Mr. Speaker, for the past three days a debate has been raging in this House between the Government and the Opposition parties on the future constitutional dispensation in South Africa. For every observer this debate has revealed, and it is as plain as a pikestaff, that after 35 years South Africa is today saddled with a despondent and spineless old Government which stumbles along in total confusion and chaos under a despondent and spineless old leadership which is obviously failing to sell a despondent and spineless old policy to a despondent and spineless old NP electorate which is dwindling rapidly. [Interjections.]

You are far better when you are sitting down. [Interjections.]

During the past three days speakers on the Opposition side have put a whole series of clear and pertinent questions on the constitutional dispensation to the Government. It was striking that in every case spokesmen of the Government refused to answer those questions. They could not succeed in answering those questions. They were not capable of answering those questions. They did not have the ability to answer those questions either. What was very clear to all who listened to this debate, is that there was not a single speaker on the side of the Government who had the courage to give unequivocal and clear answers in respect of the new constitutional dispensation of the NP. [Interjections.] Hon. members on the Government’s side appeared flustered and confused, despondent and desperate throughout this debate. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting phenomenon in the history of our country, and I am convinced that it is indicative of the success which the NP has had at its seminar in the Transvaal where the whole of the NP with all its members were trained to be despondent, to think despondently, to talk despondently, and to make everyone despondent, because despondency is the new norm, the new slogan, the new philosophy of the NP. [Interjections.]

Where is the hon. the Minister of Despondency? [Interjections.]

The Government has come forward with double talk and double standards. That is factor number one which gave rise to this situation. The failure of the NP leadership to give clear elucidations of its new policy factor number two. The discord which exists between the hon. Minister Heunis of the South and hon. Ministers Viljoen, F. W. de Klerk and Hendrik Schoeman of the North is factor number three. Factor number four is the total paralysis which has struck a fearful and defenceless Government, a Government that trembles at the thought of what is happening in the by-elections in the Transvaal. [Interjections.] We now come to the final factor, factor number five. And that is this new light which has begun to dawn on the NP: “Man, we must be despondent. We must make the country despondent and we must move forward in a despondent way”.

I can of course imagine, Mr. Speaker, how things are going at the moment. Every morning the hon. the leader of the NP in the Transvaal rings his chief organizers in Waterberg, Soutpansberg en Waterkloof to tell them: “How many despondent people do you have now?” [Interjections.] “How many despondent people do you now have among your enrolled members?” and as soon as he learns the latest statistics, he cries out in desperation: “No, good heavens, that is not nearly enough despondent people to win the election against the courageous voters of the Opposition parties!” [Interjections.] Then he has to tell them: “You will simply have to work harder to make more people despondent so that they can vote for us”. [Interjections.]

The question is then asked: “Did you use all the arguments which we gave the canvassers to help make the voters despondent?” [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, you and all the hon. members know me. Hon. members of the NP know that I am a helpful person. [Interjections.] I want to assist the NP. I want to help them. [Interjections.] I know that the NP is engaged in a life and death struggle in a campaign in which they want to make the voters of those particular constituencies despondent and I want to put forward a few arguments which will help the Government in that attempt of theirs to make the voters dejected. [Interjections.] Hon. members on the Government’s side must listen very carefully now, and the hon. the leader of the NP in the Transvaal should take notes. Argument number one to make people despondent is power-sharing. Tell the voters of the vacillation in the NP on the concept of power-sharing. At first the hon. the Prime Minister said that the policy of the NP was now one of power-sharing. Then he became fearful of the consequences and qualified it by saying that it was healthy power-sharing. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked the hon. Minister F. W. de Klerk during the no confidence debate whether the policy of the NP was indeed one of power-sharing, the latter replied bashfully, though very definitely: “Yes, it is one of power-sharing”. Then the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said—and one could see that he was very angry at the degree of modesty that could be detected in the hon. Transvaal leader—“Yes, of course it is a policy of power-sharing”. Now the hon. Minister F. W. de Klerk is saying once again that it is not power-sharing, but that it does contain elements of power-sharing. Obviously I now expect the hon. the Prime Minister to say, quite soon, that it does contain elements of power-sharing, but that they are healthy elements of power-sharing. [Interjections.] That, of course, will only serve to cloud the issue even further, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

I just want to make it clear to hon. members of the Government that if they communicate these arguments to the voters of Waterberg and Soutpansberg, they are immediately going to make them despondent. They wilí then see that the Government does not have the faintest idea of what the fundamental principle of its policy is, and that it does not know where it is taking South Africa either.

Let us come now to argument number two for making people despondent. The argument concerns the Constitution Bill. The NP can use this argument very effectively. Six months have elapsed since the congresses of the party gave their approval to the guide-fines of the Government and told the Government that it could proceed with that policy. Now, six months later, the Government has failed completely to come up with the relevant legislation. South Africa still does not know what the final legislation is going to look like. The Government wants answers from the voters. The voters have to say whether they vote for or against the new dispensation, but in the meantime the voters have no idea of what it entails. They have not seen that legislation at all. So if the Government wants to make the people despondent, it must ask them to vote on something which they have not yet seen, something which they know nothing at all about. That is an effective way of making the electorate despondent. The Government would do well to carry on like that. [Interjections.]

The third argument with which people can be made despondent is obviously the hon. Minister Chris Heunis. If the mere mention of the name Chris Heunis does not cause the voters to be overcome by a wave of despondency, just mention the inexplicable fact that although this debate has now been raging for three days—and it is a debate dealing with constitutional matters—that hon. Minister is conspicuous by his absence. Hon. Minister Heunis was not here to listen to this debate. Apparently he is not interested. That is one possibility.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that I indicated about 10 days ago that some Ministers have to be absent from Parliament on certain sitting days because they have important obligations to discharge elsewhere. Therefore the hon. member must not refer to hon. Ministers in such a derogatory way.

I accept your ruling, Sir, and I withdraw what I said. I take it that the hon. the Minister is most probably engaged in the by-elections and that will only contribute to those people becoming even more despondent if he is there. It is a pity that the hon. the Minister is not here, because this debate is concerned with constitutional matters. Here we have the poor hon. the Minister of Finance who has no understanding of these matters in any case and he is now expected to reply to a debate of which he has no inkling. The poor man! I notice he is sitting there without even making notes. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member is speaking in a very derogatory manner of fellow hon. members, to say nothing of hon. Ministers. I am not making an exception of hon. Ministers, however. The hon. member must not speak in such a derogatory manner of any hon. members of this House. Therefore I ask the hon. member to withdraw what he said about the hon. the Minister of Finance.

I accept that, Sir. I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Despondent-making argument number four is the referendum. This argument if very effective if one wants to make the voters despondent. Tell them the hon. the Prime Minister said that he would only hold a referendum if his constitutional plans deviated radically from the policy of the Government. And now a referendum is, in fact, to be held. The hon. the Minister Heunis said that a referendum was not necessary because the voters decided in 1977 and 1981. They agreed to the mandate of the Government. Tell that to the voters up there.

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Bryanston once again. But he has been in this House for quite a number of years and he knows that he should refer to hon. Ministers by their portfolios and not by their names.

Yes, Sir. Unfortunately the names of some portfolios take up an inordinate amount of time.

Despondent-making argument number five is the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Here we are dealing with an hon. Minister who is expected to retain the goodwill of the Coloureds for the plans of the Government while every statement of his Cabinet colleagues sabotages those plans and that goodwill. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning also has other problems to contend with because he makes use of braais in his task of retaining the goodwill of the Coloureds. The longer this process continues and the longer the uncertainty prevails the worse this matter gets because the rains are coming, and once the rains are here it is going to be difficult for that hon. Minister to continue with his braais.

Despondent-making argument number six is the Coloured Ministers. If not one of the other arguments succeeded in making the electorate thoroughly despondent then this argument is going to succeed beautifully. Just refer to the total confusion regarding the possibility or otherwise of Coloureds being appointed to the Cabinet in positions dealing with matters of common interest. The guidelines of the Government say yes. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says yes. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs sometimes says yes and sometimes no. The hon. member Dr. Odendaal said in Parys that there were no Coloureds with the necessary capabilities. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs said at Bulgerivier that there was no Coloured in South Africa with the necessary capability of being appointed Minister of Transport Affairs. Explain that there are in fact Coloureds in South Africa with engineering degrees, with degrees in economics and also with degrees in management, etc. but when it comes to the portfolio of the Minister of Transport Affairs they all lack a basic and essential qualification, viz. that not one of them is a prominent maize farmer and cannot therefore be appointed to that portfolio. [Interjections.]

To bring the despondency of the voters to a head, canvassers may take the argument further by saying that the place of residence of Coloured Ministers resulted in a totally despondent state of affairs in the Cabinet. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs said straight out that Coloured Ministers would have to live in Coloured townships. The hon. the Minister of Community Development in respect of this matter said that the Government had not yet decided. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning would very much like to say that they could live wherever they wish, but he may not say that yet. The hon. the Prime Minister, however, has not up to this stage said anything about this matter. This could be very effective in making the people despondent, if that is the aim of the Government.

I accept that the new policy, the new direction, the new method, the new system of the NP is making people despondent. “Vote for a despondent party with a despairing future on the basis of a despondent philosophy.” But is that good for South Africa? Where is the Government taking South Africa on the strength of this new policy of theirs?

I want to issue a specific warning to the Government. If the hon. the Prime Minister does not soon evince the necessary courage and vision to provide South Africa with honest, clear and purposeful leadership in this sensitive and dangerous period in our history, his reform initiatives will collapse dishonourably with the inevitable and tragic result that not only the idea of reform but also the expectations for peace and stability and prosperity for our country will suffer such a setback that they will never fully recover again. The interests of South Africa require purposeful, honest, courageous leadership from the hon. the Prime Minister and not the despondent and spineless leadership which the Transvaal leader of the NP is trying to foist on him at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston saw fit to make a speech here this afternoon in the course of which it was necessary for you, Sir, to step in and point out to the hon. member for Bryanston the correct procedure to be followed in this House. At the beginning of the hon. member’s speech I had my notebook ready because I had thought that I would have to make several notes in order to reply to his arguments.

However, the hon. member only came up with a single argument. He said that the NP had a policy of despondency and that the Government was a despondent government, while the NP was a despondent party.

You are the only one who is not despondent.

I am not despondent. I can give the hon. member for Yeoville the assurance that I am absolutely undespondent, but if that is how the official Opposition sums up the position of the governing party, then surely they ought not to tell us that we should pull ourselves together and carry on governing. Surely they ought then to be pleased, because it would mean that they have a chance to take over the Government. However, what does the hon. member for Bryanston do? He does not wish to take over the government; not at all. He says: Please, Mr. Prime Minister, pull your party together; please, Mr. Prime Minister, set matters straight; please, Mr. Prime Minister, set it straight so that you can continue to govern.

Are you acquainted with this document?

Yes, I am acquainted with it.

Were you present at that seminar?

Yes, I was present at that seminar and I want to point out here and now that the hon. member for Yeoville said …

Do you agree that what appears in that document is Government policy? Do you say that everything that is in that document is Government policy?

Surely the leader of the NP in the Transvaal said that that document…

No, he did not.

He replied yesterday by saying that that document was not an official NP document.

Therefore what it contains is not NP policy?

No, I do not say that what it contains is not NP policy. I do not reject it.

You accept it, then!

As far as I am concerned, I accept much of what it contains.

Just say whether you accept or reject it.

Surely I cannot accept or not accept a document if it is not an official NP document. If it had been an official NP document, it would have been a different matter.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville persists in asking questions; what it really amounts to is the old question: Are you still beating your wife?

No, Mr. Speaker, he does not beat his wife. I know that. [Interjections.]

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

No … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

The people who accuse us of despondency ought to be pleased. We shall see what happens.

Is your emblem not the powder horn?

I shall leave the hon. member for Bryanston at that…

Is your emblem not perhaps a despondent powder horn?

I say this because his speech here this afternoon was an absolutely superficial, opportunistic speech. [Interjections.] Over the past few days the hon. members of the official Opposition—and this also goes for the speech of the hon. member for Bryanston today—have referred to the Government and said that the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP were not capable of bringing about reform. That is the accusation they have levelled at us. The hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Berea elaborated on that point. When they say that the Government is not capable of bringing about reform they also ask: Are you going to abolish the Group Areas Act? That is the first thing they ask, whereas they know that there is at present a commission of inquiry dealing with the issue of the Group Areas Act.

Not in principle.

Hon. members ask whether we are going to abolish the Mixed Marriages Act. Surely the hon. members know what the hon. the Prime Minister said. They know that he said that the churches had to come and discuss the matter with him.

The churches decided about that long ago.

As far as those hon. members are concerned, there are only four things we have to do to eliminate all discrimination in this country. [Interjections.]

Far more than that.

According to those hon. members there are only four spheres in which there has to be reform. However, I want to ask the country to judge who the people are who have in fact brought about reform and change in South Africa. In 1978 I said by way of an interjection to the then hon. member for Mooi River, Mr. Sutton, that the NP was the biggest agent of change in this country that I knew. [Interjections.] We have always been capable of bringing about change. So as not to drop the argument summarily at that point, I just wish to mention that it was the NP that established the Republic. It was also the NP that saw to it that there were four independent Black States in South Africa. It was the NP that saw to it that there was a co-ordinated, proper system in terms of which facilities that could not be duplicated, could be shared. It was the NP that arranged economic co-operation across political borders. [Interjections.] Then, too, there was the decentralization policy of the NP with regard to regional development. Surely all this is reform that has taken place. Those hon. members themselves said that the 99-year leasehold system constituted reform. [Interjections.] Was it not the NP, too, that adopted a standpoint with regard to the wage gap and brought about reform? Is it not the NP that has created labour legislation to bring about reform? Is the housing policy of the NP, as just announced by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, not reform? The private sector has a share in that. After all, there is greater participation by the private sector in the economy and less interference on the part of the Government as a whole. Does that not constitute reform? Does the tax parity which is envisaged for all the people in South Africa not constitute reform? No, hon. members must not be so quick to get up and criticize by saying that this Government is not prepared to bring about reform.

The steps that now have to be taken with regard to the constitutional change that lies ahead, surely constitute reform of the first importance. The NP is not flinching from this. The NP did not know that there would be by-elections in Waterkloof, Soutpansberg, Waterberg and Carletonville at this time of the year. Now the hon. member for Bryanston says that we are quivering and quaking about that by-election. Hon. members, even the hon. members of the CP, will agree that the CP cannot win Soutpansberg. The CP themselves saw to it that they would not win Soutpansberg because they appointed Mr. Tom Langley as their candidate there. Surely, then, it is a foregone conclusion. [Interjections.] Let us say the CP, rather than the NP, wins Waterberg. Neither the CP, nor the HNP nor or the NRP can win Carletonville. What will have happened if this is the result? Then Dr. Andries Treurnicht will come back to this House and the CP will have one constituency fewer, because Mr. Thomas Langley will have been sacrificed. It was very clever tactics on the part of the CP to sacrifice Mr. Tom Langley. Why is it necessary for the NP to quiver and quake if the outcome will create more or less the same situation as at present? Surely then, it is ridiculous to say that about the NP.

Let me say what those hon. members are afraid of. After all, they are the people who are in favour of referendums. The hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Berea come here and talk about beaches. The hon. member for Sea Point says that everything must be thrown open, that all the beaches must be opened. However, what happened with regard to the referendum in Sea Point and Green Point?

What did happen?

I want to take this further. I have obtained the details of what happened in Natal today. There were 3 400 votes in favour of zoning.

Those are the CP men. [Interjections.]

I beg your pardon: 3 400 votes were cast; 3 042 were in favour of zoning, 310 were opposed to it and there were 39 spoilt votes. However, I note that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is not present. I take it he had to go there immediately because the people implicated him in those matters. Why, then, does the hon. member for Sea Point not accept the result of the referendum in Green Point and Sea Point? Is the hon. member for Berea going to accept the outcome of the referendum in Natal?

Everyone must take part in the referendum.

Now everyone has to take part in the referendum. Does the hon. member want the Black people to take part in the referendum on the constitutional dispensation as well?

Yes.

Sir, we have a fantastic situation here. Surely, then, what is at issue is a foregone conclusion as far as those hon. members are concerned. Surely they know what the outcome would be in such a referendum. Would the hon. members accept the outcome? [Interjections.] As far as the hon. members of the CP are concerned it is just the other way round. Let us say that we hold a referendum without the Black people, the Brown people and the Asians taking part, the Whites of this country agree with the Government, and a tricameral system is established in this country. Are those hon. members going to sit in the White chamber of that Parliament? [Interjections.] It is a simple question. Are they going to sit in that chamber?

Quiet as mice.

If the Whites in this country are in favour of the Government’s standpoint, will those hon. members sit in that chamber?

We shall sit there and fight.

Of course we will.

That is very interesting, because the hon. the leader of the CP said he would not take it.

We shall not take it either. We shall use democracy to fight it. [Interjections.]

The hon. members of the CP are not prepared to say whether they are going to sit in this House if the standpoint of the NP is put into effect. They say they will use it to fight, but their hon. leader said that he would not take it. [Interjections.] I should like to refer to a different aspect about which there could be misunderstanding. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rissik must just give me a chance now.

I have not said a word.

Order! Hon. members must not allow themselves to be provoked so easily.

Before coming back to the PFP, I should like to discuss the CP’s policy of a Coloured homeland. I think there are certain facts that must first be rectified. I took the trouble to obtain the latest details so that I could give them to this House today. At present there are 637 group areas for Coloureds, with a surface area of 98 014 ha. There are also 23 rural areas for Coloureds, of which two are in the Free State and the rest in the Cape Province. The extent of these rural areas is 1,722 million ha. Therefore it is untrue that, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg and the hon. member Dr. Treurnicht have said, the group areas and the rural area for the Coloureds are bigger than Lebowa. Lebowa comprises 2,2 million hectares. I want that to be placed on record.

It is bigger than the Ciskei or kwaNdebele.

That does not matter. The argument concerned Lebowa.

The other evening the hon. leader of the CP said in regard to kwaZulu and a Coloured homeland—

There is one important question that the CP must answer for us in the process. To begin with I want to furnish the facts about kwaZulu. At present there are 28 areas in kwaZulu in which the Legislative Assembly of kwaZulu performs certain functions. 24 of the 28 areas form part of kwaZulu whereas four areas, namely the Sordwana area, the Piet Retief area, reserve No. 4 and the Driefontein block are administered by kwaZulu but do not fall within their area of jurisdiction. Moreover there are 84 Black spots in kwaZulu where kwaZulu has no legislative authority or managerial functions whatsoever. Therefore it is not as simple as the hon. Dr. Treurnicht makes out. If the 1975 proposals were to be implemented, those areas would be reduced to approximately 11. I can give the surface area of all the other territories, too, to hon. members if they want them, but I do not want to waste the time of this House now. Hon. members will have to do a little homework themselves; it is not that bad.

The hon. leader of the CP says that kwaZulu is a self-governing area and that the Coloured homeland could become a self-governing area. But after all, a self-governing area in South Africa is not independent.

Surely it can become independent.

In other words, the hon. the leader of the CP says that the Coloured homeland, in contrast to the Black homelands, will never be able to attain independence. [Interjections.]

That is wrong.

Why are the hon. members getting so excited?

Surely they can become independent.

In other words, the CP wants to lead the Coloureds to independence as well?

Of course, yes. [Interjections.]

If the Coloured homeland can obtain independence, does the CP still stand by what the hon. member for Lichtenburg said, viz. that if the Coloureds want more land, they can purchase it themselves? [Interjections.] Just see how they are running away now. He was not talking about the permission of this Parliament. This makes one so despondent. [Interjections.] If he can purchase land, where is he to purchase land?

That will be determined by this Parliament.

Can it be purchased in the existing group areas? The hon. member need only say “yes” or “no”.

Mr. Speaker, may I reply to the question of the hon. the Deputy Minister?

No, the hon. member may not reply to it now.

If the land in the group areas may be purchased, the Coloured homeland will extend from Pietersburg, where there is a group area, down to Cape Town.

Is it part of a homeland?

Apart from the group areas that exist…

Langa does not form part of Transkei.

Of course not! [Interjections.] Within their group areas the Coloureds have the right of property ownership. [Interjections.] I take it that the standpoint of those hon. members on a Coloured homeland will be the same with regard to the Indians. At this stage the Indians have 289 group areas with a surface area of 50 523 hectares. Must all this now become an independent State?

Read our policy.

Where is the homeland to be?

These are the things that make one really despondent.

I want to go a little further and would like to discuss a few other matters with the hon. members. The hon. members say that it is we that have deviated and not them. They contend that it was always inherent in NP policy that there could be a Coloured homeland. I should now like to quote what Mr. John Vorster said on 12 April 1978.

Also read what Mr. Gerrit Viljoen said.

The hon. member for Durban Point asked the hon. the Prime Minister at that time: “What happens if a population group does not have a territory? How are you going to accommodate the Coloureds, Indians and Whites?” This was in respect of the 1977 proposals. Mr. John Vorster then replied—

That is the standpoint put forward by Mr. Vorster on 12 April 1978. However, the hon. members of the CP are now contending that it is we who have deviated.

You were not here yesterday when we put forward our standpoint.

After all, we still stand by that standpoint as Mr. Vorster stated it at that time.

That is untrue.

We still stand by that statement. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us take the practical situation as I have just sketched it. In the light of what I have said, do those hon. members still see the development of such a Coloured homeland as being a possibility in spite of what their standpoints were in the past?

Of course!

Then those hon. members are living in a fool’s paradise, because that is simply impossible.

We are not despondent; you are.

Then there is the question of the presence of Coloureds and Indians in the Cabinet. At the time Mr. Vorster explained how the Council of Cabinets would work. At that stage that Council of Cabinets was an obligatory situation and would have consisted of seven Whites, four Coloureds and three Asians. That was what was proposed at that stage. The Chief Whip of the official Opposition asked the then Prime Minister what would happen if a conflict were to arise in the Cabinet’s Council. To what Parliament would the matter go after the State President had decided? To that the then Prime Minister replied that that was a matter for the Council of Cabinets to decide, to which the Chief Whip of the official Opposition said: “In other words, the White man”. The Prime Minister’s reply to that was: “No. The Council of Cabinets, in which Coloureds and Indians will also have a seat. Surely that is as clear as daylight”. In the process the Prime Minister also dealt with the question of joint responsibility. The other day the hon. member for Lichtenburg asked the present hon. Prime Minister whether he would include a person like Mrs. Suzman, a person who is a member of another party, in the Cabinet. When the same question was put to Mr. Vorster at that time, he replied that it was unnecessary for members of the Council of Cabinets to be members of the same party. That is how he put it. In his reply he referred to the situation in Germany and to other countries in the world. At the time the Prime Minister said that anyone could sit in the Cabinet even though he did not agree with the legislation that was being passed. But if it affected his conscience, he would be obliged to go. However, the responsibility remains a joint responsibility. Now I want to say that if that is not power-sharing, then I do not know what power-sharing is. And all these things were accepted by the hon. members of the CP. According to the new proposals, people with expertise are being appointed, not necessarily according to a numerical proportion. They will be appointed on merit. Is that not better than the obligatory situation we had?

Mr. Speaker, those hon. members are trying to put words in our mouths and sell to the voters what is not correct. They must just answer this question: Do they still stand by the 1977 proposals they accepted? Do they still stand by them? [Interjection.] I simply cannot understand how they can say that they no longer stand by those proposals. That means that they supported those proposals at the time in a way that was dishonest. [Interjections.] I still stand by the proposals. I am not running away from them. Nor have I ever said that there have not been changes. Indeed, those changes were improvements.

But you are saying that they are still the same.

Surely they cannot be the same if changes have been affected. The point is whether the principle at issue, viz. the sovereignty of people and groups, is affected or not. Surely the sovereignty of groups is not being affected by the system proposed.

That of the Whites is being affected.

The hon. member for Rissik is a philosopher, a clergyman. He should go back to the theological school he comes from and ask the people there what is stated into the introduction to the book by the philosopher Dooyeweerdt about sovereignty. If they go and read what the word “sovereignty” means, those hon. members will begin to understand far more clearly. However, they have no idea of what sovereignty means. They have attached to the word “sovereignty” a connotation which does not reflect the truth at all. [Interjections.] We can mutter about these things to our heart’s content, and hon. members of the CP can get as much of a thrill out of the coming by-elections as they like—it does not matter. However, the most important thing is that … [Interjections.] Oh, really, I should so much like hon. members of the CP not to be despondent. They can win one of those by-elections if they like. I do not mind. [Interjections.] There is one thing they must know, however. It is that we are going to hold a referendum in this country …

We welcome it.

I am very pleased that the hon. members of the CP welcome it. Accordingly I want to say that if those hon. members are going to co-operate in the process, they may regain some of their respectability. However, hon. members of the official Opposition have not yet said whether they will take their places in this House again if the outcome of the referendum is in favour of the proposal of the Government. They have not yet replied in that regard. They are silent as the grave. [Interjections.]

One of the things those hon. members run away from is the question of what they are going to do. They do not wish to say at this point what they are going to do about the referendum. They first want to know what the question to be voted on is going to be. The question is stated in the guidelines that have been published. Anyone can go and read it there. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister touched on quite a number of matters here. He said, inter alia, as did his hon. leader, that this manual was not an NP document. On its cover is the powder-horn of the NP, with a small arrow pointing upwards.

Are these cuff-links of mine emblems of the NP? They have powder-horns on them. [Interjections.]

In Soutpansberg they also said that this manual was not an NP document; it was a document of the Government. I am talking about this little blue book, printed in the colours of the PFP. The hon. the Deputy Minister spoke for example about the homeland policy of the CP and our policy in respect of Coloureds. He is a Deputy Minister, but he has not even read our policy. Therefore he does not know what is stated in our policy. [Interjections.] He does not know what we say about the Coloureds. He does not know that we will lead the Coloureds to independent States, to independence, and so forth. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister, who is one of the architects of separate development and of the consolidation of States, is someone who can talk logically about Black development. But he suddenly strikes a blank when it comes to the Coloureds and Indians. How can one understand that hon. Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] He talks about 637 group areas. How many Black townships are there in South Africa? Is every Black township part of the independent States or of the national States. [Interjections.] Surely that is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister talked about Cloud-Cuckoo-land politics. What infrastructure is there in kwaNdebele? There is only a borehole and a few clinics. That is all they have there.

What is the will of the people of kwaNdebele?

What is the infrastructure in the Coloured areas at this stage? [Interjections.] There is an university and industrial development. They are people who are becoming more and more sophisticated. I do not think that the hon. the Deputy Minister has ever read our policy. Unfortunately I cannot devote more time to him. I want to come to what is happening in Soutpansberg. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I informed the hon. NP Whips that I should like to have the hon. Minister of Manpower present here. I know that he cannot be here. I understand his position. However, there was talk here about credibility. The hon. leader of the NP in Transvaal spoke about credibility. If there is one thing doing the rounds in Soutpansberg, then it is credibility. I am a member of the Afrikaner people, and I am not saying it in a racistic sense. However if there is one field in which the Afrikaner has always been in charge of affairs, it is politics. This has been the case from 1910 to 1983. People of other language groups have made their contributions to the various facets of society, but in politics the Afrikaner took the lead. However, the credibility of the Afrikaner is now in jeopardy. At this stage the credibility of the Afrikaner is at stake.

I have just come from Soutpansberg. [Interjections.] I have just come from there. What I experienced there, what I listened to and experienced there, caused me grave concern. You must remember that the eyes of the other population groups are on us in this country and that they are assessing our credibility. [Interjections.] I am speaking as an Afrikaner, Sir. Less is being said about policy and about the referendum than about the actions and deeds of the hon. the Minister of Manpower, not about his character or about his personal conduct, but in Soutpansberg people are talking about his deeds as an MP and his deeds as Minister. In that constituency people are talking about the credibility of Mr. Botha as an MP, as Minister, as Leader of the House and as acting Prime Minister while the hon. the Prime Minister was in Taiwan. I must not be misunderstood on this. I have a great responsibility to the voters of Soutpansberg to interpret their politics correctly here in the highest forum in the country. It is indeed understandable that the voters are talking about the credibility and the integrity of the MP for Soutpansberg.

Since the Information affair, our nation has not yet moved out of its credibility crisis.

Whose fault is that?

We are not talking about whose fault it is. We are saying that the inescapable fact is that the nation’s mind is not yet at rest as regards that credibility crisis. [Interjections.] It can rightly be said that the voters are all agreed about their deep concern at the scars caused by the Information affair as regards the credibility of our corps of leaders. [Interjections.] As an Afrikaner I am especially sensitive about it.

I also maintain that the Soutpansberg was deeply divided over the Seychelles affair. Doubts over what happened in regard to the Salem incident were not laid to rest by the statement of the hon. Minister for Mineral and Energy Affairs. I could mention many other examples, but I want to get back to what is happening in Soutpansberg. What is taking place there, is applicable to our whole situation in politics and is of importance with regard to credibility. [Interjections.]

Millions are being spend on unnecessary projects, such as road No. 2474 in that district. The road-building programme in that district goes hand-in-hand with the following: The Minister there did not do his duty as MP. Tax-payers are paying him to do his duty and to hear representations from the voters who want to talk about the wasting of their money by the State. [Interjections.] He evaded his duty as MP and is living under a cloud of suspicion of doing things that are not reconcilable with the responsibilities of a member of this House. [Interjections.] The Minister is being accused by the voters of not telling the truth. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister should have intervened. The Prime Minister’s written reactions to the representations made by voters is based on false and misleading information. The hon. the Minister is guilty of extremely unethical conduct. [Interjections.] We are dealing here with the Prime Minister and the Senior Minister, the Leader of the House and the Acting Premier. We are dealing in Soutpansberg with an accusation by the voters which is of far greater importance than an issue in an election challenge. However, this road-building project is not the only matter and it will also not be confined to that. There are other matters in which the hon. the Deputy Minister is deeply involved in his public capacity.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Brakpan allowed to say that the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Manpower has acted unethically?

I did not say that the hon. the Prime Minister acted unethically. I said that the Prime Minister used facts which were erroneous, which were untrue, when he replied to the complaints of voters. [Interjections.] I said that there was a complaint against the Minister of Manpower of being guilty of extremely unethical conduct. [Interjections.]

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member for Brakpan that if he impugns a person’s character in the manner in which he is attacking the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Manpower at the moment, I would expect more substantive examples from the hon. member. Many things can be done under the privilege of Parliament, but I think that the hon. member is now being completely derogatory and is proving nothing by doing so. The hon. member adduced no proof whatsoever in that regard.

I should like to come to it, Sir. I shall now leave that aspect and raise certain facets.

At this stage I should like to extend an invitation to the hon. the Minister of Manpower, who is so fond of issuing challenges, to come and debate in Louis Trichardt, under the chairmanship of an impartial person designated by the electoral agents of the two candidates, in Louis Trichardt in the Soutpansberg constituency before the voters of Soutpansberg and with the voters of Soutpansberg the question of road No. 2474 and other matters. [Interjections.]

I want to take as an example an announcement concerning Venda. This is something which was discussed here in this House. It is not true that the borders of Venda had been finally dealt with. President Mphephu contradicted the hon. the Minister and so did the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs. With regard to the aspects of the allocation of land for Lebowa and Venda I want to quote an excerpt to the hon. the Minister from a sworn statement I took down in Vivo from a person who was the owner of land taken by the trust, which was subsequently supposed to have been returned, but which is now going to be declared Black in consequence of land south of the mountains which is now going to be declared White. The person was a member of a delegation which went to talk to the Minister in Louis Trichardt on Easter Monday. There were four people. The hon. the Minister of Manpower said—

I read further—

The statement reads further—

I have a sworn statement and I shall give any member of the Cabinet a copy.

You are a scandalmonger.

This is a sworn statement, not a piece of gossip. Since the hon. member for Turffontein has now made that interjection, I want to point out that surely he knows about the questions which Mr. Sutton, the former MP for Mooi River, put at the time. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries also knows about it.

You still remain a mere scandal-monger.

Here is another piece of gossip, but unfortunately I have to involve the hon. the Minister of Justice in it. As we all know the Electoral Act provides that one can appoint 12 chairmen for absent voters.

Twelve apostles.

Yes, twelve apostles. Does the hon. member for Smith-field know what happened in Soutpansberg? Thirty-seven temporary justices of the peace were appointed by the hon. Minister of Justice until 31 May. After we had made inquiries about the matter, I got a letter dated 14 April—it is the 14th of April today. I got a copy of a letter written by the hon. the Minister to the hon. member for Lichtenburg, also dated 14 April, that he would appoint other justices of the peace at his discretion. This is the first time that the CP has heard about this. Do hon. members of the PFP know that temporary justices of the piece are being appointed left, right and centre?

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Brakpan will in all fairness allow me …

No, I do not have the time now; Somebody who speaks after me, can reply to it. I am terribly sorry that I cannot now afford the hon. the Minister of Justice the opportunity.

You are really dragging everything through the mud, aren’t you?

But everything is true; that is the problem. We are not going to contend ourselves with that. It does not matter whether the CP or the NP win these by-elections, but this kind of thing cannot be allowed to happen in public life in South Africa. [Interjections.] We talk to people who support the NP. We talk to people who have been staying there for years. We talk to people who are snubbed by the MP from the dais. Now they are not even going to attend meetings any more. There are hon. members of the NP who are now in Soutpansberg in order to listen to the type of language the hon. the Minister of Manpower is using when he talks to his voters. [Interjections.] There is a desire for the transfer and replacement of that hon. Minister. [Interjections.] He is considered to be an embarrassment to us as Afrikaners. [Interjections.]

You are a disgrace to Afrikanerdom.

The hon. the Minister is an embarrassment to his hon. Prime Minister, and we know it. [Interjections.] We know that he is an embrarrassment to the hon. the Prime Minister. I am sorry for the hon. the Prime Minister, because the hon. the Prime Minister must act on advice which he gets from the hon. the Minister of Manpower. [Interjections.]

Deal with your policy now.

I shall leave this aspect at that for the moment. [Interjections.]

I now want to refer briefly … [Interjections.] But this is not gossip. This is the point. [Interjections.] Right, we will prove it to those hon. members. [Interjections.] We will prove it.

Have you now finished with Tom’s speech?

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that I am making Tom’s speech. [Interjections.] It is a lie. It is untrue.

After the 10th, Tom will come and make his own speeches here.

I say, with all the responsibility at my disposal, that this speech is not Tom Langley’s speech, and that hon. member must accept my word. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Community Development doubts my word.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs asks whether we still stand by the 1977 proposals. All I want to tell him, is that there is a difference of interpretation concerning those proposals and he knows it. He said that that Council of Cabinets would be a super Cabinet, that it was also the idea at that time that that Council of Cabinets would have been just such a Cabinet as this one will be. [Interjections.] However, we do not interpret it in that way. [Interjections.] Then an hon. member talks about “sovereignty.” If the President’s Council has the final say about a matter about which there is conflict—an indirectly elected body which is a mixed body and which is not responsible to those hon. members or to myself—it is part of the sovereignty and it is part of the legislative authority of South Africa. And if Van der Voort or Van der Veert or whomever says something different, he is wrong. [Interjections.] And then the hon. the Deputy Minister is also wrong, and he cannot dispute it. Neither he, nor the hon. the Leader of Transvaal can dispute it. They are talking through their hats if they say that the President’s Council is merely an advisory body.

Now come to your policy.

Finally, I just want to say again that we have not finished with the hon. the Minister of Manpower yet. He will hear about these things from us, whether he is here after 10 May or not. [Interjections.] He will not get away with these things he is doing in Soutpansberg.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising merely to reply very briefly to the hon. member for Brakpan’s explanation of a facet of the gossip he has come across. But he did not simply mention it as gossip. He presented it as a reality here and implicated me in a matter which I consider to be a part of the duties I have to perform. He referred to the fact that I appointed 37 justices of the place for the Soutpansberg constituency. Every voter in South Africa is entitled to cast his vote. The Electoral Act makes provision for justices of the peace to render a service in this connection. However, there was something that hon. member omitted to do. He referred to the letter I wrote to him, and I wrote a letter to him today, because I heard that he was making inquiries at the department. I do not want to deny him his right to do so. He is entitled to do so. I was glad that he did so and I shall explain why in a moment. I have said that section 1 of the Electoral Act, read in conjunction with sections 47, 48 and 49, provides that justices of the peace may also be presiding officers for absent votes. Now I want to state categorically that after I had come to the conclusion that Soutpansberg was very poorly provided with justices of the peace, I would have been guilty of gross dereliction of duty if I had not appointed people.

Did the MP not do his job?

Wait a minute. I am coming to that now. The hon. member said the MP did not do his job. I shall tell you in a moment who did not do his job, and then that hon. member’s nose will be out of joint. I came to the conclusion that there were 18 vacancies in the Waterberg constituency. [Interjections.] What did the hon. member just say? I came to the conclusion that there were 25 vacancies in Carletonville. Because I was requested to do so, I filled 37 of the 46 vacancies in Soutpansberg. I wrote to a senior member of that party …

Under today’s date.

Yes, but wait a moment.

After they had already been appointed.

Wait a minute. I can surprise the hon. member. My action was the result of careful consideration over quite a number of months. Last year already, after I had gone through certain documents, I came to the conclusion that there was a shortage of justices of the peace in the country according to a quota system drawn up in 1971. What did I then do? I wrote to the leaders of all the political parties in the House of Assembly. I wrote to Dr. A. P. Treurnicht on 24 May 1982 and furnished particulars of persons that had been appointed justices of the peace. I wrote to him—

I wrote this letter in May of last year. I am quoting further—

I therefore wrote to tell him that there was a quota and that he could go and inspect the names of the persons involved. Now that there is a shortage, those people are being appointed. It would seem that he did not inform his party.

Now 37 persons have been appointed in Soutpansberg.

The hon. member for Brakpan is now accusing me of benefiting the hon. the Minister of Manpower on the spur of the moment. It is disgraceful! I am merely doing my duty to the voters and to that party’s leader …

That is not what is at issue.

Of course it is.

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

I have not finished yet. It was therefore possible for the hon. leader of that party to inform his people at that stage that he had received that letter. He could have asked them whether they were experiencing shortages. He should have been on his toes and told his people that he had received a letter from the Minister of Justice at that stage in which it was pointed out to him that there was a quota system and that the names were available to inspection. The hon. leader could have told them to go and take a look at the names.

That has nothing to do with this matter.

They have only been appointed for two months.

Yes, for purposes of the Electoral Act. But I am coming to that.

Is this honourable politics?

I am coming to that. I appointed those people according to my judgment because I was aware of the requirements. I had intended to institute a proper investigation throughout the country regarding the filling of vacancies.

Had intended!

Wait a minute.

Order!

I wrote a similar letter to the hon. member for Duban Point.

It they are good enough for that job, why can they not be appointed permanently?

They will be appointed permanently when I have concluded by investigation for the whole country.

Are you engaged in an investigation?

I have just said that I gave attention to the matter a year ago …

Have you been engaged in an investigation for a year already?

I merely said that a year ago I drew attention to the fact…

You appointed 37 people for two months in one constituency.

What is wrong with that? It was done to provide a service for the voters. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members must give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to give his explanation.

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

No, Sir.

Why did he appoint two people from one household?

In every case I had the magistrate ask whether there were any objections to those people, and there were no objections from that district.

They did not even know about it. The letter bears today’s date. [Interjections.]

I made the appointments and if the hon. member can point a finger at any one of these people as being unsuitable to perform the function of a justice of the peace, I shall take the necessary steps. I laid down a firm, objective policy. Last year I pointed out to the hon. members that there was a quota and today I told them that there were still vacancies. According to our own guidelines I could have appointed a further nine people in Soutpansberg, but I did not do so. I received applications from many more people, but I did not appoint them. I left nine vacancies unfilled. Those hon. members may apply. If they submit suitable names, we shall give the matter the necessary consideration. This is an open offer. I repeat that I drew attention to this fact last year already and that the hon. the leader of the CP received that letter. I made inquiries from the leaders of the other two Opposition parties and they did in fact receive that letter. As a matter of fact, Dr. Van Zyl Slabbert, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, returned a copy of my letter to me. [Interjections.]

There are many absent voters in South West Africa. If we address representations to the hon. the Minister to appoint a special justice of the peace in every town in the area, will he do so?

That is really a very stupid question. I do not know whether the hon. member wants me to tell him how stupid he really is. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in the five years I have been in this House I have never seen so much hatred, enmity, bitterness, jealousy and envy concentrated in one hon. member in a few minutes as I have just seen in the case of the hon. member for Brakpan. If his tongue were a sword, the hon. the Minister of Manpower would have been cut into a thousand pieces. The hon. the Minister is a person who is loved and respected throughout South Africa for what he has done for his country and his people since 1958. His monuments are to be seen throughout the country and throughout his constituency. It is not necessary to talk about that this afternoon.

Having said that about the frustrated hon. member for Brakpan, I wish to refer to the reprehensible behaviour of the hon. member for Bryanston while participating in this debate this afternoon. He is an empty shell and he tried to create a kind of parody around the word “despondency”, making a complete fool of himself in this House. Everyone in this House can say nothing but that the budget introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance, which we are discussing here now, was the best of his career, seen in the light of the circumstances in which the South African, and the world economy find themselves today. That is why the hon. members of the Opposition cannot say anything about the budget itself and why they are confining themselves to matters on the periphery of South African society which have nothing to do with the real welfare and prosperity of South Africa. That is why hon. members in this House are wasting their time by coming forward with this little booklet.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Kuruman allowed to refer to the hon. the Minister of Justice as “stupid” and “ill-mannered”?

Order! The hon. member for Brits may proceed.

Hon. members, for example, the hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member for Brakpan, are wasting the time of this House, as well as thousands of rand of the country’s money by coming here and arguing for 30 minutes about a little word which appears in this booklet used by Dr. Willem de Klerk at his seminars, before student and NP audiences. He came to Brits in my constituency as well, and I am not ashamed of that. As far as the party is concerned, we have no problems with the contents and the spirit of the contents of this booklet. Let us make this clear to one another, so that we may have an end to this matter.

I wish to ask hon. members of the CP this afternoon what they are doing with the realities dealt with in that booklet. I wish to ask hon. members of the PFP, particularly that empty shell who is now sitting with his back to me, the hon. member for Bryanston, what they are doing with the facts in this booklet, the facts everyone, the HNP, the CP—merely a lot of HNPs in disguise—and the other Opposition parties, have to take into account. We could just as well have used the word “realistic” instead of “despondent”, since this is basically what it is about. There are facts and realities in South Africa which no one, not a single person, can get away from. We cannot get away from the fact that South Africa is a multinational society. We cannot get away from the fact that it is a multiracial society. We cannot get away from the fact that people of colour, people with a human dignity just like each one of us sitting in this House today has, are making claims in South Africa. We cannot get away from Black numbers. We cannot get away from Black expertise …

[Inaudible.]

I pay no heed to an empty shell. It is all over for the hon. member for Bryanston. This afternoon I had lunch with one of his voters and that person said that that hon. member would never see this House again after the next election. We cannot get away from the reality of Black expertise without which South Africa would grind to a halt in the field of labour, as well as in other fields. They cannot get away from the communist onslaught which is aimed at all of us. South Africa is part of Africa. We cannot get away from that. We must seek and find our salvation here; it is not to be found in any other place or in another heaven.

Finally, we are living in a world which has become a small place, viz. the Western World of which we are integral part of which we cannot say: I am turning my back; I shall drink until I am as drunk as a mouse and then I shall challenge the cat, as the CPs do.

When we speak about the realities of the day, it is perhaps necessary to look at what Dr. Malan said in 1923 when he addressed a student rally at the Strand. They were South African Christian students and he was to speak about the concept “Die Vaderskap en die Broederskap van God” (the paternal and the paternal and the fraternal nature of God). I am being extremely serious, and it is with the greatest respect that I mention this here this afternoon. At the end of his speech Dr. Malan told those students in 1923, and hon. members will subsequently note how this corresponds with what Genl. Hertzog had to say at that time in the Free State, and also in this House—

Dr. Malan was referring here to South African society, since at that time he and Genl. Hertzog were wrestling with the problem of the Coloureds, concerning where and how we could give them a place in society.

Sir, it is not all-important for us to come and argue here and split hairs about proposed instruments to deal with our society. Of course this is important, but it is not all-important. The most important thing is the people who live in that society, and if we cannot generate the right attitude among the various population groups, we may as well tear up our booklets and our plans. After all, the success of such plans begin with the right relationships among the population groups.

I have here with me the fruits of the labour of the church to which I belong, the fruits of many years of labour which bear witness to how that church has, since its inception wrestled with the problem of multiracialism and the multinationalism of South African society. Separate churches were established as a result of this. The first Christian mission church among the Coloureds was established in 1881. In 1948 there were changes, changes in policy. There were inherent advantages as well as disadvantages in these changes but let us admit today that we cannot get away from the necessity for us to consider these realities. We must ask ourselves what the principles are which we stand by and within the framework of which we try to make these communities contented and prosperous communities. The document I have here is the statement of policy entitled “Ras, Volk en Nasie en Volkereverhoudings in die lig van die Skrif”. It was drawn up and approved by the 1974 Synod. It was reviewed during the Synod of 1982 because, it was said, the situation simply did not remain constant. As it was said—

I quote further—

That is what the 1974 Synod said—

If we do not do this, if we do not do this every day, we shall not be able to find solutions to the problems of our time.

This brings me to the necessity for us to have certain standpoints concerning relations among peoples in the social sphere. There are certain standpoints in this regard which all of us in this House wish to, or will endorse, for example, the equality of all people and peoples, the multiplicity and the solidarity of the human race, as well as the fact of the diversity of peoples, although that should not be elevated to the highest and sole norm. If one does that, one is a racist and one is reverting to Nazism, away from Christianity. This diversity of peoples must not be allowed to become a sinful division. What is also extremely important, is that the church tells us—

This is our calling, particularly at this time of the by-elections—

I could mention many examples of situations which have to change in the light of the Word. If we were to have said a few years ago that the master-servant relationship should continue, the Synod came forward as far back as 1974, and again in 1982 and told us very clearly what we had to do in that regard. By the way, a church commission is at present engaged in reviewing this matter in depth. The church gives us a clear indication of what we should do in this regard. The church says that the task is to perform a service, to establish the Kingdom of God. The church also has a prophetic role to fulfil and it has to do so in the face of popular opinion. There are certain situations within the master-servant relationship which can no longer continue to exist in the light of the new circumstances which have arisen. In addition, people do eventually see the light.

Then there are the links between the church and the various population groups. It is the great privilege of the church to deal with its members and to bring about better understanding and to ensure the healthy development which should be present, not only in respect of relations among peoples, but also in respect of the development, physically speaking, of the various population groups.

I wish to conclude. It is important and interesting to note, in the light of this statement of policy of the D.R. Church, what General Hertzog had to say in 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925—a sound parallel with what Dr. Malan said in 1923. In his constituency at Aliwal, General Hertzog said with regard to the Coloureds that the Coloured was a completely different person from the Native. He originated among the Whites and grew up with them. Our language is his language. Therefore he must develop and make progress together with the White man. When he became Prime Minister in 1925 he said that unless we drove the Coloureds to it, they were not interested, nor were they inclined to be anything but well disposed towards us. Consequently, we should not cast them aside when they wished to stand by us. Then he spoke about reform and prophetically, General Hertzog said in 1925—

And this remains the plague and the malady of our time—

This has also been what our hon. Prime Minister has been pleading for since he came to power, viz. that we should break down those prejudices in South Africa which are unchristian and ensure that contented communities are established here and that there is a place in the sun for everyone in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Brits will forgive me if I do not react to what he has said.

I would at the outset like to record our appreciation to the Minister of Finance for the allowances he has provided for our senior citizens. The easing of the means test and the bonuses he has provided for are, I am sure, going to be sincerely appreciated by our pensioners. But while we applaud what has been granted, I believe certain points of criticism are justified.

In the first place the gap is increasing between the various race groups in so far as pensions are concerned. The gap between White and Coloured pensioners has increased from R55 to R59, while the gap between Coloured and Black has increased from R34 to R36. This is not, I believe, in the interest of good race relations. The Minister should therefore endeavour to close the gap instead of widening it. My second point of criticism is why our old age pensioners should wait until 1 October to get their increased pensions. Is it not possible to grant them their increment as from 1st April the same as is done with war veterans’ pensions? With inflation running at 15% and a 10% increase in pensions, which will amount to only R14, what is the real value of that R14 going to be by 1 October? In so far as rebate for the over-seventies is concerned, when one considers that these pensioners are self-sufficient, self-supporting and are not a burden on the State, I believe that greater consideration should be given to them. They should, because of their thrift and forward financial planning, be given a greater incentive than what they are presently getting.

I would like to suggest that the tax limit for those over 65 and 70 years of age be substantially increased as a further incentive for them to plan financially for their retirement. The tax-free limit should be raised to R10 000 and R15 000 respectively. When one considers that an old age pension, from 1 October this year, will be R1 844 a year, it is a perk for those independent people to strive for, especially for those senior citizens who want to be independent. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to give this some consideration. While I am being like Oliver Twist, asking for more, which is, after all, my duty in respect of our aged, I also realize that we have a growing elderly population. The burden on the State coffers is increasing at an alarming rate, and I certainly do not want to see a position created similar to that overseas, in which social security is putting Government into bankruptcy.

It is imperative therefore that legislation be introduced in connection with the transferability of pensions, and that private enterprise be given meaningful incentives to ensure that it is possible for everybody to belong to a pension fund. In this regard, when the draft Bill was published, a lot of dust was kicked up because of bad public relations, I believe. The draft Bill was indeed misunderstood by most. It was also certainly misused by certain trade unions as well as by certain political agitators.

Appalling agitation.

That could be, yes. Legislation in this regard is urgently needed, however. Hopefully the Government has learned a lesson from the last exercise, and we are looking forward to legislation being introduced shortly.

Having said that, however, once legislation is embarked upon the Government should stand firm against any agitation of the nature we have seen before.

I should now like to refer to the question of protection, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance what protection is really costing the country. Could the hon. the Minister give us any indication in rand and cent of what John Citizen is paying for protection of certain industries? Whatever the price—and it is estimated at over R1 000 million a year—I believe it is far too high. The amount I have just mentioned is astronomical. It is only necessary to buy a small portable television set costing R200 overseas. When one brings it into the country the duty payable on that item is R300. That is only direct taxation aimed at protection. What about all the other matters, from pleas for anti-dumping tariffs to subsidies, from Government procurement to local content programmes? What do all these measures mean? They only bring about additional costs and are also an impediment to the so-called free-enterprise system.

The main justification for application for protection is based on the importance of self-sufficiency as far as strategic industries are concerned, or alternatively they claim that more jobs can be quickly created. However, the facts show that in the long run fewer jobs are created because capital and labour resources are either underutilized or misallocated because of protectionism.

More difficult to solve is the complex problem of strategic requirements. In some cases protection may be difficult to avoid, but the trouble is that the door has been opened and that everybody is trying to jump onto the bandwagon. The aspect of protection goes hand in hand with secrecy. We have protection against overseas and local competition, protection which means inefficiency and unproductivity, protection which deprives the ordinary man of the fruits of his labour, which end up in the pockets of individuals who are not entitled to those benefits. Protection is justified on the grounds of emotional appeal by using catchphrases, such as “in the interests of the country”, “strategic industry”, “guarantees against boycotts”, etc. I want to know whether the Government can afford to perpetuate the concept of protection against competition on the one hand, and yet have a declared policy of free enterprise on the other hand. In my humble opinion one cannot have one’s cake and eat it.

Two recent investigation into the maize industry, one carried out by Nampo and the other by the S.A. Farm Consultants on behalf of Assocom, have highlighted some very interesting features. The maize farmers would indeed have saved themselves R121,9 million on their R414 million fertilizer bill if they had used imported fertilizer in 1981. It is broken down as follows: Ammonium sulphate, South African price R161 per ton, world price landed, R117 per ton; urea, South African price R342 per ton, world price, R197 per ton; and di-ammonium phosphate, South African price R330 per ton, world price, R238 per ton. On average, the South African farmer is paying 50% more for his fertilizer.

No wonder they can’t make a profit!

I could go on, Sir, but time does not permit me to do so. The Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism claims to support the hon. the Prime Minister’s principle of a free enterprise economy but at the same time controls the fertilizer industry. What happened in December 1981? The Director-General of the Department advised the maize industry of certain arrangements that had been concluded for 1982 as far as the fertilizer industry was concerned. I want to quote Dr. Du Plessis as follows—

In effect, what did this mean? It meant a profit of R17 million for a single importer. The landed price in bags of urea was at that time from R201 to R203 per ton. It was often sent direct to the fanner but the importer charged the distributor R283 per ton and the distributor charged the farmer R342 per ton. [Interjections.] If that was not a rip-off, what is? Moreover, this was done with the Government’s approval.

Between August 1981 and May 1982 the most popular tractors, those from 52 kW to 60 kW rose in price from between 23% and 40% because of the locally produced Atlantis diesel engines. It is all very well to say that Atlantis is going to make us self-sufficient as far as diesel engines are concerned but again, at what price, who will do the paying and at what cost to inflation? That is the important point.

In the plastics industry the local price of a good quality low density polythene is about R1 600 per ton while the world price is R1 000 per ton; PVC is R1 700 per ton as against a world price of R700 per ton. Are these exorbitant prices necessary? I do not believe they are.

I want to deal in conclusion with a matter which I believe requires some serious consideration. I want to deal with the Competition Board and I want to ask whether the Competition Board is a force or whether it is a farce. The Competition Board came out with certain recommendations in so far as the liquor industry was concerned. What has the Government done? It has completely rejected those recommendations. I want to say that the CWD which is in fact a newcomer to the retail scene, has been granted an additional 300 liquor outlets. I also want to say that the CWD now holds a 92% market share in the fields of supply and distribution in the wine and spirit industry. I want to ask this one question: Is big business taking the Government for a ride? If the Government is not being taken for a ride then the situation is even more ominous because in the fight of recent decisions in regard to the CWD, one can in my opinion legitimately ask: Was there a quid pro quo I ask this because the decision to create a monopoly was competely illogical when viewed against the stated Government policy of free enterprise. Moreover, it flies in the face of the recommendations of the Competition Board.

Mr. Speaker, a matter pertaining to agriculture was raised by the hon. member for South Coast, and on the basis of the figures quoted by him, he seems to have stated a reasonable case. However, I want to make the statement that he did not give the full perspective of the figures and I trust that on a later occasion—possibly during the agriculture debate—available figures concerning this matter, viz. the importation of fertilizer, will in fact be made available.

I should like to react to a few statements made by hon. members of the Opposition. The first aspect to which I want to refer, is something which was previously raised by the hon. member for Rissik when he quoted from a speech which I made probably more than 14 years ago. He tried to indicate that I was a supporter of the idea of a Coloured homeland. I want to make it clear that I said in the speech, which I made in this House and from which he quoted, that there were members of the NP who were considering a Coloured homeland as a possible solution. I did not, however, indicate in any way that I myself was a supporter of that idea.

I repeat that it was a possibility and that something of that nature could be borne in mind and should be investigated. To this I must add, however, that the entire pattern of development at that stage was such that no clear solution was seen as yet. In those years there was a stage when the Coloureds elected their own representatives and had themselves not yet developed a pattern. Subsequently a pattern did in fact develop.

Now the hon. members of the CP are saying that it is their firm policy to establish a Coloured homeland as a solution to the problem of political participation by the Coloureds. They try to justify their policy on the basis of the fact that the homelands are offered as a solution for the Black peoples in South Africa. I think it was the hon. member for Brakpan who referred rather sneeringly to the Ndebele and then said that it was illogical if the Ndebele could be provided with a homeland and the concept of a homeland for Coloureds could not be developed at the same time.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Brakpan and other hon. members of the CP that the Ndebele is the one group that pre-eminently adopts an attitude of national consciousness, a feeling of solidarity. When initially they were not included in the homeland concept, and a homeland was not envisaged for them, they insisted on a homeland. They trekked in large numbers, in their thousands, at their own expense, to the area which had been allocated to them. They did this without the State having to make any contribution. They made this possible by levying a tax on every Ndebele family for the building of schools and dams. There we have a community who pre-eminently has a feeling of, shall I say, national consciousness.

So, if the concept of a Coloured homeland is raised by the CP as an idea, I can say that I understand their desire as Whites that the Coloureds should accept a Coloured homeland. But what are the realities? Is there one per cent of the Coloureds, is their a single Coloured leader who presents himself as a person who is prepared to take the lead in promoting a Coloured homeland? There is not a single one. If Whites however, want to say, that a homeland is a solution advocated for Coloureds, surely it is so one-sided that there can be no chance whatsoever of such a policy succeeding. Surely it is blatantly one-sided.

As far as the Blacks are concerned, it is not we, as Whites, who foisted that concept on them. Traditionally every single one of the Black peoples has a political leader. Every one of them asked for self-governing status themselves. To date every one of them who obtained independence asked for it themselves. Consequently there is a nucleus of the community that requested independence. For that reason it cannot in any way be compared to the position of the Coloureds. Even kwaZulu itself, which is more fragmented than any of the other homelands, accepted the concept of self-government, because traditionally they have leaders who accepted that concept. Now, the position is that there is not a single Coloured leader who has accepted the concept of a homeland for Coloureds. Consequently there is no point—it is totally unrealistic—in the CP trying to suggest at this stage that the idea of a Coloured homeland would in any way be acceptable, either to the Whites or the Coloureds. Consequently I say that if they want to be at all realistic, they will have to review that aspect of their policy without delay.

Now I should like to come to the remarks which the hon. member for Pinelands made yesterday.

†I am glad the hon. member for Pinelands is back in the House. In his speech yesterday he dealt with the question of constitutional reform and referred to what he regarded as three basic principles to which it should conform. He said that it should be morally justified, that it should be legitimate and that it should be consistent. In his speech he also referred to a speech which the hon. the Prime Minister, Mr. P. W. Botha, delivered in this House in 1965, 18 years ago. What he conveniently seemed to overlook, however, was the fact that Mr. P. W. Botha, the present Prime Minister, was referring at that time to the concept of Progressive Party policy, i.e. that of having a one man, one vote basis for one single, integrated Parliament.

No, that is not true.

That was the concept he was dealing with.

No, it was not.

Of course it was, because at that time no other concept had been proposed …

The old United Party had a policy as well.

That might well be, but it was still the concept that is adopted today by the PFP, that of having a one man, one vote parliamentary system. Whether it is a federal system or whatever, it remains a one man, one vote, integrated parliamentary system, and that was what he was referring to. [Interjections.] Because he also referred to sitting in one single Parliament. He also referred to sitting jointly in one single Parliament. There is a whole world of difference between that concept about which the hon. the Prime Minister, Mr. P. W. Botha, spoke in 1965, 18 years ago, and the concept that has been proposed by this Government now for the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. This is not one single, joint Parliament sitting together in one chamber. [Interjections.] It is three separate chambers that are being proposed, the White electorate electing a White chamber, the Coloured electorate electing a Coloured chamber and the Indian electorate electing an Indian chamber. There will not be joint decision-making in joint session, and the hon. member knows that.

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

My time is very limited, but if the hon. member wants to put a question, he may do so.

Just a short question. May I ask the hon. member to address himself to two questions, one the question of Standing Committees, which is joint decision-making, and the other that of an integrated Cabinet?

The Standing Committees do not make laws. They discuss, they consult. They do not finally decide. The Cabinet does not finally decide either. [Interjections.] The Cabinet initiates …

Oh, come on!

Members of the Cabinet initiate and propose. [Interjections.] The hon. member should know very well that the Cabinet does not make laws. It initiates laws.

And the President’s Council?

The President’s Council is a mixed chamber, that is true, but it is not necessary to refer matters on which there is conflict to the President’s Council … [Interjections.] The State President will have the right to refer matters to them, but not necessarily. [Interjections.] The final decision is taken by the State President. [Interjections.] But that we can discuss in greater detail when we are debating that particular concept.

Let me, at this stage, refer to some other arguents raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. He spoke of what he termed the unjust system of repatriation or deportation of … well, he did not say Blacks, but mainly Blacks. He referred to the injustice of that. The hon. member for Pinelands should know very well that the fundamental issue there is not race. If the problem coincides to a large degree with race, it is easy enough for critics to attach a racial tag to the Government’s efforts to deal with the problem. The problem there is, however, a lack of employment opportunities and that is not the result of racial considerations.

But you prevent them from taking jobs when there are jobs.

It is the result of a social and economic system amongst those people, a system which differs to a large extent from the system to which we are accustomed.

Only Blacks are subject to pass laws.

Is it the State’s sole responsibility to continue to provide housing, employment and social services according to First World standards as a solution to the attitudes and social patterns of a Third World community?

No.

Is it not realized by the hon. members of the PFP that the birth rate in the Black community is a large contributing factor to the fact that not enough employment opportunities can be provided? It is no solution merely for those people to flock to the urban areas. This is not a problem that is prevalent only in South Africa, but it is an international problem. That is not the way in which to deal politically with this issue. They are trying to camouflage the problem, which is a social problem in that community. Until such time as that community realizes that, they will have to accept that they themselves must at least contribute towards finding a solution to that problem. This Government is trying in a genuine way to provide solutions. Providing employment opportunities on a decentralized basis is a longer term approach, but at least the Government is tackling this in the right way.

It is discriminating against the Blacks on the grounds of race.

The Government has a tremendous problem to cope with, but it is trying to deal with this in a way which will do justice to all the communities in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the hon. member for Klip River. As regards his problems with the Coloured homelands, I can say that we on this side of the House can support him. We do not believe in Coloured homelands. In fact, we do not believe in Black homelands either. We believe that all those people are South Africans. If he takes his argument further, perhaps he will convince himself that he also supports this idea.

He also referred to the Black population and the question of Black labour. I found his comments in this regard very interesting. I would not like to quote the hon. member incorrectly. He must tell me whether he agrees that he said that the high birth rate amongst the Blacks is a social problem of that community. Did he say that?

It is a social pattern in that community.

I should like to ask the hon. member if he has had a chance, or the curiosity, to read the report of the Science Committee of the President’s Council about this problem. If one reads this report and the recommendations very carefully, one sees that this is an indictment against the policy of the Government. That committee holds the Government responsible for the high birth rate amongst the Blacks.

And in the rest of Africa?

Unfortunately, the conditions our Blacks live under due to this Government in South Africa are the same as the conditions the Blacks live under in other countries in Africa, so that is not an excuse. [Interjections.]

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

Certainly.

If the hon. member tries to link this problem to colonial governments and Whites, would he indicate why in Ethiopia which has been independent from the times of King Solomon and in Liberia which has been independent for 200 years this problem is even worse?

Gladly. The answer is that in those countries, just as in South Africa, the authorities have not tackled the problems that cause the high fertility rate amongst Black women. That is the reason. I can tell the hon. member why that is and he can actually read it in the President’s Council’s report. It is due to a lack of basic education, a lack of housing, a lack of proper work opportunities …

Is it all the Government’s fault?

Of course! Why is there not a high fertility rate amongst Whites? Nowhere in the world has any nation been able to reduce the birth rate of its people without first improving the socioeconomic conditions. This Government has failed miserably and utterly to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Blacks. I am very grateful that I have given the hon. the Minister of Finance a chance to partake in this debate.

I started the debate.

Yes, but since then there has not been much about finance in the discussions. I would, if I had the time, like to return to it.

I wish you would.

It may hurt a little bit. Maybe I will be giving the hon. the Minister something to think about. Maybe that is why he is starting to get aggressive.

The birth rate cannot be reduced until this Government improves the basic socio-economic conditions of the Black people of South Africa. The Government must believe this. It should listen to the warnings of this report. [Interjections.]

Are we doing nothing?

Not too much. Read the report of the President’s Council and then it will be seen that nothing is being done. Do not argue with me; argue with the report. It is not my fault.

[Inaudible.]

You are an old Sap and you know nothing. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member prepared to repudiate Chief Minister Buthelezi about his statement concerning his own population group’s increase?

There is the fear of the Black man—hon. members can criticize it, and I can criticize it—that once we start speaking about birth control we are threatening his very existence. One must respect his opinion. I do not say the hon. the Minister does not respect his opinion.

It is not a question of birth control but of family planning.

Family planning is only a very sophisticated way of hiding birth control. It is in reality the same thing.

I have listened very carefully to this debate over the past four days and I have arrived at a few very definite conclusions. Firstly, hon. speakers from the Government side and hon. speakers from the CP with a very few exceptions, must be ashamed of themselves because they are wasting the taxpayers’ money. The old “verkrampte” racialistic differences were repeated ad nauseam last year, last month and last week. What was signed, said or agreed to in 1977, 1981 or 1982 has now become so repetitive that only political paupers can continue with these arguments. Parrot-like interjections across the floor of this hon. House such as “Wat sê Jaap?”, “Wat sê dr. Vorster?” and “Wat het dr. Verwoerd gesê?” are in my opinion not worthy of a Std. VI school debating society. This NP Government must remember that this country does not only consist of the CP and the NP, not only of the constituents of Waterberg, Soutpansberg or Waterkloof, but that it extends from the Limpopo to Cape Point and from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean. There are not only Whites living here, but also Coloureds, Asians and Blacks.

The second conclusion is that the performance of the Government during this debate and since the beginning of this session must be the worst in the history of South Africa. They are desperately fighting amongst themselves and I believe they are no longer able to govern this country.

Thirdly, I believe South Africa urgently needs a PFP Government. South Africa needs the principles and policies of this party that I am proud to represent. We need the statemanship of my hon. leader to lead this country in the future.

Fourthly, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that any similarity between this debate and a budget debate must be purely accidental. In my other profession—and hon. members know what my other profession is—we often discuss the indications for medical treatment. When we decide, for example, to operate on a patient, we firstly ask ourselves how the operation will improve the quality of his life. If this patient gains more years of life, we are very pleased, but our first priority in respect of treatment is for the quality of his life. It is my belief that we in this House are the guardians of the quality of life of South Africans. This is what we are here for. The ruling party makes the laws which I believe should ensure the quality of the fives of our citizens. The hon. the Minister of Finance provides the necessary budget to pay for this quality and, hopefully, to improve it.

I want to ask hon. members whether they believe that this budget debate has made any contribution towards the quality of our South African life. Except for the PFP and some very notable members of the NRP, the NP and the CP must plead guilty to total and utter failure. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance whether he believes that his budget will improve the quality of our lives. Will it improve the quality of housing, the quality of education, the quality of basic foodstuffs and the quality of health, to mention but a few? Will it improve the plight of the farmers in the drought-stricken areas? I think that enough has been said here for us to believe that much has been done to improve their plight. Will it improve the plight of the homeless, of those without work, of the elderly, of the pensioner and the infirm? The hon. the Minister of Finance has made available to the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare R1 330 million. Will this budget bring relief to those who are malnourished? Will it reduce the incidence of tuberculosis? Will it bring potable water and proper sanitation to areas where cholera is epidemic? Will it help to reduce overcrowding in some of our hospitals? I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance whether this budget has made any provision to reduce the overcrowding in Baragwanath Hospital in Soweto. Last year there was a lot of correspondence about financial aid to assist this hospital. I think the hon. the Minister has made it clear where the money came from and for what purpose it was used. We accepted his explanation, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether in this budget or in future budgets any money will be made available to improve the hospital bed position for the people of Soweto. This hospital is a monument to the dedication of the medical profession, but unfortunately it is also an indictment of this Government. A high standard of medicine is practised at Baragwanath under the most difficult conditions of overcrowding.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister or any other hon. members on that side of the House whether they have ever visited this hospital. Have any of these hon. members ever visited a hospital with wards containing 40 beds and 80 to 90 patients occupying these wards? Such wards are in the hospital in Soweto, the show-piece that the Government shows to all overseas visitors. The patients lie on beds, sit on chairs and even lie on the floor. Have hon. members ever visited the out-patient department, especially over a weekend, and seen the number of patients arriving there and the great difficulties under which the dedicated members of the medical profession have to work? Next door, White Johannesburg has provincial hospitals and private hospitals. Nobody denies that the Whites also deserve those services but when will attention be give to the hospital needs of the people of Soweto? Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether any money is now being made available for that purpose?

When we talk about the quality of life I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that I paid a visit recently to Veeplaas and Soweto near Port Elizabeth. There I saw 100 000 or more human beings living in an area, which, I believe, is a disgrace to South Africa. I saw those people living there in conditions, which, I believe, are abominable. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare and the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs are not in the House now. I should like to suggest to them that the conditions I witnessed there are totally in conflict with all our laws on health and pollution. Sanitation is virtually non-existent there. I have never seen anything quite like that before. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Welfare and Community Development spoke about Christianity and brotherly love. He said we should love our neighbour. He should go there to see for himself …

But have you been beyond our borders?

Yes, I have been beyond our borders, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity, I really do not understand the hon. the Minister of Community Development. How can he say something like that? I am pleading for South Africa and for South Africans. I cannot influence people beyond our borders. I am appealing to the hon. the Minister of Community Development, to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and to the hon. the Minister of Finance to help those people. They speak about brotherly love. They should go there to see the proof of their brotherly love. They should go there to see how they love their neighbours.

I have been there.

More than 100 000 people are living there, people coming from areas where employment is completely unobtainable. They are desperate to find jobs. That hon. Minister knows it as well as I do. Why does he try to argue about it?

He is ashamed.

As a Cabinet Minister he should surely know in what conditions people are living there. They are living in small huts.

Mr. Speaker, before I turn my attention to the hon. member for Parktown and other hon. Opposition members, I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a serious situation. It is alarming that building societies are exploiting people who have home loans with them to the extent to which they are doing at present. When interest rates rose, the building societies wasted no time in repeatedly increasing the interest on home loans, and therefore also the monthly repayments. However, now that the interest rates are dropping—and in certain instances they have dropped by as much as 6% —the building societies are taking their time about bringing down their interests rates on home loans.

Surely that is just not fair. The monthly repayments of many home owners are untenably high. Those people are really battling to make ends meet and keep their homes. There are people who have already lost their homes in the process. I therefore want to call on the hon. the Minister to negotiate urgently with building societies on this matter and to request them to lower their interest rates in accordance with the declining trend in interest rates, particularly since building societies are again attracting a good deal of money.

The hon. member for Parktown had quite a few things to say here. I just want to know from the hon. member whether he is aware that the Government is doing more to improve the standards of living of people in this country—Whites, Blacks and Coloureds—than is being done anywhere else in the world. The hon. member should just look around him for a while. What did we experience in this House today? We saw the frustration, the importance and the hopelessness of the two most important Opposition parties in this House.

In the first place we saw the hon. member for Bryanston throwing up an enormous smokescreen in an attempt to conceal his own party’s frustrations and impotence. That is because his party has moved so far from the mainstream of politics that they are sitting there totally irrelevant, like spectators in this debate. They are no longer part of the main debate. We also saw the hon. member for Brakpan burst out in hatred and spite here, apparently because his party has not made any progress, and because his party is doomed to failure. [Interjections.] I shall refer to this again later.

The political scene in South Africa is set for the implementation of the most sweeping constitutional change that has ever occurred in this country, a constitutional change which in a certain sense is more far-reaching then our becoming a Republic was. The hon. the Prime Minister and his Government have taken a most magnanimous and democratic step by once again putting this issue, this question of the amendments to the constitution, to the voters, this time in a referendum. This must have come as a great shock to the official Opposition, because the moment of truth has now dawned for them. The moment of truth has dawned for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in particular who is now facing the greatest test of his leadership in his political career. Thus far the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been able to move adriotly between the far left-wing and the near left-wing in his party or between to the right of left-wing and Houghton left-wing, will have to choose between “yes” and “no” in this referendum. After all the party of “real reform” as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has referred to his party, cannot say “no” in this referendum, which will open the doors to sweeping reforms in this country. How can he say “no” to that? I am willing to bet that in his heart of hearts the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would like to give the new dispensation a chance, but that he will never be allowed to do so by the inexorable left-wing radical power behind the Prog throne. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the strong “Houghton clique” are not going to allow him to vote “yes” in this referendum. He will not be able to do anything else but vote “no” and then he will be voting with the HNP and the CP. Fortunately there are thousands of PFP supporters who will not allow themselves to be forced by the Houghton Progs into saying “no” to the realistic course being adopted by this Government. These people are going to vote “yes” in this referendum. After all we have watched the hon. member for Yeoville floundering about here. In his heart of hearts he would also like to vote “yes” in this referendum.

What is the question?

The question will come. That hon. member will just have to be patient.

I want to come now to the dilemma of the CP. I do not want to be nasty to these people because they are fellow Afrikaners and until recently we were in the same party. I want to ask certain hon. members in the CP to cease their politics of hatred, of which we had a typical display here in this House this afternoon. The dignity of the highest legislative body in the country is being assailed by behaviour of this kind. Let us differ from each other decently like Afrikaners and without the vindictiveness and hatred that was displayed here this afternoon. [Interjections.]

It was a little over a year ago that the CP walked out. Let us consider what they have achieved in that year. For a year now the CP has been unsuccessfully baying at the moon. [Interjections.] From everything that has happened it is clear that the CP totally overestimated its own power and influence in South African politics and that is the reason why they are so frustrated that they are kicking up such a fuss here. I am willing to bet that there are CP members who could kick themselves for having taken the foolish step of breaking away. [Interjections.] I just want to say that there are hon. members of the CP who do not look too happy sitting over there in those benches.

The CP has become a stumbling-block to the Government in its struggle against our country’s enemies because our enemies have come to the conclusion that the NP as the Government had been weakened in the process. This gave our enemies courage and it is a pity that this has happened. I want to tell the hon. members of the CP that their novelty has worn off. The voters who initially supported them have been disillusioned because after an entire year the CP still does not have a working alternative for the realistic course adopted by the NP. All they have done is to fabricate differences. At one stage their leader issued a warning and said that people should not fabricate differences. But that is what they are doing now. The voters have been disillusioned by that party because the CP cannot offer anything better. The CP’s great dilemma is that they have no choice but to resort to the extremistic, dangerous politics of hatred of the HNP, as was again evident this afternoon.

One can ask whether the CP has contributed anything new to the political discussion during the past year. The reply is that they have contributed absolute nothing except a Coloured homeland which has been written off by everyone in this country. All they have done is to rake up old political clichés. They have become bogged down in old, obsolete attitudes without giving new content to them. The hon. member for Kuruman said his party was allergic to change. It is quite clear to us that as they sit there they are in truth allergic to change.

I now come to an important statement made in this House by the hon. member Mr. Theunissen. He said the NP was no longer able to give the Whites the unqualified assurance that it was able to assure them a political future. I want to point out to the hon. member and his party’s members that the fact of the matter is that the NP is the only party which offers the guarantee that White civilized values and White interests will be maintained in this country because the NP is the only party that is able to protect and to safeguard the right to existence of the Whites. The other parties sitting here cannot do so.

The hon. members of the CP have persisted with the worn-out, absurd story that the NP is selling out the White man. I maintain that they are selling out the White man. The CP is selling out the White man because it is adopting a foolish, unrealistic course of action which affords the White man no chance of survival, because it is a course that will lead to never-ending confrontation and bring down like bolts of lightning upon the Whites the resentment of people of colour. The course being adopted by the CP is a foolish and explosive one which will make the position of the Whites in this country untenable. Fortuanately voters are beginning to realize this in increasing numbers, and for that reason they are rejecting the CP. The CP is clinging to the misconception that the Whites will always be able to make decisions for everyone in this country. This can only lead to internal conflict that will not leave anyone unscathed.

The hon. member for Kuruman as well as other hon. members of the CP have said that the NP is no longer the old NP; it is a new NP. The fact of the matter is that the NP basically still stands steadfastly by the same basic principles it has stood by. It is stated herein its manifesto. Throughout its existence and to this very day the NP has been an evergreen party of renewal. It is at the fore front of all renewal in this country. If the NP is at the forefront of all renewal, this should, however, not be seen as a sign that it has sacrificed its principles in the process.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. Minister of Internal Affairs laid down two tests here for the political credibility of political parties. The Minister said that one of them was the political stability, honesty and reliability of its leaders. The second norm he laid down was the honesty with which a party puts across the views of others—for example, its opponents—in debates and in propaganda. I accept the two tests of the hon. the Minister. I therefore also want to invite him to appear with me as often as possible anywhere in the country, at a meeting under the chairmanship of any person whom the hon. the Minister may select. With reference to the norms which he himself laid down, I invite him to put the views of the NP, and I shall put the views of the CP. [Interjections.] I invite the hon. the Minister to do this anywhere in the country except in one constituency, and that is in Rissik. In Rissik I want to give that honour to the hon. the Minister of National Education who, in my absence, spoke to the Divisional Committee of my constituency where I was suspended without being able to put my view. Therefore my invitation covers any other constituency, where I should gladly appear with the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

This afternoon I also want to refer to two things said by the hon. the Minister yesterday afternoon with reference to the training seminar held by the NP at the Hartebees Youth Centre. The hon. the Minister said inter alia two things. He said that the document which was being waved around about so excitedly was not an NP pamphlet or handbook, but the framework of Dr. de Klerk’s address in his own words and in his characteristic and stimulating style. Secondly, he said that the naiveté of the PFP and the CP was making everybody despondent. Now it is we who are making them despondent. It is of course our task as an opposition party to do so. [Interjections.]

Surely that is unnecessary, because they do it themselves.

In the past few debates it has been very clear to me that we have indeed succeeded in making them despondent. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister says that this is all that document is. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. It was an NP meeting, was it not? [Interjections.] Dr. de Klerk not only is the brother of the Leader of the NP in the Transvaal, he was there by invitation and because he is a prominent leader of the NP, as well as the brother of the hon. Leader of the NP in Transvaal, the hon. the Minister should surely have known what the contents of Dr. de Klerk’s communication to them was. However, there is something I want to add. According to a newspaper the hon. member for Brits issued a statement, and I quote—

Dr. de Klerk is a member of the Reformed Church, and I should very much like to know where he did this. The hon. member for Brits is a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, and I should also very much like to know where he did this, either in the course of church work or at other levels. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I ask the hon. member …

No, that is not a point of order. The hon. member for Rissik may proceed.

The NP has an information seminar. Yesterday the hon. the Minister spoke for half an hour and during that half an hour he tried to indicate to us that neither he nor the NP was at all responsible for that seminar which was held.

But surely he did not say that.

What did we say, and what did the PFP say? We said two things. We said that that seminar was held under the jurisdiction of and with the approval, agreement and acclamation of the NP. This was our first statement. The second statement we made, was that in terms of the instructions issued at that seminar, it is said of the voters of South Africa that they must be made despondent. [Interjections.] As I came to know the old NP over the years, and in the history of the NP as that political organization which sought to carve out the sovereignty and identity of the White man and the Afrikaner here, we never made our people despondent. Never, in the face of the greatest dangers here or overseas, have we ever told our people “Be despondent”. We told them: In spite of the difficult circumstances, be brave and be strong, because we have principles and we have a cause and we have ideals. I want to say that the CP, on the strength of its principles and its ideals, is telling the Whites of South Africa: Be brave; there is a future. To the Coloureds we want to say: Do not become disheartened; be brave even if things looks bad for you. We also want to say this to the Indian nation in South Africa and to the various Black nations in Southern Africa. We say: Be brave. There is courage, at least as far as we are concerned. I believe that hon. members of the PFP are at least brave in respect of the matters which they want to put forward.

Years ago there was a Wilgespruit and a Schlebusch Commission, and at the time the old NP chased the PFP from Dan to Bersheba about the methods employed at Wilgespruit. Today I have to look on while the new NP, according to Prof. Sampie Terblanche, is employing the same principles and methods, although perhaps in an adapted form, which the PFP was accused of using at the time.

Are we going to have another Schlebusch commission?

Then they still say that it is the same party.

The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said—

Now I want to quote what was said by a man who is not a member of this House …

Probably Dr. A. P. Treurnicht.

No, but if the hon. member wants to know, I can tell him that it was Mr. John Vorster who said it. He said to students of the University of Pretoria that the 1977 proposals and the proposals of the President’s Council, or rather, those proposals of the President’s Council accepted by the Government, differ considerably.

In what respect?

I shall quote to the hon. member what Mr. Vorster said. I do so gladly.

What does it matter if they differ?

Mr. Vorster said that in 1977 there were to be three Parliaments. At the moment it is one Parliament with three chambers. In 1977 there were to be three separate Cabinets. At the moment it is one Cabinet, consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Asians. I can quote a variety of statements by Mr. Vorster. [Interjections.] I now want to repeat something which I have said already. I have come to know the members of the new NP: As long as the man who leads, is a member of that party, they follow him willy-nilly, irrespective of what he says. However, the moment he departs, they follow the new man equally unquestioningly. I joined the NP not because of a particular leader, but because I endorsed the principles of the NP. [Interjections.]

However, I want to quote another hon. Minister. Minister Pik Botha, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, says the following—

That is what the difference was all about. However, the hon. the Minister goes on to say—

Do hon. members want to tell me that it is true that the NP concealed the fact of power-sharing, healthy or unhealthy, from the electorate in 1977? [Interjections.] This is what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information says. The hon. the Minister says that the present NP is paying the price because it did not tell voters the truth in 1977. However, the hon. the Minister still is not finished. He goes on to say—

Hon. members of the PFP must listen now—

He then continues—

The hon. member for Parktown asked why we kept on referring to this matter. I want to tell him that our integrity is at stake. For more than a year we have been accused in a variety of terminologies of having misinterpreted the 1977 proposals of the NP. This is being said throughout the length and breadth of the country. The battle between the NP and CP concerns the integrity of the parties. It was not we who misinterpreted the 1977 proposals. I did not do so. I asked the former leader, Mr. Vorster, questions in the caucus and received answers which satisfied me. I held meetings for various hon. members in this House and they thanked me afterwards for having explained the policy of 1977 to voters. If since 1977 the NP has by way of certain subtle terminological utterances, switched from the idea of three Parliaments in which the White Parliament would keep all the portfolios for itself, to one Parliament with three chambers and a President’s Council which would, in the final analysis, decide the issue if the three chambers were to clash, I ask what these same people are going to do in three to five years’ time with the terminology they are using today.

“Power-sharing” was the term used by the PFP to indicate a policy in terms of which all the inhabitants of a State had full, equal political rights in the same Parliament. The Afrikaans for that was “magsdeling”. We did not reject the term “power-sharing”; we rejected the policy which implied power-sharing. We reject power-sharing not as a term, but as a policy.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a few words to the hon. member for Rissik, firstly because he is probably the greatest exponent of the politics of deceit which the CP is practising in South Africa, and secondly, because the hon. member is acting as the shadow leader of the CP in the Free State. I have not yet been able to discover whether he is an organizer of the CP in the Free State. He is not the chairman and he says he is not the leader, but I see now that the hon. member is the guardian MP for the Free State. Therefore I want to address a few words to him.

Among us Free Staters he is known as “holy Daan”, and I say this to the hon. member in all kindness. Hon. members had an opportunity to observe this once again this afternoon when he rose to speak. His tone was syrupy, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if you taste the syrup, you will find that it is as bitter as gall. The hon. member stands on political platforms in the Free State and attacks Die Volksblad, for example, in the most virulent language imaginable, Die Volksblad, which has been unashamedly Nationalist for 79 years. As for the hon. member for Rissik, he can make no such boast. We are not angry with him for having been a staunch UP supporter. There is nothing disgraceful about changing one’s mind, but what is disgraceful is changing one’s party as often as that hon. member has done. It is true, after all, that the hon. member sympathized with the HNP in 1969, but lacked the courage to take a decision, with the result that he remained with the NP. [Interjections.] Surely it is true, too, that while the hon. member was still a member of the NP, he was also a member of the AET.

That is not true.

He says it is not true.

It is a lie.

I accept it if he says it is untrue, because I concede at once that I cannot prove it on the information available to me.

So it is a piece of gossip. [Interjections.]

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

No. I am now speaking to the hon. member for Rissik.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: When the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare made the same statement on a previous occasion, we denied that the hon. member was a member of Aksie Eie Toekoms, and we furnished proof of that.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member Dr. Odendaal may proceed.

The hon. member for Rissik abandons his own constituency and comes prowling around in the Free State for a seat. We can assure the hon. member that if he makes himself available in the Free State, we shall deal with him the way Free Staters deal with political hitchhikers such as he and the way it dealt with the CP candidate who stood in Parys. While I am on the subject of the Parys election, I have really taken a lot of trouble to try to ascertain what really fies behind the policy of the CP. At seven public meetings of the CP in succession I was able to get in only one question at each meeting. I was not allowed to ask any further questions.

That is not true.

It is true. At every meeting there was only one question.

Two questions. [Interjections.]

By the way, it was at a meeting at Viljoenskroon that the hon. member for Barberton—I regret that he is not here—revealed the utter shallowness of his party’s policy. There was only one question I could ask him, and that is the reason why he is so spiteful to me. It is also the reason why he makes slanderous remarks about me in this House, alleging that I have said that there will never be a Coloured Minister in the Cabinet. There are two basic elements, two fundamental elements, of the CP’s policy which have emerged here. The first one lies in a term which is often used by the leader of the CP himself: The people as an absolute. This is the term he uses himself. It is fundamental to the whole approach of the CP. Hon. members will notice that the hon. member for Rissik always speaks of a White people in this House. He never speaks of an Afrikaner people any more. He speaks of a White people. He also speaks of a Coloured people. The reason for that is that it creates the possibility of a national State for Coloureds. [Interjections.] The second basic element which has been shown to underlie the whole policy of the CP is what I want to call the barbed wire syndrome. In these national States it wants to create, the CP wants to put the people who are moved there behind barbed wire. Then the problem will be solved, as far as they are concerned. After all, it is the written policy of the CP that they are going to make South Africa White. I have their programme of principles with me.

We find it in paragraph 1.4 of their programme of principles. I quote—

This is fundamental to the whole approach of the CP. In fact, they put it even more blatantly in their election pamphlet which was distributed in Parys. In that pamphlet they answered the question of what the White man would retain. I quote—

These are the very words that are written here. [Interjections.]

We do not want to establish a third Black city here in Cape Town.

That is real AWB politics on the part of the CP. [Interjections.]

You see, Mr. Speaker, that is their approach. When one has problems with certain people in the country—whether they be Coloureds or any other kind of people—when one is upset by the presence of certain people here in South Africa, the solution is to put them in a national State, to fence it round with barbed wire, and that is the end of the problem. That is the approach of the CP. It was on this very point that the hon. member for Barberton tripped up.

I asked him a question. Their policy makes it clear that the Coloureds will have sell their property in South Africa and will then have to move to their homeland. I asked him to whom they would have to sell their property. Naturally, the hon. member said, they would have to sell it to the Whites. When I asked him what about the 637 mixed group areas which could then come into being in South Africa, he took umbrage at me.

Mr. Speaker, the NP has been considering this whole question of a Coloured homeland for a very long time. I remember that when I was still a student, and the independence of Transkei was mentioned, we asked why something similar could not be done in respect of the Coloureds as well. We debated that matter, of course. Hon. members of the NP debated that matter at great length. Even at NP congresses the matter was debated. There, too, the question was asked why a homeland for Coloureds was not possible.

The NP adopted the standpoint that a homeland for Coloureds was impractical. In this connection I could read quotations to the House going back to the days of Dr. Verwoerd, quotations which indicate that even the, it was the firm policy of the NP that a Coloured homeland was not practical politics.

Power-sharing has always been rejected.

The first important reason why a Coloured homeland was not possible was an historic one, of course. Unlike the Black peoples in South Africa, the Coloureds have never had their own territory. I am not speaking of the Griquas of Griqualand West and Griqualand East. I am speaking of the Malays, the Cape Coloureds and all the other groups classified as Coloureds. Unlike the Blacks, they have never had their own territory. They have lived in their own residential areas in White towns.

They have 11,7 million morgen of land. [Interjections.]

The second important point is that a Coloured homeland is not ethnologically justifiable. However, this is a question we have already dealt with. Therefore I do not wish to say anymore about it. The third reason is that it is not physically possible. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs pointed out this afternoon how many Coloured areas there were in South Africa, and how many Indian areas there were in South Africa. Those enormous numbers alone show us that it will simply not be possible physically.

In the fourth place, it has not been possible financially. That is the reason why the CP said that the State would not buy out this land belonging to the Coloureds. They will have to sell the land themselves, which means that they will then have to buy land themselves. So it is not possible financially.

The NP has always said that we shall find a solution to this problem of Whites, Coloureds and Asians within the borders of the same State. We shall do so when the new constitution is discussed in detail in this House. We shall carry out our responsiblity towards South Africa, and when this matter has been fully discussed in this House, we shall go to the electorate with a referendum on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to react in detail what the hon. member Dr. Odendaal said. I just want to say that broadly speaking, I agree with his views on a Coloured homeland and the abuse of the concept of “people” and the people as an absolute. I may come back to this later.

Before dealing with the more political aspects, I want to make a few remarks about the budget. In the first place, I want to say that on the whole, one took cognizance with great appreciation of the new housing policy which has been announced here by the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I am not suggesting that that housing policy will in fact solve the great problems facing South Africa, but I believe that it is certainly a great improvement on the sterile policy which has been followed over the past ten or 15 years. I have no doubt in my own mind about that. I am grateful for the degree of progress which is being made in this connection. In the second place, I want to say to the hon. Minister of Finance—the hon. member for South Coast also mentioned this and I want to associate myself with his remarks—that I also appreciate the increase in social pensions as well as the relaxation of the means test. I am grateful for that improvement which has been made, but like the hon. member for South Coast, I want to express my misgivings about the growing gap between the various groups as far as social pensions are concerned. I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister and the Government in this connection. We cannot say on the one hand that we want to eliminate discrimination, and proceed to do so in certain respects, while allowing the enemies of South Africa to point a finger at us in other spheres and to ask: Why are you actually aggravating the discrimination in the sphere of race and colour? I just want to say that I hope the hon. the Minister will find it possible—as the Government is doing in respect of the removal of discrimination with regard to salaries in the higher echelons of education, etc— to narrow that gap rather then to widen it.

There is a further point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister of Finance, and it concerns his announcement about the tax-free investments with building societies. The hon. the Minister initiated this last year, and he has taken the matter further this year. He was right when he said that in certain respects, these investment possibilities offer advantages to the person in the high income group in particular. In my opinion, however, those advantages are extremely small in the light of the limits imposed on the amounts, such as R150 000 on the revolving scheme. I can understand that the hon. the Minister of Finance should feel, in view of the needs of the Treasury, that that door should be closed. However, I do want to say that what I cannot understand is that those people who acted in accordance with the existing exemptions at the time are being penalized. There are indeed elderly people who have invested their pension money and other amounts in these schemes and who are now actually being penalized in this way. I could have understood it if the hon. the Minister had said that it should be disallowed as from a certain stage, but that the existing investments would not be affected.

It is being phased out over a period of time.

Yes, it is being phased out, but when I think of last year and the R150 000 which the hon. the Minister then reduced by R100 000, I believe it was a mistake. I really hope that a different approach will be followed in this connection.

To come back to the question of politics, I listened with great appreciation to the hon. member for Klip River. We know the hon. member as a good debater, but he tried to offer an explanation for the quotation made by the hon. member for Pinelands of what the hon. the Prime Minister had said in 1965. I think it would have been better if the hon. Prime Minister himself had explained what he meant in 1965.

Rest assured; I shall.

I accept that.

The explanation given by the hon. member for Klip River was completely unconvincing, and besides, it was not quite correct. The time has come, as the hon. member Dr. Odendaal indicated, for all of us in this House, this party and that party and everyone else, to say: Look, there was a time in our history when we as individuals or as parties adopted certain standpoints which seemed right to us at that stage, but times have changed, realities have become clearer to us, and in the light of those realities we have been forced to change our standpoints, which we have in fact done.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Klip River that in 1965, a certain policy principle was applicable in the country which was based on the approach of the late Dr. Verwoerd, i.e. that there should be the maximum degree of separation and that the maximum degree of separation on the basis of race and colour was essential. However, I shall not go into the merits of that standpoint. It was in the spirit of that policy that the hon. the Minister made that statement at the time. Since then, we have accepted and realized—I am grateful for the fact that the NP and the Government have also come to realize this—that the solution to our problems no longer lies in the maximum degree of separation on the basis of race and colour. That is the whole explanation.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member, in the light of the experience about which he has just been speaking, whether he would, with hindsight, agree that the PFP would today actually serve on the President’s Council?

Let me make it quite clear now what the reasons are why the PFP did not serve on the President’s Council. In the first place, parties do not serve on the President’s Council, but the reason why the PFP would not approve of the creation of the President’s Council was (a) that the President’s Council was presented as a constitution-making body.

But surely that is not correct. [Interjections.]

But that is the way it was presented in the First Report of the Schlebusch Commission. In that report, the PFP’s representatives on the commission indicated why they could not support the creation of a President’s Council as it was to be constituted. Up to now, it has not been changed in any way.

I want to proceed with what I was dealing with. It is a pity that the hon. member for Klip River is not present in the Chamber. One of the arguments he used was that the PFP’s policy at the time was a single Parliament and one man, one vote. I just want to say that the Government’s present proposal, even though it provides for three chambers, nevertheless involves one Parliament with joint decision-making by the three chambers. We must not run away from that; it is true. To differentiate on this point between the present proposals of the Government and the PFP’s standpoint that there should be one Parliament seems nonsensical to me.

I also want to come to the CP and to the unsatisfactory, unedifying things that are happening in this House these days. I honestly find it difficult to accept these unsatisfactory, unedifying things that are taking place in this House these days. I find it difficult to reconcile myself to the unsavoury sentiments expressed and the Personal attacks. Now I want to come to the question of the use of concepts. It is appropriate for us to use concepts when we speak in this House, concepts such as division of power, homelands, peoples, nations, etc., but then we must use those concepts in their proper context. The hon. member Dr. Odendaal said that the hon. members in the CP were no longer speaking of an Afrikaner people, but of a White people. However, there is no such thing as a White people.

Quite right.

That is correct; there is no such thing. That was what he said. There is no such thing as a White people, not in the normal sense of the word “people”.

In the sense of the cultural definition.

Correct. Quite correct. However, the hon. member for Pietersburg referred the other day to the Afrikaner people which had a right to its own sovereignty. [Interjections.] Wait a minute. He spoke of the Afrikaner people. I regard it as totally absurd to think that the Afrikaner people can maintain an exclusive sovereignty in South Afrika.

Yes, of course.

It is not possible. Never in its history has the Afrikaner people as such had exclusive political sovereignty, not even in the two Republics. [Interjections.] Since 1910, that concept has never existed in South Africa. [Interjections.] Even when the hon. members of the CP were still members of the NP, the NP was not an exclusive Afrikaner party. There the hon. the Minister of Finance is sitting; he can hardly claim to be an Afrikaner. There the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries is sitting; he can hardly claim to be an Afrikaner either. A South African, yes. As South Africans, they are just as good or perhaps better than I, but they are not Afrikaners. [Interjections.] To try to solve our problems by appealing to the concept of a pure Afrikaner people which has to have its own exclusive sovereignty is simply not feasible. I do not have any personal problems with some of my colleagues, but we must not use concepts in this House which in fact confuse our voters and which are completely unsound. In that respect the hon. member Dr. Odendaal is quite correct, for what the CP is doing is to think and to act in this House in terms of concepts which regard the people as an absolute. In our society this is not possible, however. [Interjections.]

In this connection there is something I want to make clear at once. The greatest error of reasoning which has ever been committed in this House, the greatest abuse of a term in this House, is the use of the concept of “a people in the making”. There is no such thing as a people in the making, for let us simply ask: How can one define this concept?

How does a people come into being?

We can define a “people”.

How does a people come into being?

As I have said, we can define a “people”, because there are certain cultural and other characteristics on the basis of which one can say: This is a people. But let me ask hon. members: Give me the criteria for identifying a “people in the making”.

I shall give them to you.

There are no such criteria … [Interjections.] … because the whole concept of “a people in the making” is being used as an escape mechanism to get away from reality. The Coloureds are not a people, they cannot be a people and they will never be a people, for the simple reason that none of the characteristics of a “people” or the concept of a “people” can be applied to the Coloureds.

The Zulus are a people.

Yes, the Zulus are a people, but the Coloureds, as I have said, are not a people. The Coloureds are a population group with the same cultural characteristics as the Whites.

Are there Coloureds who are Afrikaners?

There are Coloureds who are Afrikaners.

Are there Coloureds who are English?

There are Coloureds who are English, too.

Are there Coloureds who are Khoisan?

Put that question to the Bushman group. The hon. members of the CP are now trying to create problems by raising those petty points. I want to repeat, however: There is no such thing as a nation in the making. Such a thing can never be defined. It is a concept which is being used to run away from the realities of our situation.

[In audible.]

Order! The hon. member for Rissik must contain himself.

Sir, in spite of the fact that the Coloureds are referred to as a people in the making, we are already being told that they are a people, and since they are a people, they are talking about a homeland. They are already talking about a homeland. I want to appeal to the hon. members of the CP. When we have to debate these matters, let us do so in terms of responsible concepts which are intelligible to all.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Prof. Olivier said some very interesting things about the terminology in regard to ethnic matters, and we can go into that later. In the limited time at my disposal I just want to thank him for having congratulated the hon. the Minister on the housing policy, because it is as well that in the new approach to home ownership the emphasis should be on the responsibility of the society and the individual.

I want to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon. the Minister of Finance today on his budget. I want to say that the hon. member for Yeoville must get a different edition of the Financial Mail to mine, because in the Financial Mail the budget is accorded only the highest praise. For example, the following is said—

They then refer to the gold price and the drought. It goes on to say—

The whole page is full of praise. How, then, can the hon. member for Yeoville criticize the hon. the Minister? I want to say that the hon. the Minister deserves our highest praise and the highest praise of the country, because at a time of recession and drought he was able to give us such a budget. The newspapers are full of praise about it. I think we should praise the hon. the Minister and be less critical of him.

I want to touch on the issue of sales tax on advertisements, since this is a matter that has not yet been discussed. It is very clear that not all services have yet been involved. Services that are closely connected with the advertising industry, e.g. signwriting, printing works, graphics and photography, have already been involved. Now, I know that all kinds of objections to taxation of advertisements are being advanced by the media. It is argued that this will have a detrimental effect on the revenue of the media. However, the GST is only a component of the cost of the advertisement.

The companies and the media have increased their advertising tariffs tremendously over the years. Even when television made its appearance, the volume of the advertisements expanded tremendously. Hon. members will recall that initially there was tremendous criticism when Springbok Radio was introduced, but Springbok Radio did not have a detrimental effect on the Press. Indeed, it brought more advertisements. Television, too, brought more advertisements.

It is not true that the tax on advertisements is a double tax, as is alleged. I do think that by way of discussions the matter can be resolved in a very balanced way. Sufficient time, viz. until 1 January 1984, has been given to advertisers to discuss the matter calmly with the hon. the Minister and the officials.

Yesterday I called on the national agents to find out what proportion was being spent on advertisements.

The following is spent annually: On daily journals, R138 million; on weekend newspapers, R59 million; on consumer periodicals, R84 million; on commercial journals, R44 million; on rural newspaper, R31 million and on non-White publications, R24 million. This gives a total of R379 million. R125 million is spent on television; R70 million on radio; R22 million on open-air advertisements and R11 million on bioscope advertisements. Altogether this amounts to R228 million. A total of R606 million is therefore spent on advertisements annually. However, it is calculated that in 1983 the revenue will increase from R700 million to R720 million.

I cannot, therefore, see why the State should not get its share of this too. A full page colour advertisement already costs R20 000 in the Sunday Times, R4 500 in the Reader’s Digest and R3 100 in Scope. If the hon. the Minister were to impose 6% GST on advertising revenue the State would be able to collect a good R40 million and not R30 million. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.

I want to turn to the PFP today and ask whether they still have a role to play in South African politics. They are no longer an effective Opposition today. The Sunday Times said recently that we were “stonewalling Nats” and they “butter-finger Progs”. I was really very sorry for the hon. member for Sea Point this week because he is the victim of circumstances over which he has no control. He lives in a prosperous community in Sea Point but that constitutency is more “verkramp” than any other constituency in the country. Then he still complains to the Government that the beaches in his constituency have not been thrown open to people of colour. Did the hon. member not join us and the hon. the Minister of Community Development recently to see the fine new pavilion that has been built for the Coloureds at Strandfontein? Can he not see what the NP is doing?

The Government believes in the free will of the people. The people of Sea Point said no, and the Government surely cannot accept the responsibility if there are people who do not want the Blacks to swim in the sea. There are also rightist people who do not even want the Blacks on the beaches. How, then, can they get to the sea if they are not even allowed on the beaches? The only solution is better beach facilities for each section of the population. It is no wonder that the hon. member wants to exchange the gleaming white sea sand of Sea Point for the well-wooded environment of Pinelands. That is true; he is looking for another constituency.

During this session and this week as well the PFP has constantly been speaking about the rule of law. The PFP contends that there are certain laws that infringe upon individual freedoms or the fundamental rights of South Africa’s inhabitants. As in any other State the rights and freedoms of each individual must be seen to. After all, one cannot abuse the freedom of speech by slandering others. One cannot use one’s freedom of speech and movement to hatch a plot for the violent overthrow of the State. I want to ask the PFP whether public meetings should not be prohibited when public order is endangered in certain places. What freedom is it when a person incites feelings of hostility between White and non-White and among other inhabitants at meetings, and can deliberately cause licentiousness and disorder in a dangerous and explosive situation? Can specific areas not be set aside for occupation by and the prosperity of specific groups of people? Why can hostile organizations not be declared illegal if they undermine State authority? Why can a prohibition not be imposed on subversive publications? Why can undesirable persons not be deported? Does this seriously infringe upon the fundamental freedom of a person?

Then too, I just wish to refer hon. members to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Public Holidays. Members of that Commission of Inquiry into Public Holidays were—in addition to an hon. member of the CP who is sitting in this House at present—an Indian, A. Ebrahim; and Mr. Sonny Leon, a Coloured; and Dr. W. E. Bergins, also a Coloured. What I am saying here now, and the things that I am pointing out here now, are things that I do not ascribe exclusively to the CP. However, I believe that a certain climate is being created in this country. The other day I saw a letter which a clergyman showed me. It also concerned the issue of the prayer of the President’s Council, to which the hon. member for Randfontein referred last night. That letter was written by a woman who said that the Antichrist had now made its appearance in the President’s Council. Is that not a terrible thing for us to hear at this point?

However, I shall now tell this House what really happened in the course of the investigation into public holidays. Apart from the two Progs, who did not want to sign that report, Mr. Ebrahim, Mr. Sonny Leon and Dr. Bergins approved and signed the entire report with us. They agreed with us in saying that a public holiday should have a religious connotation or a cultural historical significance. It should also be a traditional day, and in addition, serve a specific social purpose.

They also supported our religious holidays. Republic Day, Good Friday, Kruger Day and Christmas Day, all our holidays gained their approval. Surely this is evidence of the consensus that we are already able to achieve at the moment with people of colour. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member for Rissik was at first a member of that commission and later on the hon. member for Pietersburg was also a member. I therefore believe that we can achieve consensus with other groups too.

I also just wish to give my support to the hon. the Prime Minister with regard to the coming referendum. I believe that when the referendum takes place it will be a very important occasion for all of us. The Second Reading of the Referendum Act—I looked this up myself—was moved in this House of assembly by Deputy Minister W. Botha on 11 March 1960. At the time he was Deputy Minister of the Interior. That was when the referendum on becoming a Republic was to be held. At the time the motion read—

Hon. members are aware of the overwhelming majority with which the matter was eventually decided in favour of a republic. I therefore believe that at the time of the referendum, and also with regard to the coming by-elections, the people will say, with Langenhoven—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosettenville raised a number of matters. I am not going to react to all of them. I should like, however, to react to the one which is perhaps the most important. That concerns this party’s attitude towards facilities and the opening of facilities for all races. We are of course in favour of the opening of all facilities to all races. [Interjections.] When facilities have been paid for with money from the pockets of Coloureds, Asians and Black people, they too must be given their fair share of the use of them. This applies particularly to God-given facilities such as our beaches. That includes or course the beach at Sea Point. Who are we, who is the hon. member for Rosettenville, who are hon. members of the NP, to refuse the use of those God-given facilities to God’s own children? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Gordonia made a very good speech. He touched on matters related to agriculture. I should also like to devote my speech in the main to agricultural matters. The hon. member for Gordonia referred to the role which Coloured people in particular have played in agriculture, and also to the role which they have played in the economy in general. I should like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with what he had to say. I am also particularly interested in the role that Coloured people are going to play in agriculture in the future under the new dispensation. I should like to know whether Coloured people are going to be relegated indefinitely to the role of the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, a kind of “Klaas en baas” situation of which we have seen so much in the past. Or are they going to be allowed to become agriculturists in the fullest sense of the word, with the right to buy and sell agricultural land freely in the same way as White South Africans with whom they are going to share the same constitution? Perhaps we might have that elucidated on in some future speech by hon. members. I am sure that the Coloured people themselves are going to be interested in questions of a similar kind if and when they are consulted in a referendum.

The hon. member for Mooi River also made a very good speech. He referred to the disastrous state in which agriculture finds itself in the country today. He pointed out that drought had played a part in aggravating an already serious position. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I shall come back to that in my own speech.

In his budget speech—and I am glad to be able to respond to the hon. the Minister of Finance with regard to his budget speech—the hon. the Minister quoted Napoleon who was alleged to have said: “State finances founded upon a good system of agriculture never fail.” If this is the case, then we have cause for alarm rather than for complacency. What the hon. the Minister did not go on to tell us was that agriculture is certainly not healthy in this country. It is sick—desperately sick. Whether or not agriculture will recover from this condition will, of course, depend rather obviously on the policies of this Government and what these policies will be in the future. Unfortunately, in large measure, the sickness can be ascribed to the manner in which the Government is handling the economy of the country. I should now like to confirm what the hon. member for Mooi River said and that is that we cannot blame the drought for all our financial problems in agriculture. The drought has simply served to aggravate what was already a serious situation. Drought assistance such as the hon. the Minister has announced—and we are very grateful for that assistance—is a palliative and not a cure. We need bold and imaginative new policies in this country to get agriculture back on its feet. I listened very carefully to the hon. the Minister’s speech in order to hear evidence of such a change and it was not forthcoming.

At the Good Hope Conference there were indications that the Government was aware of the requirements of the wide economy, and the hon. the Prime Minister’s attitude at that conference was summarized as follows. He stated that we shall continue to move away from direct economic control of a socialistic nature such as price and wage control, import control, exchange control and bank credit ceiling and that in co-operation with the private sector we shall permit the free market forces to perform their vital function in our economy to the fullest possible extent. The hon. the Minister of Finance is obviously in agreement with this approach. He expressed his attitude as follows—

This does seem to indicate a commitment to change and it indicates an awareness of the dangers of certain economic practices. We in these benches applaud that approach and we welcome it on the part of the Government.

Two of the economic practices that are particularly associated with agriculture are subsidization and protectionism. These were mentioned by the hon. member for South Coast as well. I shall deal with these presently.

The extent to which the policy that was mentioned at the Good Hope Conference by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance is being put into practice by the Government in agriculture in particular falls far short of the mark. There is as yet very little evidence that the Government intends putting its money where its mouth is.

Let us now have a look at the vexed question of protectionism and, for that matter, subsidization. Despite what the hon. the Minister has to say, protectionism is alive and well in South Africa and it is still being actively promoted by his Government. Because of this the price of many locally produced commodities which are essential in the agricultural industry is considerably higher than the world market price. The hon. member for South Coast mentioned a number of instances in this regard as well. For example, the price of fertilizer ranges from between 38% and 74% higher, herbicides are 7% or 8% higher and machinery is up to 55% higher. There was also the case of local importers who could import tractors at a price half as much as that for which they could be bought in this country.

It has been calculated by Nampo that in the maize industry alone the direct cost of protecting certain industries in 1982-’83 accounted for an amount of some R160 million. Although the total cost of subsidizing so-called strategic industries has not yet been accurately calculated, estimates range around the R1 000 million mark. Agriculture in general carries a significant share of this load and we have now reached the point where agriculture can no longer afford this. If the country as a whole derives benefit from protectionism then the country as a whole should bear the cost and not just the farmer.

The irony of the situation is that agriculture itself gets little or no benefit from protectionsim. It obtains few benefits from the local manufacture of its input requirements. It seems as though the main beneficiaries are the manufacturing companies themselves, not the farmer and not agriculture.

Protectionism does not make agriculture less vulnerable to trade boycotts. For example, sulphur is an indispensable component of the fertilizer industry but it is unobtainable locally. Despite being protected, the fertilizer industry is therefore totally dependent upon an imported commodity. Then we have locally produced atracine and 24D both of which are essential chemicals in the herbicide industry and they also, are dependent upon a whole range of imported chemical products. The manufacture of our own diesel engine—this was also mentioned by the hon. member for South Coast—does not make us independent of a tractor boycott. Other examples can also be mentioned. However, the point is that if this country were to be boycotted economically, despite protectionism we would still find ourselves in very serious trouble.

All that protectionism seems to do is to force certain industries such as agriculture, together with certain consumer groups, to subsidize protected domestic industries. It disrupts the interaction of supply and demand and it aggravates inflation by raising prices. Where protection is in fact given by means of import control, the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism simply determines the local selling price by means of a production costs and profit formula. What incentive for efficiency is there in such an approach? These practices all have a disastrous effect upon inflation and efficiency.

Protection also stimulates the development of monopolies, and this has become very apparent in the fertilizer and chemical industries.

Another alarming aspect is that the consumer is unaware of how dearly he is being made to pay for protectionism. If the Government is serious about its stated policy in this regard and if it intends pursuing its policy of protecting certain strategic industries, it will have to remove subsidization from the market place and fund it from the central budget. This will have the effect of forcing these industries to compete with world markets and it will serve to lower input costs and hence the cost of the final product in agriculture. It will mean cheaper food for the consumer and also allow the public to see what protectionism is taking from its pocket. It should then be in a better position to control the effectiveness of subsidization. None of the above is in keeping with the Government’s declared policy of leading the country into a more market-orientated economy.

I believe that agriculture in this country is facing a crisis of major proportions, and it is in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government to see that agriculture is taken out of that situation and put back on its feet once more. If the hon. the Minister can attend to the problems which I have mentioned very briefly, I am sure that it will go a long way towards making agriculture once more a viable proposition for all those who practise it in this country.

Mr. Speaker, my time is very limited and I believe the hon. member for Albany will pardon me if I do not react directly to his speech, except that I want to say that he discussed the farmers, and I am a great friend of the farmers. Accordingly I just want to say that I hope that the farmers, as a community within South Africa, will shortly find that circumstances are far better for them than at present.

I had not intended discussing the CP today, but unfortunately, due to their conduct here, those hon. members compel me to make just one remark about them. Those hon. members have power-sharing on the brain. They use the word “power-sharing” ad nauseam in this House and then they want to tell us that the 1977 proposals did not entail power-sharing, that power-sharing was not an element of those proposals but that the Government is now advocating power-sharing.

Did they not, then, understand the 1977 proposals? When the 1977 proposals were made known, I was not present here. I was not in the Provincial Council either; in fact, I was hardly in public life at all. Nevertheless, I knew what they meant because my MP explained to me what they meant. Therefore I had no problems with them. I say that if the 1977 proposals did not constitute power-sharing, then the policy of today does not constitute power-sharing either, but if the 1977 proposals did entail power-sharing, then today’s proposals also entail power-sharing. It does not matter to me what we call it; what matters to me is what we talk about.

Surely the NP stated very clearly that the three Parliaments envisaged in the 1977 proposals would in essence amount to three chambers of the same Parliament. Surely the party said that. I have before me a publication, Pro Nat. It is not a secret document; I borrowed it from the Parliamentary library last night. This publication was published by the Cape NP. The copy I have before me is dated September 1978. What does one read in this publication? It contains an article dealing with the constitutional proposals and various points raised in opposition to the proposals are analysed. The following, inter alia, is said—

The misconception is one of the points of criticism—

The author of the article goes on to discuss that point of criticism and he reaches this conclusion—

Therefore, through its official mouthpiece in the Cape, the NP said as long ago as 1978 that in terms of the 1977 proposals, when we talk about matters of common concern, the three different Parliaments should really be seen as three chambers of the same Parliament. Have the hon. members not read the document? After all, the hon. member for Kuruman was a member for the Cape NP. Did he not read this document? [Interjections.] Did he not use it to inform people in his constituency, as my MP did? My MP informed me fully about this. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I do not wish to concern myself with the CP any further, but since the hon. member for Kuruman has so much to say, I just wish to remind him that there was an election in Stellenbosch last year. [Interjections.] The CP took part in it, too. What did we see there? [Interjections.] I have before me a cutting of an article that appeared in the Sunday Times of 22 August 1982. In it one reads the following—

That is what he said. I quote further—

The report then goes on to say that one Prof. Kleynhans, who is apparently a political guru … [Interjections.] … said—

[Interjections.] That hon. professor should rather forget about politics and concentrate his intelligence elsewhere. [Interjections.] I do not wish to discuss the CP further. I have very little time and in fact I have now wasted my time on them. [Interjections.]

As far as the constitutional debate is concerned, the voters of the Republic of South Africa deserve something more than we are offering them at the moment, and here I refer to all the parties. I think that the debate has been at a level not worthy of the electorate of South Africa. I think that up to now the debate has been negative and derogatory and in fact, therefore, futile. I think that the electorate of South Africa is asking us to provide them with clear alternatives. The official Opposition does have an alternative. It is stated here in this document. Yesterday I saw the hon. member for Rissik reading this document, too. Since they and the PFP are joining in a vigorous attack of the NP, I took it that he was probably wanting to learn more about his partners. Although nowadays they do not discuss their policy much, it is in black and white. I have made a thorough study of it, and I think I know what it contains and what it means, and I think that that is more than certain hon. members of the PFP can say, because I do not think all the hon. members of the PFP understand their policy. For example, I do not think that the hon. member for Durban Central understands their policy because the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member for Krugersdorp addressed a meeting at the Rand Afrikaans University on 14 February this year, and in The Citizen of 15 February the following appears—

Surely that is not true. Surely the national convention is not going to be an advisory body.

You do not understand our policy.

What does this document have to say about that? [Interjections.] In point 3.4.1 on page 16 the following is said—

Surely that does not signify an advisory capacity.

Of course they are advisory.

An agreement is entered into which will be binding on the various parties. If he knows his party’s policy, I ask: Why, then, did he put it to the students of the RAU that that convention would only be of an advisory nature? Either he does not know the policy or he misled them totally that day. [Interjections.]

You understand nothing.

I think I understand several things. Among other things, I understand that that hon. member is a misfit in this House. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition complained in the no-confidence debate that right from the outset the Government had committed the other parties in terms of its own policies and principles. However, they, too, have fundamental principles. To tell the truth, they have seven of them, and those principles are going to be imposed absolutely upon those who attend the national convention. So much so that they say that a PFP Government would state clearly that its fundamental principles were not negotiable and that it would not be prepared to endorse a programme of principles that were in conflict with them. Therefore, if the other parties do not endorse the principles of the PFP, then that national convention cannot begin. Now, all I want to ask is this: Is this not also a case of the PFP, in the precise words of its hon. leader, committing the other parties right from the outset in terms of its own principles? I have many more questions, and on a later occasion I hope to enter into another discussion with the hon. members in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by reacting to the standpoints put by the chief spokesman of the official Opposition on financial affairs, especially with regard to the charge contained in his amendment to the effect that there has been a lack of planning on the part of this Government with regard to the social, economic and political spheres in this country. I want to say that I listened to the hon. member for Yeoville with growing astonishment. I listened to his economic theories and I want to make a few remarks in this connection. Firstly, I think that if he had been living in France, Germany or elsewhere in Europe, he would have been a member of the socialist party of that country. However, this is a dangerous theory to advocate for South Africa. There is a second remark I want to make in this connection. As I have said, I listened to the hon. member with astonishment. If I had not known that we were living in South Africa, I could have believed that he was talking in a European country, because his entire argument showed a blatant disregard for the realities in South Africa in respect of economic policy philosophies, in respect of what is possible, in respect of political or constitutional structures and in respect of the group view of the population of this country. One could infer, quite honestly, that South Africa is indeed a highly developed and modernized industrial country such as the countries of Europe. The hon. member completely failed to take account of the important fact that economically and otherwise, the modern sector of this country represents only a small part of the whole. The hon. member completely failed to take account of the fact that the bulk of the population—two-thirds or more—consists of underdeveloped people in terms of European standards. In spite of that, he advocates economic theories and political philosophies for South Africa which are not tenable or feasible in the society which has to be served by means of them; and he knows it.

Let us deal briefly with the various policies. Let us deal with the constitutional sphere. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that he actually represents a one-man party in this House. The name of that party is Harry Schwarz. I say this without the slightest hesitation. The hon. member expects us to formulate a question at the referendum in such a way that he will be able to say “yes” and Helen will be able to say “no”, and they will still be able to remain in the same party afterwards.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an appropriate time to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.