge came from Dr. Treurnicht himself. [Interjections.] Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? [Interjections.] It is not in Hansard. The hon. the Minister said so in Waterberg. [Interjections.] Just look at that, Mr. Speaker; now they are all saying so. Now they are all saying that the hon. the Minister is right. [Interjections.] Just like a flock of sheep, Mr. Speaker. When one breaks away the rest all follow. This is what the indoctrination at Hartebeespoort and Goudini has done to them. They do not think for themselves any more; they simply follow their leader. [Interjections.]

In Soutpansberg the hon. the Minister for Manpower tells the voters that this publication contains a lot of printing errors. He says that not everything contained in it is quite correct. I have a question on the Order Paper, and the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning can reply to it tomorrow. I am telling him in advance, so that he may know the circumstances under which he will have to reply to this. He must tell us tomorrow whether this publication contains the true policy of the NP. He must also tell us whether it contains any printing errors. Mr. Speaker, I submit that they are running away from their own creation. They are just like Eulenspiegel, who tried to run away from his own shadow. However, they cannot get away from it. The CP and the voters of South Africa will see to that. [Interjections.]

You are worse than a standard six pupil.

I am prepared to concede that, Mr. Speaker. But the hon. the Minister cannot even pass that examination. [Interjections.] I want to make a final statement.

You really are playing the ball, aren’t you?

I have been playing the ball all along. [Interjections.] Of course. Mr. Speaker, do you see the situation we have here? There is double talk from the hon. members of the NP. However, they play the man when he is silent about that. One is not allowed to say that FW said this at one place and that at another. One is not allowed to say that; then one is accused of playing the man.

When you say that a man would not pass standard six are you alleging that you are still playing the ball?

Yes, that is correct. You are engaging in double talk. That is why you cannot pass standard six. [Interjections.] I want to conclude with a final thought.

Order! Who is FW?

Mr. Speaker, it is the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Then would the hon. member address him as such?

I shall, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] Coming to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the NP has the characteristics of a party which has accepted integration, a party which is ambivalent. The NP is a political hermaphrodite. It tries to be all things to all men. [Interjections.] I want to inquire of the hon. member for Roodepoort what he would do if the hon. the Prime Minister were to appoint the hon. member for Houghton to the Cabinet. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, do you think it is possible that Dr. Verwoerd could have done such a thing? Surely it is not possible. [Interjections.]

What would hon. members of the NP do if the hon. the Prime Minister were to appoint the hon. member for Houghton to the Cabinet? [Interjections.]

Order!

Never mind, I shall tell hon. members what would happen then. Half of them would leave. Half of them have not yet been indoctrinated to that point. [Interjections.]

Now the hon. the Prime Minister is perhaps going to appoint the Rev. Alan Hendrickse to the Cabinet. The hon. member for Houghton is tame. She has never been restricted. The Rev. Alan Hendrickse has been restricted. He was restricted in 1976 because he helped to instigate riots. He is going to become a member of the Cabinet.

Where was he banned?

The hon. the Minister can go and check on that.

But you know that is not true.

Mr. Speaker, the Rev. Alan Hendrickse has told the hon. the Prime Minister in advance that he does not agree with these things. He has told the hon. the Prime Minister that he is entering into this dispensation in order to achieve his objective, i.e. of involving the Blacks as well. He has also told the hon. the Prime Minister that he is going to advocate sanctions, even if he is a member of the Cabinet. Here I have the Financial Mail, which reports that the Rev. Alan Hendrickse said that while serving in the Cabinet, he would advocate sanctions as an additional means of achieving his purpose. He says his economic policy is socialist rather than communist. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to participate in this debate after the style of the hon. member for Lichtenburg. When one listens to the hon. member for Lichtenburg, one would never say that little more than a year ago he was serving in the Cabinet where he accepted co-responsibility for certain things that happened there, where he represented a maize constituency such as Lichtenburg, where he made a contribution on the inputs in connection with costs in the agricultural industry. What did the hon. member do there all these years? Did he do nothing? What is the hon. member trying to do today? He is trying to misuse the emergency which is prevailing in the country as a result of the drought. This Government does not cause the rain to fall. He is trying to exploit this situation here in a certain way, as if there are only certain inputs in agriculture which have to be taken into consideration. What did the hon. member do all those years if he is now unable to reconcile his behaviour with his conscience? Then the hon. member tells us about division and dissension in our ranks. I want to reassure the hon. member. Since they left the NP there has been unanimity in the NP. [Interjections.] The hon. member has now explained to this House how they, while they were in the NP—hon. members like the hon. member for Sunnyside, the hon. member for Rissik and the leader of that party—were engaged in propagating homelands and were being the accomplices of the HNP and were implementing their policy behind the NP’s back. [Interjections.] The fact remains that in the months since they left the NP there are two matters which they have embraced as the guidelines of their politics. The one matter is their sports policy, which they swallowed whole as expounded to them by the HNP but which we knew they were assiduous disciples of over the years. It is the old sports policy of the HNP. The hon. member will not deny this.

Then there is the other policy they are proclaiming, namely the policy of a Coloured homeland. The fact of the matter is that the leader of that party who was the leader of the largest province in this country while he was still in this party, affixed his signature to a document in the 1981 election and told the voters of Waterberg and of South Africa that a homeland for Coloureds was not practical in this country. A few months later this same man, who was considered to be a respected person whose word of honour one could rely on, proceded to tell the country: My signature and the undertaking I gave the voters meant nothing. I have no word of honour. [Interjections.] I have been lying to you all these years. [Interjections.] Then we hear the story we heard from the hon. member for Lichtenburg today. The most absurd arguments are dragged in merely for political purposes, merely to confuse, merely to cause a diversion, merely to sow discord, merely to create suspicion, and there are no foundations for such arguments. However, what has the hon. member done now? The hon. member quoted the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, but he did not have the decency to do so properly. [Interjections.] I now want to quote the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs correctly to that hon. member—

[Interjections. This makes a very big difference. [Interjections.]

Order!

I have nothing further to say to the hon. member because the hon. Minister will participate in this debate himself. This just goes to show what South Africa has to put up with at this stage: This kind of Opposition! They are not concerned with principles; they are merely concerned with gossip-mongering, denigration and sordid politics, the dirtiest South Africa has ever known. I want to tell the hon. member for Lichtenburg …

I am on your side, but you are losing the fight. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to tell the hon. member for Lichtenburg that it is obvious to me that the CP does not like the idea of the referendum. [Interjections.] It is quite clear to me that the hon. member was whistling in the dark today. I also want to tell the hon. member that the amendments to be made to the constitution are a very important matter as such. That is what the referendum is all about.

I said that.

No, the hon. member did not say that; he said the referendum was being held to emphasize differences between the 1977 proposals and the present proposals.

I said that as well.

But surely that is not what the referendum is concerned with. The referendum is concerned with the draft constitution we shall submit to the people, and the hon. member will be able to examine that draft constitution; he need not be afraid. Everyone in the country will get to see it.

When?

The draft constitution is an amendment to the existing constitution, but the hon. the Prime Minister and this party is not afraid to go to the highest authority in the country. That highest authority is the voters of this country. We are therefore not trying to run away from this aspect or that; we are not running away from a standpoint we adopted or propagated in the past. We are placing ourselves in the hands of the voters of this country, and this is not what those hon. members think it is. I think I should now leave the hon. member at that, so that other hon. members can react further to his speech.

I should like to take this opportunity to discuss housing, because I believe it is necessary for me to inform Parliament at this stage about the amended guidelines regarding the provision of housing aid by the Government sector. This is an important matter which I think necessitates my spelling out to Parliament what a tremendous deviation this is from our policy in the past.

It is undeniably true that during the past 35 years the Government has had a huge share in the financing and provision of low-cost housing in particular, to such an extent that until about two years ago the entire burden of the provision of low-cost housing rested almost exclusively on the shoulders of the State. This situation became absolutely untenable, however. It became apparent that if we were not prepared to make drastic adjustments with regard to our housing policy, we would not have a hope of successfully overcoming the problems in this connection.

I am also well aware of the allegation made against us from the ranks of the Opposition that in its housing policy the Government is engaged in shifting its responsibility with regard to assistance in housing onto someone else’s shoulders. It is also being alleged that the State is not maintaining its expenditure on and meeting its financial obligations with regard to housing in these times when money is scarce, but is cutting back on expenditure. Of course these allegations are devoid of all truth. Annually the State is spending more and larger amounts than ever before on housing, notwithstanding the limited funds at our disposal. We are doing this because housing is such an important priority for us. The State views its responsibility with regard to housing in such a serious light that in a time when money is scarce, in a recession, as an extraordinary measure the Government gave the Housing Commission the statutory right to borrow large sums of money on the open money market to make available for housing. Just to substantiate my statement I want to point out that during the past five years the department has spent R1 821 million on housing. This is R150 million more than had been spent during the preceding 55 years since the National Housing Commission was established. In other words, during the past five years we spent R150 million more on housing than during the previous 55 years. But that is not all. Last year 34 900 residential units were completed for a record amount of R470,6 million. It is also very important for us not to lose sight of the fact that Government spending on housing is not only confined to funds channelled through the National Housing Commission. It is as well to note that if one takes into consideration what the (Community Development Board, the S.A. Transport Services, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, the Department of Cooperation and Development and other Government Departments spend on housing, and one also takes into account housing assistance to Public Servants and expenditure on official quarters and interest subsidies with regard to low-cost housing, as well as the vast amounts spent on housing by State corporations, one finds that the total amount spent annually on housing exceeds R1 000 million. Is this not huge expenditure, bearing in mind the other urgent priorities we have in this country? When we are justified in asking: Can we, with the limited means at our disposal, really afford to spend more on housing every year than this amount of more than R1 000 million which we are spending on it, directly and indirectly? These few facts I have mentioned, are irrefutable proof—it is as plain as a pikestaff—that the Government appreciates the seriousness of housing and not only accepts but also meets its rightful responsibility.

Another matter which is frequently raised—also from the ranks of the Opposition—and about which there are misunderstandings, concerns the circumstances of our elderly people, our senior citizens. This matter is frequently exploited for political gain. However, I do not think we can simply ask: “What is being done for the aged?”.

Is there no problem then?

We are not saying that.

It is indeed a problem. By the end of 1982 365 projects already existed, which created housing for elderly people in this country with State funds, and no fewer that 24 700 of our senior citizens are at present housed in these projects. But that is not all. During the past five years alone we have spent R114 million on welfare housing. During the past year alone 30 old-age homes were completed which offered accommodation to 1 830 old people. I am merely mentioning a few facts. Where in the world is more spent pro rata on housing for Whites than in South Africa? Where in the world—with a few exceptions—are elderly White people housed better than in South Africa? I say “with exceptions”, because there are exceptions. Where in the world, except in South Africa, does the State make funds freely available for old-age homes and welfare housing, and does so at an interest rate of less than 1%. I think we should see these things in perspective. I am not saying we are doing enough. We should like to do more. However, what I want to emphasize is that with the funds at our disposal and with the funds South Africa is able to set aside for this purpose, we are doing proportionally more for our aged than any other country in the world.

No Government that supports the capitalistic system can take upon itself the responsibility for all housing. No Government can even take responsibility for all housing for the lowest income group. The Government can only make funds available for assistance in the field of housing within the framework of its financial capacity and bearing other priorities in mind. The pressure of the increasing demand for housing and the steadily increasing backlog has necessitated our reconsidering the entire matter of the financing and provision of low-cost housing during the past year, and in order to keep the initiative in this field we decided to introduce a new housing policy. I now want to deal with this.

In the first place our objective is to spread the financing and provision of low-cost housing which thus far has rested virtually exclusively on the shoulders of the State, throughout the public and private sectors. We want to regard the sphere of housing as a collective sphere in which building societies, employers, financial institutions, housing utility companies and developers can all make a contribution. We envisage an exceptionally important share in this new dispensation for the utility companies in particular and for this reason we are at present engaged in taking the lead and assisting in the establishment of such companies throughout South Africa in all the larger centres where such companies do not yet exist. In this regard, I am going to amend the Housing Act during the present year to give the Government more mobility in order to assist housing utility companies.

As far as employers are concerned, it is essential that they will also have to assume greater responsibility with regard to the housing of their workers in future. There is an increasing awareness that the availability of adequate housing is one of the most important elements for the promotion of a more stable, satisfied and productive work force. For that reason it is essential for employers to make a greater contribution in this connection in future. My department and the Department of Co-operation and Development have gone out of their way to eliminate all hindrances, all impediments and obstacles which may have obstructed the private sector in the past so that anyone who wants to make a contribution with regard to housing in the non-White areas will be able to do so.

In the second place the Government envisages an important task for itself and for the public sector with regard to the establishment of new urban areas, the purchase of sufficient and suitable land and the creation of infrastructure so that as far as possible there will at all times be sufficient serviced sites within the means of the relevant communities so that everyone who wants to make sure he has a roof over his head will be able to do so and everyone who wants to make a contribution in the field of housing will also be able to do so.

In the third place it is our objective as far as possible to place the responsibility for ensuring that he has a roof over his head primarily on the shoulders of the individual himself. He should in the first place through his own efforts, with his own means, with assistance from his employers or from other sources, ensure that he has a roof over his head. If he cannot be assisted elsewhere, our departments and local authorities will assist him with materials and building loans and we shall assist him by initiating owner-builder and self-help projects throughout the country. At the same time we are trying to bring about greater community involvement in the provision of housing.

In the fourth place we should in future, within the financial capacity of the State, like to provide housing to only the very poorest people in the community, those persons who cannot be assisted anywhere else, and of course the aged and less fortunate persons in the form of welfare housing. We shall also assist in the provision of community services.

In the fifth place it is for us a very important objective in the new dispensation to promote home ownership as never before. This special campaign which we are now launching to sell almost a quarter of a million rented units to persons who are occupying them, is one stage of the entire process. By selling the properties to these people, the State wants to move away from a system of heavily subsidized rented housing, which has already resulted in more than a quarter of the funds voted for housing being swallowed up as rent subsidies every year. By selling the dwelling units to these people we want to remove from our shoulders and those of the local authorities the tremendous administrative burden of collecting rent with the accompanying losses, and the continuous criticism we bring down upon ourselves as a result of rent increases which have to be introduced from time to time. Because we are now selling these houses to people, there will be a greater flow-back of funds to the National Housing Fund, and that money can be used again for new houses. The most important objective is, however, to create a broad owner class within our coloured communities with the pride and other benefits which go hand in hand with home ownership and proprietary rights. In the new constitutional dispensation this will form the basis of third tier government.

In the implementation of this policy we have to accept that we shall experience resistance and that we have a tremendous educational task to perform. In the past it was all too easy for too many people simply to demand a house from the State, one which suited them, or at a rental they could afford. It is not easy to dissuade people from that easygoing attitude. Consequently I want to make an appeal today to the sense of responsibility of the Opposition, and ask them to assist me in instilling a more responsible approach among people with regard to the obligations resting on them to ensure that they have a roof over their heads. The Opposition must not succumb to political pressure to make petty political gain from this by simply prompting and advising the people to demand houses from the Government. The Opposition could play an extremely important positive role if it wanted to.

It is unfortunately true that there are local authorities that have built up administrative kingdoms for themselves over the years around the provision of housing. They are now digging in their heels and do not want to assist in self-help and owner-builder projects. They do not want to participate in this selling scheme either. Many local authorities have thousands of rented units they do not want to get rid of because they are engaged in maintaining large departments for the administration of rented units for their own purposes. I hope the attitude of local authorities will change.

Although we still have a long way to go there have also been pleasant surprises. We have already received tremendous support and co-operation from various quarters for this new course we have taken. There is in particular a surprisingly positive reaction from the leaders of our coloured population groups for owner-builder projects. There is also tremendous enthusiasm among them regarding the sale of rented houses to persons who are at present occupying them. As a matter of fact, non-White leaders have asked us to do this over the years. For that reason I have no doubt that we shall succeed with this unique, ambitious home ownership effort. As far as this plan is concerned, the Government is going to do everything in its power to make a success of it. That is why I am happy to be able to announce here today that I have been authorized by the Government to appoint an expert from outside the department on a contract basis to co-ordinate this entire sales scheme of the Department of Community Development as well as the Department of Co-operation and Development so that we shall be able to ensure its success. However, this person is not only going to concentrate on the sales scheme; he is also going to try to involve the private sector in the financing and the provision of low cost housing to a greater extent. He is also going to assist in giving local authorities, employers and others guidance and advice in order to promote owner-builder and self-help projects. As far as self-help and owner-builder projects are concerned, I am very optimistic that if these are applied purposefully, they can play an important role not only in increasing the number of houses, but also in particular in bringing about the greater community involvement in the provision of housing which is so essential. As far as owner-builder projects are concerned, it is just a pity that I have heard from certain quarters that some local authorities are simply not prepared to accept anything in the nature of non-conventional buildings or building methods. If this is going to be the general attitude of local authorities, these new initiatives of ours are doomed. For that reason I am appealing to local authorities to allow alternative building constructions and building methods as long as they are undertaken with good supervision and guidance.

Another aspect which gives me cause for concern in this regard is the high standards for essential services maintained virtually throughout the country notwithstanding sustained efforts by the National Housing Commission, the CSIR, the Advisory Committee for Housing Matters and the department’s own technical staff, who are constantly insisting on lower standards for roads, storm water drains, sanitation and electricity. The time has now come for us simply to put our foot down and insist on more modest standards that are within the means of our people. Financial and other considerations simply make it impractical, uneconomical and impossible to continue as we did in the past. For that reason I have decided to direct the department and the National Housing Commission urgently to lay down new minimum standards and financial limits with regard to services which are financed from housing funds, on the basis of the Louw Committee’s proposals. Those local authorities that do not want to go along with these measures will simply have to do without State assistance. We cannot try to do everything to propagate self-help and owner-builder projects while municipalities are insisting on the highest standards, for example tarred roads with kerbs.

I hope to receive the report of the Commission of Inquiry into all aspects of Township Development under the chairmanship of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism in the near future. Hopefully this will lead to statutory provisions, procedures and practices in connection with the establishment and development of urban areas being simplified, streamlined and speeded up, which will hopefully lead to cheaper building sites coming on to the market more rapidly.

In conclusion I want to say that during the past year we have had an uphill struggle in the field of housing, and I have a great deal of hope and confidence that in the field of housing we shall still achieve what we want to achieve because we know how we intend to achieve it. In the State set-up there has never been such tremendous unanimity in attitudes and such enthusiastic co-operation to work in the same direction between Government departments involved in the provision of housing. Never in the past have we succeeded in gaining greater co-operation and involvement and more enthusiasm from the private sector in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, the announcement made in this House this afternoon by the hon. the Minister of Community Development is very important to all of us. It is obviously of great importance for the whole of South Africa as well. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that in general we agree with him regarding the policy he announced here. I do not want to react in detail to what the hon. the Minister said. However, the hon. member for Umbilo will do so at a later stage. All I want to say is that it is our approach that this is more realistic. We welcome the new attitude the hon. the Minister of Community Development displayed here this afternoon, and we agree with him with regard to two matters in particular. In the first instance it is impossible for the State alone to meet the housing needs of the whole of South Africa. Consequently various other agencies, and the private sector in particular, must be involved in finding a solution for our housing problem. In the second instance we wish to support the hon. the Minister wholeheartedly when he says that our objective should be that everyone living in South Africa should be able to afford a house or a roof over his head and that he should have the maximum of self-sufficiency and not be dependent on organizations and institutions such as the Government. With that we agree wholeheartedly, and I am sure that the hon. member for Umbilo will furnish the hon. the Minister with a comprehensive reply before the end of this debate.

As one could have predicted, of course, it is nevertheless interesting to note that this debate has changed direction completely. We find ourselves today in the midst of a fierce argument, about politics, about the referendum and about the by-elections to be decided in the “berge” and the “klowe”. Obviously, we are also aware of the old saying: “War die hart van vol is, loop die mond van oor”. This overflow actually started yesterday, of course, when the hon. member for Yeoville was speaking. However, it continued today in the speeches of hon. members of the CP and the NP. That overflow actually is proof of an underlying fear and anxiety in the hearts of the other two Opposition parties in this House. [Interjections.]

This is true. The hon. member for Yeoville yesterday gave us a fine example of the fear that the question in the referendum is going to be based on constitutional changes which will be effected by means of legislation passed by this House. Why should there be any fear about that? A public debate is going to be conducted here, so everyone will be able to state his viewpoint. However, the fear of the hon. member for Yeoville is that he will have to vote against the question in the referendum, in spite of the standpoint which he himself should like to adopt. The hon. member for Sea Point also made it clear here today that the PFP was going to cast a dissenting vote in the referendum if the question was based on the constitutional changes in terms of the legislation to be submitted in this House.

You are quite wrong. He said we should wait and see how the question was formulated.

The hon. member for Pinelands says no. Does he not, then, agree with the hon. member for Yeoville? [Interjections.] He does not agree. That, of course, is the very cause of the dispute and the fear in the hearts of hon. members of the official Opposition. They find themselves in a perplexing position, Mr. Speaker. After all, hon. members of the PFP know that if they vote yes, they are in trouble, but if they vote no, they are also in trouble. That is their predicament. So we are looking forward to the hon. Leader of the Opposition giving us clarity on the standpoint of the PFP in regard to this matter. We hope that he will do so at the earliest possible opportunity in this House. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we have complete confidence in our policy and in our stand point. The NRP will always do what is in the interests of South Africa, regardless of the price to be paid. If anything is in the interests of South Africa, no matter what sacrifices have to be made for it, our people and our party will always, first of all, do what is in the interests of South Africa. We do not want to play politics here today. The big debate is still to come. We did not take fright at the sight of the gun and run away before the shot was fired. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, we say that the attitude of this party has always been—and our record is very clear in this regard—that we have total confidence in a power-sharing formula for South Africa which will not result in group domination. If the Bill that is to be tabled in this House—hopefully, as soon as possible—contains elements of power-sharing without group domination, I want to assure the citizens of South Africa that it will receive our full support. [Interjections.] If the referendum is based on those principles then we will vote “yes” for that referendum. [Interjections.] My hon. leader will at the right time and in the right place be dealing with the right answers to these questions during that debate and I shall therefore not pursue the matter further at this stage. That big debate is still coming.

I want to turn now to the hon. the Minister of Finance and discuss some of the items mentioned in his budget with him. I want in the first instance to thank the hon. the Minister for the concessions which he made …

Thank the Minister!

The hon. member for Berea is going to do the same thing. That hon. member had better be careful. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for having acceded to our request over many years to give assistance to home-owners, particularly new home-owners, younger people, in relation to the subsidies to be paid on the interest on mortgage bonds. We will always get up and acknowledge what is good for the South African public and the good that is done by this Government. I believe that that is the right attitude to adopt and I want to thank the hon. the Minister because, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said today, this will hopefully increase the stock of housing in South Africa. What is more, it will give members of every race group and particularly the younger members such as myself and my colleagues … [Interjections.] the opportunity to build more new houses for South Africa.

Obviously, because the time allowed for a debate of this nature is so limited, one cannot elaborate on every point, but to my mind the second most important factor in the hon. the Minister of Finance’s budget speech was the announcement he made in regard to subsidies to marginal mines. I fully appreciate the sentiment that the hon. the Minister and his department must take a more realistic view in respect of the subsidization of marginal mines. However, I do hope that in the investigation a full feasibility study was made of the effects of withdrawing this type of subsidy in terms of the present formula to ensure that it does not create further unemployment. If a mine closes down one is not only discharging the people working there but also those involved in the whole engineering and infrastructural set-up which is dependent upon that mine. To recreate jobs for every single person who is discharged from any enterprise in South Africa costs the State over R10 000, and we have to weigh up the savings on the marginal mines subsidy scheme against the cost of recreating jobs. In fact, the gravamen of my speech today revolves around the vexed question of unemployment in South Africa.

My colleagues and I believe that South Africa is facing a disastrous drought situation in South Africa. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we agree that we do have a disastrous drought situation on our hands and that the full effects of the drought are not going to be felt this year but are going to be felt in 1984 and 1985. At the moment we are merely providing crisis relief for the farmers to enable them to bridge their financial difficulties but the real effects on the economy will only be felt in two years’ time. We welcome the statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance that an amount of R371 million is going to be made available to assist farmers to bridge this very difficult period. We believe that this is fully justified because if the agricultural sector in South Africa fails then nothing can save this nation from facing starvation. At the same time, however, we must be realistic and also look at the other problems that face us.

We find an equally serious situation when we look at the underemployment and unemployment position in South Africa. The experts tell me—and I am sure the hon. the Minister of Finance will agree—that in order to provide solely for employment for the number of new Blacks entering the labour market each year—there are about 200 000 of them per year—our GDP will have to grow by at least 5% per annum. When we look at the people who have lost their jobs—and I am speaking primarily of the Blacks because they are in the majority and they are in a more desperate position than the Coloureds, Indians and Whites, although we must not lose sight of the needs of members of all our communities—according to official figures we find that in 1982, the number of unemployed Blacks is recorded as being 433 000. This is the number of Blacks registered as unemployed in South Africa in 1982. However, that is not the entire picture. This figure only refers to those Blacks who were eligible to register as being unemployed. It does not refer to those Blacks without employment.

We come to the staggering conclusion that in South Africa there are at least one million Blacks who are not working but who should be working at the moment, and that excludes the TBVC countries as well. That is a massive proportion of the people who should be working. Their saving reserves are minimal; many of them have nothing to fall back on. Therefore, we believe that a major priority of the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government should also be to afford crisis relief in terms of employment opportunities for all sectors of the population in general, but in particular the Blacks.

What has happened since 1972? We require an average growth of 5% per annum in order just to accommodate the 200 000 Blacks who leave school and come to the market place. From 1972 to 1982 the average growth rate of the economy was 3,7%; between 1972 and 1976 it was 3,3%; between 1977 and 1982 there was a GDP growth average of 3,7%.

In 1980 we had a very good year when the growth was 7,8%, but in 1981, it was 5,1% and in 1982 we had a negative growth of 0,9%.

What does this mean in terms of the people who are unable to find work? If we find that the GDP on average for the past ten years was only 3,7%, it means that we have not been able to create sufficient jobs for those 200 000 people. In fact, the deficit for ten years is 80 000 people per year for each of those ten years. These are people who were unable to find work. 80 000 times ten comes to 800 000 people. To them there should be added the almost 500 000 people who are officially recorded as Blacks who are unemployed because they have lost their jobs, and then it will be seen that the proportions of this problem are of crisis proportions—over one million people have been identified who do not have work but should be working.

Even worse than that is the following: Every Black wage-earner has five people dependent upon his wages to live, to survive at a minimum level of survival. That means that there are more than six million people in the Republic of South Africa alone—this excludes Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei—who do not have a regular income to feed and clothe themselves. That, I believe, is an equal proportion of disaster as the present drought condition.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to do everything that he can to assist in the alleviation of this problem. My appeal is twofold. In the first instance I believe we should immediately, in the same spirit in which the hon. the Minister of Community Development made an announcement here, call a conference of organizations that can alleviate this position. My recommendation is that the States of all the homeland areas of South Africa, including the independent States, the State of the Republic of South Africa, the private sector representatives through the Handelsinstituut, Assocom, the Chamber of Industries, the Banking Institute and the agriculture sector should get together on an emergency basis to work out a crisis programme of providing income relief for these people through work. This should be announced here; we cannot wait. There are at least six million known people without a regular daily income who are grovelling just to subsist at a physiological level, never mind anything else. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is that he should take the same attitude towards this crisis as we are taking towards drought relief in South Africa.

I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that the answer to this is to be found in a scheme which did not originate in South Africa but was certainly utilized to our benefit in the 1930s when we had the great depression. We can go down to Durban to that wonderful new station that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has built in Durban and of which we are very proud. It has a few defects, but we can sort them out with the hon. the Minister. That station with all the surrounding sports fields is built on ground which was made available by the sweat-equity of Whites in South Africa who were employed during the depression of the 1930s. They were paid—this is on record—a shilling and a bowl of soup a day in order to help to drain the swamp which was the Stanford Hill aerodrome. It was drained by sweat-equity. People were prepared to work just to have a regular income, and there were many Whites included in that programme. It served two purposes, one a functional purpose of draining the swamp and, secondly, the purpose of providing the people with a regular source of income, no matter how minimal, in order just to keep body and soul together, in particular as far as the children were concerned. I believe that the solution that was found to work in the 1930 depression is one that is urgently required in South Africa at the present moment.

One immediately thinks about how this can be made to work. It is going to work if we concentrate on providing labour-intensive industries, and where can we best provide labour-intensive industries other than in the housing sector, in the building of dams, in the building of roads and in the building of canals so as to help us, in future, to overcome the problems of water storage, transportation and housing in South Africa. Those people, as unskilled as they are, are capable of using a shovel, of moving soil with a wheelbarrow, of carrying it in baskets on their heads, of using a chisel, a pick or a fork. They are willing to work and they desperately require work. I think we must take a real hard look at solving two problems in one, one relating to the needs of South Africa and the other relating to those peoples’ income requirements. Why is it not possible to build a dam wall the size of the Verwoerd Dam wall with hand-labour? It is done in Taiwan. We only have to see how earth is moved there. Those people do not use bulldozers. It is done by hand. Each man carries a small bucket. He will carry it for five hours and then give it to his friend and his friend will then carry it for five hours, and this is done for the equivalent of 75 cents per shift. One might say that it is an absolute disgrace …

Where is that?

In Taiwan. One might say that it is an absolute disgrace that a man should work a five-hour shift, carrying soil in a bucket, for 75 cents. What, however, is the morality involved? The morality has nothing to do with 75 cents per shift and the use of a bucket. The morality of the issue relates to the fact that one is offering a man an opportunity to earn 75 cents which he was not able to earn before. His other alternative would have been to starve without dignity. No man would mind dying in dignity because he worked too hard, but every man and woman in South Africa would be ashamed to die without dignity because they were unable to work and had to starve to death, or because their children had to starve to death. [Interjections.] That is the principle that I believe we should urgently adopt in South Africa. We must provide labour-intensive emergencies services, and South Africa would benefit from this. If we built more houses with concrete blocks, if we built water canals by hand, with shovels, if we built roads, if we built dams and could thereby absorb all those people, South Africa would also be benefitting from the sweat of their brows.

You are making a good speech.

One could also build railway lines with hand labour, because that is how the original railway lines were built. [Interjections.]

One could also maintain the track by hand labour, but instead they make use of machines.

Yes, one could also maintain the track by hand labour. The short-term or medium-term answer, however, is to be found in an immediate co-ordinated conference of all parties involved, and that includes the TBVC countries, the South African Government, private enterprise, the banking sector and agriculture. On many occasions the hon. the Prime Minister, his Ministers and other hon. members of the NP have said that they want to get private enterprise involved. We in this party, however, say that we do not only want to get private enterprise involved when everything is going well and they are making big profits. They must also share in the solving of social problems when there is a desperate and critical need. Now is the time for private enterprise to show its true colours or mettle by saying: Yes, we are also prepared to get involved in providing critical relief for those people who are unable to earn sufficient to keep body and soal together. We can play with statistics. The hon. member for Parktown can get up here and say it is not a million people who are unemployed, but actually 1 200 001, and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance can get up and say it is only half a million. Even if it were only 100 000 people, it would still be a disaster if those people starved to death in South Africa. That is why we in this party are so insistent, in spite of all the other priorities that do exist. I was going to have a full-blown go at the hon. the Minister of Finance because he did not provide separate taxation for husbands and wives. I was going to ask him to look at that in depth and to solve the problem. That is not, however, the number one priority issue, because there we are dealing with people who already have work. They are getting income and to pay joint taxation on it under the present circumstances is a privilege and not a disadvantage. I shall come back to the hon. the Minister next year on that one. Suffice it to say that drought relief and employment relief for the millions of unemployed are absolutely top priorities for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with I just want to dwell briefly on the amendment moved yesterday by the hon. member for Sunnyside on behalf of his party, and specifically the first part of it, viz. that the consumer is being drastically impoverished as a result of price increases, inflation and inefficient management. I think it is necessary that we stop to consider this statement for a moment. This amendment is typical HNP language. This has been the language of the HNP over the years. After-all, the statement made in this amendment is not correct. Surely the consumer is not being impoverished. The gross domestic product is still showing a slight drop, but the increase in income per employee is still above the rate of inflation.

Do you reject the report of the HSRC?

The hon. member for Sunnyside surely knows that the report of the HSRC refers to the distribution of income and not impoverishment. Over the past number of years the income among the Black peoples has increased. Now the CP, just like the HNP, is making a story about this increase in the income of the Blacks, to the effect that this supposedly necessarily entails a drain on the income of the Whites; that it goes without saying that this must mean a drop in the income of the Whites. It is merely an addition and subtraction sum and, lo and behold; there is their conclusion! It is true that we are the victims of a world depression and that our economy is in a levelling-off phase, but after all, things will go better in future. Or is the CP a champion of excessive government spending to boost the inflation rate further? No, Sir, let us tighten our belts a little longer; that is not impoverishment, it is an adjustment in order to reap the fruits in future.

Today I wish to deal with a matter which has been presented in an entirely slanted and distorted way recently. It is being said everywhere, chiefly in Waterkloof, Waterberg and Soutpansberg, that the members of the CP who are in this House at present were kicked out of the NP, that they were driven out of the NP. Surely that is not the truth. Whoever states that is telling a public lie. It is necessary to take a look at the true facts. I am going to deal with this in some detail. In the nature of the matter I shall necessarily have to refer to myself as well. I do so without apology and in the interests of the cause that I serve and love, viz. the NP. In the February 1982 edition of Nat ’80 there is an editorial in which reference is made, inter alia, to one Government. Apart from the leader of the CP, who wrote the editor of Nat ’80 a letter in this regard, there was no official inquiry or objection to this article by members of the CP, as far as I know. However, I consulted the editor of Nat ’80 in this regard on 16 February 1982. It is a well-known fact that we were unable to reach agreement in this regard at that stage, that there were obscurities that I wanted cleared up and that I informed him that I would take the matter to the caucus on 17 February. That evening I contacted the former hon. member for Waterberg, the then leader of the NP in Transvaal, Dr. Treurnicht, and told him of my intention to raise the matter in the caucus. He was unable to tell me whether I should do so or not. The following day I again consulted him in that regard and he referred me to the chairman of our information committee, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. Unfortunately that hon. Minister had a conference at that stage, but he listened to my request on the telephone and requested me first to discuss the matter with him before taking it to the caucus. We then agreed that since he would be out of town we should talk the following Monday. The discussion between the hon. the Minister and myself was a confidential discussion and I am not going to reveal it here. However, it is well known, and we spelt it out as such at the meeting of the head committee, that I was not quite satisfied with what he said and that we decided to discuss the matter further in the caucus. When I left his office I encountered the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs in the lift. He asked me how I saw the political climate at that stage. Since at that stage various small groups had already formed and discussions had taken place about the matter, I asked him to request the hon. the Prime Minister to arrange for the matter to be discussed in the caucus and to set aside sufficient time for this purpose.

That Tuesday afternoon I called on the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development again and asked him, too, to request the hon. the Prime Minister to discuss the matter. On Wednesday morning, 24 February—the morning of the caucus meeting—two newspapermen came to my office separately to ask me what the position was. I said to them that I foresaw no problems in the caucus, but that I expected and hoped that the matter would be discussed.

I am not going to speak about the discussion in the caucus. It is confidential information that has, moreover, been discussed in some detail in the newspapers. Therefore I am not going to talk about it. It is a well-known fact that 22 hon. members of the caucus voted against the motion of confidence. Personally, I did so too, since I had certain problems, as I have already spelt out. However, what is important, and what we must pay attention to, is the fact that during that meeting the hon. the Prime Minister gave the hon. members who had voted against the motion, a week in which to conform. A meeting of the head committee was immediately requested for Saturday, 27 February. Before that meeting of the head committee it was clear that the head committee was divided in two camps, the so-called PW camp and the so-called AP camp. Minister Schoeman asked that the hon. the Prime Minister be present at that meeting. This was unanimously accepted by the head committee. That discussion lasted several hours. We argued about this whole matter at length. The hon. the Prime Minister stated his standpoint clearly. Dr. Treurnicht argued about power-sharing. Later I myself spoke, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to say something at that stage. I said that I was not married to the word “power-sharing”, but that I had certain problems in that regard. At that meeting I requested the hon. the Prime Minister to give me a hearing in this regard. The hon. the Prime Minister agreed to consult with me as soon as possible. He said that as soon as I landed in Cape Town I should make an appointment with him. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister said to me in public at that meeting. The way in which the hon. the Prime Minister received me that Tuesday, the way in which he listened to me and gave a clear reply, and the sorrow with which he spoke about those who did not want to conform, that was not expulsion. That was not the action of a leader who wanted to split his party. His voice was deep and full of emotion when he spoke about it, like a father who would like to have his children back, a leader who at that stage still hoped that some of them would come back. However, they did not. They turned their backs on the NP. They sold the NP for a mess of pottage. [Interjections.] They sold the NP for a mess of pottage and with great bravado hurried to the Skilpadsaal to form a new party. They had sworn that they would never leave the NP. As early as 2 March, however, The Citizen reported that those who had broken away were to establish a new party. This was only a few days after the events in the caucus. They left the NP. They were unable to reconcile themselves with the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister. Their smouldering hatred resulted in their leaving the NP in first gear. Taken all in all, this action on the part of those who left the NP meant the following, and I repeat: They were not driven out; they did not want to subject themselves to a democratic decision of the head committee …

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

No, Sir, rather not, please. [Interjections.] They did not want to subject themselves to a decision of the head committee. The sum total of their actions has not yet been calculated. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Yeoville permitted to sit and make a speech while another hon. member is making a speech?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member not casting a reflection on the Chair?

Order! The Chair will deal with the matter. The hon. member for Gezina may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Those people who walked out did not care two hoots what they did. They rejected the invitation of the hon. the Prime Minister to conform and hurried to the Skilpadsaal to establish a new party within three weeks. They then rejoiced because at last they had something with which to attack the NP.

I want to conclude by considering the present political situation. We are in the midst of a series of by-elections and the CP is enthusiastically participating in all four of them. It is their right to do so. We are not arguing with them about that. However, I had not expected what I now see. First there was the distasteful spectacle of the courting between the CP and the HNP. It was a spectacle to shudder at, Mr. Speaker. However, Jaap Marais then partially rejected them. He was only in favour of a half engagement, a kind of extramarital marriage. They dropped Soutpansberg and Waterkloof, but they did not want to drop Waterberg and Carletonville.

However, even before the time, and during the establishment of the CP, the AWB was already their other political bedfellow. I can endure many things, I can come to accept many things, but that Dr. Andries Treurnicht should lend himself to concluding an alliance with the AWB is something that I find shocking and unacceptable. [Interjections.] I saw them with my own two eyes. It was on 10 March this year, in my constituency, when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information held a meeting there. The AWB and the CP were present there together and together they exulted and shouted. Eugene Terre’Blanche and his lieutenants in all their glory, together with the supporters of the CP that were present, lustily clapped their hands and stamped their feet. However, I saw it in Waterkloof as well. At the meeting of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on 23 March this year it was the same story again. Once again they were rejoicing and shouting with their hands around one another, and together they pestered the hon. the Minister that evening. Once again I ask hon. members of the CP where they stand with regard to the AWB. [Interjections.] Are they part of the AWB or is the AWB part of them? We must be clear on this question during the coming by-election. No reply has yet been furnished in this regard.

The voters of Waterkloof are conducting a traditional election against the PFP. I must say that the NP is doing well in that constituency. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please contain themselves.

However, Mr. Speaker, there is quite a substantial number of voters in Waterkloof who are supposedly hesitating. That is not how I have come to know Waterkloof. Those voters are going to come back to the NP. In its onslaught on Waterkloof the CP has one aim and one aim only, and that is to lure as many votes as possible, away from the NP. The alliance between the CP and the PFP is aimed at breaking and destroying the NP. If the CP can succeed in attracting the votes of a relatively large number of voters it could mean that the PFP could emerge from the struggle stronger than they in fact deserve to be. If that were to be the case I believe that the CP would be the first to rejoice.

However, Mr. Speaker, the voters of Waterkloof will not allow themselves to be caught out that easily. They realize that a vote for the CP means progress for the PFP. That they are not in favour of. The voters of Waterkloof are going to reject both the CP and the PFP because the voters of Waterkloof do not want to afford the PFP the opportunity to slip in by the back door.

Mr. Speaker, I find two things somewhat astounding this afternoon. The first is that we are busy with a most important debate. Yet except for the hon. the Minister of Community Development I do not see a single hon. Minister in this House. [Interjections.] I do not even see the hon. the Minister of Finance in the House. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance is standing in for him, I see, but it is nevertheless, I believe, unheard of in a budget debate that virtually the entire Cabinet is absent from this House. [Interjections.] I say this specifically when certain members of the Cabinet have been asked to be present in regard to what is going to be said now. I say, therefore, that this is a disgrace. [Interjections.] Is the Cabinet in another crisis session? Is it lurching from one crisis to another, in that senior members of the Cabinet cannot be in this House during a budget debate?

The second thing I would like to say is that I found the speech of the hon. member for Gezina an absolutely astounding one. It was no more than a confession, and an absolute grovelling on the floor by a member who has erred and who is trying to work his way back into some sort of situation with his erstwhile colleagues. That speech was of no interest to this budget debate. It was of no interest to the finances of this country.

Neither are you.

He said that he was very unhappy about power-sharing. I want to ask the hon. member for Gezina whether he accepts power-sharing today?

Not your kind of power-sharing.

Does the hon. member for Gezina accepts power-sharing today? [Interjections.] He was very quick to make those comments but he is not equally quick in giving us answers. I want to say to the hon. member for Gezina that if he wanted to cry and open his heart to the public of South Africa and make what can only be described as an abject apology, why did he not simply write a letter to the hon. the Prime Minister and tell him that he had been a naughty boy? Why did he not simply say that he was sorry and ask please to be taken back because he also wanted to be a Railway Commissioner or something like that one day? [Interjections.] Why did he not do that? Instead of doing that, he came to this House with an apology. I want to say that this is evidence once again of the unhappy state of that party on the other side. [Interjections.] It proves to us a state of division in which hon. members like the hon. member for Gezina are probably forced by the hon. the Prime Minister to crawl on the floor of this House and to apologize for something for which he once stood and for which he no longer stands. [Interjections.] However, I shall leave that poor, unhappy, miserable hon. member at that.

I want to quote a senior Cape Town political correspondent who in a recent article stated—

[Interjections.] Is the hon. the Minister finished? [Interjections.] Would you please just keep quite for a while? The hon. the Minister keeps up a constant mumbling while one is making one’s speech.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. However, on reflection, perhaps that was not such an untrue comment after all. Look for instance at the state of the urban Black community of South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has said that Blacks will not participate in the constitutional set-up because, he says, their rights of citizenship are going to be exercised within their own territories. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, however, assures foreign audiences, verligte gatherings and even some Black leaders that urban Blacks will enjoy great autonomy within the framework of their own municipalities, with power in some cases even greater than that of their White counterparts. What however does that hon. the Minister leave unsaid? He leaves unsaid the fact that the very essence of local Government is excluded from this form of autonomy. Freehold title for Blacks is not part of Government policy, to quote one example. Industrial development within Black urban areas is not part of Government policy, to quote another example. The creation of a national and viable property base within Black areas is not part of Government policy. Certainly such matters such as the allocation of leased houses, perhaps even nursery education, the collection of rents and minor taxes and maybe even health and cultural matters will be delegated to the new authorities.

However, what is not told to the public of South Africa is that Black municipalities will be and will remain insolvent, permanently bankrupt and unable to survive unless they are funded in a massive and regular way by the central Government. If that is the case the position will be as it has always been—he who pays the piper will call the tune. Therefore, to satisfy all sides, as also the demands of the election in the north, publicly the policy is one of autonomy for Black local authorities but the truth conveyed to Government supporters and the northern electorate is very different. The truth is that the real power to decide on the affairs of Blacks in urban South Africa will through the means of the purse remain firmly in the hands of the Government.

Then we have this curious matter mentioned by the hon. member for Lichtenburg: The about-face of the Government on the term “power-sharing”. It was over that very phrase that the NP split occurred. The very idea of healthy power-sharing was enough to cause Dr. Treurnicht and his colleagues to pack their bags. Yet now, this concept is being denied by the same people who started it off. The hon. member for Lichtenburg quoted a passage out of a newspaper article and the hon. the Minister urged him to quote the whole passage, but I shall do that; I shall help him along. I quote the next piece and ask the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs whether he stands by that—

Does the hon. the Minister believe that?

Prog power-sharing is rejected.

Does he believe that the political definition of “power-sharing” is rejected by the NP?

I said Prog power-sharing was rejected, did I not?

The Government say they want power-sharing; the hon. the Minister says he does not want power-sharing and he does not believe in it. The hon. the Prime Minister, however, who started it, does not contradict him. What does the Government think the public think of it? That is the answer which we are seeking: What do those hon. members think the public think of them? Let me ask the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs whether they believe in a form of power-sharing.

Yes.

He says they do, but will it in terms of their policy be possible for members of other race groups to play a role at Cabinet level?

Yes.

What the hon. the Minister is saying is that there will be Coloured and Indian members of the Cabinet in the new dispensation. Is that correct? Well, he nods his head and therefore it is correct. If that is the case, will they, after having attended Cabinet meetings, go back to their own areas in Mitchell’s Plain and other areas? [Interjections.] Let me repeat the question: Will they, after having attended Cabinet meetings, go back to their own areas and live in their own little flats in Mitchell’s Plain? [Interjections.] Here we hear no answer. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must afford the hon. member for Sandton the opportunity to continue with his speech.

I now want to move away from the constitutional aspect and point out that one of the prime examples of NP double talk can be found in the field of sport. When I first arrived in this House Ministers spoke of normalizing sport. The hon. the Minister who is getting up now spoke of normalizing sport, but at the same time they denied sportsmen the right to merit selection and to enjoy freedom of association in their clubs or on the fields. That changed last year, but only after many unsavoury incidents had occurred, where the liquor laws and the Group Areas Act brought into line. Right up to date the Separate Amenities Act and the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act retain all their discriminatory provisions. Right up to this moment hon. Ministers speak piously of absolute sports autonomy and yet municipalities are allowed to discriminate on racial and political grounds and provincial authorities are encouraged to practise racism in sport at school level. What kind of political honesty is this?

A week before the recess incident occurred which I believe takes the cake. The fact that a bus full of Coloured sportsmen were denied by the police entry into a Black township gave rise to a question being asked in this House of the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development. In essence the question posed on 30 March was: What permits, if any, do non-Black sportsmen and spectators require in order to ender Black townships to fulfil sporting fixtures? The answer given was illuminating; it was: Yes, permits are required. I have that answer here. The hon. the Minister said that permits were required and he quoted the relevant sections of the Act, but what the House was not told was that as long ago as February 1978 the then Minister of Sport wrote a letter to the President of the International Tennis Federation. I quote from the letter dated 21 February 1978—

Now wherein lies the truth? [Interjections.] Does it lie in the statement made for public consumption in 1978, or in the answer given a few days ago? Let me take the matter further. In announcing certain administrative arrangements made in this connection on 12 March 1980 the same hon. Minister of Cooperation and Development—he is sitting over there in his bench at the moment—answered a question on this subject by saying (Question 2, Wednesday, 12 March 1980)—

In other words, no formal permits are required, only admission tickets, but a few days ago—just before the recess—that hon. Minister gave a completely different reply. What I therefore want to know is: In which of those statements by that hon. Minister was he telling the truth? Or let me put it differently: In which of those two statements was he not telling the truth? [Interjections.] I ask this, because the statements contradict each other directly. [Interjections.] It may be that in that example lies the reason for the public loss of confidence in that Government. It is not that the electorate has rejected, as yet, everything that that Government stands for. The truth is that the electorate does not know what that Government stands for. I think that the Government stands for that which it thinks the electorate will fall for. That is basically what the policy is all about, and that is the message that is coming through in the “berge” en “klowe” of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development—there he sits!—said that an application to open the Odeon cinema in Gra-hamstown a few weeks ago had been refused. I asked him why, and I quote his reply (Question 13, Wednesday, 16 March 1983)—

I then asked: How many cinemas are there for Blacks in the Black townships abutting on Grahamstown? The answer came back: “None.” There are no facilities for Blacks, except for one movie show every two weeks in an outlying little hall. Except for that, there are no facilities for Blacks at all. So much for facilities in their own group areas! Once again public policy is one thing, whilst the practice is something completely different. There are so many examples of NP duplicity. [Interjections.] We are told that the homelands have self-government, and yet we have the illegal usurping of authority in the case of Ingwavuma and Kangwane. The Government says that this is a country of free speech, yet it uses such measures as bannings, restrictions and the withholding of passports to silence its more vociferous opponents. When this Administration came to power the hon. the Prime Minister said that his credo was open government and honesty with the public and so on. What, however, do we have? An attempted blackout on the Seychelles fiasco, an effort to gag Parliament when the Salem affair was raised and a refusal to answer legitimate questions on the Maseru raid, on detentions, on police activities and other matters. The Government tells the world that this is the only country in Africa that has a totally free Press, yet every year laws are passed restricting that freedom.

Like what?

Journalists are harassed, editors walk a legislative minefield every day. Their newspapers are published and the very freedom that the Government holds up to the world is subject to constant threat. Even on the constitutional front, whilst proclaiming a policy of consultation and mutual deliberation, the Government calls a vital referendum but excludes, from participation, even the Coloureds and Indians who are crucially affected.

What are the conclusions to be drawn? Many of the above ambiguities and contradictory actions can be ascribed to election headaches, but the real truth is that the Government has lost its sense of direction. It is trying to be all things to all men, and in the process it looks neither like fish nor fowl. It is a sort of new United Party. That is what it is all about. We have new “Sappe” sitting there. Mark my words, this new United Party cannot satisfy the demands of reform. Nor can it establish the prerequisite of a stable society whilst it continues to pander to reactionary elements, whilst it continues to look in two directions at once and whilst it continues to speak with a forked tongue. If it carries on as it is carrying on now, I venture to predict—and I think I may still be here then—that within three years the NP will find itself in a situation where it has lost the overall majority in this House; and many of us will cheer.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time we have heard that prediction of the demise of the NP. A former Prime Minister said that he was always being told about the scattered fragments of the NP policy around him and that he had accumulated a mound of fragments. We have been listening to that prediction of the hon. member’s for the past 35 years, but this party has gone from strength to strength.

I am glad the hon. member for Lichtenburg is in the House. He must have the most exciting logic I have ever heard from anyone. I remember that in the no-confidence debate he spelt out to us in grisly detail what was going to happen if we shared power with Coloureds and Indians in the same Cabinet and how this would mean the downfall of the Whites. In the same breath, he tells us that we are actually bluffing those people, because they will not have any real power.

That is also true.

His logic this afternoon was even more striking than on that occasion. Without pausing to take a breath he told us that it was the CP which had forced this Government to hold a referendum and that we did not want to hold a referendum.

Yes. You did not want to.

In the same breath, he told us that we were holding this referendum because we were panicking and because there was discord in our ranks.

Yes.

Is the CP so stupid politically that it now wants to force this Government to hold a referendum so that it may cure itself of its panic and of the terrible discord in its ranks? Am I to accept that the CP is as altruistic as all that?

So that you can lose.

Sir, this is show time. We have the Rand Easter Show and we have had the Cape Show and here in Parliament we are having our Parliamentary show this week, where the four political parties have an opportunity to exhibit their policies in this House.

Then do so.

What do we find now? We find that the Governing party is in fact the only one which has exhibited its policy in this House. The other parties are standing in front of empty shelves, like judges in their white coats. They have nothing to exhibit. We have grown accustomed to this reserve and timidity on the part of the official Opposition. They are as silent as the grave on the subject of their national convention and constitutional model, but I did not think the CP would refuse to divulge their policy. After all, they joined us only a short while ago in trying to prod the PFP into telling us what their policy is.

Now we are struggling with you.

There we have people who are really reserved. I began to feel optimistic when the hon. member for Lichtenburg said that he was going to tell us about their homeland policy this afternoon. He even threw in a bonus. He said he was going to tell us, into the bargain, what Dr. Verwoerd had said about homelands. [Interjections.] He never got round to the bonus. He lifted the veil very slightly with regard to their homeland policy, but what did he tell us? He took us into his confidence and told us that there were not going to be 620 little Coloured homelands, but a smaller number. However, he does not want to tell us whether there are going to be 613, 589, or how many there are going to be.

There are many questions he could have answered. He could simply have read the leading article from Die Burger of yesterday, in which a whole number of questions are put to the CP concerning their homeland policy. After all, this was the opportunity to tell us about this …

Tell us something about power-sharing.

… but it seems to me that that baby, which has just been born, is already an embarrassment to those people and that they are hiding it. All we know about homelands for Indians and Coloureds is what we have been able to extract from their speakers with the greatest difficulty during question time at public meetings. We should like to ask questions, to mention only one example, about the matter of an Indian homeland and their policy in respect of immigration from India. I read in the newspaper that Dr. Treurnicht has reassured us on that score. He says he will be prepared to talk to the Indian leaders. He will ask them to tone down their sovereignty as far as this question is concerned. [Interjections.]

Since Dr. Treurnicht is going to talk to the Indian and Coloured leaders, I do want to suggest to him, in all humility, a few further items for the agenda.

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. the Minister is so anxious to know what our policy is, I want to ask him whether it will be possible for an Indian to become the Deputy Minister of Community Development. [Interjections.]

I am quite sure that it will be possible for him to become the Deputy Minister of Community Development. There are hundreds and thousands of Indian houses, so it is important that the Indians should also participate in the provision of housing.

I was suggesting a few more items to Dr. Treurnicht, to be put on the agenda for his consultation with the Indian leaders. I am sure he will make use of his charisma and his powers of persuasion. On behalf of all the White traders I request Dr. Treurnicht to ask the Indian leaders to give up their sovereignty with regard to the abolition of GST as well. I think he should tell them quite frankly that monopolies are a very ugly phenomonen and that they should not create monopolies at the expense of the White traders.

There is yet another question which I feel very strongly about. There are going to be 250 of these little Indian homelands, and I shudder to think of the 250 casinos that are going to be built purely for profit. I want to request Dr. Treurnicht to ask them very nicely to give up their sovereignty with regard to that matter as well.

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us whether there are casinos in all the Black townships in South Africa outside the Black States? [Interjections.]

But that party wants to create a sovereign Indian State.

You did not listen to my questions.

We have the ironic situation that the CP claims to be the champion of the White man’s interests. The CP advocates a policy which, if it were implemented, would have only one effect, and that is the total collapse of everything the White man has built up for himself and for others over generations. There is the paradoxical idea which runs through the Scriptures like a golden thread, i.e. that he who wants to promote only his own interests will lose everything. He who loves his life will lose it. My freedom will not be preserved if other people do not have freedom too.

Now you are delivering a sectarian sermon.

I shall not prosper if other people are enduring misery around me. That is why the NP has over the years been guided by the principle that what we demand for ourselves, we want others to have as well.

I want to refer to the selfishness of that party. We saw it again yesterday. The hon. the Minister of Manpower is repeatedly being attacked in this House. Because he wants to ensure a fairer labour dispensation for the non-White, it is said that he is undermining the Whites. It is that attitude that will be the nemesis of the Whites. The CP prides itself that it seeks to promote the interests of the Afrikaner. I want to tell them that that is a very noble object. However, I fear for the future …

You are despondent.

Yes, I fear for the future if that CP style finds acceptance among our people. The Afrikaner must be acceptable to other people or else he has no future. He must be a magnet that attracts other people, and not be the stinging nettle, as that party wants to make him so that people are always seeking to avoid him. I hold it against the CP that it presents an image of the Afrikaner, a caricature, the image of a mean-spirited and small-minded person whose only aim is to negotiate a place for himself and who begrudges other people everything.

That is what you say.

I want to tell those super-Afrikaners over there that I do not take second place to them as far as love of the Afrikaans language is concerned. It is the language in which I think, dream and live; the language in which I give expression to the deepest promptings of my inner self; the language in which my mother taught me to pray. Therefore it is my earnest endeavour that others, too, will be attracted to my language. However, if in this language and in the name of the Afrikaner I publicize my misgivings about other people, and announce from the rooftops my prejudice towards them and heap abuse on other people, then I am doing the Afrikaner an incalculable disservice. There is a great deal more at stake.

When have we been abusive?

Goodness me, Sir!

Furnish just one item of proof.

Order!

There is far more at stake than merely the interests of the White man.

Just stick to the truth.

There is far more at stake than merely the interests of the Afrikaner.

Order! Hon. members must afford the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity to make his speech. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I said that there was far more at stake than merely the interests of the White man, and that there is more at stake than merely the interests of the Afrikaner. I know that I am dealing with an extremely sensitive subject and I want to deal with it with great circumspection, with hesitation. I wish to state this very clearly: I am not going to accuse the CP of acting in an unchristian manner because my own conduct is not irreproachable. However, I am going to accuse the CP of having discordant noises in its midst—and there are many of them—and of not calling those people to order. I say to them that there are people who are touting with Christianity, who are trading in Christianity, and that they are not condemning those contemptible actions in the strongest terms.

Just mention one. [Interjections.]

Order!

In our relations problem in this country—and the Lord knows how difficult it is—we could have expected the Christian, of all people, not to have problems as regards his relations with other people. Indeed, we grew up with the commandment of love: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Indeed, from an early age we grew up with the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” But all too often we find people who call themselves Christians, who are most vociferous in their protestations of their Christian beliefs, but who have the greatest problems as regards their relations with other people; people who are most easily offended by, and most easily give offence to, people of a different colour. At the founding congress of the CP wide publicity was given to one of their leaders who left the congress in a rage because there was no immediate reaction to his proposal that reference be made in the constitution to the Triune God. Later this was amended and he returned.

You have your facts wrong again.

A few weeks after that that same man was in the news again. Then he was objecting strenuously because six Coloured women had attended a children’s concert at a White school. It was good enough for him that those Coloured women ironed those little girls’ frocks, but for them to sit there and attend the concert was taboo. That would endanger White civilization. He threatened to write to the hon. the Minister of National Education and he screamed blue murder. Thus it is not to be wondered at, Mr. Speaker, that there are people who loathe our religion and our theological orthodoxy.

Your problem is that you speak just like Beyers Naudé.

There is another example to which I want to refer; another example of a case at which hon. members of the CP were present. I read in the newspaper about the congress of the CP in the Free State. In that report I read the word “Christian” probably half a dozen times or more. I read, inter alia, that there were objections to the unchristian conduct of the Government, to the way in which it was undermining Christianity.

How did Dr. Treurnicht react to that? [Interjections.]

At that same congress Dr. Andries Treurnicht replied to this man, this man who stood up there and objected because a Coloured or an Indian Christian delivered the religious message on television. In the midst of all that piety, that kind of sentiment has to be expressed. [Interjections.] Can it be true, can prejudice be so blind? Can racism be so overwhelming? Can hatred be so bitter that one can refuse to hear a Brown man speak of the miracles of God in one’s own language?

Let a Black man do it.

Yes, he can do it. Why not? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, have we become so confused that we worship in the name of Christianity that which is the diametrical antithesis of Christianity? I want to ask hon. members of the CP to speak to those people, to tell them in the clearest possible language that if they want to behave like hooligans, if they want to shout and be abusive and insulting and humiliate other people …

You are now dealing in with untruths.

… to keep their status as Afrikaner in the background; and above all to keep their Christianity in the background. I call upon hon. members of the CP, in the name of everything that is sacred, please to do this.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister began his speech by saying that now was the time for shows, and that this debate was the occasion on which political parties should exhibit their policies. But what did the hon. the Deputy Minister do? He did not say a single word about the NP’s policy or its constitutional plans. [Interjections.] He merely preached in a pontifical way here, like a neo-liberalistic theoligian, and railed at the so-called wickedness of the CP. That kind of thing is unfitting in this debate. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister frankly that that kind of thing is unfitting in this debate. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, since February 1982 the face of South African politics has changed unmistakably and drastically. I wonder whether hon. members still recall how Die Vaderland reported as follows on 24 February 1982—

There was great satisfaction at the time, among the leaders in the NP as well; great satisfaction and contentment. And then we were out of that party because we adhered to separate development, and because we were opposed to power-sharing and integration. How did the hon. member for Lichtenburg not plead that we should dissociate that motion in respect of the hon. the Prime Minister from these new policies? What was the motion of the hon. member for Barberton at the congress of the Transvaal Executive Committee? It stated clearly that we distanced ourselves from power-sharing and a mixed government and that we were in favour of separate development, and it was rejected. After a year the Transvaal leader now has to go to the voters with that policy, and he has cold feet. Now we read in Die Transvaler. “Nasionale Party will nie magsdeling hê nie. FW sê leuens oor Nasionale Party moet end kry”. [Interjections.]

It is very interesting that the Chief Information Officer of the NP, the hon. member for Brits, gave the following definition of power-sharing in a pamplet of the Instituut vir Reformatoriese Studie. He said—

I want to correct that hon. member. I have the official 1977 document here with me. In this document no mention is made of a joint say (medeseggenskap). Here it is stated clearly “beraadslaging en medeverantwoor-delikheid” (consultation and co-responsibility). [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Pietersburg a chance to make his speech.

The hon. member for Brits went on to say—

What did the Chief Information Officer of the NP say to the present hon. Minister of Internal Affairs? He said he had made himself and the NP ridiculous. He had made himself ridiculous by saying that there was no power-sharing as had been stated in this pamphlet.

How must the voters of South Africa know where they stand with the NP now? As the hon. member for Lichtenburg said, they now have to indulge in double talk. They have to announce two policies. They have to vacillate. What happened during the past year? We on this side had to stand by and watch the once powerful NP bowing to world opinion. It has fallen a victim to international liberalism. It has fallen victim to American big business. There are many examples of this. [Interjections.] I share the opinion of the hon. member for Lichtenburg that the NP is caught between the two poles of South African politics, that of liberalism and that of conservatism. We have seen how NP parliamentarians have ostensibly been brainwashed, not only by Prof. Koos Roelofse last year, but also by Dr. Willem de Klerk at the Hartbees Youth Centre on 15 January. I also think that the hon. member for Gezina can stop making his confessions now, to which he devoted his entire speech, because there is an English proverb which states: “Confession is good for the soul but bad for the public image”.

At that brainwashing course—“Die Nasionalis aan die werk: Voorwaarts sonder vrees”; I do not have time now to discuss the whole course, but there are two matters in this connection which I should like to single out—mention was made of Black skill, the demands made on education, the emergent Blacks and Coloureds. Then they say: “Dishearten the poor voter; get him discouraged at the numerical superiority”. I now wish to give the hon. members an example, the example of the hon. member for Innesdal in connection with that discouragement of the voters.

Come to the realities of the matter.

I am.

You lot make people afraid, and you are already afraid.

I am coming to the realities. In Rapport of 6 March the hon. member stated inter alia—

He continued—

It is clear: Discourage the people in the face of Black numbers. They say we must find a compromise; we must find a compromise at all costs, because the conclusion is that we cannot maintain ourselves through our numbers, nor by means of force and also not by carrying on without any change. We must therefore find a compromise.

What does that compromise look like? This is what it looks like: The full participation of Whites, Coloureds and Indians in one authority structure, the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa with three chambers. In spite of what the hon. the Minister of Manpower now says, this is true; here it stands recorded in the official guidelines of the department—or is this a misprint? On page 6 it is stated that it will be a multiracial mixed Cabinet. Fortunately we heard this afternoon from the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and the hon. the Deputy Minister that a Coloured could take his place and that there could be a Coloured and/or Indian in the Cabinet of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I now wish to ascertain from the hon. the Minister what the separate or group-specific matters are over which the Whites are going to have a say, and what the matters of common interest are. The President’s Council has already spelt this out in his second report, but I have not heard anything being said about this from the Government’s side. In the Free State pamplet which I have here, they state that separate or group-specific matters will be, for example, the identity of a group, religious worship, education, their community life in their residential areas and aspects of welfare such as care of the aged.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance: What about the Department of Finance? Surely the Department of Finance is a joint department. Who is going to provide the money for this handful of separate or group-specific matters? A joint department over which the Whites will not have sole and sovereign say.

On page 7 of the official guidelines of the department a multi-racial mixed President’s Council is described. This consists of indirectly elected and appointed members who are going to have the final say. The hon. the Minister of Manpower may say now that it is a forgery of a document, but here is the Free State pamphlet. We have read through it. Here, too, is the Transvaal pamphlet and I also have the official document to hand. In each one of them it is stated that that President’s Council will have the final say. Consequently it is not merely going to be an advisory body, but in the case of a conflict it will have the final say. The members of the President’s Council will not be elected by the voters; they are indirectly voted or appointed. They take decisions which affect every voter in the country. To whom are those people responsible? Not to the electorate of South Africa. The people of South Africa will not accept this.

On page 14 of the official guidelines of the department the electoral college is described. This is the crux of the matter. The electoral college will be made up roughly according to population figures. This dispensation therefore remains a form of majority rule.

It remains as it was proposed in 1977.

This is what the NP tells the White voters of South Africa against the background of the political realities as spelt out by the hon. member for In-nesdal: The danger which is too great, the numerical superiority, the onslaught which is too great.

It is very great; not too great.

The NP states that in view of this the voters of South Africa are forced to accept a compromise; they cannot do anything else.

What does the CP say, on the other hand? There is another reality which is just as realistic.

A Coloured homeland?

There is the opposite side of the coin, a reality which the NP does not say a word about these days. This is the reality of an Afrikaner people as the largest component of the Whites in this country which also demand for themselves a sovereign government in the same way as every Black nation does. The Afrikaner people will guard jealously the right to ensure that those who govern them are democratically elected from among their own number. Surely this is just as much of a naked reality as the numerical superiority of Blacks in Africa. [Interjections.] Surely the sovereign governing authority of this sole indigenous White people of Africa did not fall into its lap out of thin air. Surely the Afrikaners, the central group of the Whites in this country, took shape through centuries of struggle against foreign domination. They fought two wars against a world empire, an imperialistic power which, measured against present day standards, surely presented a greater threat than any world power of today. It is just as much of a reality that this people has never allowed itself to be extorted or intimidated by foreigners that wanted to force it into submission. [Interjections.] It never ceased to struggle, even when adversity, defeats and despondency among a section of its people threatened to make it weak and powerless. It continued to struggle and fight until it ultimately became a republic, a sovereign, independent Republic, when a flag of liberty was once again able to fly over the free spaces and veld of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Of Afrikaner and Englishman.

Unfortunately my time is very limited …

Hear, hear!

I wish to conclude by saying that this brings me then to a very important and apposite question, which is: Where is the national State of the Afrikaner—and the Whites who identify themselves with the Afrikaner—situated? What has the struggle in this country since the earliest years been concerned with? I am asking this, because no people can truly be a people without its own national territory. A people without a national territory is a subservient people (bywonervolk). [Interjections.] A free nation chooses its own government out of its own compatriots.

Do you want to disenfranchise the English?

Those who are in collusion with foreign authorities are not free, but are vassals who cannot mark out and pave their own way for those who come after them. That is why it has now become imperative that we should comply with all the requirements of nationhood in our own country which can serve as a bastion in which we can cherish our own national heritage against all the forces and powers which seek our obliteration. We, the Afrikaners, the Whites of Africa, have a God-given right to be here, and no one can deprive us of it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietersburg began his speech by reproaching the hon. the Minister of Community Development for having allegedly not discussed policy. The hon. member for Pietersburg said in this connection that this House was a place where political policy had to be stated. [Interjections.] I want to concur with this idea of the hon. member for Pietersburg and say that this House is also a place where hon. members should identify themselves. Arising from this I should like to put a question to the hon. member, because I should like to know who it is who has just participated in the debate. I should like to know from that hon. member whether he still owns shares in Die Afrikaner. [Interjections.] I am asking this because he is an hon. member who came to this House in terms of the policy of the NP … [Interjections.] … an hon. member who was elected on the basis of the 1981 manifesto. That was the basis on which he came to this House. Now, however, he is seated in the CP benches and proclaims HNP policy. [Interjections.] I therefore feel justified in asking him to identify himself so we can know what value we should attach to his words and so that we can know whom we are dealing with. Are we dealing with a runaway Nationalist, are we dealing with a member of the CP, or are we dealing with a person who is on his way to the HNP? [Interjections.]

The hon. member had a great deal to say …

This is ludicrous.

… about the Government and the NP’s alleged renunciation of certain aspects of its policy I shall come to this later when I refer to what the hon. member for Lichtenburg said in this connection.

The hon. member for Sea Point, who unfortunately is not present at the moment, had a great deal to say earlier today about reforms and alleged that the proposals of the Government and of this side of the House were a deception, simply because they were not reforms which complied to his requirements. The Government and this side of the House has never suggested that the reforms which we envisage will be reforms in accordance with the model of the PFP policy. On the contrary, it has been stated very clearly and unequivocally throughout that the reforms which this Government envisage are reforms within the parameters of the policy of the NP. The Government cannot after all implement reforms which are in conflict with the policy of the governing party. Therefore it is meaningless for hon. members of the PFP to advance the argument time and again that the reforms proposed by this side of the House are not in line with the kind of reforms which they propose, because it is obvious that that will not be the case.

If the Government and this side of the House were to propose reforms which complied with the requirements of hon. members of the PFP, we would be proposing radical changes because, by their own admission, theirs is a radical policy. The hon. member for Pinelands once took it amiss of me for allegedly not understanding the concept of “radicalism”. He told me at the time that “radicalism” meant that one penetrated to the heart of a matter. He did not say, however, was that their policy penetrates to the heart of the structure of authority and the system of government with the purpose of destroying it. If we were to apply such radical reforms, we would be destroying the entire structure of authority in this country and for that reason we can never comply with their requirements and it is not the object of this Government to do so. Let hon. members of the PFP understand once and for all that it is senseless to rise here time and again and say that the reforms proposed by this side of the House are not the reforms they would like to see in this country. [Interjections.]

I also wish we could get away from the old “bogey-man” of apartheid. The hon. members of the official Opposition just cannot get rid of their obsession with a term like apartheid to which they give a specific meaning as it suits them.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg also had a great deal to say this afternoon about this side of the House having changed its policy.

Did you not?

We have said repeatedly that the NP has changed its policy. We are not ashamed of saying that, because a party which is incapable of changing its policy from time to time to accommodate changing circumstances, has no contribution to make to politics in South Africa …

When did you change it?

… because that party would be lapsing into stagnation and would then have no contribution to make. Let us therefore have clarity on this point as well.

The fact of the matter is that the leader of the CP, as recently as April 1981 affixed his signature to a manifesto …

May he change his policy?

… which implicitly contained power-sharing. Now the hon. member for Lichtenburg has said, in reply to an interjection, that that manifesto did not proclaim power-sharing. I challenge the hon. member for Rissik, the hon. member for Pietersburg, or any hon. member of that party, to prove that the 1977 proposals, which formed the basis of the 1981 manifesto, did not imply power-sharing by the way in which the State President would be elected by a mixed electoral college and by a mixed Council of Cabinets. Whether the words “power-sharing” appear in the manifesto or not, those hon. members knew as well as I did that the 1977 proposals and the 1981 manifesto implied power-sharing.

I differ with you.

That manifesto was signed by the leader of the CP, his photograph was even on it. Now the hon. members are trying to indicate here, with semantic exercises, that that manifesto did not propagate power-sharing. The leader of that party relinquished his credibility by running away from what he himself subscribed to in 1981. He ran away, just as the hon. member for Lichtenburg ran away. This afternoon the hon. member for Lichtenburg promised that he would, in his speech, come to the standpoint of the late Dr. Verwoerd in respect of a Coloured homeland, but he never did. He ran away from it. In the same way the leader of that party is now running away from his own standpoint in respect of a Coloured homeland, which he categorically rejected. Those hon. members must explain what has happened between 1981 and the present time. Within two years a Coloured homeland has quite suddenly become possible.

Yes, of course.

Then why was it not possible in 1981? What has changed in the meantime? No, Sir, they have made a blatant right-about-face.

I want to conclude by referring in agreement to what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development said towards the end of his speech. The one thing I cannot forgive hon. members of the CP for is the fact that they arrogate to themselves a monopoly on conservatism and Afrikanership. I think those hon. members would do well to take to heart the counsel of the hon. the Deputy Minister for Community Development in this connection.

Mr. Speaker …

[Inaudible.]

I have not even begun to speak yet and the hon. member for Rissik has already started making interjections. This session we have known him by the stream of unfortunate remarks that has emanated from him. The hon. member for Lichtenburg announced very proudly that both he and the hon. member for Rissik had been known as Coloured homelanders as far back as 1970.

I said that as long ago as 1958. [Interjections.]

I should like to ask the hon. member whether he thinks that the difference of opinion as to whether a homeland can be viable or not, is a fundamental point of policy difference between ourselves and the CP. Does he regard it as fundamental?

Yes.

The hon. member says it is fundamental. In other words, if I understand the hon. member correctly, all the years that he has been in the NP he has been in favour of a Coloured homeland. He regards this as a matter of fundamental importance. However, at no NP congress or anywhere else did he state that he differed with the NP concerning this fundamental matter. Indeed, on platform after platform he defended this programme of action signed by his leader. He agreed with this charter, and it was on the basis of this charter that he was elected. He agreed at the time that because the Whites, Coloureds and Indians has historically shared the same geographic territory, the concept of independent States for each group was not practicable. However, the hon. member states that he reserved a private opinion in this regard.

I said so in the study groups.