as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on the Constitution (on the subject of the Black Communities Development Bill [B. 112—’82]), submitting the Black Communities Development Bill [B. 114—’83 (Select Committee)].

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) First Report of the Select Committee on Co-operation and Development; or
2. (b) Laws on Co-operation and Development Amendment Bill,
   if under consideration at the time for the adjournment today, be not interrupted under Standing Order No. 22.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) Select Committees may sit without the unanimous concurrence of all their members:
2. (2) Mr. Speaker may appoint and discharge members of Select Committees;
3. (3) Mr. Speaker may refer papers to Select Committees;
4. (4) the Report, proceedings and evidence of the Select Committee on the Constitution on the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill be printed on presentation to Mr. Speaker; and
5. (5) Mr. Speaker may on the recommendation of Ministers and with the concurrence of the Leaders of the Opposition parties refer matters to Select Committees for enquiry and report, the Committees to have powers as determined by Mr. Speaker.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the end of the Third Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill. This is then an appropriate opportunity to review the progress of the session thus far, and I should like to do so. Before I proceed to do so, however, I do want to come back again to a matter that is directly relevant as far as the hon. the Minister of Finance is concerned. It relates to a document to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred, a document of the Department of Finance in South West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Finance was visibly upset because of the hon. member for Yeoville’s reference to the document concerned. I want to assure the hon. the Minister, however, that I myself have read the document. In it no adverse comments are made about the Department of Finance in South Africa or in South West Africa. Secondly, the content of the document gives evidence of grave concern about State expenditure in South West Africa. I think, in fact, that it is a suitable opportunity for the hon. the Minister of Finance to clear up the status of this document and also to tell us, even if it is not a genuine document from the department, what his attitude is in regard to certain of the standpoints expressed in the document.

In this connection I should just like to quote the hon. the Minister a few passages from the document itself. Once I have done so, it will be clear to hon. members why there is cause for concern. This document deals with State expenditure in South West Africa, and we all know that on the borders of South West Africa there are young men losing their lives and that millions upon millions of rand are being spent there. The content of this document, however, relates to what is going on within those borders; State expenditure within those borders. What does this document say?

Let me, in the first place, refer to point 18 of the relevant document, and I quote—

1. (a) Punt 18: “Sedert 1979/80 het die staat nog nie een jaar binne vermoë presteer nie. Inteendeel wil dit voorkom asof daar hierdie finansiële jaar deur die grens om staatsuitgawes tot soveel as twee keer bo die vermoë aan te gaan, gebreek gaan word. Beskikbare fondse is skaars voldoende om amptenare se besoldigingskostes (60% van lopende kostes) te delg.”

Point 19 reads as follows—

1. (b) Punt 19: “Word hierdie tendens voortgesit, sal staatsuitgawes binne vier jaar tot twee-en-’n-driekwart keer bo die lopende inkomstes verhoog word en sal eie lopende inkomstes nie meer voldoende wees om staatsamptenare se besoldiging te betaal nie.”

Let me now quote point 21—

1. (c) Punt 21: “Hiervolgens sal Suidwes-Afrika binne die bestek van enkele jare ’n verwagte uitstaande skuldlas hê wat dié in meeste ander lande oorskadu.”

Point 22 reads as follows—

1. (d) Punt 22: “In Afrika was daar in 1980 net een land, Mauritanië, wie se skuldlas meer as 100 persent van Nasionale Inkomste bedra het terwyl ongeveer 8 lande se skuldlas meer as 40 persent van Nasionale Inkomste was. Suidwes-Afrika sal na verwagting in 1987 deur die 100 persent grens breek.”

In the document itself it is also asked what the reasons for this were, and why we found ourselves in these strained financial circumstances. Five reasons are given for this. I do not want to deal with them in exhaustive detail. The information is contained in the document itself. What it briefly amounts to is the following. In the first place the standard of living is out of all proportion to the country’s capabilities. Secondly, unforeseen additions to the budget crop up. Under this section let me quote what is said in point 13-

The reference here to the Republic of South Africa, Mr. Speaker, means of course that the taxpayers of South Africa will have to bear the responsibility or liability.

The third reason given in the document for these strained circumstances is an accelerated process of socialism. The fourth reason is the inefficiency of State expenditure, and the fifth reason is inefficient second-tier authorities. Under point 41 of the last-mentioned section it is stated—

This document is therefore telling us that financial expenditure in South West Africa is a bottomless pit, and that very little of a constructive nature can be achieved in the long term. It is also stated in the document that economic growth of at least 3% is necessary in order to overcome this problem and that there are not many very good prospects of this happening.

We should just like to know from the hon. the Minister of Finance what the status of this document is and what he thinks about these tremendously serious allegations, because this Parliament is directly involved on account of the expenditure taking place there, and I also want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance—as the hon. member for Yeoville also happened to do—that this is not an allegation against the Department of Finance. It is merely an attempt to clarify a very serious situation.

†Mr. Speaker, this session of Parliament started off with a bang, and I am afraid it is ending with a whimper. The Government started off buoyantly with the prospect of making this a parliamentary session of major reform. It was expected that the Government was going to announce major new departures from policy. There were in fact predictions all round that the Opposition, and particularly the PFP as official Opposition, were going to find themselves in great trouble. [Interjections.] However, what was going to be a session of major reform ultimately became a session in which the Government became bogged down as a result of its own confusion and hesitancy. We saw this demonstrated in the by-elections that took place. Here in this House, and also in the manner in which those by-elections were fought by the Government, the situation was epitomised by double-talk, by contradictory points of view and by the Government demonstrating its own hesitancy as far as its own reform programme was concerned. [Interjections.]

Order!

This session also showed a marked lack of conviction on the part of the Government with regard to its own Constitution Bill. I will come back to this in a moment because it is quite clear to me that there is no conviction or enthusiasm in respect of this new package deal. Furthermore we have had this, I believe, pathetic demonstration on the part of the hon. the Minister of National Education when he was called upon to defend the quota system introduced by way of the Universities Amendment Bill. It was painful to see a gentleman of his undoubted intelligence and ability trying to defend the indefensible. The reason why he did this was because he had to try placate the disquiet and the concern among right-wing members in his own ranks.

That brings me to the Opposition parties in Parliament this session. Firstly I must of course refer very briefly to the NRP. I have seldom seen a party that so tenaciously proclaims its own relevance despite evidence to the contrary. Time and again, after they suffered the most disastrous setbacks any political party could suffer, they have come forward and tried to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

That is courage, my friend.

Every time they try to spell out their own significance. In fact, to listen to the hon. leader of that party this session, it is a miracle that this session survived and it would not have done so were it not for the NRP, because they kept us all on course and they kept us all talking about the right issues. The only problem is that nobody took any notice of them. I think the time has come for the hon. the Prime Minister to relieve them of their misery. I think the time has come to acknowledge that they have become the political court jesters of the establishment. I am sure that in the new gravy train that is going to be created as a result of the new constitution there will be a few empty seats for those hon. gentlemen. I want to urge the hon. the Prime Minister to give them those seats so that we can clear up the confusion in the debate between Government and Opposition, because the word “Opposition” no longer applies to that party.

As far as the CP is concerned, I think this session will become known as the session in which the hon. the Minister of Manpower put Dr. Andries Treurnicht, MP for Waterberg, solidly on the political map of South Africa. There is no doubt about that. Up until that time the CP were experiencing a slight political decline, but the fact that that challenge was issued and resulted in a by-election changed the fortunes of the CP and they are rampant at the moment.

*When Dr. Treurnicht, the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. leader of the CP, was speaking the other day, there was a deathly silence on the other side of the House. That brought one thing home to me. When, as children, we referred to boils that had burst, we used to say: “Yes, it has burst, but the core has not come out yet.” What I want to say is that the boil has burst, but that is only on the surface; the core has not come out yet. Very close attention is being paid to what is said here. Hon. members find themselves trembling when the hon. members of the CP start talking about what must happen on the political scene. We can try to bluff one another here, but we know that the core of the boil has not come out yet, and until that core is out, there can be no proper debate in the political arena in South Africa.

I also listened very attentively yesterday to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. He is a member of the House who, I believe, occupies a very important position as Transvaal leader of the NP. That is why his contribution is a sign of the direction in which things are moving. I listened to him very attentively and also read his speech through a few times in order to find out in what direction he is moving. All he did, however, was to reconfirm the old traditional NP politics. At no point could the CP really disagree with anything that hon. Minister said about policy matters. If one reads his speech carefully, one sees that there is no positive note or any enthusiasm for the new constitutional dispensation to be discerned in it.

What did the hon. the Minister do? He asked us to come back to the realities of South Africa. He made a special appeal to the Opposition to come back to the realities of South Africa and South African politics. At the same time he did not make a single reference to the new constitutional dispensation. I can understand that, because it bears no relationship to the realities of South African politics. If that is the new reality we must all take into account, and if he was using the opportunity, he had to explain the new dispensation to us for the purposes of telling us we must get back to the realities of South African politics, he is telling us by implication that it has nothing to do with reality and that that is not where the central issue of the debate lies.

The hon. the Minister asked us why we were not prepared to accept reality. I shall quote his words—

He is referring to me—

I accept them as part of reality. That is not, however, what it is all about. I do not deny their existence.

You still regard them as South Africans.

I did not shout when the hon. the Minister was speaking. The question is: Does the Government also accept the reality of these measures being hopelessly inadequate when it comes to solving the constitutional problems of our Black people? Do they accept that? It is part of reality. And do the hon. the Minister and the Government accept the reality of growing unrest and terrorism in our cities because there is no satisfactory dispensation for our Black citizens? That is part of reality. Do the hon. the Minister and the Government also accept the reality of the overall majority of Black people summarily rejecting this policy as a solution to their problems? Does the hon. the Minister accept that reality? Does the Government accept the reality of a growing mobilization of Black organizations which are turning to liberation and socialism as a solution for South Africa? That is what is so perturbing. Let me quote to hon. members what someone said two weeks ago at the meeting at Hammanskraal—

That is the new vocabulary the young urban Black man is beginning to use.

Do you agree with that?

No. Nor do I agree with the solution they have to offer. But this vocabulary is a direct consequence of their rejection of the NP’s solution. That is why I am telling the hon. the Minister that unless the Government accepts this reality it cannot really start any political discussion in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?

If I have any time left at the end of my speech, the hon. the Minister may definitely put a question to me. He will understand, however, that there is not enough time at the moment.

I also happened to walk in half way through another speech, that of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, only to be side-swiped. He immediately bore down on me with a heavy barrage of questions and allegations. I must say, in all honesty, that the hon. the Minister surely knows that in accordance with the traditions of the House I cannot enter a debate midway through a speech. He bore down on me and expected me to make a speech to explain my standpoint. I told him that I would react to his speech this afternoon, and that is what I shall be doing.

The hon. the Minister asked whether I agreed that the policy of apartheid or separate development was a crime against humanity. Let me say at once that it is not my style or inclination to make use of hyperbole or emotive language. Before I take this point any further I want to make a serious appeal to all hon. members of the House, including those in my own party, to steer clear of vituperative or abusive politics. It does not contribute anything to the argument and detracts from our individual dignity. There is a tendency amongst Nationalists to refer to us as fellow-travellers of the communists or Marxists, as pinkos or as unpatriotic, etc. This in turn leads to equally crude abuse on our part. Communism and Nazism, with the consequences involved, are tragedies that no right-minded individual would wish upon his own country. Our problems are big enough and serious enough without having to use these words of abuse and these metaphors.

This brings me to the question: What must one say—I ask this in all seriousness and in all honesty—about policy that turns an ordinary good deed into a crime? Is it not a good deed for someone to do his best to look for work so that he can look after himself and his loved ones? In South Africa in 1980 there were 158 000 people who received court sentences for having committed a crime merely because they wanted to do just that. In 1981 the figure was 162 000 and last year it was 206 000. That is the result of influx control measures, and they are not applicable to us, as Whites, but are applicable to Black people. What must one say of such a policy?

Is it not also a good deed for someone to look for shelter for himself and his next-of-kin? And yet here in South Africa many people can, on those grounds, be convicted of having committed a crime. That is a fact. We cannot bluff one another about that. We know how many people have been removed as a result of the implementation of the Group Areas Act. Last year 123 000 families were removed, 81 000 of them having been Coloured families. We know, for example, that there on the Cape Flats things took place that no South African could be proud of. Peoples’ shelters were destroyed. What must the outside world say about that? All our good intentions are destroyed by one such incident that is shown on international television.

What must one say of a policy whose consequences have led to 3,5 million people being moved willy-nilly? What must one say of a policy that turns a marriage performed in the sight of God and man, and hallowed in a church, into a crime? What must one say of a policy that prohibits a man from owning or selling a House just because he is Black? That is why I am saying, in all seriousness and without any abuse or recriminations: When a policy, however well-intentioned its conception may be, turns the ordinary good deeds of men into crimes, the ordinary, normal member of the human race totally fails to have any understanding of or sympathy for it. It is not only this Government’s dilemma, but also South Africa’s dilemma, because this Government’s policy has become a source of acute embarrassment to us. That is the dilemma we are caught up in.

Looking back on this session, we know that the dominant aspect, directly or indirectly speaking, was the debate on the constitutional proposals.

†When one looks at this debate in retrospect, one notices that the debate took place on various levels. We can talk—and we have done—about the appropriate attitudes to make a constitution work. This is largely what the Government concentrated on—good intentions, good feelings, the right attitudes; these are all necessary to make a constitution work and nobody denies it. However, we can also talk about what can happen despite the constitution. We say: Well, it is flawed. It has a number of major shortcomings but, despite those shortcomings, let us express the hope that something will come of it. We can also talk about that. We can concentrate on the shortcomings in our opponents’ arguments. That is one way of looking at it. However, what is essential now is that we actually look at the content of the Bill and at what this constitution actually has in mind. I want to put it you this way, Sir: As far as constitutional change in this country is concerned, South Africa is more divided now than it has ever been before. Let me give an example. In 1977 this Government came forward with a package deal of constitutional proposals and it called a general election on those constitutional proposals. Those proposals formed a fundamental platform of the Government in that election and it came back into power with one of the largest majorities the NP has ever achieved. In fact, the NP was re-elected to office with 64,6% of the White electoral support and could therefore claim that it had a mandate for those constitutional proposals. However, what happened in 1981? We had another general election and this time when the Government was re-elected to office its percentage support dropped from 64,4% to 58,4%. The other day Rapport published the result of its poll. According to that poll, support for the Government has dropped from 58,4% to 50%. Those hon. members may say that this party may have lost support as well. That is not the point. The point is that this Government has to implement a new set of constitutional proposals and it cannot even rely upon its own supporters to do so.

However, when we look further than White politics and we ask ourselves what degree of support will be forthcoming for these constitutional proposals outside of White politics, it becomes abundantly clear that the Government cannot really depend upon the support of the very communities it seeks to involve in the new constitutional process. We see what is happening in this regard. I can mention numerous organizations that are opposed to it, and they are reputable organizations. For example, there are the Methodist Church, the Federation of South African Women, the Young Christian Students, the South African Council of Churches, Sabra, the Transvaal Indian Council, the Natal Indian Council, the Indian Reform party, the Indian Democratic Party, the Muslim Students Association, the Islamic Council, the Muslim Judicial Council and the Association of Management Committees. They have all come out against it and yet the Government persists in saying that we must go ahead with it. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that it will be dangerous to proceed with a constitution that ignores this reality. What is more, I want to appeal to hon. members not to write good intentions into this constitution. I listened to the hon. member for Randburg yesterday.

*The hon. member asked: How can I employ this scenario? The scenario that I employ is contained in the Bill. The scenario that that hon. member employs is embodied in what he hopes people will do who act in terms of the legislation. If he feels so strongly about that, if the hon. member says that the President must negotiate with the Indian chamber and the Coloured chamber to decide who must sit in the Cabinet, why does he not move an amendment to the Bill? It is a simple matter. The hon. member can move an amendment that provides that the President should be compelled to negotiate with these two chambers. That is not embodied in the legislation. All those matters he mentioned to me are matters he could rectify by way of amendments. So why does he not do so? Why does he stand there shouting at me because those measures are not embodied in the legislation itself?

†Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point quite clear. It does not help to shout at us because eventually the degree of success achieved by the constitutional legislation will not depend only on this House. It will depend upon the extent to which one can generate support for it by means of the co-operation of the other communities involved. It will depend on the extent to which we can really say that it has to do with all South Africans. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister: Not only is it dangerous to impose a new constitution on a divided South Africa, it is even more dangerous for a divided Government to impose a new constitution on a divided South Africa. The Government has no enthusiasm for its own legislation.

*I know what I am talking about. The Transvaal does not back the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on the question of the Constitution Bill, and that is the truth of it. We know it is true, but we can do nothing about it.

†I want to end with a final note which flows from a report which I read in a newspaper this morning apropos the speech of the hon. member for Pinetown. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Law and Order to respond to this. The report appears in The Cape Times of today and the first paragraph thereof reads—

This is a very important principle involved here. We were told in the House this session that MPs can come and do their duty and report what they have found that concerns them and that this would be reported. This is a fundamental aspect of the parliamentary tradition.

I want to make the point that everything I have said so far on any issue will be of no consequence and will not help us if we reach the situation where parliamentarians’ speeches cannot be freely reported from the Press Gallery so that people can know what has been said in the highest court of the land. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, whatever the difficulties and whatever the problems may be, that he should preserve this right and state it in quite unambiguous terms, otherwise we can forget about anything called “peaceful constitutional change” in this country.

Mr. Speaker, by virtue of the motion passed by this House at the start of proceedings, the Government has fulfilled its promise that it would specify when this House would resume its proceedings. Accordingly I am not going to discuss the matter further.

I should like to make a statement, in collaboration with and with the concurrence of the leaders of all the political parties represented in Parliament, relating to the adjustment and rectification of salaries.

1. 1. In terms of the provisions of the Payment of Members of Parliament Act of 1974, adjustments to the salaries and allowances of members and office-bearers of Parliament were to be effected on every occasion that salaries and allowances of public servants were reviewed or adjusted in terms of the statutory provisions relating to the Public Service, taking into account the considerations, principles and criteria applied in respect of such review or adjustments.
2. 2. Since the passing of the above Act a start has been made in the Public Service with a programme of occupational differentiation, as a deliberate exercise or formulated policy, which was initiated on 1 April 1981 and is expected to be finalized by 1 October 1984.
3. 3. As a result of this process, a link between the remuneration of members and office bearers of Parliament and that of public servants has become largely incapable of implementation. Moreover, it has become evident that in practice this creates problems in any event, because the circumstances of the two groups are so different.
4. 4. Whereas the process of occupational differentiation relates to the specific circumstances of the Public Service, there was no appropriate programme relating to the remuneration and allowances of members of Parliament.
5. 5. Accordingly, on 27 June 1973 Parliament abolished the statutory link. Moreover the Government, in co-operation with the leaders of all the political parties, decided that a rectification should now be effected to the remuneration and allowances of members and office bearers of Parliament.
6. 6. This disengagement now also makes it possible to develop an occupationally orientated approach with regard to the remuneration and allowances of members of Parliament, based on their special needs and circumstances.
7. 7. Improvements effected due to the process of occupational differentiation for the Public Service and members of Parliament do not exclude general salary adjustments, granted in view of economic circumstances, for both groups from time to time.

The above is a joint statement by myself, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the CP and the leader of the NRP. I should now like to add a few words.

Members of the Cabinet and hon. members on the Government side last year repaid R200 000 of their salaries into a fund for the restoration of historical monuments. Secondly, I want to say that in order to promote occupational differentiation in the Public Service this year, an amount of approximately R300 million has been made available, whereas the rectification of Parliamentary salaries comprises 0,012% of the total main budget. Moreover, it is in the country’s interests and in the interests of good government that MPs be properly remunerated, and in this regard all four of the leaders of the political parties are in agreement.

†The Government has received a number of inquiries from the Press and other sources, also from members of Parliament—I refer especially to the hon. member for Pinelands who raised the matter last night—concerning the Government’s reaction to Mr. Eagleburger’s speech of 23 June 1983 on United States policy towards South Africa. Time does not permit me to deal today with all the points raised in this speech, but before this part of the session comes to an end, I feel that I should express the Government’s view on some of the more salient points which Mr. Eagleburger made.

Firstly, I have noted that in several editorials in South African newspapers reference has been made to alleged insinuations in Mr. Eagleburger’s speech that the South African Government has some or other secret agenda for reform in South Africa which is known only to a select few in the Government and in Washington. I categorically deny that the South African Government has given any commitment or has conveyed any information with regard to reform in South Africa which is not generally known in this country. Although Mr. Eagleburger did not say so directly, it is unfortunate that he has expressed himself in a manner which has given rise to this speculation and which might have created expectations which this Government cannot meet. In the circumstances newspaper queries should not be addressed to our Government but elsewhere. The South African Government has made its position clear, namely that there is no hidden agenda. If there is a hidden agenda in the minds of the United States Government officials, the time has come for them to tell us about their plans. The South African Government cannot be held responsible for the designs of other Governments. I should like to add that if the United States Government has in mind a solution based on “one man, one vote” in a unitary State, without taking into account the desperate and tragic course of events in Africa and our own history of the basic realities connected with ethnicity, irrespective of colour, then there is probably not a single party in this House which can support such a proposition or comply with it. I do not say that this is necessarily what Mr. Eagleburger said or intended to say. However, in criticizing the South African Government’s policy, he did not indicate how the United States would handle a complex situation such as ours without creating large-scale conflict. Certainly, this Government would not comply with any demand for “one man, one vote” in a unitary State. This was made clear to former Vice-President Mondale in Vienna on 19 May 1977 and this has been made clear to the present United States Government on several occasions so that there can be no misunderstanding.

The central misconception which emerges from Mr. Eagleburger’s speech is that this country is a unitary State containing a single South African nation with a Black majority and a White minority. The fact of the matter is that the borders of South Africa encompass a number of disparate and diverse nations, peoples and communities, each with an unquestionable right to self-determination; or to put it differently, each demanding not to be dominated by others. Indeed it is the Government’s objective that all the peoples who live within the borders of the old South Africa should have a say in determining their political system. What the United States can be sure of, however, is that this Government will not cease to protect and promote the right of all the communities and peoples in this country to determine their own destinies. We shall not force together peoples who do not wish to be joined together, neither shall we keep apart those who wish to be joined together.

I note in this regard that Mr. Eagleburger was also critical of the independence of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei and stated that the United States would not recognize any of these countries. Here there is a contradiction. On the one hand the United States Government says that all South Africans must decide how they are to be governed and on the other hand it unilaterally dictates, according to its own vastly different experience and history, which forms of government are acceptable and which are not. In addition, we also ask on what basis the United States accepts the independence of Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana while rejecting the right of countries such as Bophuthatswana, Transkei, Venda and Ciskei to nationhood, particularly in view of the fact that countries like Bophuthatswana and Transkei have larger populations and comparable or better economic bases. The fact is that this is simply a question of political expediency.

Other aspects of the South African Government’s policies were also criticized by Mr. Eagleburger. However, I note that although he made frequent references to the front-line States, he singled out South Africa’s internal policies for criticism. The South African Government would like to know why his concern for democratic practices stops short at South Africa’s borders. Does the United States accept the internal policies of Angola and Mozambique? Does the United States accept the fact that the last election in Lesotho was scrapped when it became evident the Government would not win it? Does the United States accept the economic policies of these States? Can the United States indicate in which of these States there is a free Press, a free political process and respect for private property rights? Why is the United States not objective? Why, by criticizing only South Africa, does it imply that what happens in these other States is acceptable?

I have dealt briefly with the negative and unacceptable points in Mr. Eagleburger’s speech. It is only fair that I should touch briefly on the positive elements.

Firstly, the S.A. Government welcomes the United States’ recognition that all the countries of our region should cease cross-border subversion. This is what the South African Government has been saying for years. The question is how can this be achieved in practice. If repeated appeals fall on deaf ears, the S.A. Government would be left with no alternative but to protect the security of this country with all the means at its disposal until none of our neighbouring States continue to harbour terrorists. Secondly, the S.A. Government is encouraged by the fact that Mr. Eagleburger has given recognition, albeit qualified recognition, to the current reforms which it has proposed and, thirdly, we endorse the United States’ determination to oppose Soviet intervention in our region. We welcome Mr. Eagleburger’s confirmation of the United States’ commitment to the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola in order to facilitate a settlement in the territory.

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

The hon. member can put a question to me at the end of my speech.

*The hon. member for Durban Point put certain questions to me to which I should like to react. He referred to a speech I made at Nelspruit last week in which I called for national unity. I should like to repeat, on the basis of my notes, what I said at that meeting. In the Republic of South Africa—so I said—we have always had political differences, and we shall probably continue to have them in future. It is part of our nature, because we are a nation of individualists, and that goes for both the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking people. Moreover, I said that a multiplicity of political parties attested to a lack of a national will aimed at a definite objective. I went on to say that if I differed with 10% of the policy of apartheid, it would be unwise of me to break away and fabricate differences to make up for the remaining 90%. In a democratic set-up this weakens the will, the national will of a country. I went on to say that the present politicking of the PFP and the CP were merely anxiety-stricken efforts to wreck constructive work. I added that the greatest amount of progress made by South Africa occurred at times of national unity and co-operation, the greatest possible political co-operation. There is a great deal of evidence of this and therefore I need not take up the time of this hon. House by recounting the series of outstanding monuments that have come into being in times of national unity. I went on to say that under National rule, when the NP was united, South Africa made progress in several fields, progress which has resulted in its being today one of the strongest countries, not only in Africa, but quite probably one of the strongest, taking its size into account, in the world. Moreover, I said that petty divisions, personal considerations and the politics of personal revenge did not promote peace, prosperity and progress in South Africa. When I said that I was not referring to anyone in particular, I was making a general statement, and I make it again here this afternoon. No political party motivated by the politics of revenge, politics based on people’s disappointments, on people’s personal disappointments, can succeed. A political party must have a message; whether people agree with it or not. However, one cannot try to undermine a Government by gossip and the politics of revenge, not by way of underhanded personal attacks, and then still think that one is serving the cause of peace and prosperity and progress in that country. I said that the politics of revenge was being pursued too extensively in South Africa. There are disappointed politicians who have landed up on the rubbish heap at some stage and who are today urging others to try and torpedo the work of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I went on to say that it was the democratic right of the voters to determine their own political course. That is why we called for a pronouncement on that course in 1981. On the basis of a mandate that we sought, which embodied the programme of principles of the NP, the programme of action, the twelve-point plan of the NP which we as leaders of the party signed, we entered into a contract with the electorate. Therefore, whatever the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may have said in the superficial speech he made here this afternoon, the fact remains that we achieved a two-thirds majority in this House; a majority we still have. In Britain, where the Westminster system applies, the votes are not counted to determine how many votes Mrs. Thatcher did or did not obtain. She obtained a majority in Parliament and that is all that counts in terms of the Westminster system. We have a two-thirds majority here, and that is what counts in terms of the Westminster system. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will grow old before he manages to obtain a two-thirds majority in this country. [Interjections.]

He will only get a two thirds minority. [Interjections.]

You will never get a two thirds majority again. [Interjections.]

Never mind, I shall take notice of the hon. member for Bryanston in a moment. He can be sure of that. I am still coming to him. Mr. Speaker, I shall not pass up the opportunity to make the hon. member for Bryanston feel good. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to point out something else. The basic mistake—I said this in Nelspruit too—that the PFP makes, is its willingness to take into account the repeated pronouncements of the voters concerning the principle of separate development in South Africa. Shortly after I became Prime Minister I spoke about the issue of so-called apartheid. I still stand by what I said then, viz. that if apartheid were to mean the oppression of other people, it would not be our policy. Therefore that is not it our policy. However, I added that several of the measures we had to adopt to maintain order and justice in South Africa were caused by people who wanted to disturb order, and who thereby compelled us to take negative steps.

The PFP’s failure to act and their lack of appreciation of our position lies in the fact that they do not wish to respect the multinational nature of South Africa and the existence of a diversity of minority groups. I again found the best evidence of this, Mr. Speaker, is this very debate. I now come to the hon. member for Bryanston. He must listen carefully now. I am going to take notice of him now. The day before yesterday he made a speech here to which I listened. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also listened to that speech. He listened attentively to him. I know that because I was watching him.

I believe that if the speech of the hon. member for Bryanston reflects what the PFP stands for, then the PFP can say what it likes in future; it will be branded as a party that seeks to bring about a totally unitary community in South Africa, with out any differentiation, with a total system of “one man, one vote”. One can infer nothing else from what the hon. member said. I do not take it amiss of him if that is his standpoint. He has a right to it, but then he must be honest and say: Look, all these fine words of ours are so much nonsense; the PFP stands for a unitary community with a system of “one man, one vote!’. That is what his speech amounts to. Unless the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to repudiate him, that will be the label attached to that party. We are going to hold them to it.

You have been doing it all along.

The hon. member can make his choice. He can try to interpret his speech differently for us, but as long as he stands by what he said—and I have come to know him as a person who speaks openly in this House—then I say that he has now ripped the mask off that party.

You have been saying that all along, too.

The hon. member for Durban Point went on to ask whether I was appealing for party unity or national unity. My reply to that is: Both. In the first place, I appeal for the greatest possible party-political unity for South Africa, in its specific circumstances, for the reason I have just mentioned, viz. that there must be a firm will, a national will. Secondly, to nourish that national will, there must also be certain principles, applying across party lines, on which political parties in South Africa, if they are really patriotic, ought to be agreed. I repeat: A multiplicity of parties is a waste of time and strength.

I make no secret of it, and I want to say very openly to the hon. member, today that the NP promotes Afrikaner interests. It was founded for that purpose. It was founded to bring about equality between Afrikaans- and English-speaking South Africa, and it has succeeded in doing so. What is more, the NP has done more in the course of its history to bring about absolutely equal rights between English and Afrikaans-speaking South Africa than any other party. It has done so in the Republic Service, in the Defence Force, etc. It has promoted this in all spheres. It has helped to make bilingualism a reality in South Africa. It has created the symbols around which to build national unity. It is its greatest merit that in spite of opposition, in spite of people that spread stories about it and undermined it, it has succeeded in making a reality of national unit.

I want to go further. While we protect Afrikaner interests, we are just as concerned about promoting the interests of other minority groups in the country. Accordingly, the NP also promotes and protects the rights of English-speaking persons. To be a self-respecting Afrikaner does not mean that I have to hold the rights and possessions of others in contempt. That is my standpoint. It is not a prerequisite for being an Afrikaner that one should hold others in contempt. I repeat: It is not a prerequisite to disregard the rights of other South Africans in order to be a true Afrikaner. I think that for anyone to try to prove that he is an Afrikaner by holding other people in South Africa in contempt, would be a blot on the name of the Afrikaner himself. When I say this I specifically address those so-called rightist groups in South Africa that try to abuse the position of the Afrikaner in the country and make of us a caricature in our own country. I refuse to accept that.

†This principle has been clearly spelt out in article 4 of the programme of principles of the NP and has been in that programme of principles since 1934.I quote the article—

*That is the essence.

[Inaudible.]

Oh really, please stop cackling. A rooster that cackles cannot even lay an egg. I am speaking about serious matters and if the hon. member is not content to listen to me, he might as well go and have some coffee, or something stronger.

I want to say to the hon. member for Durban Point that that is the basis on which I seek political unity, and that that is the basis on which I seek national unity. I may be ridiculed, or the hon. member for Durban Point may be ridiculed, but I want to say that if there is one thing that the hon. member for Durban Point will take to his grave, it is the knowledge that he was at all times a patriot. Once can mock him for it, but he has put South Africa’s interest first, even where he has differed with the Government. I am not ashamed to say so to his face.

However, I also want to make another statement. There is no conflict between being a good South African and being an Afrikaner. I want to go further. Being a good South African does not require of me to be an apologetic Afrikaner. That is my political approach and I have applied it in practice over a period of more than 20 years in the departments I have administered. I established it in the S.A. Defence Force, a department that I administered for 14 years. Therefore, as I understand what it means to be an Afrikaner, it is not in conflict with the idea of South African nationhood. Indeed, it is an important catalyst in that regard. However, I reject a petty and claustrophic idea of Afrikanerhood that makes of the Afrikaner a caricature and presents him as a narrowminded being, afraid to communicate with others. Reasonable Afrikaners—and they comprize the vast majority—are people who, on the basis of self-respect, have respect for their fellow South Africans as well.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, and quite rightly, that several interesting things have come out of this session thus far. However, there are a few things from which I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to dissociate himself. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is intellectually a very gifted person. He occupies a very important position. I want to ask him this afternoon, with reference to what has happened in the course of this session, to dissociate himself and his party from a few things. In the first place, he must dissociate his party form the big question mark that hangs over them when we discuss our security matters. I do not say that this is the case in respect of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself, because I do not believe that. However, there are elements within the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition which are playing a dangerous game with the security of South Africa.

Name them.

I do not want to become personal, but I shall name one person. A moment ago the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he did not like people being derogatory to one another. I appreciate that. However, I want to ask him why he did not repudiate the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. Why did he not tell the hon. member today: That contemptible statement which you made here yesterday evening was objectionable? Why did he not do that? Is it because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to do so? No, I do not think so. I think he wants to do so, but he is a captive. As he sits there, he is a captive.

Last night passages were quoted from a pamphlet published by his youth branch in Pinelands. It was the most contemptible piece of propaganda on a matter which shook the whole of South Africa, the Pretoria bomb blast. Believe it or not, they had the temerity to publish a pamphlet on that Pretoria matter and to blame this Government for it. I can understand it if one does not always have control over every possible section of one’s party. I understand that. However, when things are brought to one’s attention, one should put one’s foot down. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: What is he going to do about that pamphlet? Is he going to bring those young people to their senses? Blacks and Whites and Coloureds died in the streets of Pretoria as a result of that explosion, but that youth branch of his, without rhyme or reason, has denigrated the Government of this country, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is the alternative Prime Minister, is doing nothing about it. He is not repudiating them. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that his conduct was just as unsatisfactory when Di Bishop began saying the things she did. Stellenbosch had to repudiate her, because he did not want to do so. I shall go further. I want to tell him that when the hon. member for Wynberg made one blunder after another in connection with the Defence Force, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not put him in his place. He replaced him with the hon. member for Yeoville. What a situation for a party which criticizes other people.

We come now to the constitution. After he was elected, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a promise, and I believed him. He said that he would participate constructively but alertly as leader of that party. I do not reject sound criticism, but those instructions, seven of them, should have been introduced by the Select Committee. That is after all the procedure in this House. [Interjections.] Of course, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition forfeited his opportunities when he was able to participate in these processes. He then stood aside, and did so under the pressure of those people whom he did not want to repudiate. I am saying this to him today and he knows it is the truth.

No, it is not.

Yes, Sir. He knows it is the truth. See how much he is enjoying this! He himself is laughing! [Interjections.]

What are those hon. members now making of this House of Assembly? They are making a mockery of it. They moved seven instructions, one after the other. They virtually competed with one another to have instructions placed on the Order Paper. Never before in the history of this House has there been such a ridiculous business. [Interjections.] What they were also proving by their actions, however, was how obsolete the Westminster system is. If that was their object, they were successful. [Interjections.]

All parties represented in this House agree that the system should be changed. They also agree that the framework within which peaceful co-existence within the Republic is to be promoted, is no longer the framework of an unadapted Westminster system. I am saying this on behalf of them all, and here I include the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as the CP and the NRP. Sitting on that side now are the hon. members for Brakpan and Rissik; they were not on that road with us. Everyone said that the Westminster system had to be changed. They also recommended a mixed President’s Council. Surely they all joined us in signing the reports which proposed the establishment of that body and which amounted to our having to begin to move away from the Westminster system. We then began to do so.

The first instrument which all of them recommended was a joint President’s Council that had to undertake certain investigations for us. When we established it, the PFP kicked out the person who was a member of their party and who wanted to serve on the President’s Council. That is the PFP’s concept of democracy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went off to one side and cried like a naughty little boy. [Interjections.] He said: I am not going to co-operate. He is still not co-operating; he is merely shouting from the sidelines.

We do not like the referee.

Surely the Government did not fail to begin to carry out its mandate. Surely the Government acted, in spite of this opposition.

The other complaint I have against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that in the course of development of South Africa’s constitutional process he disregards and disparages such a tremendously important event as the establishment of independent Black States and national States with self-government. What I want to say this afternoon, I also said for the benefit of Mr. Eagleburger. I want to go further.

When France promoted separate freedoms for West African States, it was right and fair in the eyes of the international community. When France subsequently took those former colonies, which were taking their first tottering steps as new States, by the hand and led them to greater prosperity and progress in the sphere of separate self-government, the international community saw no harm in that. When they subsequently received defenced and economic aid from France, it was fine.

When Britain brought about the liberation of Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana, it was right in the eyes of the international community. Then it did not detract from their co-operation with Britain and the international community.

Why, then, is it wrong when the RSA brings about the maximum emancipatory process in regard to the Black peoples in its midst? What makes us different from those nations? Why is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition playing into the hands of our enemies in the world by denying this wonderful process which has come into existence in South Africa? For what purpose does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the Press which supports him, disparage the liberating process? For what purpose?

I want to ask him what he will do if he should come into power. He has probably thought about that already, or is it going to strike him like a bolt of lightning when it happens? If he ever comes into power will be undo this process? Will he dismantle these liberated States, as well as the self-governing national States? If he wishes to do that, a disillusionment awaits him. I can assure him of that. [Interjections.] Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came along—and I take this amiss of him because he is intelligent and well-informed—and issued a statement like the one he issued on 16 June, on the most dangerous date possible for this country. While he knew that there were people just waiting to cause trouble, he issued a statement and said afterwards that it was part of a speech which he had made. Surely that was not correct.

It was.

Then he should have said that he was issuing it as part of his speech, and that was not what was stated on that document. In addition, the hon. leader’s facts were incorrect, because he said that 70% of the population had no say, while that is not true. The percentage is far lower. The hon. the leader must get his sums right. He begrudges these people their freedom, while we are engaged in the greatest attempt at devolution of power and development the sub-continent of Southern Africa has ever seen. I maintain that it is the greatest attempt at devolution of power and development of Southern African States which this sub-continent has ever seen. It is greater than what the British Empire was able to establish on the sub-continent of Africa. The hon. member adopts this attitude, in spite of the success we have achieved within eighteen months with decentralization. Under unprecedented depression conditions we were successful in our attempts to cause people to invest money in these States. They go there with confidence because, in co-operation with one another, guarantees are being given by the governments of those States. Furthermore, there is the establishment of a development bank, with which we were able to go a step further this morning. I want to say at once that I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was present. I also appreciate the presence there of other parties. I appreciate the CP and the NRP being represented there. I want to tell them that they do not know what it means to those Black people. They told me that it was a demonstration of goodwill which they valued very highly. Why do I not get this positive approach from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition more frequently? After all, he has it in him.

I come to the question of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. I do not want to discuss the constitutional proposals, because they are before a Select Committee. We shall have other opportunities to debate them. We are awaiting the report of that Select Committee. Surely that is the orderly way of doing things. I am sorry that the hon. member for Waterberg cannot be here. I understand the reason for that. However, his spiritual father, the hon. member for Lichtenburg, will quite probably be able to inform him of what I am now going to say.

The standpoint of the NP during the 1981 election, as it was endorsed by the hon. member for Waterberg, together with me, was that a Coloured homeland was not acceptable for this country and that it could not work. But it was more than that: It was a confirmation of the standpoint which the NP had adopted on this matter since 1948. And furthermore, this idea of a Coloured homeland is nothing new. During the early ’forties it was proclaimed by Minister Oswald Pirow, and even then the party rejected it. Consequently it is not even a new idea. It is a second-hand idea which died the death as long ago as the early ’forties.

Let us consider the facts now. In respect of the provision of housing on the part of the State, approximately R1 100 million has been invested in Coloured group areas by the State alone. And then I am not even referring to what building societies and private Coloured individuals have invested in housing. It must probably be twice that amount. But values have also gone up, and these people have obtained freehold in those group areas. Do we wish to nullify all this now? The Black people do not have freehold in the Black residential areas of South Africa, while the Coloureds do in fact have freehold in their areas. Secondly, the Coloureds are not a people; they are a collection of communities. There are in fact cultural groups among them which associate themselves with the Afrikaners and which associate themselves with the English-speaking people. That is true, and we must approach them in that light.

The hon. member for Waterberg has now come forward here with a new magic wand, namely that we should use the rural areas, the 3 million ha, as a basis. Heavens above! If there is one area in the country which I know thoroughly because I travelled through it repeatedly and carried out inspections there personally, together with officials, while I was Minister of Coloured Affairs for many years, then it is this area. Over the years we set development programmes in motion in those rural areas. I am not referring now to the mission stations such as Mamre, Pniel, Slangrivier and Zoar. I am referring to the larger areas such as Eben-haëser, Rietpoort, and Pella. Let us consider a few. Pella is 48 000 ha in extent, and do hon. members know how many people are living there? There are 2 600 souls, and that is too many. In spite of all our development plans there, they cannot make a living. Concordia is 63 000 ha in extent, and 8 100 people are living there. Leliefontein is 192 000 ha in extent, and only 7 000 people are living there, in spite of the Government’s development works which they have initiated. It is a semi-desert area; there is no water. Has the hon. member ever been there? He has only flown over the area. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. He is pulling the wool over the voters’ eyes. The people are laughing at him because of this, for he is indulging in an escapist policy and in his search for such a policy he is trying to upset good Nationalists. The hon. member must put an end to this behaviour of his. He must not try to rake up the past and dig up the skeleton of Mr. Pirow’s policy. Cattle that gnaw at the bones of dead cattle get bovine parabotulism. Does the hon. member for Lichtenburg understand that two-thirds of the people working in the building industry in the Western Cape, and all of the workers in the fruit and wine industry are among our most advanced Coloureds? Does he now wish to remove them from these areas?

No.

But how does the hon. member then wish to establish a homeland if he does not wish to take the best people there? The hon. member is engaged in an absurdity. Or is he going to make Coloureds?

The hon. member for Waterberg maintains that the new constitution makes provision for domination by a White majority party, but only a few minutes earlier he said that the NP stood for mixed government. How can both statements be true?

They are both true.

Oh, are both true? The hon. member reminds me of the fellow who saw an elephant for the first time and said that it could not be true. It had two tails and two trunks!

Sir, the 1977 proposals made provision for a President’s Council that was to be mixed. In the same way the electoral college which was to have elected the President, would be mixed. The proposals also made provision for a Council of Cabinets, which was to have been an executive body. That body too, was to have been mixed. In fact, the number of Coloureds who were to have served on it, was prescribed. And from 1977 until the year of our Lord 1982, those hon. members sat snugly in the NP and accepted this mixed government. Then they suddenly awoke, like a lot of Rip van Winkles, and here we now have the hon. member for North Rand, like a Don Quixote, calling all our forefathers to the struggle. All the way back to Andries Pretorius. [Interjections.] Yes, he even went as far back as Moses. But he must remember that Moses contracted a mixed marriage, and that Andries Pretorius had Coloureds in the camp of Blood River.

Sir, I want to conclude. I am sorry the hon. member for Waterberg is not here. Four years ago that hon. member took over as leader of the strongest section of the NP in the Republic, namely the mighty Transvaal party, a party which is bigger than the three other provincial parties put together. But where does that hon. member stand today? That party repudiated him and he then had to fall back on his constituency. What has he achieved in that constituency? He represents less than 50% of the voters of Waterberg. That is what he has left of his legacy. I want to tell hon. members of the CP one thing, although I know it will not have the same effect on everyone: Go away and read the parable of the Prodigal Son, and find your way back home.

Finally, I want to say something about the referendum. All parties represented in this House are in favour of a referendum before the proposed constitutional amendments are going to be passed. Everyone is in favour of that: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the CP and the leader of the NRP.

And the Coloureds and the Indians?

They can do whatever they like. They can choose a referendum; they can choose an election—it is their business and not the business of that hon. member. All that that hon. member has to do is to perform a heart operation on his party.

What transplant should I do on you?

On me? Just appear before me and give me occasion to laugh.

I know what I should like to transplant. I shall rather not say what it is.

Sir, I have said that all parties were agreed that we should hold a referendum prior to the proposed new constitutional dispensation. From statements made subsequently I have to infer that all parties are also going to participate in the referendum. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has even intimated that he would welcome being consulted on the question which is going to be put in the referendum. He wrote me a letter on this matter, a letter which I received three weeks after he had signed it. The letter was written on 9 June and I only received it yesterday. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should talk to his staff. If he cannot even govern them, how is he going to govern the country? In any event, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is quite welcome to send me any questions he wants me to consider. We shall consider them. The other parties, too, are welcome to make suggestions to me. We shall consider them. But the final decision will be taken by the Government. The final responsibility for the question which has to be put in the referendum is the responsibility of this Government. The head of the Government also has the responsibility of fixing the date on which the referendum will be held. The head of Government has the right to fix that date. In this regard I am prepared to make one promise, namely that sufficient time will be allowed to enable all parties to prepare. I shall announce the question and the date plus-minus two months prior to the referendum. As I have said, I shall choose this date in view of my responsibility towards the country and its interests. Hon. members will simply have to wait quietly like good children until they receive the particulars from me.

Furthermore, I wish to say that I shall abide by the outcome of that referendum. If it goes against me, I shall accept it.

Will you then resign?

No, why? Surely the NP has been elected to govern the country for a period of five years. The referendum is not being held to express confidence or no confidence in the Government. What I am saying is that I shall not proceed with the constitutional amendment if the referendum goes against me. Is that clear to the hon. member for Pinelands? He can do his surplice now. I shall accept the outcome. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition going to accept it?

Of course. I have no choice.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is therefore going to abide by the outcome of the referendum. At least there is one undertaking we got him to make. We are making progress. I also ask the hon. member for Lichtenburg now to tell us on behalf of his leader, who could not be here today, whether the CP is going to accept the outcome?

I am going to speak in a moment.

What does the hon. member say: Is the CP going to accept it?

Yes.

As far as the hon. member for Durban Point is concerned, I know he will accept it. That hon. member knows what course he is following. His course is South Africa’s course.

What does this Government stand for? What does this party stand for? Under difficult world circumstances and in difficult times we stand for the preservation of Christian civilized values in this country. That is number one. In the second place we stand for peaceful co-existence among peoples and population communities, and that peaceful co-existence must be maintained in a spirit of good neighbourliness. In the third place we stand for economic progress which has to be pursued as far as possible within a system of free competition. In the fourth place we stand for the military safeguarding of our country and internal maintenance of law and order. This must and will be maintained.

Sir, if we wish to achieve these things, there is no alternative for the NP.

Mr. Speaker, today Parliament has already been sitting for 102 days. This is therefore one of the longest Parliamentary sessions since this country became a Republic. During such a Parliamentary session many matters on the political front are elucidated. This also includes the political sphere outside this House. Similarly, a speech such as that of the hon. the Prime Minister to which we listened today is of great significance. After all, one expects the head of Government of South Africa to deal with certain problems of South Africa. In his speech today the hon. the Prime Minister said that everyone was in favour of change in South Africa. I agree with him of course. The whole of South Africa realizes that we have reached the stage where change is essential.

In the Parliamentary session that is now drawing to a close, which began as a historic session, one could surely have expected the hon. the Prime Minister to give South Africa some idea of what he was doing and where he was leading this country, but what did we find? The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with Mr. Eagleburger. I shall also deal with that matter in a moment. He then went on to deal with the Opposition parties in this House—the PFP, in other words the official Opposition, and ourselves, the CP. What did he say about the future of South Africa? He has already said in the past that we were moving towards harmony and peace, and he repeated it. One another occasion the hon. the Prime Minister said he was still feeling his way in the dark. I just want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that feeling one’s way in the dark towards harmony and peace can have unfortunate consequences. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we have reached one of the most serious stages in the history of our country. Before time catches up with me, I should like to deal with the question the hon. the Prime Minister put to us in connection with our standpoint on the referendum. I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that we are democrats. We in the CP are democrats. We do not believe in the policy the hon. the Prime Minister is now following. We do not believe that his new constitutional proposals will be a good thing for South Africa either. We are convinced that they will be disastrous for the country. As a matter of fact the signs are already there. For that reason, when the referendum is in fact held, even if the result is in favour of the Government, we shall accept that result. After all, we accepted the result in the Soutpansberg by-election. However, we immediately set to work to ensure that next time around we would win the Soutpansberg constituency. [Interjections.] We shall accept the result of the referendum in the same way. However, we are not going to sacrifice our standpoint and what we believe in. We are going to promote it with all the energy at our command before and after the referendum. [Interjections.]

What has this Parliamentary session produced? Today we listened to the hon. the Prime Minister. He dealt with the Opposition parties. He dealt with the CP. He also dealt with America. Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking on behalf of the other Opposition parties now. However, if the hon. the Prime Minister deals with their policy in the same way as he dealt with our policy, and if he approaches America in the same way as he approached our policy, I must say it will be a great shame. It will really be a great shame because the hon. the Prime Minister tried to make an absolute caricature out of our policy. He said we wanted to turn the coloured rural areas into a homeland for them and that that was all we were prepared to give them. Then he referred to a few small areas in which only a few people lived. [Interjections.] I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that he could have put the matter fully. Only 70 000 people are living in all the rural Coloured areas combined. However, this is not the only area we are planning as the geographic area of the Coloureds. The urban area in kwaZulu, the areas of Umlazi and Edenvale, as well as the town of Newcastle and others, areas adjoining large cities, for example, Durban, are part of kwaZulu. In what way do they differ from the group areas of the Coloureds here in the Western Cape and at Atlantis? Surely there is no difference. [Interjections.] There is no difference. They adjoin White areas. I want therefore to ask the hon. the Prime Minister why those areas cannot be part of a Coloured state. That is exactly what our policy involves. However, the hon. the Prime Minister did not mention that. He pretended that it did not exist. That is why I maintain he made a caricature of our policy. I want to say that his speech this afternoon revealed one thing, and that is that even he no longer has a case to put to South Africa. Here and there he is saved by the mistakes the PFP make when they say unpatriotic things about South Africa. Then the hon. the Prime Minister seizes on those things.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that Mr. Eagleburger spoke about one man, one vote in a unitary State for South Africa. I read his speech but I did not find those words in it. However, I admit that this can be implied from his speech. What did Mr. Eagleburger actually say? He said—

There need not be one man, one vote for there to be chaos in a country. In Zimbabwe today one man, one vote is not yet fully operative and what are things like there? In South-West Africa one man, one vote has not yet been implemented and what are things like there? The instruments the Government created in South-West Africa were instruments to bring the moderate leaders of the various sectors together to discuss the future but what happened? The talks collapsed. The only discussion that is being held now is the discussion between the South African Defence Force and Swapo over the barrel of a gun.

The hon. the Prime Minister is creating similar instruments in South Africa. [Interjections.] I maintain that chaos does not only arise when there is one man, one vote. It arises long before then. One of the dolls being set up by the hon. the Prime Minister is that whereas there are people who are in favour of one man, one vote, the NP is opposed to it. However, we must look at what the Government is proposing for South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to the manifesto. That manifesto provides expressly for “the division of political power” and respects power-sharing.

That is the first leg.

It also stated that a homeland was impracticable. Now the hon. the Prime Minister says we ran away. We do not deny that as far as that standpoint is concerned we have changed. However, the NP has also changed. We have changed by moving towards greater self-determination but the NP has changed from the division of power to power-sharing and integration.

That is a half-truth and you know it.

It is not a half-truth. It is the absolute truth.

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central must withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it.

Mr. Eagleburger said they supported those people in and outside the Government who are in favour of change away from apartheid. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister—he will not be able to clear up these matters until he gives us greater clarity—who the people in his party are who are moving away from apartheid. Yesterday evening the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs stood up here and defended separate development or apartheid—that is what he called it—to the death. We know that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said in America that apartheid was dead. Now the hon. the Prime Minister must tell us which members in the Government are moving away from separate development. Then we shall know where he is leading South Africa.

I think this session produced a few interesting things. In the first place, this session and what happened outside during this session, brought it home to the Government that the policy of the CP of the emancipation of the Coloureds and the Indians by means of geographic division and partition is increasingly finding favour among the voters of South Africa. The Government announced that this session would be a historic session; this would be the last White Parliament; the new constitution would be adopted during this session and would be placed on the Statute Book and implemented on 1 January 1984. That Programme of the Government was upset. Nothing has come of it as yet. Parliament will meet again next year and it will still be this Parliament, which is a White Parliament. I believe that it will meet again in 1985, in 1995 and also in the years thereafter. We saw the Government’s plan upset in this session for a number of reasons. The first reason is that the CP is developing into a force to be reckoned with. The programme was also upset as a result of an unbelievable mistake in the opinion of the Government, namely the mistake made by the hon. the Minister of Manpower in provoking by-elections. This led to the forthcoming referendum, which was not part of the Government’s programme. It also led to the CP being placed on the map.

This session also revealed the fact that if the programme of the Government as contained in the draft constitution is implemented, the Whites will begin with less right to self-determination than a self-governing Black State has. The Whites will start with less than that.

The hon. the Prime Minister also referred to the history of the NP. It has a fine history. It was a period during which the Whites and four Black nations were liberated. Now the Government is taking away the freedom of the Whites and withholding freedom from the Coloureds and the Indians. It is on that point that we differ. With all due respect and in all modesty I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that when he says that this is a personal difference that is being aired he is interpreting the politics of South Africa incorrectly. We are not here for personal reasons. We are here because we are quite convinced and firmly believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has turned back on the path of nationalism. He is now disinterring all the old policies of the UP and the Progressive Party and their predecessors. We do not want to retrace our steps.

I come now to the referendum. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that we shall accept the result of the referendum. However, this referendum will only have significance if it meets certain requirements. In the first place it will depend on the way in which the question to be put to the people is formulated. We had a referendum in a part of South Africa previously in connection with a constitution. In 1909 the constitution of South Africa was submitted to all the legislative bodies in the provinces, including Natal. A referendum was held in Natal after which the legislation was sent back to the Convention and thereafter to the British Parliament. The question put to the voters in Natal was a very simple one: Do you agree with the draft constitution? All people had to say was “yes” or “no”. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that if he is going to ask the Whites one question and the Coloureds and Indians another question, no one will attach any value to the outcome of the referendum. If the Whites are asked: Do you agree with the draft constitution?, and the Coloureds and Indians are asked: Are you prepared to participate?, this will not be the same question and the referendum will mean nothing. Then the Government will get nowhere.

In the second place I want to say that unless the referendum is held on the same day for the three population groups it will not have any credibility either. Yesterday we had the spectacle of the hon. the leader of the NP in the Transvaal saying that there was no suggestion of mixed government in the new constitutional dispensation. Can hon. members believe that a senior hon. Minister in the Cabinet says that the new constitution does not provide a mixed government? That is what they are telling the voters in Transvaal. We ask that the referendum be held on the same day so that we can hear what is said to the Coloureds and the Indians and so that they can hear what the Government tells us. Only then will the result be valid.

In the third place we say that the result will only be valid if the Government does what was done in Britain on the occasion of the recent election. All the political parties that are representatives of all the people for whom the new constitution has been drafted, must be given equal time on television and radio to put their case. Only if the voters for whom the new constitution has been drafted have been fully informed by the State and all parties have been given a fair chance to put their case, will the outcome be meaningful. Uninformed people cannot reach a meaningful decision.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lichtenburg will realize that I have a problem this afternoon because I shall not be able to reply to his speech although I would like to do so. Unfortunately I have very little time at my disposal and there is another matter I should like to reply to. I do however want to tell the hon. member for Lichtenburg that there will be another opportunity in the course of this session—and the hon. member owes it to this House—to clarify two matters for this House. In the first place he must tell us where it is stated in the NP manifesto that power-sharing is anathema. That was the categoric language he used. He must also tell us where in the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development’s speech it is stated unequivocally that apartheid is dead. He can make an opportunity to tell the House this. If he does not do so later in the session, then one can say of the hon. member’s statements that he was being intentionally opportunistic when he made them.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me to clarify a standpoint adopted yesterday evening. I should like to tell him that as he has already read in one of our newspapers today, there was never any suggestion of my threatening the Press. There was no suggestion of my threatening the Press that irrespective of parliamentary privilege they were running a risk if they published the contents of a speech made in Parliament. I am just as concerned about the privilege of this House as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I would certainly not say or do anything to prejudice the privilege of this House in any way. However, the fact remains that I also have a responsibility. When I see the course matters are taking and I know that slanderous and incorrect stories and wild rumours are being spread in certain areas in connection with certain circumstances in the Durban area in particular, then it is my duty to issue a warning that we should all act responsibly. If there are people who do not want to act responsibly then section 27 of the Police Act will be invoked. That is the spirit and the circumstances in which this was done.

I also want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that my information is that what led up to the speech of the hon. member for Pinetown was that in consequence of a report which an editor of a Durban newspaper did not see his way clear to print in his newspaper because he knew that he would come up against section 27 of the Police Act because that report probably contained a number of untruths, some of those allegations came into the possession of the hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member enthusiastically seized the opportunity to repeat some of those allegations under the privilege of this House. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this is not something I want to believe but I have reason to believe that the hon. member made use of the privilege of this House to have those allegations placed on record so that they could be published. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can explain this to us, but I say that that was the impression I gained on the basis of the facts at my disposal. I also took the trouble to try to verify my facts.

The hon. member for Pinetown is known in this House as a member who has absolutely no appreciation or sympathy for the difficult task of the S.A. Police. He is also an hon. member of this House who is known by his friends. The hon. member for Pinetown had already handed his speech to the Press before lunch. He knew he was going to make 14 or 15 serious allegations against the Police on the basis of the information at his disposal.

Where is he now?

He apologized for being unable to attend. However, the hon. member did not have the courtesy, knowing he was going to make 14 or 15 serious allegations against the Police, to give me any indication of what he was going to say so that I could try to reply meaningfully to those allegations during the debate. He did not do that. However, I know the hon. member as a person who would not do that. The hon. member for Pinetown drew up a list of 14 or 15 charges against the Police, some of which were absolutely scandalous. I have reason to say that some of them are absolutely scandalous because I ascertained yesterday evening and today what the facts were in connection with a number of these allegations. However, in the few minutes at my disposal I cannot reply in detail in this regard.

The hon. member told us that the Police are alleged to have broken into houses. He said they deliberately broke into houses like burglars. He told this House—according to this morning’s Cape Times he took some trouble to sort out his information—that people had food and liquor confiscated by the Police at roadblocks. They had then allegedly consumed that liquor and performed their duties there while drunk. An hon. member said that in this House. My information is that that is an infamous lie.

The hon. member told this House that six policemen dragged a twelve-year old girl out of a house. They assaulted her with sjamboks until the blood flowed. Can you believe that, Sir? The newspaper said he had sorted out his information; he had taken trouble over it. He went on to say that the police had spread-eagled youths across the bonnets of police vehicles. With those youths spread-eagled across the bonnets, they had driven through the residential areas so that the youths could serve as shields against stones which might be thrown at them. Sir, have you ever in your life experienced a blacker day in this House as far as the Police are concerned? An hon. member of this House actually stated in this House that the police had tied people across their vehicles to serve as a shield against stones!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said I should explain things to him. [Interjections.] Why did he not tell that senior member of his party that he should make certain of his facts before blazoning these accusations abroad? It was done deliberately.

The hon. member would not give this House the rest of the picture either and tell us some of the reasons for the unrest in Lamontville and Chesterville. He would not tell us why there has been unrest for three months now. He knows exactly what the background is; he can get it from newspaper reports. I shall get to that aspect in a moment. He did not mention the damage that has already been caused to buildings of the Port Natal Administration Board and to private homes. The homes of policemen have been burned down. Private vehicles have been stolen and destroyed and vehicles have also been burned out. He did not mention the stone-throwers and the petrol bomb-throwers in that area. He did not mention how many petrol bombs have already been thrown at the police. Why did he not mention the people who have already been arrested on charges of murder, on charges of public violence and on charges of throwing petrol bombs? He will not mention that.

He said the Press had been prohibited from reporting in those areas. I say that is not so. The Press is not prohibited from reporting there. I have here a number of newspaper reports that have appeared in Durban newspapers over the past few days. Is this a Press that is being prevented from reporting? The reports come from people within the area. People are allowed in and they may enter those areas freely and drive around there. Nevertheless the hon. member said that the Press had been prohibited from reporting. Where do the reports come from if reporting is prohibited?

Was he alone when he said that?

That is a good question.

Not a single representative of the PFP in the Durban area, as they sit there, has made any attempt during the past few months—I am saying this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—to ascertain personally what is going on there, neither the hon. member for Berea nor the hon. member for Durban Central nor the hon. member for Pinetown. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Berea is an honest man and he will not stand up and tell me I am not telling the truth. He knows it. Not even he has tried to ascertain what is going on, and now he expects me as a Minister to hand it to him on a plate in this House. He will not go to his own constituency or an area bordering on his constituency to see what is going on there. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: It is the hon. members of his party who have made these disgraceful allegations in this House and have not even taken the trouble to speak to a single police officer in their own area and ask him to inform them of the facts. They have not asked the police to take them into that area so that they could see what was going on there. Not one of them has done so. [Interjections.] The PFP representatives in the Durban area, the three whose constituencies I have mentioned, did not do so.

There sits the hon. member for Durban Central. The other evening he referred to reports that Hippo’s were patrolling the area. Do hon. members know what Hippo’s are? A Hippo is a reinforced armoured vehicle used by the Police and the Defence Force. There is not a single Hippo being used by the Police in the Durban area. Twenty-four hours before he made his speech, that hon. member knew that the police did not have a single Hippo there. [Interjections.] The hon. member knew that the Police did not have a single Hippo in the Durban area and yet he said here that Hippo’s were patrolling the entire area. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is not ashamed of himself. He knows I am speaking the truth. He is a lawyer and an honest man. He knows my facts are correct.

I challenge those hon. members in all decency to prove their allegations here. If they are so interested, they must assist people to prove those allegations. Bring us signed statements to prove the allegations they made here.

There are many statements.

Bring us the proof. Do not abuse the privilege of this House to discuss matters that come out of the garbage can.

I want to give this House the assurance that my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, and I are giving our personal attention to the position in Lamontville and Chesterville. This has been going on over a period of weeks and months. I also want to give the assurance that the Government will not allow anarchy and chaos to develop in those areas. The Government and the responsible departments will do everything in their power to maintain law and order there and to encourage stable communities there. The allegation made here that the public was not being informed, is not true. The public is being informed, and I want to give the assurance that the public will be kept informed of the situation. In spite of what speakers of the official Opposition say, I know that the residents of those two areas have complete confidence in the Police and have proved to us that this is so. I give this House the assurance that the Police will assist and protect those law-abiding citizens to the best of their ability.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the NRP I would like to thank the hon. the Minister of Law and Order for informing the House that the allegations that were made here last night are not true. We are very pleased to hear that. I believe that in the light of this, an apology is required from the hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Durban Central.

There are problems in Lamontville and Chesterville, and we know this. The problems concern the increase in tariffs for services such as sewerage, water, refuse removal etc. It has been said that these increases are of the order of 60% and that is correct. They are increasing from something like R18,32 per month for a three-roomed house to R29,85 per month. However, the point is that the last time these tariffs were increased, was in 1979. The question here is whether these increases are justified or not. The other question is who is stirring up trouble in Chesterville and Lamontville to cause these problems. After listening to the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, I do not believe that the problem lies with the S.A. Police. The problem has nothing to do with most White politicians in this House. I believe there are political movements within those Black townships involving Black politicians and not White politicians. The S.A. Police are attempting to maintain law and order there. It is very easy indeed to complain about problems, but it is another thing to find out the cause of those problems. It is even more difficult, after having identified those problems, to find solutions to those problems.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the NRP is irrelevant.

Hear, hear!

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether or not his party is a creator of problems rather than a solver of problems in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister said that a political party must have a message for the people. I believe that when the Hansards of this session are read, the NRP will not be found wanting in being a party that is trying to solve the problems of South Africa. We have tried to identify the problems of South Africa, we have tried to determine their cause and we have tried to work for a correct solution in the best interests of South Africa. To achieve these things requires an understanding of the problems, a tolerance, a willingness to consult and negotiate and, probably even more so, it requires a willingness to examine one’s own prejudices and to see whether or not we are in fact the causes of these problems. We as a party stand on our record. We have negotiated and consulted with the Indians and Coloureds of Natal. We have consulted with them and got them to put pen to paper on a document. We have co-operated in the President’s Council, but have the official Opposition? No. All they do is create problems.

They are political arsonists.

That is all they do. They just create problems. In trying to solve these problems, if at times this party is required to take a firm stand, we shall. In dealing with this Government we shall take a hard line if necessary, as the hon. member for Umbilo took when dealing with the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Bill.

I want to say in the few minutes that are left to me that when it comes to solving the economic problems of South Africa—I want to say this especially to the hon. the Minister of Finance—if we are to resolve the problem of inflation in South Africa so that we can remain competitive in the world in international trade and so that our currency is not devalued, which will have to be done if we do not control inflation, then we must be prepared to bite the bullet and pull in our belts. Regrettably, if it means a little more unemployment in order to correct the basic structural problems of South Africa, then I believe we have got to do it, and if the hon. the Minister of Finance has got the guts to do it, he can rest assured that the NRP will support the Government in doing what is right for South Africa.

You do not mind people going hungry?

In conclusion I just want to say to hon. members of the PFP that they yap like a lot of dogs, but they certainly do not contribute anything to resolving the problems of South Africa. They are part of the creation of the problem. They are the problem or part of the problem of South Africa. They have contributed nothing to finding solutions to South Africa’s constitutional problems and neither have they contributed anything to solving the economic problems of South Africa. They are the party that are always screaming for the so-called underdogs. They want to provide free housing, free transport and subsidized food for the so-called underdogs. But who pays in the long run?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 75.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of the last major general debate in this session of Parliament. I was going to say that we have come to the end of the last major financial debate, but I think hon. members will agree with me that if there is one thing that has been conspicuous by its absence in this debate then it has been financial and economic policy.

You say the same thing every year.

It is a little disappointing in a way because I really went out of my way to deal with economic and financial policy as the Government sees it and as the Government is applying it.

It is because you are irrelevant.

If it is irrelevant, the hon. member must justify it. Is it irrelevant to talk, as I did, about the balance of payments improvement? Is it irrelevant to talk about fiscal policy? Is it irrelevant to talk about monetary policy? Is it irrelevant to talk about inflation and what the Government has been doing?

You must stop talking and do.

With respect to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, we are “biting the bullet”. Our fiscal policy is absolutely applauded throughout the country and the world generally, and I am talking about people who know in the outside world. I dealt with our monetary policy and it is an extremely difficult thing. It is extremely difficult with the volatile gold price that we are dealing with. The hon. member knows that gold is our biggest export item. These matters are not simply to be dealt with by saying inflation should be curbed. We are doing everything possible to accomplish these things. However, Mr. Speaker, we are contending with one of the most severe droughts in the history of this country. The reason why our growth rate is negative today is this very drought. If it were not for the drought, despite the dreadful situation in the outside world, which rubs off on to all countries, including us, we would have had a positive growth rate today. There is no question about that. I believe these are matters that should have been dealt with. They are not irrelevant at all. They are extremely relevant. If the hon. member for Bryanston does not understand it, I am not prepared to take the matter any further with him. [Interjections.]

What this debate has been characterized by, I think, has been some quite astounding pronouncements by hon. members of the Opposition parties. I think that what was said, for instance, by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central yesterday was one of the most scandalous statements I have heard in my time in this House and in the Other Place. I believe the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central—and I say this in all seriousness—owes an apology to this House. He should withdraw that statement before this session of Parliament ends. I must tell him that the electorate of this country is going to hold him responsible for that. He will still see whether I am talking sense or not.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have to say with all respect that I do not think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition answered the questions put to him by the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and by the hon. the Prime Minister on this issue at all. He did not reply to them. What the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said was that this Government was following policies which were a crime against humanity, and that we would face trials similar to the Nuremberg Nazi trials. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not replied to that, Mr. Speaker.

Furthermore we had the appalling statement to which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries referred in his speech yesterday about the Young Progressives and what they were doing to corrupt the minds of the youth in Pinelands. That is exactly what it is. It is a corruption of the minds of the youth. There has been, however, no repudiation of that scandalous document referred to by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. Then we also had those allegations yesterday against the South African Police in the Durban area. Those allegations were just as scandalous.

The hon. the Minister of Law and Order replied to those allegations here in the House today, and in the light of that reply we want to hear what hon. members of the PFP now have to say. They are very quick when Parliament is not sitting, to make Press statements. During the Parliamentary recess nothing stops them from making Press statements by the dozen. Let us hear now what they do about this matter tomorrow. We certainly want to see what they are going to do.

We will call for an immediate and full investigation. [Interjections.]

Oh, Horace, you are so mixed-up that no one could ever investigate you.

I want to continue, Mr. Speaker, by referring now to South West Africa. I accept the spirit in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised the matter. I also do not believe there should have been any sort of problem between the hon. member for Yeoville and myself about this matter at all. What I was trying to establish, was the following. The hon. member for Yeoville had every right to raise the matter because he was in possession of that report. What I was trying to establish, however, was the origin of that report—its authenticity—because, as I said, I had several reports before me. During the last month I have indeed received three important reports from South West Africa. That is why I was keen to identify precisely which report the hon. member for Yeoville was referring to. That was the issue.

Is this then genuinely a report issued by the Department of Finance in South West Africa?

I am going to deal with the matter right now. The document was drawn up in the Department of Finance of South West Africa. Talking about South West Africa, Mr. Speaker, I should want to add that I believe every hon. member in this House will agree with me that South West Africa is a very special case; whichever way we look at it. It is in fact almost a unique case. I want to point out again that the economy of South West Africa is being shattered at the moment by possibly the worst drought in its history. This is what people from South West Africa tell me.

These things must, of course, be taken into account.

Then we will have to help them.

Of course. I am going to deal with that as well. You see, Mr. Speaker, my quarrel is not with the hon. member for Yeoville.

So, you are not going to fix me after all?

No, why? It does not assist the cause of responsible debating when a newspaper such as The Argus which never forgoes an opportunity of being unpleasant or of being unfair, comes along with a subleader, and without ascertaining the facts, makes certain uncalled-for statements. With reference to the discussion we had with the hon. member for Yeoville, it says—

I propose to do exactly that. Sir, how the mighty have fallen! I knew The Argus when it was under the most distinguished editorship of a man like Horace Flather. The hon. the Prime Minister will remember him. In those days the reporting of parliamentary debates by The Argus was a model for others. I also knew The Argus under the editorship of men like Simpson, McKenzie, and George Ferguson, who was a great friend of mine and died only a few weeks ago. It is a pity that a paper tries to confuse the issue while it knows nothing about it.

What has the Government done about South West financing? How many times has the hon. the Prime Minister himself not said that what we have to strive for is responsible financing in South West Africa? We have striven for this. The head official in the Department of Finance in Windhoek today was sent there by us. It was the Treasury in South Africa which arranged that he be sent there, and he is a very able man. I am speaking of Dr. Jones. We have also regularly sent senior officials of the Treasury, extremely able people, to South West Africa to assist. With reference to the report the hon. member for Yeoville said—

How have we not tried—my colleague the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information can say a great deal about this—to impress upon Western nations like the USA, the United Kingdom, West Germany, Canada, France and others, the absolute need to do something about assisting with the financing of South West Africa so that that country can be viable and strong in the interests of the West! What has the response been, however? The whole responsibility has fallen on South Africa and that remains the position to this very day.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? We all agree that assistance should be given, but one of the disturbing aspects of the report is the fact that the assistance given so far has been squandered through lack of financial discipline and unprofitable operations. What can be done about that?

I am coming to that. In fact, I might as well deal with it now. I took the trouble to ask Dr. Jones, the head of the Department of Finance there, to tell me precisely what the aim of that report really was. It was a highly confidential internal report. It was given to me personally virtually a month ago by the Administrator-General. Dr. Jones was present. I read the report and, as I read it, it was quite clear to me what Dr. Jones was saying. He was saying that there was a very serious financial position developing. He was saying that, unless South West Africa could generate more income internally, if it was to develop as it was hoped it would, then obviously they were going to build up an absolute impossible burden of debt. That is the main gist of it. That does not cover everything, but the hon. member will agree that that is the main gist of the report.

Unfortunately this document, in which these things were put absolutely openly, fell into hands for which it was never intended. Unfortunately, as Dr. Jones said, it fell into the hands of, amongst others, a certain Mr. Lang, a highly questionable character—I do not want to go into this credentials or non-credentials, but this is what happened. I think that some of the points in this report were very seriously distorted. The fact is that in certain sections of second-tier government there have apparently been certain things happening which have been disturbing us. I say “apparently”. The moment we heard about this we took the initiative as well to impress on South-West Africa to have a thorough investigation immediately. A very thorough investigation is taking place at the moment under Adv. Thirion. We—I mean of course South-West Africa, but we also will receive that report—hope to get the report as soon as possible. That is something which is in the hands of the South-West Africa Administration. I hope I have answered the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in that respect.

Let us come to the question of aid. South Africa is not a big country. The country faces tremendous challenges itself and there are manifold claims of all kinds on its Exchequer from within. What has South Africa done about South-West Africa, all on its own, with no assistance from anyone else, except for a few small loans from a handful of overseas banks? Over the past 10 years, up to the end of this financial year, South Africa’s contribution to the finances of South-West Africa—this includes the military, the railways, the general budget and everything else—will almost certainly amount to at least R6 500 million. Let us say the population is one million. That works out on average at R6 500 per head of man, woman and child. The figure for this year appears to be going to be just about R1 000 million. That is the figure I have in mind, looking at all the possibilities. That means that this year South Africa, despite all its other obligations, will be contributing R1 000 per head of man, woman and child to South-West Africa. I try to study these things. They interest one.

Does it include defence?

Yes, it includes defence. When one looks at the figures of the International Monetary Fund and other international agencies such as the World Bank, I want to say that this scale of aid on South Africa’s part to South-West Africa is without parallel in Africa at the present time. There are plenty of people abroad who tell us how the problem in South-West Africa should be resolved, but nobody is prepared to put in a cent to assist. I have tried to deal at least with the gist of the matter. Maybe The Argus will quote some of the figures which I have given so that the public can judge what we have done for South-West Africa.

*I wish to say something about the Land Bank. The Select Committee on Public Accounts …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question before he leaves the subject of South West Africa?

I will give the hon. member the opportunity to ask a question at the end of my speech.

*The Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts made the situation quite clear with regard to the flats bought by the Land Bank and the recommendation made by the Select Committee. It has obviously been brought to the attention of the Land Bank Board, which will give attention to it at once. I have no quarrel with the Select Committee. I have a very high regard for this Select Committee. I accept that this was an absolutely bona fide and well-considered decision. It will be very thoroughly investigated by the Land Bank Board in the same spirit.

†This gives me an opportunity to say something about this remarkable institution. First of all, as the chairman of the Select Committee said, the initiative in bringing this matter to public notice was taken by an hon. member on this side of the House, the hon. member Mr. Aronson.

That is not true.

That was the case.

The Auditor-General reported it. Everybody knows that.

That may be so, but I am talking about this House. If the hon. member for Yeoville wants to be unpleasant, he can go ahead. I am in no mood to be unpleasant; I want to be constructive and give the facts. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville, who raised this matter: Why could he not have left it at that? The Auditor-General simply recorded the fact. Is that correct?

Not all the facts.

Did the Auditor-General censure the Land Bank? Certainly not. He recorded the fact, which is something I certainly would have done myself, and I been the Auditor-General. He did not censure the Land Bank Board, but the matter was raised in the Select Committee by the hon. member Mr. Aronson. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville: Was he present the day that the decision was taken by the Select Committee?

Yes, I was. [Interjections.] When the amendment was moved, I was not present; when the report was adopted, I was not present. My colleagues were there. [Interjections.]

Yes, his colleagues were there. However, my point is that it was the hon. member for Yeoville who had a great deal to say on this issue in this debate. My argument is: Why did he not leave the matter at that? The Auditor-General had referred to it and the Select Committee had dealt with it. The recommendation of the Select Committee was obviously immediately taken to the Land Bank Board. Why did the hon. member for Yeoville have to try to make another issue of it? He was not even present. He was not involved in that decision and I think that hon. member should have left the matter at that.

Read the record and look at the questions.

I have looked at it. I have it here. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I do not wish to argue. I am trying to put the facts as I know them and I have gone to a great deal of trouble. The point I want to make is that it gives one the opportunity to say something about an institution which gets very little credit for what it is doing.

*Mr. Speaker, the Land Bank Board consists of only a handful of people, but they meet almost every day of the week. They have to take the most difficult decisions. I say that they need the wisdom of Solomon to be able to do that work the way they are doing it.

What is the position in respect of the Land Bank today? During the past two years in particular, the financing needs of the Land Bank have assumed such unprecedented proportions, owing to droughts and other contingent factors, that its funding has required the urgent attention of the monetary authorities. During the past two years, the financing of agriculture by the Land Bank has increased by R2 000 from R2 692 million to R4 698 million. During 1982, cash payments by the Land Bank to farmers and their organizations amounted to R6 681 million. This is a gigantic institution. I want to go further: Under the drought relief scheme, which was recently announced by the hon. the Minister and in terms of which assistance is rendered by the Land Bank towards the consolidation of the debts of drought-stricken farmers, the Land Bank has received 2 042 applications involving an amount of R381 million during the past month alone. This is in addition to all their other activities. Most of these applications are still at an early stage of processing. Of the 565 applications that have already come before the board, 544, 96%, involving an amount of al ’ost R65 million, have already been granted.

Then I also wish to refer to what the Land Bank is doing for young fanners. This is a heart-warming story. I have the particulars here. I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville is not interested in them. I think he should pay some attention. What this bank is doing for young farmers in South Africa is a splendid success story.

†Mr. Speaker, this bank is in fact fast becoming one of the biggest financial institutions in this country. I have here the latest list of top companies, as it appeared in the Financial Mail of 6 May 1983. There are 50 companies on the list and the Land Bank is already 15th. In one year it has moved up from 19th to 15th position. The way the Land Bank is expanding now and handling its extra responsibilities on a vast scale—this is the only way I can put it—I believe it will be No. 10 or No. 11 in three years’ time. It will probably be No. 10. In one year its total assets have increased by 55%. There is no other organization that can compare with it in this whole list of 50 of the biggest institutions in South Africa, and this is an institution that is administered by a small handful of devoted people under the chairmanship and managing directorship of Mr. Pienaar. Mr. Pienaar is fast reaching retiring age and I am already negotiating with him, on the unanimous recommendation of the Land Bank Board, to see whether we cannot persuade him to give us the benefit of his services for a little while longer. Therefore, I welcome this opportunity to say just a little about the wonderful work that this institution is doing.

There is something else that I should like to say about the Land Bank. When I say this I want the chairman of the committee to understand that I am not criticizing the Select Committee at all. I am sure the chairman knows me well enough to know that I mean what I say. It was a bona fide decision. This point was not raised. All I want to say is that the Land Bank decided that it had to have certain accommodation here and, in order to do so, decided to sell its official accommodation in Pretoria. Up to this moment, it has disposed of official accommodation in Pretoria to the extent of R800 000 while the amount it has spent here is something in the region of R500 000. I just wanted to put that matter in perspective. It is not as though the Land Bank had this accommodation in two places. The hon. member for Yeoville must not be derogatory all the time in relation to the Land Bank.

It lends money at 3% on housing loans.

The hon. member must listen to the facts. If this were an ordinary commercial financial undertaking the managing director would be paid a salary two to three times higher than he is receiving today. There is no question about it. We all know that. However, the Land Bank Board wanted the managing director to be in Cape Town virtually full time for the duration of the parliamentary session. During the session I see him here in Cape Town on an average of two to three times per week. My hon. colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and his deputy, also see him regularly. Appreciation has been expressed to me by other hon. colleagues of mine in this House that he has been available to them. Especially my hon. farming colleagues take the opportunity to discuss matters with him. The farming community down here also gratefully appreciate the fact that they can talk to the head of the Land Bank here in the Cape. The days when the managing director and chairman of the Land Bank would spend two or three months per year here in the Cape are gone. I have no doubt at all that next year he will be here in Cape Town throughout the session of Parliament just as he has been here in Cape Town virtually throughout the whole of this session. He is a very busy man and he brings with him two assistants. They are extended, and those two share a flat with their families. I do not want to take this matter any further but I wanted to put those facts on record. The chairman and managing director of the Land Bank has assured me that he and his board will give very careful attention to this matter and all I want to say is that just as the Select Committee acted responsibly and in an absolutely bona fide manner, so I am satisfied in respect of all the facts that the Land Bank board also acted responsibly and in an absolutely bona fide way in this matter. I want to leave the matter at that.

I want to refer now to a matter that was raised by the hon. member for Durban North. The hon. member told me yesterday that he was going to talk finance. I must say that my spirits rose because I had not heard that word for about three days! Unfortunately, the hon. member for Durban North, for whom I have a high regard—I am sure he will not mind my saying that we used to know each other on a professor-student basis; he had the good fortune to have a very good education!—did not have much time yesterday although he chose the wrong subject. I think he chose the wrong subject! However, I give him credit for it; it is his right. All I want to say to him is that this question of the taxation of married women is one that has had absolutely on-going attention—one may even call it continuous attention—from both the Standing Commission on Tax Policy and the Department of Inland Revenue for a number of years now. About 1978 or thereabouts—unfortunately I do not have the report which I intended to bring with me—there was a report brought out by the Standing Commission on this very matter in conjunction with the Department of Inland Revenue. I think it was an excellent report. I will see to it that the hon. member, if he does not have it, will receive a copy. Thousands were given out, but they are very hard to find at the moment. I think that report is really worth studying.

If one is going to change the system in which a married couple are taxed jointly in South Africa, what is one going to do? Is one going to tax them separately? If so, is one going to do that by law? Is one going to force them to be taxed separately? From all the inquiries we have made over the years, I believe there would be an absolute outcry. Our very clear impression is that there are far more people who prefer to keep the present system than there are people who prefer having it changed. In Great Britain they have a system of an option. A married couple can opt for the one or the other; they can be taxed separately or they can be taxed jointly. The last percentage I heard was that about 4% had opted to be taxed separately.

There are problems if one looks at it. One must remember that there are a whole number of taxpayers who, depending on the taxable income range, will be worse off if one changes the present system. There are others who would be better off.

The point I want to make is that this matter has been very, very thoroughly studied. I have studied it for a long time. When I happened to be at university, this was one of my subjects. I talked to married people, including women, on this subject for years. This talk that if we were to change the system tomorrow and tax married couples separately, we would suddenly get thousands of married women into the labour market, is absolutely a non-starter. It is a grossly exaggerated statement. I have reasons for saying it.

The hon. member is somebody who does his homework; he studies these things. I want to ask him to look at a paper which I gave to the Institute on Taxation at Unisa a few years ago. I will find the hon. member a copy. In that paper I really tried to deal with this in extenso. I would also like him to read a paper a year or two, three later by one of the senior researchers at that university in that institute on the same subject. In that paper he weighed the whole matter up. The hon. member should have a look at those papers and then we could talk again.

I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we have not closed our minds and simply said that we will do nothing about it. We are constantly looking at the position and revising it. He can have my assurance on that.

As to the cost if we were to change the system, I want to say that with the substantial increase in incomes, the figure of R120 million is a figure of some years ago and it was a very conservative figure. The department has been looking at this matter more thoroughly for some time and they assure me it is a very much higher figure today. We can try to give the hon. member some sort of figure to work on, but it is not R120 million.

The attitude which we have taken is this: Let us first try to bring down the rate of tax, particularly the top maximum marginal rate. In 1975 when I happened to become Minister of Finance, that rate was 66% and there was a 6% loan levy. The levy was not a tax, but it was compulsory and it had to be paid by the same taxpayers. One would therefore not be very far out by saying in fact one had to pay 72% if one had an income in excess of R28 000 and one was married. Today there is no loan levy and if one’s income exceeds R40 000 one pays 50%. I want to assure the hon. member that this is a figure which compares remarkably favourably with that in most countries. If one looks at the position in many countries one finds that they have income tax levied at federal level, at State level and even at local government level. If one adds those together, one gets some astronomical figures. We have therefore tried rather to bring down the marginal rate for everybody so that all taxpayers can benefit. There are not even two million income-tax payers in South Africa and the average rate of taxation is less than 17% despite the very high rates paid by the very wealthy. If one leaves out the upper crust and takes the great mass of taxpayers, one finds that the average is somewhere around 8%. I think one will have to go a very long way to find something to compare with that. We are, therefore, succeeding in bringing down the burden of income tax, which was too high. When we reach the right sort of figure, or a figure which we feel we can be happy about, we will see what can be done. I would like to bring it down from 50% to 40% if I can, but we must not forget that we have to find R3 500 million for Defence and huge amounts for infrastructure, for education, which is more than for Defence. It is not all that easy.

I thank the hon. member for raising the matter. We can talk about it again.

May I ask the hon. the Minister if he is considering widening the tax bracket, because this is another way in which he can bring about relief?

I can say that this matter was in fact considered a little while ago by the Standing Commission on Taxation. For reasons that they set out in their report, they felt that it was best left alone at that stage. Again, this is one of the matters they constantly refer to. I would not like to rule this out completely. It is not a law of the Medes and the Persians. I am well aware that under inflationary conditions these things should be looked at from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold the House up for much longer. However, I do want to say one thing. We are under serious attack by a leftist liberal element, particularly in the United States at this moment, in fields which astonish me. Here we have the great democracy. What are certain people trying to do? They are trying to bring about a prohibition in the United States, our biggest market, of the sale of Krugerrands. They are trying to bring about a position where there will be a prohibition on American banks to lend money to South Africa, or as near as can be to a prohibition etc.

Fortunately, until this moment good sense has prevailed and the Senate Committee has taken a very firm stand. Since 1967 we have sold something like 35 million Krugerrands. It has been a tremendous success. We get a premium on the Krugerrand, so it is better than bullion. If there has ever been an advertisement for South Africa, it is the Krugerrand. It is generally accepted, wherever I go abroad, as the most beautiful and the leading coin in the world. It is not only the leading gold coin in the world, but the leading coin in the world. It has brought tremendous kudos and tremendous stature to our Mint. I would like hon. members to visit the Mint from time to time. I will happily assist them to do that. I do not want to overwhelm the Director and the small staff of the Mint, but he would welcome it. The technical excellence of the Mint is something to be seen. What happens when we are under pressure as I have just described it? The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens never loses a single opportunity to come forward with what I can only call complete and utter nonsense and tries to bring the Mint into disrepute. He did it again this week. We launched another very successful range, namely the mini Krugerrand in September 1980. As was done in the past, the Mint followed the usual procedure. A limited number were issued at that moment late in the year. There was no way they could issue more and still continue with all their contracts for coins of all kinds, millions of them. What did the S.A. Mint do? It put a properly calculated price on the mini Krugerrand. It costed them fully and put a premium on them just as it does with all its coins. I was at the launching ceremony in a nominal capacity, as I have said before and it is on record. However, the hon. member has cast serious reflections upon me, on the Director of the S.A. Mint and on the then President of the Chamber of Mines. There can be no doubt about it. Hon. members can read what he said. This has not been said generally in public. It happened on the last day of the 1981 session and I immediately moved that a Select Committee be appointed so that those very grave allegations and reflections could be investigated immediately. The hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition got up and asked what it was all about. He said that it was a storm in a teacup. He said that the hon. member had not said anything serious and that he had not meant this, that and the other. It is all in Hansard and there was no way on the last day of that session that we could pursue the matter. I then immediately asked the hon. member to withdraw those allegations or otherwise to go to the Advocate-General. He avoids the Advocate-General like the plague. Why? The hon. member has raised this matter this week again. I say to him again that it is a reflection on one of the finest institutions in our whole financial sector in South Africa.

And you asked for a Select Committee.

Yes. I was in a purely nominal position there. The decisions were taken by the Director of the S.A. Mint and the Chamber of Mines. The hon. member knows it because I said it and it is in Hansard. I am not prepared to let this debate pass without making this point. I appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I think I have a right to do so, to talk to the hon. member because I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the hon. member is doing a great deal of harm, not only to the Krugerrand image and the S.A. Mint, and therefore the country, but he is also doing a great deal of harm to his party. If the sort of response and actions I have been getting mean anything, he is doing tremendous harm to the image of his party. I think this thing must stop. If the hon. member is right that because after some date those coins sell at a higher price than that at which they were issued, then in fact the same applies to every single sale of the S.A. Mint’s gold coins. I say this because the ordinary proof Krugerrand is sold at a certain figure, costed properly with a premium and the next day it can often be worth R500 more.

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

No, I am sorry. I shall, however, give the hon. member for Yeoville an opportunity to ask his question. I say it is time this nonsense stopped. I wanted to make that point very clearly, as I answered the other day. Paul Kruger issued 102—a very limited number—golden sovereigns in 1899 at par. A matter of weeks ago one of those coins was sold for R132 000. Who is then defrauding whom? What absolute rubbish! I want to leave the matter at that.

We stand today before serious financial challenges. The world economy is still in a very serious position. There are indications that the United States economy is showing signs of recovery, but it is slow and jerky. However, there are very, very few signs of recovery as yet in the European and Japanese economies. That means that our export markets will be adversely affected for some time longer. The gold price is also extremely volatile. However, we have great assets in this country. We have great human assets and we have great material assets. We are abundantly endowed with valuable assets. All that is needed is that we exploit those assets to the full by working together and not trying to denigrate good institutions and being derogatory about fine achievements. Let us give credit where credit is due. If we are wrong and if we are to be criticized, let us be criticized.

I put, as it were, my credo on the economy before the House three days ago, and hon. members of the Opposition parties had every opportunity of criticizing me as much as they liked. I would indeed have welcomed it. Let us do it in a constructive spirit, Mr. Speaker, and let us then go from strength to strength, as this great country indeed merits.

Mr. Speaker, before I resume my seat I should like to give the hon. member for Yeoville an opportunity of asking me his question.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer again to the matter of South West Africa. The hon. the Minister referred to a figure of R1 000 per person, if I understood him correctly.

Yes, if one divides R1 000 million by one million.

My question actually consists of two parts. Firstly, is it possible to separate that figure in order to show how much is for defence and how much for all other expenditure? Secondly, if we assume that there are indeed going to be elections in South West Africa at some stage, are the democratic parties then going to have a fair chance to win those elections if we do not help them put their financial house in order in order to ensure that the money they get is actually spent in a way in which it will be seen to be correctly spent in South West Africa?

Mr. Speaker, I shall reply to the second part of the hon. member’s question first. I believe there is no way in which we can do more than we are already doing to assist South West Africa financially. We are helping them to the hilt.

As regards the first part of the hon. member’s question, I am sure the hon. member for Yeoville will appreciate that we are in the early part of the current financial year, and that it is very difficult therefore to know, in respect of a matter such as defence, exactly what the end figure will be. Last year’s figure—that I can tell the hon. member—was R400 million. It was R400 million out of say, R1 000 million in total; or to be more exact, the total amount appropriated last year was R920 million. Should it be R1 000 million or about that amount this year—who knows?—the amount appropriated for defence may then possibly be something like R400 million.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. the Minister for his reply.

Mr. Speaker, I have concluded what I wanted to say. I have nothing more to add. I thank hon. members for their indulgence.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I just want to explain my attitude to this report. We served on the Select Committee and I should like to make it quite clear that we are in favour of the acquisition of land in terms of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936. Indeed, we are more than happy that more land shall be given to Blacks in the Republic of South Africa and our policy is that the whole of South Africa should be thrown open for purchase by anybody within the Republic itself. From that point of view we are unable to oppose the acquisition of such land.

The Select Committee in fact considered the acquisition of such land not with the intention of that land staying within the Republic for the use of Black people in the Republic, but in order to hand it over to the independent Ciskei. For that reason we do not approve the resolution as it comes to the House. Because we are in the dilemma of approving a principle which, however, has been applied in a way that we do not approve, we shall abstain on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. We have already stated our standpoint on this matter in the Select Committee. However, there is a specific problem. In terms of the well-known Act of 1936 a certain quota of land in the Cape Province was allocated to be handed over to the Blacks. In terms of these proposals it is possible, or probable, that that quota will be exceeded. In the submission to the Select Committee that possibility was mentioned and it was stated that the proposals now before this House may necessitate an amendment of the provisions of section 10(1) of Act 18 of 1936. Now it is not clear to me—and I do not want to argue about this either—whether this House is in a position today to take a decision on the addition of land to exceed the quota of 1936 without the Act of 1936 first having been amended accordingly by this House.

That is a weak argument.

The hon. member says it is a weak argument. I feel it may be a valid argument. In addition, this land is specifically intended for possible addition to the independent State of Ciskei and, in terms of the recommendations of the commission, the additions to Ciskei will already exceed the 1936 quota for the Cape. However, already in 1975 certain promises were made to Bophuthatswana as far as the Cape was concerned. When one reads this in conjunction with the proposals we have in front of us here, one finds that the 1936 quota is greatly exceeded.

That is not before this House now.

I know it is not before the House. That is my argument. I want to point out in conclusion that my argument is that it is not clear to me whether in terms of the provisions of Act 18 of 1936 it is within the authority of this House to approve these additions in accordance with these proposals because it is not clear whether or not section 10 is being transgressed. In addition, promises have been made to another Black State, namely Bophuthatswana, which I think everyone will agree we are in honour bound to keep. If this is also taken into consideration, the quota will be exceeded even further.

Mr. Speaker, there are certain aspects of the report before us and of certain schedules, particularly with reference to the consolidation of Ciskei, with which we do not agree and which in fact indicate a lack of understanding with the S.A. Agricultural Union as regards certain boundaries. We will be bringing this up fully during the debate on the legislation, but we hope naturally that prior to that we would have negotiated by means of the agricultural union with the hon. the Minister in respect of those areas. Should the matter be put to vote, we will be abstaining.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place allow me to apologize in that my hon. colleague who should actually have dealt with this report is unable to do so for health reasons. I think I am speaking on behalf of all hon. members in this House when I wish him a speedy recovery. I trust that he will be able to take his place here once again when the session resumes in August.

The attitude adopted by the PFP here through the hon. member for Houghton has been debated so frequently in this House that I really do not want to waste time this afternoon in debating it again. Over the years it has always been their attitude not to begrudge Black people land but rather not to allow Black people to use the land at their disposal. This argument has been replied to so frequently that I really do not see my way clear to debate it again.

As far as the CP’s attitude in connection with the exceeding of the quota is concerned, it is no secret that in 1979 when the hon. member for Lichtenburg was still Deputy Minister, he drew up guidelines which were mentioned by the hon. the Prime Minister in the no-confidence debate on 7 February 1979 in this House, for use by the Government. I can in fact say that the hon. member for Lichtenburg was responsible for drafting those guidelines. He said that consolidation should not simply be seen from a geographic viewpoint but particularly from the viewpoint of the consolidation of peoples and the economic consolidation of those States. He went on to say—

I want to commend the hon. member for Lichtenburg for the good sense he displayed here. However, the hon. member for Barberton would not seem to have cultivated that good sense and, judging by what we heard from him here this afternoon, the hon. member for Lichtenburg would seem to have lost that good sense in the interim.

You should have remained a doctor. You just do not understand these arguments.

No. He should definitely not have remained a doctor.

The hon. member for Barberton is being very clever about what I should have become. If there is one thing in my life I am very sorry about, it is something I neglected to do when I was a young man. The hon. member for Barberton was a first year student when I was a senior at university. I had to initiate him. Today I am extremely sorry that I did not perform my initiation task better as far as the hon. member is concerned. The only complete failure I have ever had in my life is in regard to the initiation of the hon. member for Barberton.

Ask him whether you can do it again.

I hope the opportunity will arise in due course for me to be able to. Then I shall do it far better. I do not think that hon. member is qualified to pass judgement on my competence or otherwise. I did fail in my duty as regards his initiation, but that was my only failure.

The hon. member is needlessly worried that if the quota is exceeded it will have to be rectified in law. The Government has kept this promise, with the consent of the hon. member for Lichtenburg. We shall rectify exceeding the quota by means of legislation when it becomes necessary to do so. There are still approximately 73 000 ha which can be purchased today; in other words, the entire consolidation process is not grinding to a halt because the hon. member has discovered that there is a possibility that we may exceed the quota. I should also like to know what Bophuthatswana has to do with this report. We also saw something else illustrated very clearly this afternoon namely the futility of the Westminster system in terms of which we still operate. These hon. members had the opportunity to discuss all these matters in the Select Committee and to reach consensus on them but they did not make use of that opportunity. I shall therefore not be able to convince that hon. member. What we are experiencing here is simply confrontation politics, the sort of politics we want to get away from in the new dispensation. In reply to what the hon. member for King William’s Town said, I want to say that it is quite correct that some of the consolidation proposals will and can be discussed still further. However, I maintain that I do not think we have as yet had consolidation proposals before this House that have been investigated as thoroughly and by so many experts as have these particular consolidation proposals.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Lichtenburg can no longer be a part of this. On Wednesday, 14 May 1975, the hon. member for Lichtenburg said the following (Hansard, col. 5957)—

It is a pity that the hon. member for Lichtenburg is not going to share in our success story.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill seeks to amend a variety of statutory provisions that have a bearing on the sphere of activity of the Department of Cooperation and Development. From the nature of the case, therefore, a variety of subjects is dealt with in this Bill, so it will be necessary to refer briefly to each amendment.

Clauses 1 to 3 are mainly aimed at abolishing, with regard to the Small Business Development Corporation, the restrictions imposed by certain laws upon the juristic and other acts of persons who are not members of Black communities in Black townships and in released and scheduled areas. This will enable the SBDC to perform its development function in these areas without impediment.

The next aspect is an amendment to section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945. The amendment arises from the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of M. T. Rikhoto against the East Rand Administration Board, in which the court found that a contract worker who had entered into 10 successive one-year service contracts with the same employer had, in the particular circumstances which had obtained, complied with the requirements laid down in section 10(1)(b) of this Act for obtaining permanent residence in a prescribed area.

The Appeal Court decision has been closely studied and there has been very wide consultation with regard to its implications for influx control and the socio-economic position of the urban Black communities. After careful consideration it has been decided that the Rikhoto decision will be respected and that no legislation will be introduced to nullify this decision.

Having regard to the socio-economic aspects, however, especially in view of the shortage of housing for Black persons all over the Republic, the Government has a responsibility to guard against the creation of unrealistic expectations on the part of contract workers and their wives and children in connection with residence in the prescribed areas. Squatting cannot be allowed under any circumstances, especially in view of the sociological and health problems to which it gives rise.

In terms of the amendment in clause 4, section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, is now being amended in order to make it clear that those wives and children of such contract workers who are at present residing outside prescribed areas will only be allowed into prescribed areas if a site permit is granted to the head of the family for the erection of a private dwelling; or if a residential permit is granted for the renting of an Administration Board dwelling; or if a certificate of occupation of an Administration Board dwelling is granted; or if a leasehold right has been allocated in respect of a site on which a dwelling has been erected; or if family housing outside a Black residential area is provided by his employer in terms of section 9(2)(f) of the Act. I want to make it clear that no rights already obtained in terms of section 10(1)(c) will in any way be affected by this amendment and that it is only aimed at future cases, where persons will only be able to enter the prescribed area in order to reside in it if proper family housing is available for them in that area.

Another important provision, Mr. Speaker, is the insertion of a new section 43 into the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945. This provision enables any person, irrespective of the population group to which he belongs, to attend a bona fide sports meeting and functions connected therewith in any urban area, prescribed area or Black residential area. In this way, effect is being given to the principles underlying the HSRC report on legislation which has an inhibiting effect on sport relations, principles which have been accepted by the Government.

A minor amendment is also being effected to the Promotion of Black Self-government Act, 1959, in that all references in that Act to the Xhosa and Venda national units are being deleted. This is necessary in view of the fact that Transkei, Venda and Ciskei are now independent States and are no longer regarded as national units for the purposes of the Act concerned. The reference to the Tswana national unit was removed from the Act in 1979.

†A further Act that is being amended by this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is the Sorghum Beer Act, 1962. A certain degree of uncertainty has arisen as to the question whether a general dealer who carries on business in a Black township which falls in the area of jurisdiction of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas, may be authorized to sell sorghum beer and sorghum beer powder. In the past these general dealers were authorized to sell sorghum beer and if these authorizations were now to be cancelled a large number of Black persons would be affected thereby as they would no longer be in the position to obtain sorghum beer freely. In this regard it must be remembered that sorghum beer traditionally forms an integral part of the Black man’s diet and as such is not considered an alcoholic drink. The amendment to section 5(1A) of the said Act will put it beyond any doubt that general dealers within the area of jurisdiction of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas may be authorized to sell sorghum beer ans sorghum beer powder.

This Act is further amended, Mr. Speaker, to extend the objects for which funds from the Sorghum Beer Research Fund may be utilized so as not to limit it only to research projects. The fund may, after this amendment, also be utilized to finance the instruction and training of persons involved in the manufacture and supply of sorghum beer as well as the promotion of matters relating to the manufacture and marketing of sorghum beer. As a result of this extension the name of the fund is also to be suitably changed.

Mr. Speaker, clauses 10 to 15 are aimed to clearing up certain problems which may be encountered with the initial implementation of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982. The first ordinary meeting of a local authority after its establishment is to be convened by the chief executive officer. This cannot be done because the local authority itself has to appoint the chief executive officer and it cannot do so before its first ordinary meeting. Provision is therefore made for the Director-General of Co-operation and Development or an officer designated by him to convene the first ordinary meeting of a local authority after its establishment.

The provisions relating to the election of a mayor and deputy mayor are amended to enable a local authority to elect a mayor after its first ordinary meeting and thereafter as often as may be necessary. At present the election of his successor may only take place after the expiry of his term of office. A mayor may, however, vacate his office before the expiry of his term of office and thereby necessitate the election of his successor. In terms of the amendment this will now be possible. The provisions relating to the election of the mayor and deputy mayor of a local authority are being amended and the same provisions relating to their election are made applicable to both their offices.

Further provision is made for matters in connection with the dissolution of a community council and the establishment of a local authority in the area of such community council to ensure that there will be no period during which there will be no local authority. This amendment will enable the Minister to dissolve a community council by notice in the Gazette as from the date of the first ordinary meeting of the new local authority.

A new local authority has to perform local government functions from its establishment and before it has had the opportunity to make by-laws. The Minister is therefore empowered to make by-laws which will apply in the area of each local authority until such local authority has had the opportunity to make its own by-laws.

The amendments to the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982 also provide for the designation of a person to perform the functions of a chief executive officer of a local authority in the event of absence or inability of the chief executive officer or when a vacancy occurs.

*As far as clauses 16 to 19 are concerned, the 1973 and 1975 consolidation proposals of the Commission for Co-operation and Development envisaged that the Moutse district, among others, would have to be added to kwaNdebele. This view has subsequently been confirmed by the Commission for Cooperation and Development under two different chairmen and is contained in the consolidation proposals announced on 19 February 1983. The Moutse district is contiguous with kwaNdebele, and such an incorporation would naturally be conducive to more effective overall planning in future and would also result in a more effective expenditure of development capital. In this connection it should also be pointed out that the area already possesses an integrated road network as well as hospital services.

However, if the Moutse district were not added to kwaNdebele and remained part of Lebowa, and if the Immerpan/Saliesloot area were added to kwaNdebele rather than to Lebowa, major border problems would be created between Lebowa and kwaNdebele. Therefore it appears to be desirable, for a variety of reasons, for Moutse to be incorporated into kwaNdebele and for the Immerpan/Saliesloot area to be given to Lebowa in compensation. The latter area is also contiguous with Lebowa.

The Ndebele possess great national awareness and national pride; to such an extent that it is possible to speak, in the case of kwaNdebele, of a national migration of its people to their own territory, where they can be governed by their own people in the first place. Are the Black peoples of Southern Africa generally, and the South Ndebele in particular, to be denied the fulfilment of their national aspirations merely because there are enemies of the Republic of South Africa who loudly proclaim that a policy which seeks to unite those who belong together is wrong?

The keen nationalism of the Ndebele people is a result of the history of that people. History proves that that people has been priding itself on its own language and culture for a very long time. During the previous century, they settled on the farms and in other parts of the Transvaal and they were scattered over a wide area. Nevertheless, throughout the years, they remained faithful to their language and culture, and in this way they ensured that they would not be absorbed into the other Black peoples because of their smaller numbers, but would be able to exist as a people in their own right with their own territory today. By means of the large scale migration of the South Ndebele to a country of their own, the Ndebele people is bringing together those who belong together, and those aspirations must not be denied.

KwaNdebele has already indicated by means of two motions that it wishes to obtain independence.

The Moutse district was excised from Lebowa in 1980 by Proclamation R210 of 1980, but only on 19 February this year was it finally announced that the area would be added to kwaNdebele. After the excision in 1980, no provision was made for the termination of representation of the inhabitants of Moutse in the Lebowa Legislative Assembly, nor for Moutse to cease to be a constituency in Lebowa. This gave rise to considerable uncertainty in law, and in terms of the amendments proposed in clauses 16 to 19, this uncertainty is being removed entirely. By dealing at the same time with all these aspects of excision, termination of representation and the district having ceased to be as a constituency, and by evaluating the in the light of the consolidation proposals made earlier this year, legal certainty is being created and the attainment of independence by kwaNdebele is being promoted.

I trust that the need for and purpose of all the proposed amendments are clear to all hon. members of this House and that they will all be able to support them without reservation.

In terms of the agreement on this matter among the parties in this House, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.