Order! I wish to inform this House that I was approached by the hon Chairman of the House in the House of Assembly as well as the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly with reference to a remark made by the hon member for Newton Park during his speech on 7 April, when he referred to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly by saying, and I quote—

We have discussed all aspects pertaining to this expression and in view of our discussion I should like to make an appeal to all members to refrain from referring in such a way to any hon member in future.

Mr Speaker, I can very well understand the dilemma of the hon member for Parktown when he says he does not see his way clear to joining the new DP, mainly because he does not have any confidence in the leadership of that new party.

After all, it was only a few months ago that the hon member for Randburg and Dr Denis Worrall were involved in a sharp exchange of words after deciding to go their separate political ways. This was after they had tried to sell their so-called vision of the future South Africa to the electorate in an election campaign. It was then clear that their vision was without any substance, and their so-called unanimity merely an attempt to attract more votes. However, after the election it became clear that there had never been any real unanimity between them and that they had grossly misled the electorate by pretending that there was.

Now that an election is again at hand, they suddenly come to light once more with their unified vision of the future. The electorate of South Africa will not allow themselves to be made a fool of like this. They know, as we do, that as soon as the election is over, they will split up again. Then this so-called unified vision, which they are making such a song and dance about at the moment, will disappear again like mist in the morning sun.

Their greatest problem now is to keep up the appearance of unanimity until after the election, because as the hon member for Parktown said, there are several other members, who were with him in the PFP, who had their doubts about the wisdom of amalgamating with the other two parties. He is simply the only one who had the courage of his convictions to say no to the new party.

It must have been a shock to him to find out that we on this side of the House had been right all the time when we accused them of lacking courage. Not only did they not have the courage of their convictions to refrain from joining the new party, but they also lacked the courage— they never had any—to deal with the actual problems of this country. They will never have the courage either. There is only one party and one leader-in-chief who has that courage, and that is the NP under the strong and purposeful leadership of our hon leader-in-chief.

The DP use the same words as the “Freedom Charter” when they talk about a non-racial or a non-racist democracy in South Africa. However, they do not spell out to us what they mean by this. Nor did their parliamentary leader spell it out to us when one would have expected him to do so. They will have to spell out to the voters what they mean by this. The reason why the DP does not spell out what they mean by a non-racial democracy is that it boils down to the same old “one man, one vote” in a unitary system, which means nothing more or less than a total handover of power to a Black majority government. We, and the electorate as a whole, do not believe in this as a possible solution.

We believe in power-sharing on the basis that no single group should be dominated by another on a non-racial basis. They must also tell us whether they accept the “Freedom Charter” as part of their basic policy, and if so, what part or parts of the “Freedom Charter” they reject.

Law and order, security for the inhabitants of our country, socio-political stability and peace are absolute prerequisites for economic growth in any country, and particularly in South Africa. Any increase in large-scale violence and instability would have a very detrimental effect on local and overseas confidence in our country and in its economy and, if this were to last long enough would even destroy our country. It would further radicalise South Africans on both sides of the political spectrum and would seriously impede the possibility of finding a constructive political solution. It would also fan the flames of the international sanctions campaign against us. It is on precisely this vital point that the former PFP failed so miserably and that they were rejected by the voters of South Africa. The voters of South Africa will also reject the DP on this point. In spite of the fact that the DP is now trying to make such a song and dance about the maintenance of law and order, in this regard they cannot escape from the image of the old PFP. After all, all the old members of the PFP who created that image are now also members of the DP. What is more, they have gained additional members who are even softer on security than they are. After all, we know of the escapades of the hon member for Randburg with Joe Slovo, among others, and we know the hon member for Greytown with his Black Power salute.

Good heavens, but you are “verkramp” today!

Yesterday we again had to listen to the tirade of the hon member for Berea in his attack on the system of national service of the South African Defence Force. I should like to hear what the hon member for Yeoville thought of the hon member for Berea’s speech. I want to ask him to come and tell us, because on 15 September 1987 that hon member delivered a brilliant speech in the House of Assembly in which he said the following, and I quote from Hansard, col 5929:

The hon member said this was why a citizens’ army offered an important guarantee for South Africa.

The hon member for Yeoville knows that many of us on this side of the House, including myself, have great respect and esteem for him as a patriot, a politician with political integrity and a man who has the courage of his convictions. It is precisely for this reason that I cannot understand how he now justifies it to himself to be a member of that party, because it is more than just the differences between him and his colleagues in that party concerning the composition of the SADF.

If I correctly understand the hon member for Randburg’s speech yesterday, as well as other comments made by that party, they believe that we should now negotiate with the ANC. The hon member for Randburg and other hon members of the former NDM are already doing so, and they also want the Government to negotiate with the ANC, in spite of the fact that the ANC will not renounce violence.

In the same speech of the hon member for Yeoville to which I referred previously (Hansard: House of Assembly, 15 September 1987, col 5930), he said the following inter alia:

Order! Hon members must really give the hon member a chance. It is getting a little bit difficult with the murmuring in the House. The hon member may proceed.

I quote further:

The hon member went on to say that this was one of the fundamental questions we must deal with.

In respect of the ANC he said that he wanted to point out that in the political field, in his view, the ANC was in conflict with everything in which he believed. He said:

Can the hon member for Yeoville now understand why other hon members on this side of the House and I cannot understand how he can now be a member of that party which, as our hon leader-in-chief rightly remarked yesterday, is “soft on security”?

Must we conclude that the hon member for Yeoville has now changed his earlier ideas and views, or must we accept that he is one of those, to whom the hon member for Parktown referred, who do not agree with the policy of the new party, but who do not have the courage of their convictions to refuse to join them? Should he not perhaps consider adopting the honourable course of the hon member for Parktown and resigning from that party, thus salvaging what there is of his image as a man who has the courage of his convictions? The DP is weak-kneed when it comes to the security of individuals and the security of the country, and that will be the downfall of that party.

Mr Speaker, I have to start off this afternoon on a very sad note, namely the tragic death of Dr Human, chairman of the State President’s Economic Advisory Council. I, on behalf of all hon members of this House, extend our sympathies and condolences to the next of kin of the late Dr Human.

Like some of the previous speakers I want to congratulate the DP and all its leaders and members and wish them a long political future and may the Lord help them to find a true political solution for our country and all its people. I am sure the hon parliamentary leader, Dr De Beer, who has a chequered track record, will soon get into his stride, for the task ahead is going to be a difficult one.

I was watching television the other day when the DP logo appeared. My little grandson, Avish, asked me if that was the new “Good Morning South Africa”. I said: No, they were trying to build a new South Africa for all colours.

I want to congratulate our hon colleague the hon member for Innesdal—I do not see him here this afternoon—on his appointment as ambassador to the Netherlands. Although hon members of colour will miss him in this joint Chamber for his “verligte” views I am certain that he will continue to pursue the cause he believes in which will be in the best interests of both countries.

As I stand here I would like to start off by saying we have never had it so good. Regrettably, however, I cannot allude to the materialistic implications of the late Harold Macmillian’s famous words simply because the hon the Minister of Finance has tried hard to cut the coat down to suit the shrunken cloth.

He tried and kept on trying but he has only enjoyed marginal success. His option has not worked. The share of national wealth spent by the Government has not fallen. That is why the cloth keeps shrinking. However, the hon the Minister did not increase the amount of cloth available, namely increasing wealth, as the main plan of a new long-term attitude and strategy. The markets are there, but what do our industries tell us? They are telling us that the lack of orders is the main constraint on production. Hence one can conclude that we are not yet competitive and that to capture the markets is the harder option for us. That means a turnaround and a new start.

Let us for a moment reflect on why we are afflicted by constraints. It is simply not enough for the hon the Minister and the Government to stem the advance of the “internationally organised assault on the economy”, as the hon the Minister has stated. Reaction and a defensive posture have no role in tackling the problems of our economic ills. Instead the Government should be offering the people an alternative, a free society in which everyone can share its fruits. The Government must always appeal to the people in this way. It must have policies and reforms which the country will support because they are creative and not destructive and are designed to improve the quality of each citizen’s life and not only that of the privileged few.

The hon the Minister expressed his political purpose in his hand-outs to Black education and, I daresay, to married women in his charter for wives which reflected a significant theme on tax reform. The hon the Minister embarked on the ending of the financial penalties of marriage. Over the years our tax laws have assumed that a wife is the property of her husband. Now a married woman will be taxed in her own right.

I welcome the move to abolish the financial disadvantage of legally living together. However, we need a broader credo than just a charter for married women or women in general. We need to pursue a policy based on an appreciation of human desires and the ideal that everyone has a right to share in excellence and not just White and lighter shades of Black.

This economic philosophy needs to be applied with vigour. The hon the Minister concedes that the country is beset with problems. The unemployment queues are with us with a vengeance. Inflation is still at unacceptable levels. Our cities are marred by social deprivation and decay. Too often we have knocked down today’s slums only to build tomorrow’s.

Our education system still falls far short of genuine equality of opportunity in spite of the hon the Minister’s extravagant claim. I quote him:

Next year will herald the last decade before we enter the 21st century. We will be a mere 10 years away from the year 2000. Let the Government therefore make the 1990s an era where apartheid or separate development—call it what you like—will be only of historic interest.

Let us embark on a decade in which we will eliminate completely the last vestiges of statutory divisiveness and of bad race relations; eliminate the divisiveness created out of bad or poor housing; provide education as a permanent feature of every citizen’s life; and harness the best in technology and science.

The vision must be a recognition that society is held together only by the moral bond of mutual obligations. The most fundamental of our mutual obligations is the obligation to guarantee to even the humblest the means to live and enjoy a decent life.

Mr Speaker, in the coming election, the voters are not only going to have a political choice but also an economic choice. It is not only going to be a choice between conservatism and liberalism, but also a choice between an economy based on private initiative and an economy which is being based on socialism to a greater and greater extent.

Is that the CP’s policy?

That is the NP’s policy. It is an unquestionable fact that the twin brother of power-sharing and of political integration and of the political system in which different population groups and different peoples are combined in one country, is socialism. It is also true that the twin brother of partition is capitalism. It is a capitalist policy based on private initiative. On page 83 of its report, the President’s Council says the following:

The report continues, on page 88:

Limited and moderate redistribution of income, which does not place the production factors under pressure, and which makes provision for State services and the creation of infrastructure, is healthy. When it is taken so far that it smothers economic growth and productivity, it is excessive and undesirable, and it is socialism. It is a fact that the NP’s political policy inevitably forced it to choose to implement an excessive redistribution of income and placed it on the road to socialism.

Furthermore, it is true that Prof Sampie Terreblanche first sold this socialist policy to the NP, and they bought it, and now he is selling it to the DP. For the same reason—their political policy—they are beginning to accept it.

With the excessive redistribution of income, the State’s share in the economy has increased. It has not decreased—that is the plain truth! The State’s share has increased and it is becoming larger all the time because the State is increasingly taking possession of the most important production factor, namely money. The State’s share in the economy is increasing.

In the hon the Minister’s own little blue book he says, on page 32, that the State’s expenditure as a percentage of the gross domestic product has increased from 25,1% in 1978-79 to 27,3% in 1988-89. Now it is the case that, of course, the hon the Minister chose the figures in such a way as to prevent the situation from looking too bad. However, one need only choose other years; then the situation looks far worse than the hon the Minister’s figures indicate.

Government expenditure as a percentage of the GDP at market prices was 22% in 1980, and it increased to over 32% in 1989. It is therefore unquestionably true that the State’s share in the economy of South Africa is increasing despite privatisation.

It is also true that the proceeds of privatisation are being used by this Government to redistribute further, and to pay for the redistribution which has taken place in the past. The State is taking possession of an ever-increasing percentage of personal income through taxation, and less and less of the State’s increased tax revenue is being spent on the creation of prosperity, whilst more and more of it is being spent on unproductive services.

As a result of this the ability of the private sector to create prosperity is decreasing. It is true that in order to redistribute, the State does a number of things. It takes more and more of people’s money in the form of taxation. That is the first thing that it does.

If one looks at the Whites alone, one sees that the average rate of taxation of the Whites, was 8,9% in 1980. In 1985 it increased to 16%. In 1988 it increased to 16,8%. This year, as a result of further fiscal drag, it could increase to 17,5%. Prof Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winner calls this phenomenon legalised robbery.

A percentage of what?

Of people’s personal income!

The State not only uses taxes in order to redistribute, but goes further and does other things. In order to redistribute, the State spends too much. The State is overspending. This has been taking place constantly and quite consistently for a number of years.

I can clearly remember that when we initially drew the attention of the Government to the fact that its current expenditure was higher than its current revenue they did not believe us. They did not believe us. As a result of the direction of their policy, the Government had already exceeded its limits. Now they accept it. They realise that they are spending more than their income permits them to do. In order to redistribute, the State does something else as well. It creates money. The result of all these things is that savings can be detrimentally affected. The level of personal saving is now only 1,7%. This naturally has a detrimental effect on investment. As a result of this we are experiencing weak or no economic growth. This leads to increased inflation and the fact that the exchange rate is constantly weakening. These things have now brought South Africa to a phase in which these social policy directions are taking us into a following phase, namely that of public debt which is increasing all the time.

The Government cannot control this. In order to control it, Government expenditure must be limited, but the hon the Minister cannot do that, because he has to protect his political policy. For that reason he has to spend more and more. As a result of this we are now moving towards a further phase. This driving momentum can only foreshadow one thing, namely that more and more production factors must be placed under the control of the State. What happens now is nothing new. It is predicted in literature and the CP has already been warning against this for the past few years.

I now want to show the hon the Minister what the fruits of his redistribution are. The real income per capita of the White population has decreased by approximately 12% from 1980 to 1988. It is a fact that the current revenue has increased by 215% during that period while the taxation over the same period has increased by an estimated 490%. As a result, personal available income has only increased by 188% while the inflation of the higher income group has increased by 203%. The real personal available income of the Whites has therefore decreased by 3,5% while the White population has increased by 9,5% during that period. The net result is that the personal available real income per capita of the White population was approximately 12% lower in 1988 than in 1980.

If we look at the position of the Black people, it is a fact that the personal real income per capita increased by 11,1% between 1980 and 1985, while that of the Whites decreased by 7,8% during the same period. Of course, the income of the Whites is decreasing as a result of the redistribution of income as well as of the weak agricultural conditions which we have experienced.

From 1985 to 1988, the standard of living per capita of both the White and the Black people decreased, and that was at the time of an economic upswing. Now we are heading for a recession in the future, in other words, we are going to become even poorer.

A further interesting point is that the real income of Whites on the whole—not per capita of the population—decreased by 3,5% between 1980 and 1988, but that of the Blacks increased by nearly 33%. As a result of the increase in numbers the income per capita of the Black population increased by only 9,8% or 1,2% per year.

During the past few years, we have all been becoming poorer. We are now dividing poverty because the production basis is being destroyed as a result of the incorrect handling of the good intention to help those who are less privileged. The age old truth that one cannot redistribute wealth and that one simply redistributes poverty, is being confirmed and fulfilled here in South Africa. Redistribution does not solve problems; it merely creates them.

The President’s Council states on page 79 of its Report of the Committee for Economic Affairs on a Strategy and Action Plan to Improve Productivity in the RSA:

The Government has unquestionably placed South Africa on that road.

However, the redistribution also has a further result. Along with the fact that the Government—as a result of its political policy, which it is not prepared to announce openly and honestly to the voters—is constantly misleading the voters and making itself guilty of dishonesty, the redistribution of income resulted in certain people in South Africa simply beginning to redistribute for their own benefit.

We are dealing with the phenomenon of a wave of corruption in South Africa as never before experienced in the history of this country. Various commissions of inquiry have been appointed. Yesterday evening on television and this morning in the newspapers we heard about the foreign exchange swindle involving nearly R1 billion which is being investigated by the Police. More than 63 cases are being investigated and in only six of those cases a sum of R730 million is involved. For this reason it is true that the Government has unquestionably placed us on the road of redistribution of income, and along with that on the road to increasing socialism. At the moment they are thereby impoverishing everyone. The Government has not succeeded in its objective of improving the position of the other population groups. Along with that, a spirit of corruption has been unleashed in South Africa for which the Government must accept responsibility.

The question is, what is necessary to correct these things in South Africa. The first and most obvious answer is that there should be a change of government in South Africa. A conservative government must come into power in South Africa. [Interjections.] A conservative government which rejects socialism and which is founded on a healthy and realistic economic policy in terms of which one is rewarded for one’s efforts, must come to power. Secondly, it is necessary that the growth in the current expenditure of the State must be curtailed, and this will have to be done for a good number of years. Thirdly, I think it is also important that the State should publicise its priorities to the private sector. At present the only priority of the Government is to obtain sufficient foreign exchange to protect the exchange rate. Fourthly, an economic strategy is necessary. This Government has no economic strategy.

A month before the previous election in 1987, the anti-inflation committee was appointed. Six months after the election it brought out its report and we can now largely agree with what is recommended in that report. The recommendations are based on two main pillars—that the State’s expenditure must be curtailed and that the Reserve Bank must force down the growth in the money supply. However, absolutely nothing has come of that, and it is true that provision was made for an inflation rate of 9% by 1990 if all the requirements were met. However, we are now talking about 15%. In other words, the Government has no plan. They are still talking like Nationalists and capitalists, but the results are those of socialism, which they have chosen.

This is one of the most important choices with which the voters will be faced during the coming election. There is only one way in which one can achieve a healthy economic policy for all the peoples of South Africa. That is by means of the CP policy of partition in which the people of each state and each nation will be able to go ahead unrestrained on a basis of private initiative in order to expand that country and that people. [Interjections.] It is also true that in the run-up to this election we are experiencing many forms of propaganda.

We are now in the twelfth day of the implementation of Resolution 435. If we look back and evaluate the situation as it is today, one can only come to one conclusion. That is that the CP was correct when it said from the beginning that this matter would not bring greater peace, but that it would bring increased hostilities for SWA and for South Africa in the long run. Surely it is true that the largest invasion in 23 years took place in SWA after the implementation.

I want to make a second statement. If it had not been for the purposeful action of the CP, Swapo would have had bases in South West Africa today. It was the timely action of the CP that served to bolster the reticent hon Minister of Foreign Affairs and prevented him from yielding to the UN proposal that Swapo be given bases in South West Africa. [Interjections.]

I want to make a third statement. Swapo cannot be trusted, and it has proved that it cannot be trusted. We said that it could not be trusted. It has broken its own undertaking to withdraw to north of the sixteenth parallel. They themselves say that if they lose, they will return to the bush and continue the war. I am now asking the Government what assurance they have that if Swapo does not win the election, Swapo will not continue with the terrorism, murder and atrocities which are being perpetrated now.

Swapo went further and said, through its leader, Mr Sam Nujoma, that if they won, they were going to grant the ANC bases so that they could attack South Africa from there. He has said that, but they do not believe him. We warned the Government that these people could not be trusted, but they accepted their every word. In that way they allowed this tragedy which occurred last week in South West Africa to come about, all as a result of their inability to evaluate these matters correctly.

Swapo went further and said that they would give the ANC bases and Ja-Toivo said if Swapo were to take over the Government there, they would invite the Cubans and other communist powers to come to South West Africa. The fact is that as a result of all these things, the de facto position, where we find ourselves today, is that Swapo is in South West Africa at this moment.

They are in South West Africa and they have disappeared without trace. They have disappeared without trace! That hon Minister will not see the Swapo forces again. They have gone, just as we told him they would. They have disappeared among the population. However, they are still there with their weapons which have been hidden.

We are warning the Government today that Swapo does not need many members in South West Africa to intimidate the population, and they will continue to do so. They will do so. We are warning that the South African troops will have to be withdrawn to their bases when the election campaign gets under way on 1 July and that the Swapo forces and their leader will ride triumphantly into South West Africa and Windhoek. The Government has committed South West Africa to a very weak agreement which is going to have disastrous results for South Africa in the near future as well as in the long run. [Interjections.]

We are not afraid of the NP with regard to the election. The Government’s promises were consistently misleading. They were consistently misleading! At the end of last year when we were debating in the same House, the hon the Minister of Defence solemnly promised South Africa and South West Africa that the Red flag would never be flown in Windhoek. [Interjections.] The events that have taken place up to now show that the Red flag could well be flown in Windhoek, and what assurance can the Government honestly give that it will not be flown? They cannot give an assurance. The voters were misled when the hon the Minister said that the Red flag would not be flown. When the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry told the voters that a Swapo Government would be acceptable to this Government, hon members made a lot of noise. The course of events so far shows that a Swapo Government would be acceptable to this Government. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I have just been shocked out of my wits on hearing the CP say that it is thanks to them that the Swapo forces have turned back. If one watches television, one sees that it is our children who are fighting there and then they say it is through their agency.

If one listens to the jeremiads which are delivered here on the financial affairs of the country, one expects a petition at any moment demanding that Jan van Riebeeck’s image be removed from the five, ten, twenty and fifty rand notes before he is blamed as well.

There are two hon members to whom I should like to talk today. I do not see either of them here. Firstly, I want to get to the hon member for Innesdal. I want to congratulate him on his appointment and at the same time express my regret at what has happened because, while there are NP members who want to enter the future with candles and matches, this hon member was prepared to enter the future like a lighthouse! [Interjections.] I wish there were more people who wanted to enter the future like this hon member because then South Africa would be far better off in future than will be the case if it depends on other hon members whose speeches I have listened to.

The other hon member to whom I should like to refer is the hon member for Stellenbosch. He said and I quote him:

He continued:

We came from our side to enter the arena because we believe in negotiation and not in senseless revolution. We declared ourselves prepared to come to Parliament because Parliament is the place where legislation is based, where legislation is amended and also revoked. That is why we are standing here. We want to negotiate.

The hon member for Stellenbosch said something important. He said the time had come for us to speak about the future. Here I want to address the hon leader-in-chief of the NP in particular, if he would only pay a little attention. I see he is very busy discussing Government matters with the person behind him.

For the first time in history the hon leader of the NP is a leader whose hands are not tied. All the leaders before him had their hands tied because they had to maintain Afrikaner unity. They therefore had no room to manoeuvre but this hon leader is the first leader in history whose hands are not tied because the CP is sitting over there. They broke away from the NP.

Now we ask the hon leader to follow the lead provided by the hon member for Innesdal. Follow that track and lead South Africa to a future in which we may all find a place in the sun.

Today I want to pay tribute to the Black population out there which is not represented in this House. I want to pay tribute to them because for the past 80 years they have shown the patience which the Afrikaners would not have had. In 1910 they drew up petitions and made representations to be able to form part of the then Union but it was in vain.

†They sent delegates overseas to protest against the gross injustices and the inequalities which faced them. They made several representations to the various Governments of South Africa over the years. They signed petitions and staged protest marches. They appealed for justice, equality and the removal of structured violence. They protested against the low pay and pass laws and they participated in the impotent bodies of the past. They expressed concern for the maintenance of law and order on several occasions. They took part in bus boycotts, potato boycotts and illegal strikes. Today they are found in overcrowded locations, living in small matchbox homes and also where the jails are built better than the schools. They are found squatting along the N2 and throughout South Africa. They lack the amenities that other groups take for granted; they still have to get these amenities. Their fight has been a simple one. It has simply been to be able to be human.

*Can we blame them if they decided in the early 1960s to resort to violence? In April 1948 we learnt about the communist bogy or the Red peril which is linked to the Black peril. We learnt it during the campaign conducted by the NP at that time just as they are conducting a campaign again today.

What has happened over the past 40 years? The Government is prepared to speak to communists; the Government is prepared to speak to the Cubans and all the rest. So why does this Government not want to talk to flesh and blood which belongs here in South Africa? Why does the Government not want to talk to its citizens?

The ANC has been condemned by numerous speakers from the right. Its members are condemned for resorting to violence because they wanted to be people with human rights in South Africa. The time has come now for these leaders— the hon member for Stellenbosch called for leaders to come forward—no longer to be locked up by the South African Government.

†Our South African security does not depend on the mighty army which we profess to have, neither does it depend on the security police who, with unlimited powers, can indefinitely keep people in detention without trial. The security of South Africa depends on each and every one of its citizens. The time has come for us to talk to the ANC. Whether they like it or not, as sure as God made little apples they will eventually have to talk to them.

*We on this side of the House have the same objective as the ANC. Hon members must not be shocked when I say this. Where we differ is in the method because we do not see our way clear to accepting the violence which they use. We see our way clear to negotiation.

Five years ago we came to this House and the first words which we heard in the H F Verwoerd Building were: “Here come the Bushmen”. The hon member for Grassy Park rose and said: “The Bushmen are here to stay.” They will not succeed in wishing us away. We shall stay here until we are South African citizens of this country with equal rights like any other citizen.

†We are going to be what we ought to be when those on the right here are what they ought to be.

*The hon member for Germiston was so proud that 13 of them had remained on that side of the House. Let him not forget that the British and the Boers fought each other in this country. Where is he sitting today? He is quite at home among so-called “Boere”.

We have never been engaged in war with any other people here in South Africa. That is why we do not wish to make war because we do not believe in it but hon members must come to their senses.

†They must come to their senses because we cannot come here day in and day out pleading with them to accept everyone as a South African with equal rights.

*The time has come for the creation of that forum which a few hon members spoke about here so that we can discuss these points.

†The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning must be honest with us and tell us that the idea of bringing about a National Council was a stillborn idea. It is stillborn for the simple reason that hon members cannot choose the Black leaders with whom they want to negotiate.

*Instead of declaring the municipal elections open on the basis of one man, one vote, they continued in the same way and only certain people who were elected on the third tier could filter through to this Chamber.

†This idea was stillborn and the sooner they forget about it, the better for South Africa.

*Today I appeal for a one man, one vote system throughout this country. The hon member is shaking his head; it will soon fall off. Listen to what I am saying here. On the basis of one man, one vote the Blacks will be permitted to choose the leaders whom they want to represent them so that we can work out the future of this country together. The hon member for Stellenbosch is honest enough to say that they cannot work it out alone. I agree with him. Still less can we on this side of the House work the future out alone but the hon members cannot work out the future with Black leaders whom they want to choose for the Black people either.

The greatest and easiest question in this country can be expressed in a single sentence. Why can Archbishop Tutu not have the vote to enable him to elect somebody to represent him in this Parliament? That simple question must be solved otherwise we shall always have problems in South Africa. If the NP want to enter the future with this new hon leader-in-chief as they ought to, they must give the Blacks a chance to choose the leaders whom the Blacks want and then permit them to negotiate. Does this provide the hon leader with any difficulty?

No!

Then he will find no difficulty either in releasing Nelson Mandela because most Blacks regard him as their leader. If the hon the Minister has no difficulty with that statement, we shall expect that, when the hon the Minister is sworn in as State President, Nelson Mandela will be sitting on that balcony and the hon the Minister will then tell him that he is free.

But you were chosen by your people! Surely we made that possible.

The NP made it possible for us to be here. Make it possible for the Black people to elect their own leaders too. Do not choose their leaders for them. I see the hon leader-in-chief s predecessor does not want to do this and that is why I am appealing to him in the matter because we are looking to him to carry the torch in the future. The day that he is sworn in as State President, the first act he must carry out, which I believe will bring peace to this country, is to release Nelson Mandela and all the rest. Then he will also be able to say: “Black people, we do not want to prescribe to you. Choose your own leaders on a basis of one man, one vote.” Then they, the ANC, the PAC and all the rest, will have to compete with existing leaders. Then we will see who the true leaders are because nobody will be able to say that leaders were thrust on the people or chosen for them. Then I shall take my hat off to the hon leader-in-chief because then he will be serious about solving the problems of this country.

Mr Chairman, I think it is naturally vital that we here in the South African Parliament should speak to one another and conduct debates about those matters which are of paramount importance to the country. The hon member for Border mentioned some of them, and I am not going to reply to him directly, but I shall deal with much of what he said in the course of my speech.

One such important matter is that of the group areas, the Group Areas Act and, as the learned people always say, related matters. Hon members will permit me to make a few general statements and explanations as a background to our discussion of the Group Areas Act.

Firstly, as a physician I have a problem with the fact that there is no definition on the political platform to indicate that when one person speaks about apartheid and another person speaks about apartheid, totally different things are meant. I shall leave it at that for now.

The second statement I want to make is that in the past we made the terrible mistake of attempting, inter alia, to justify apartheid by continually emphasising differences instead of emphasising similarities. There are many more similarities than differences. That is true, but on the other hand, we really must also guard against going to the other extreme and pretending that there are no differences between people or groups, as if groups really no longer existed. An example of this is the senseless statement which the hon member for Reservoir Hills made to the effect that the hon member Dr De Beer was not an Afrikaner or a White man, but simply a South African.

†May I respectfully ask the hon member for Reservoir Hills and those hon members, seeing that we are all in agreement that there should be no discrimination whatsoever on the grounds of race, creed, colour or sex—male or female—if they are no longer males? Are they males or mules?

*I am an Afrikaner, Transvaler, Johannesburger and a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, and I am proud of it, but that does not make me a poorer South African. Yes, of course, we must place strong emphasis as one nation upon our South African identity. We are all South Africans and as such we are all entitled to equal rights—I shall come back to these equal rights— but if one denies the existence of groups or if one does not deny them but simply does not take them into account in striving to find solutions, one is denying reality. Then one is living in a utopian dream world in which one will have a great shock when one is awakened to the realities of that world. A non-racist South Africa? Yes, of course, but a non-racial South Africa is a DP dream— the Deluded Party’s dream.

I also wish to refer briefly to a very interesting, although somewhat strange remark which the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Delegates made here. He referred to our great task of building one nation—that is a matter on which I agree with him 100%—and said that many people were racist and called him a Hottentot. He then made the following remark: “I want to repeat that I did not come to South Africa by ship.”

In a lighter vein, but as a scientist as well, I want to ask the hon the Minister with all due respect whether I am not correct in saying that that is not the whole truth. It is at most a half truth. If it were the whole truth, I should want to tell him in the language of the poet: “Die pluimsaad waai ver, hy waai wragtig ver, ver oor die diepblou see”. You see, hon members, the hon the Minister is quite rightly referring with pride to his African roots. [Interjections.] Let us just say that the hon the Minister is descended from the Khoi Khoi, and that he is quite rightly proud of that fact.

He referred to mixed blood in the veins of the Whites. That may, of course, also be true of me. The work Groep sonder Grense does not, in fact, say so, but it does not trouble me in the least. I am, in fact, a direct descendant of the French and for that reason I am concerned that I may also have Dutch blood in my veins. I am nevertheless not concerned about mixed blood.

The point I want to make, however, is that the hon the Minister is no more a pure Khoi Khoi or a pure descendant of Africa than I am a full-blooded Frenchman or someone who arrived here by ship. The language or languages which that hon Minister speaks, which language and languages I also share, his idiom, which is also my idiom; his culture, which is also my culture, show very clearly that he also strongly bears the mark of influences brought over on that ship from overseas.

Many Blacks communicate with one another by means of English or Afrikaans; Afrikaans, our language which grew here in Africa—yes, through cross-pollination from that ship from overseas. I say that many Blacks communicate with one another in English or Afrikaans because they cannot always understand one another’s own languages. This, as well as their altered culture, their dress and related aspects, also attests loudly and clearly to the fact that they bear the mark of the influences of that ship. This also applies to the religion to which the hon the Minister referred.

The point I wish to make, therefore, is that there is a South African culture which is growing increasingly stronger, which was carved out of African stone and that overseas ship, which is a unifying factor and which will form a strong building-block for us in building a single nation.

I shall have to hurry, or else I shall not get around to the Group Areas Act. The fourth statement I wish to make—I wish to make it categorically—is that apartheid is not NP policy. Apartheid is an old colonial policy which has come down over the centuries and which for years now has no longer been NP policy. [Interjections.] We are moving away from apartheid in an orderly fashion. We are moving away from this condition which exists at the moment inter alia—I stress the words inter alia—as a result of apartheid. I think hon members are doing South Africa a disservice by persisting in attempting to create the impression that apartheid is our policy.

†What are the facts? The fact is that the NP is committed to power-sharing and to equal opportunity for all. This is my answer to the hon member for Border: Equal treatment and justice for all. This is not just rhetoric. It is a policy applied in practice. The offensive racial provisions of the Immorality Act have already been repealed. So too has the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. Job reservations have been removed. Sport is open to all as are trade unions. Revolutionaries who want to seize power shout that apartheid is alive but those of us who want to share power know that it is dying.

The NP states quite clearly and categorically that no South African will be excluded from full political rights. All people should participate both in Government and in the future of this country through their elected leaders.

The NP is committed to a single education policy. Not millions, but billions of rands are being poured into a programme that will bring about equal education for all. Human dignity must be advanced and any affront to it eliminated. The pass system, for instance, was seen as a major stumbling block, and was scrapped. A common identity document is issued to everybody, as is the case in other countries. Influx control measures were abolished in favour of a system of urbanisation that applies to all South Africans. Our policy is one of encouraging development, not controlling movement. The principle of free settlement areas has been accepted. I can continue in this vein. What is more, we do not intend to stop here. Progress must be ongoing and the NP is dedicated to it. There are some who say we should have gone further, but let them rest assured, we will go further. The wheel of reform is turning. Of course, we will never hand this country over to those who would see it destroyed, to those under the misapprehension that solutions lie in anarchy.

*Sir, what I have just said, is nothing new. I quoted it almost verbatim from an advertisement which appeared under the hand of the hon the State President in 1986. That is our policy, and we are in the process of implementing that policy, a policy which was once again approved by the White voters on 6 May 1987.

The last matter to which I wish to refer, entails a statement which was made by the former hon Acting State President in this Chamber in the first debate of this year. Hon members will recall that the former hon Acting State President, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, said that the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act were stumbling blocks on our path of negotiation.

The former hon Acting State President merely made a factual statement. Surely that is true. Everyone knows that they are stumbling blocks on that path. He did not say that they were the only stumbling blocks on the path. Neither did he say that we should directly abolish or retain them. What he did say, was, stated in my words: Let us talk about it.

He did not say that if we were to remove these stumbling blocks, in whatever manner, heaven would descend upon us. He did not say that peace and prosperity, education, health services, hospitals, schools and housing projects—yes, all that—would suddenly descend upon us because there would no longer be apartheid. Neither did he say that terror and “necklaces”, and CP-ANC— the Communist Party-/ANC murders— would disappear simply by abolishing the three Acts.

If these are stumbling blocks, and they are stumbling blocks, and if apartheid is no longer NP policy, which it is not, why should these three Acts not be summarily repealed? I think that is a very reasonable question. Let us discuss it like adults. First of all I wish to say that the NP is open to discussion with regard to these matters, although naturally not on a basis—and in this regard I resent my friends in the LP—of all or nothing. That is not how one negotiates.

I do not wish to say anything about the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act now. The NP’s standpoint is clear. The hon the State President has also stated previously that this is an unsatisfactory law, a law which, in my words, will have to go, but he said that we would have to do this in an orderly fashion. [Interjections.]

In so far as the Group Areas Act is concerned, I just want to make one thing very clear to the CP, who are now interjecting. The Group Areas Act is an Act that was passed by Whites, but even those Whites who passed the Act never intended it to be absolute legislation. From the very beginning provision was made for bona fide workers, for example, as well as for Blacks in backyards, etc. A permit system was also introduced. So, in the first instance the Group Areas Act was never intended as absolute legislation.

The NP’s standpoint with regard to group areas is very clear. The hon the State President has said that it is not a sacred cow. Those were the words he used. He said that we were not married to this law. On 13 August 1986 the hon the State President said in Durban that the law was flexible. He said that we should even make it far more flexible.

[Inaudible.]

He also said, however, that the principle that people should have the right to lead a community life of their own, should be maintained. That is important to us.

[Inaudible.]

Order! No, the hon member for Addo is sitting very comfortably and making interjections. That must now come to an end. The hon member here to my left—I cannot quite see who it is—must also give the hon member for Langlaagte an opportunity to continue his speech.

Mr Chairman, I hear I have only half a minute left. I therefore want to say what I have to say very quickly. It is a pity that I do not have more time, because I should very much have liked to debate this law at greater length.

The point I wish to make—I just wish to make it very quickly—is that there has been an oversupply of White housing and an undersupply of land and housing for others. A total distortion of the property market has taken place. This is creating a completely unnatural situation at the moment.

Where I live, we have to protect a children’s home and a community. As a scientist, I cannot see how the Group Areas Act can be retained for ever. We must nevertheless pay urgent attention to the distortion of the market and ensure that normal market forces once again come into operation. In the meantime we can say, very well, the Rev Hendrickse’s rectory and church have been demolished, and his family has been broken up.

It is scandalous!

Yes, it is scandalous! I agree with the hon member. I admit that it is scandalous, but does this justify our allowing people—in this instance they happen to be Indians, but they could have been anyone—to say: “To hell with that community, to hell with that church, to hell with that children’s home”, simply because they have money? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, first of all I want to congratulate and compliment the new Democratic Party. I hope and pray that they will be very successful in their endeavours to come into this Parliament as the ruling party. I do know that there are some very honourable men on the other side and I expect them to represent the community in their best interests.

At the same time I wish to draw the attention of the hon leader of the DP to the fact that his party has three members from the House of Delegates. One is from Springfield and another from Rotten Hills or Reservoir Hills.

It is an embarrassment to mention in this House the behaviour of these two gentlemen in the House of Delegates. Every motion that has been written and introduced to embarrass Solidarity has been engineered by these two gentlemen. They have done everything possible to conduct a campaign of hate against the national leader of Solidarity. They did everything possible to prevent him from becoming the Chairman of the House of Delegates. They behave like gentlemen here, but unfortunately their behaviour is not the same in the House of Delegates.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member has clearly said that two of the hon members in our party are not gentlemen and I do not believe that that is permissible in this House. All members have to be referred to as hon gentlemen.

Order! I did not hear the hon member use those words. Did he use the word ‘gentlemen’? I do not understand what the hon member is referring to.

Mr Chairman, the hon member who is occupying the podium at the moment said that two of the members from our party who are in the House of Delegates behave like gentlemen in this House, but when they are in the House of Delegates they do not behave like gentlemen. I believe that to be out of order.

Well, I am sorry that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is coming to the defence of these two gentlemen because he does not know their true colours. They are absolutely rotten! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I think at this stage I can rest my case.

Order! In order to save time, the hon member need not address me. The hon member Mr Thaver must withdraw those remarks.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw them. [Interjections.] I would be pleased if the hon parliamentary leader of the DP would look into the matter and see my national leader. The relationship between Solidarity and the DP is very healthy, but if there is a continuation of that kind of behaviour, the relationship will unfortunately go sour. I do not think the hon the leader of the DP would like to see a sour relationship between Solidarity and the DP.

Turning to the Budget Speech I wish to point out that the hon the Minister has introduced a fairly good Budget. Before I proceed to deal with the Budget, however, I wish to pay tribute to the officials and the members of the Joint Committee on Finance, particularly the chairman and the deputy chairman, as well as the members of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. I believe the chairman, the hon member for Vasco, and the deputy chairman, the hon member for Yeoville, with their expertise, as well as the other hon members, should not only be complimented, but should also be congratulated for the very valuable work they are doing, for their efforts, their very good report, and for all the other things they do in the Joint Committee on Finance.

Turning to the Budget, I wish to point out that the hon the Minister has implemented certain recommendations of the Margo Report and has also taken into consideration certain matters concerning long-term insurers. I think these are all important matters.

When it comes to the question of the GST, however, I think the very day when GST was introduced in South Africa it sounded the death knell of poor people in our community. When it was 2% it did not go down, it went to 4% and it is now 13%. If VAT is not introduced it will soon be 20% because the hon the Minister knows that this is a good milch cow.

I think it is high time that the hon the Minister considered the poorer communities, particularly in regard to the GST that is applied to foodstuffs. I want to call upon the hon the Minister to ask the Joint Committee on Finance to investigate the question of GST and come up with a report on what food items could be exempted for the benefit of the poorer communities. I think the best advice the hon the Minister can get is from the hon members of the Joint Committee on Finance who have the expertise. Therefore, I think the hon the Minister should instruct the Joint Committee on Finance to look into the question of GST and come up with a report. The hon the Minister would then know which items, as far as foodstuffs are concerned, could be exempted.

I think all the hon members have been provided with the report of the Joint Committee on Finance on the evidence it received from the various departments. One of the very important aspects of the report is that the committee is seriously concerned about the unsatisfactory staff position in the South African Air Force, particularly pertaining to air crews and technical personnel, and considers that urgent steps should be taken in order to deal with the situation. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the speech by the hon member for Langlaagte was interesting and in a strange way important. Here is a man who is clearly trying to struggle, grapple and fight to move away from what he understands to be apartheid. However, his speech revealed the fundamental difference in perception there is between those people who have applied apartheid and those who are the victims of it. He comes along here and says: “Give us time. It has to be gradual and you must understand that it was not meant to oppress.” That is absolute nonsense from the point of view of 90% of the people of South Africa. No more time is needed. The NP has been in power for 41 years—how much longer?

As for all this nonsense about the Group Areas Act, I was active in politics when it was imposed. It was not done out of love for the so-called Coloured community of that time. It was done to get some White votes in the Cape Province. Let us cut out all this nonsense. Let us say, like the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said 15 years ago: “Yes, we do discriminate in South Africa. It is wrong and we want to get away from it.” However, all this hon member says is: “No, it is not NP policy.” Of course it is the policy of the NP. Of course it is and the hon member should rather apologise for his party and say that his party is going to do something about it.

I want to congratulate the hon member for Innesdal on his appointment. It may indeed be quite a clever move of the NP to move him away from this House, nevertheless we wish him well in his new appointment as ambassador in The Hague. We are sorry he is leaving, not only because of his refreshing style of debate, but because we need one such as him in South Africa to talk to the Nationalists far more than we need him to speak to the citizens of the Netherlands. I hope that by the time his term of office has expired the NP will no longer be the Government of South Africa and that he can come and play a constructive part in building the future of this country.

Allow me a couple of words which are related to the Budget before I return to a more general political debate. It is true that the hon the Minster has managed to balance his Budget without any major increases in taxes except an 8,33% increase in GST and an increased excise on cigarettes, beer, spirits and soft drinks.

To do this he knows he has relied very heavily on inflation to help him—inflation to push up receipts from GST and company tax and a combination of inflation and fiscal drag to push up receipts from personal income tax by no more than 22,5%.

Inflation may be useful—it may even be a godsend—to the hon the Minister of Finance in balancing his Budget, but inflation has become a scourge and a curse to millions of ordinary South Africans. I think of those South Africans— millions of them—struggling to eke out an existence at the minimum subsistence levels, those middle income group South Africans battling to try to maintain reasonable standards for themselves and their families.

I think in particular of the elderly trying to make ends meet on old-age pensions and relatively fixed incomes. I want to say to the hon the Minister that the treatment of the elderly and especially the old-age pensioners in this Budget is especially shabby. The increased tax rebate for the over-sixty-fives affects only married persons with an income in excess of R952 per month. What about the many over-sixty-fives with incomes well below that? What about the old-age pensioners whose incomes are round about the R300 per month mark? There is no provision in this Budget for an increase of pensions for this year nor is there provision for the customary once-off bonus which very often used to take place round about October. While there is no provision for an increase during this year, prices of stamps, telephone calls, public transport, food, clothing and rentals continue to rise. Is this the way this Government treats the older people of South Africa?

At the same time the hon the Minister is stashing away R1 billion in the Budget which he says is to be included for possible unforeseen expenditure. Apart from the fact that we believe that this is a sloppy and undisciplined way of budgeting, whom does the hon the Minister think he is kidding? [Interjections.] I want to repeat what the hon member for Yeoville said. With an election looming, we have no doubt that at least some part of that billion rand is going to be used as the election sweetener in order to entice people to vote for the NP in the election. That is what it is there for! Now that we know the approximate date of the election, it will come as no surprise to us whatsoever when there is an announcement of some increase, either in bonuses or a general increase for pensioners.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to heed to the DP’s demand that the announcement of an increase takes place right here and now while Parliament is in session so that the public can see that it is not a hand-out from the NP but something for which Parliament itself has appropriated.

Secondly I am concerned about a report I have just recently read that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning told a regional conference that the Government is seeking new cash resources for regional services councils. According to the report he says that the Government is looking to alternative sources of revenue for regional services councils as a matter of high priority.

This worries us extremely because the regional services councils have only just started. There are only three in the whole Cape Province, none in Natal, one in the Orange Free State and about a dozen in the Transvaal. That is the position. Very few of them have powers or authority. Yet the hon the Minister stands up at a conference and says that the existing or the new tax structure— the levies on salaries and turnover—is inadequate. Then he announces to the regional services council conference that the Government is looking for new sources of revenue for regional services councils.

We want to know whether he merely intends to shift Central Government resources to local government. We will fight tooth and nail the introduction of yet further new forms of taxation to finance regional services councils. Indeed, I believe instead of introducing new taxes the hon the Minister should start to recognize that, whatever the merit or demerit of the regional services councils, this country cannot afford to have a proliferation of racially divided local authorities. We cannot have hundreds of management councils, liaison committees and various other kinds of committees, each with their own structure.

The time has come for the hon the Minister to look at this whole question and see, now that his hon leader has said that they are not obsessed with race and with groups, if, from a financial point of view at least, one should not get rid of apartheid at local government level and reintroduce something which is more rational, more effective and more cost-efficient.

Inevitably certain issues have been raised time and time again throughout this debate. One of them is the issue of corruption. It is correct—I think the hon the Minister will concede that it is correct—that it should be raised time and time again, not only because corruption has become endemic under the NP Government or because it is immoral, but also because it is wrong and unfair to those ordinary South Africans who have to pay the price for the greed, dishonesty and the simple drunk-with-power mentality of those people who are corrupt. It should also be raised, of course, because it undermines the confidence of people both inside and outside South Africa in both the administration and the economy of South Africa.

I also think it is valid that this should have been raised because this is one of the signal failures of an 11-year old NP regime under the hon the State President and former leader of the party in that this Government has failed to fulfil the pledge given in the aftermath of the Information scandal that it was going to provide South Africa with a clean and effective administration. So that is a valid criticism.

It was also obvious, especially from the side of the hon opposition members in the DP and the hon members in the other Houses, that there would be constant calls to scrap apartheid. The hon member can say that it is not the policy of the NP but I say it is the reality of the NP. Apartheid must indeed go because it is immoral and it undermines our international structure. Once again we say the Group Areas Act should be scrapped, as well as the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Population Registration Act. We must scrap all of these Acts! Apartheid, however, will not have gone until we have scrapped a constitutional system which denies to millions and millions of South Africans full and equal participation in the Government structures of this country. Despite mandate after mandate, year after year this Government has failed to deal with this cardinal matter which is causing the fundamental economic and financial problems that the hon the Minister has to deal with. [Interjections.]

Understandably, because of the importance of the occasion, there have been frequent references to the formation of the DP. It is an important occasion in the political history of South Africa and we want to thank those hon members of the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives who have given us their welcome and their encouragement. I believe that we are going to live up to our role as a party which will play a very significant part in helping to build a nation free of the racial divisions of the past.

The reactions of the CP and the NP were very predictable. They are predictable because both those parties, to a greater or to a lesser extent, remain committed to the fundamental philosophy of apartheid. As they sit there, the difference is just a matter of degree. It is just a matter of degree! More than this, the NP has a very real party-political concern in this matter. Hon members there know that the DP was formed out of a shared set of values and a shared set of commitments to the future of South Africa. Nationalists, however, know that it was also born from the failure of the NP to provide any solutions to the problems of the present and to provide the people of South Africa with any vision and hope for the future. That is one of the realities. The people who are joining the DP are not only the old members of the other three parties. They are the fed-up young Nationalists. [Interjections.]

Hon members of the Government know that thousands upon thousands of Nats are desperately unhappy with their Government and they are looking to a party which, above all, will be relevant to the South Africa of the future. They are proud of the past but they want to be relevant to the South Africa of the future.

It appears that the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry was sent in to do what is traditionally known as a hatchet job. I want to say that he ended up by coming very close to making a fool of himself. I would say that his performance was so poor that he even made the hon member for Turffontein look like a star. That is not a very easy thing to do!

The hon the Minister finds it fascinating that the fundamental principles of the DP are the same as the fundamental principles of the former PFP. Does the hon the Minister not realise that those fundamental principles are not peculiar just to the PFP or to the DP? Principles which embrace the fundamental rights and liberties of the individual, which embrace the concept of truly representative and democratic government, which embrace the concept of the rule of law are not just the principles of a political party. They are the hallmarks of civilized societies the world over. That is what they are.

They will live on in spite of being trampled on by the jackboots of apartheid. Those principles live on in the hearts and minds of many ordinary South Africans. They will survive and they will form the basis of government and society in South Africa long after apartheid is just a dark and murky chapter in the history of our country.

The hon the Minister says:

*What utter nonsense, as I shall now prove. He goes on to say:

†That is an interesting one because what he is saying by that is that for 40 years this Government has ruled this country in an undemocratic way. What has he been waiting for? Has he been waiting for another change of government, another mandate? He then says:

What a paternalistic, one-sided misrepresentation of the sum of history! Do the Nats think that the Black people of Africa have a monopoly of one-party states? Does he not know his history? Does he think that Black people in Africa have a monopoly of dictatorships? Has this ex-professor not heard of people like Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Stalin? Does he not know that the valves of gas chambers were not turned by black hands or by people with black faces?

Let us stop being paternalistic about Africa. Let us realise that all around the world there have been times in the history of mankind of which we can be ashamed but do not use Africa as an excuse for not having democracy in South Africa.

*The hon the Minister said the NP wanted to create a democracy here. He is admitting that there is no democracy in South Africa, although there has been an NP for 40 years. What an acknowledgement of his failure! The hon the Minister went on to say:

Goodness gracious, who is dominating?

†They have been “oorheersing” for the last 40 years. They are “oorheersing” over the Blacks who do not have a vote. They are “oorheersing” over the other people who do not have an effective say in choosing the State President. They are “oorheersing” over the other Houses that have found their opposition squashed through a President’s Council, and then he says: “Ons moet waak teen oorheersing.”

The DP stands for a true South African democracy and it rejects race as its basis. This is the fundamental difference between that party and ourselves. We believe in truly representative government, in political structures based on voluntary association, and this requires more than the form and ritual of Parliament. This requires the freedom of the Press, freedom of expression, freedom of political association and unbiased radio and television services. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, before I continue with my speech, I want to wish my colleague, the MP for Britstown, Louis Hollander, well. He has undergone a by-pass operation and I want to congratulate Dr Barnard, the MP for Parktown, for performing that successful operation.

We will shortly be facing the public at a general election. I grew up in elections and we are all excited about elections. I think that we can predict, and gladly so, that we will have a new official opposition party in the House of Assembly, namely the DP.

I trust that the NP will once and for all eliminate right wing CP members. I think that in the House of Representatives we will have no opposition whatsoever.

You will be surprised.

Oh no, Sir. There is no need for me to be surprised. That hon member is wrong. He knows that there have been five or six opposition parties in the House of Representatives and every time a new one is born.

†We told the electorate five years ago, when we asked them for a mandate, that we would break down this present Constitution. I am very glad to say that we have achieved that, because even now the new leader of the NP is talking about the need to look at a new constitution for South Africa. In the forthcoming election we will ask our constituents for a fresh mandate to scrap the Group Areas Act.

May I say that we are not talking about reforming the Group Areas Act, but about scrapping it. The hon member who spoke earlier in the debate does not know the effects of the Group Areas Act, because he did not walk where we walked and he did not stay where we stayed. We will ask the electorate for a fresh mandate to scrap the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. After the election we will ask the NP to have another look at the Population Registration Act. The way the NP will be able to help us and South Africa in the forthcoming election is by spelling out very clearly to the electorate where they stand on these laws. They must tell the electorate what they are going to do with the Group Areas Act. They must tell the electorate what they are going to do with the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. We and South Africa would like to know, because South Africa can no longer live on the road of separateness. This country can no longer afford separateness.

The Whites in this country have used the apartheid system to stamp out poverty within the White community. The LP is going to use this system to eradicate poverty from our people. We must remind hon members that the LP is not only a party for or by the people but also a party with the people.

Poverty cannot be the destiny of the majority of the people of South Africa. We cannot accept this. It is against this that we will fight to develop our people economically. We do realise that this is going to be a long and hard path of development. However, we are prepared to accept this challenge for the betterment of South Africa. Our people will have to be brought out of those long years of neglect and poverty where they sacrificed but did not get a proper reward. I believe this is a challenge that the electorate is going to face and of which I would like to be a part—to see the upliftment of our people and the restoring of human dignity and self-respect for our people.

In my constituency I have certain areas where living conditions are becoming extremely difficult, and the situation is steadily worsening and becoming unbearable. Just this morning I met a lady who had a packet in her hand. She called me and I spoke to her. She asked me if I knew what was in that packet. I said that I did not know. She showed me a dress. She said that that was a dress that she had had for several years and that she really liked that dress. However, she was looking for someone to buy it so that she could have food for her family that evening.

This is a common occurrence in our community. The purchasing power of our people is progressively declining and the cost of living is progressively rocketing. Prices are increasing by the minute. Why I am saying this is because the other day, when I went to the supermarket, there was an item on the shelf that I wanted to buy. While I was standing there, the shelf-packer was busy stamping new prices on the items. He said to me: “Sir, this is the normal thing. Everything is increasing.” Certain items are becoming beyond the reach of the average family.

Yesterday in the centre of Cape Town a young White girl said to me: “Even we, as Whites, can no longer bear it.” She told me what she paid on a bond when the rate was still 13% and what she had to pay now.

I want to say to the Government that the people out there are beginning to feel the pinch. I fear that the Labour Party lost in England because of the economic power. The same thing happened in America when Carter lost the election. Because of disinvestments and sanctions people are beginning to scratch for food in dirtbins. We cannot allow this! We will have to fight this!

I believe that disinvestment is a greater evil than sanctions. Disinvestment is not an effective way to end apartheid in this country. Disinvestment and sanctions are the most militant stand the outside world can take against us because of an apartheid policy. Disinvestment takes away from us and the Blacks the tools for bringing about an end to apartheid.

We want to say to the outside world that it is reducing efforts to improve our living conditions. The best way to fight apartheid is not disinvestment or the application of sanctions. If, as the hon member said, apartheid is no longer the policy of his party, I appeal to the NP please to notify the electorate and South Africa because our perception is that it is still part of that party’s policy.

Clearly, the best way to do this is by showing us proof of how his party is moving away from the laws that are hurting South Africa in the process. The truth is that the Group Areas Act is hurting South Africa, internationally as well. The international world is not interested in seeing Black majority rule in this country. It is basically interested in seeing an end to racialism in this country. We would also like to see an end to racialism.

Is that why they have sanctioned Korea?

It is a pity that the hon member should make an interjection like that. One would think that the hon member would have more sense than that. He knows for a fact that, because of their policies, sanctions started way back in the 1960s. In a departmental store in England someone told me that he could not sell South African clothes on a long-term basis because of our country’s apartheid policies. That is the reason we have sanctions. I was present at the mop-up session of the Dellums Commission in the USA when they said that it was because of apartheid that they were imposing sanctions against South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should very much like to take this opportunity to say here that we in the Ministry and in the Department of Finance will miss Dr Human. He was a regular and very welcome visitor to my office, and his wise counsel, given whenever I approached him, is something I miss in my life.

I want to convey a few words of sincere congratulations to our colleague, the hon member for Innesdal, who is going to occupy a very important position. Those of us who have the privilege of making occasional trips abroad find it a pity that our relations with the Netherlands are not sound, because we have such intimate ties with that country. It is a good thing we have a colleague with the expertise and abilities of the hon member for Innesdal to continue the very good work his predecessor did.

I should like to convey my very sincere thanks to hon members who participated in this debate. Mr Chairman, I think you and hon members of this Parliament will appreciate that it is going to be a formidable job to try to react in a meaningful way to this debate. This year we conducted a different kind of debate. It is a new tradition developing in Parliament. I shall do my best to do justice to it as far as that is in any way possible. Right at the outset I want to say that it is really not going to be possible today, to the same extent as it was possible previously, to refer to the good contributions made by individual hon members. In terms of time and an attempt to react meaningfully it is really not going to be possible.

I thank hon members very sincerely for the extremely high level of debate which was maintained throughout in this joint effort. Naturally there were a few exceptions and I collected quite a few quotable quotes. The hon member for Kuruman was right when he said: “We need more debaters and fewer agitators.” Unfortunately there were a few agitators here and there, on all sides of the House, which of course adds character to Parliament.

When it comes to content, political as well as economic, I think this debate contributed to the general pool of knowledge needed to try to solve the very complicated problems of our country. I want to give hon members the assurance that every sound standpoint was carefully recorded, and will be taken into consideration by our advisers in various departments. There are methods whereby a meaningful idea, a suggestion or a piece of advice find their way to the departments concerned, and in that way a debate such as this forms a material contribution to the better administration and government of our country.

†I would like to express a word of deep appreciation to all those hon members who, I believe— maybe it is just an emotional reaction—responded in a tone that I, at least, perceived to be different from the tone of previous debates when it came to responding to our difficult economic and financial situation. I perceived in the addresses of many hon members an understanding, a sympathy and an appreciation for the efforts of our Ministry and our advisers which was not as marked last year and in previous years. I think there has now come about a much greater appreciation of the extremely difficult constraints within which our economy is perforce performing.

As far as the tone, and in a way, the content of the debates are concerned, there is something else I would like to refer to. This debate has clearly shown that South Africa will not accept solutions that are being attempted to be forced on it.

*We are not going to allow solutions to be forced upon us. This became clearly apparent in the reaction to our economy and hon members’ understanding of the state of the economy.

I think that in this debate our country received recognition for the fact that, in the midst of these difficult circumstances—whoever is to blame for them—we made the best of a difficult set of circumstances; in fact, in a diversity of spheres we did well. As regards the implementation of economic and financial policy, we bought precious time for South Africa in the process. We made a contribution towards gaining this precious time in which we must search meaningfully and with all dispatch for a solution to our political problems.

Finally I want to convey a word of sincere thanks to the Joint Committee on Finance, under the very competent direction of its chairman, the hon member for Vasco, and the vice-chairman, the hon member for Yeoville. I want to thank them for the very courteous reception which the Ministry, the department and also our advisers received from the Reserve Bank. Thank you very much for the quality of our discussions. Penetrating questions were asked and this committee is playing an invaluable part in the functioning of Parliament. It is a credit to parliamentary control, participation in deliberations and the testing of policy decisions that are also contained in a Budget such as this.

If I do not react to any specific matter in my reply and hon members feel that it would be worthwhile raising it again, I ask them please to feel free to do so in the discussion of the Vote which will take place early in May. Perhaps we will then be able to give attention to these matters in greater detail.

I want to refer to a few features of this debate. Besides the observations I have already made on the Budget as such, what struck me personally was the profound degree of unanimity about the situation in South West Africa—with the exception of course of the CP. All reasonable hon members in this House expressed their thanks. There was praise and appreciation here for the way in which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence had dealt with this extremely complex and delicate matter over a period of many, many years, but in particular during the times of crisis we have recently been experiencing.

It is very easy to make war or to antagonise a group of people, but goodness knows it takes the most delicate diplomacy, the coolest head and just the right footwork in a moment of crisis to help a person to avert a potentially extremely explosive situation in order to get a peace negotiation—one that was attained with difficulty—going again.

There are no guarantees this side of the grave. If we want to live our lives in this world on the basis that everything must be infallibly guaranteed for us before we can take an audacious step, we are simply going to stagnate and fall asleep in our benches. Those who have the courage to act with a spirit of enterprise, to take risks with daring and confidence in their leadership, their own abilities, their know how, with the support they enjoy among their colleagues and in the integrity of the decision-making process they are dealing with at that moment, and who in addition have such infrastructures to support them, will be able to carry on and do what these two hon colleagues did. On their behalf I should like to express our sincere thanks to every colleague in this Parliament who had a word of appreciation to spare for them.

While I am talking about sparing, I want to ask whether there is anyone in this House who can say that these two colleagues and their advisers spared themselves for one moment in their search for peace in South West Africa/Namibia? It was also for the sake of South Africa that they did this—perhaps primarily in so many respects.

On behalf of those colleagues I want to say thank you very much to the hon colleagues who perceived this, because it is that kind of flavouring which makes life worthwhile in the kind of work we do. In the work done in an executive authority in South Africa today there is very little pleasure besides the appreciation and understanding one sometimes encounters along the way. I think this particular occasion must have meant a great deal to them.

If one considers it in the perspective of the interests of South Africa; in the perspective of what has happened against us up to now internationally and what has happened in favour of us internationally in this short time; in the midst of all the risks awaiting us in these circumstances; and in the midst of all the uncertainties which we tackle with the confidence, as I said earlier, of those things which our hon colleagues support, then the pathetic display of the hon member for Soutpansberg in his childish perspective falls into its appropriate place. [Interjections.]

As a citizen of this country I am grateful today that foreign affairs are in fact in the hands of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and not in the hands of the hon member for Soutpansberg … [Interjections] … because this Parliament has seldom in its history witnessed so much emotional childishness and such a performance. That hon member’s thoughts were dominated by a photograph taken of my two hon colleagues on the backs of camels. My goodness, Sir! A photograph in a newspaper, but also a photograph representing a moment in a scenario of intense involvement …

It was symbolic.

Symbolic, yes, of the hospitality of a country in which South Africans are not welcome. [Interjections.] It was symbolic of the hospitality I hope we in this country can offer foreign visitors who also visit us. When we take them up the mountain we will be pleased to see them smile when they see this beautiful city. If we then take a photograph of those visitors we also want to look at it with pride, as people of a hospitable country. And if we offer them a glass of wine from the Western Cape we hope that they will not have a sour expression on their faces, but that they will react to our hospitality. If a photograph is taken I hope that it will be a sign of hospitality and not a symbol of negotiations which will be described as “laissez faire”, or in any of the other childish terms the hon member used. I think that he himself, and those close to him, including his party colleagues, and those who will read Hansard one day, will feel ashamed of that speech. I think one of the most unfortunate things to have happened during this interesting part of our country’s history is that such a speech was made. I think the hon member will be ashamed of himself one day. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Overvaal, who is so loudmouthed, can also read the speech as well as my Hansard one day when he begins to calm down, when some of the energy has left his body, when wisdom has taken the place of his boiling energy and when the perspective of history has descended on him, if he gets that old, and then see whether we cannot ultimately agree with one another.

A second feature of this Budget was the fact that no material criticism was really levelled at it. The hon member for Lichtenburg gave a performance here today of which our former colleague, Jan van Zyl, would have been immensely proud. That is about the best description I can give of the speech, but I shall refer to a few details in it just now. Such a concentration of distorted figures and twisted interpretations is a spectacle to behold and an even greater spectacle to read.

It is of course tragic that that speech—I accept this and I concede this point to the hon member—would impress an audience of a specific standard. It would really have a CP audience on its feet, but it would make no impression whatsoever on any person who knows anything about economics and State finances. [Interjections.] I shall come back to this in a moment.

Much of the criticism levelled at this Budget was of course motivated by the fact that an election is in the air, and we must also assess it in that perspective. The birth of the DP out of the mortal remains of the PFP and its partners did in the end draw a little attention in this debate, but the criticism from that quarter was really not so substantial that we could say that this debate succeeded in tearing this Budget into strips, as the opposition most certainly would have wanted.

We can come to the conclusion, at the end of this debate, that this Budget was a balanced one because it met the basic needs of the country and its people, in the midst of the extremely restrictive circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Talking about the birth of the DP, I think that by now we in this Parliament know a great deal about people who have stood at the deathbed of political parties, and shortly afterwards have attended the birth of a new political party. I think this knowledge ought to be placed on record. In the end it will provide very interesting reading matter. I just want to draw hon members’ attention to a few quotable quotes which I noted down.

†The hon member for Cavendish said something which I personally found very interesting. He said that the CP has nothing to conserve or preserve for South Africa. [Interjections.]

*I think that was very well said and I thank him for our election slogan.

The hon member for Grassy Park said a very important thing which is of very great motivation for us in preparing our Budget. He said that an investment for development and training was a counterbalance to confrontation. That statement made by the hon member expresses the fundamental truth that an investment in the elimination of confrontation is the best investment we can make for the future. Unfortunately it is true that a greater investment in that can only be made if the entire cake, or rather the total proceeds from taxation, is enlarged, or if not, if the peace situation is such that one can adapt the conflict control budget in favour of the conflict eliminating elements thereof.

The hon member for Riversdal made a point which I should very much like to repeat for the benefit of my Cabinet colleagues. He said the time had come to work with the existing cake. I am very grateful for his support and I hope that he promotes that idea in his own Ministers’ Council as well.

†The hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Delegates said: “Is it not interesting that those who want the most also want the lowest taxes.” That is also a conflict which we in the fiscus experience on a daily basis.

*I want to begin by reacting to a few of the important, specific, general matters on which comment was made. Here and there I shall mention an hon member’s name simply because it was used by my advisers to classify the reactions. There may be other hon members who also referred to the matter, but I do not have all the names.

The hon member for Barberton referred to our using capital to finance current expenditure— something we openly admit. In these crisis years it was necessary for us to do so. Because we have a momentum in Government expenditure and because, owing to a lower growth in the economy, we did not get the yield from the economy by way of taxation, we structurally had a very large deficit before borrowing, which we are working hard to reduce. In the process it happened that the deficit before borrowing was considerably larger than what the strict, narrow, internationally accepted definition of capital gives us to identify as capital. Technically what it amounts to is that we are indeed financing current expenditure with loans. We committed ourselves to eliminating that. I think the fact that during the past few years we have drastically reduced our deficit before borrowing as a percentage of the gross domestic product is a sign that we are working hard on this particular structural problem in our economy.

The hon member said that we were doing this to try to bring about a redistribution of income, but that we were in fact engaged in a consumption of assets. I do not think that that is a fair statement, because those assets that are ostensibly being consumed are, to the extent to which those long-term loans are funding education and training, distributed payments in human capital investment. Earlier this year, in the no-confidence debate, I quoted from the latest presidential report of the American President in which specific reference was made to “an investment in human capital” in that country. I do not want to use this as an excuse. In spite of that valid argument we are engaged in the structural reduction of the deficit before borrowing.

Is it not true, however— the hon the Minister in charge of Black education is sitting here in this House—that we have an enormous wave of entrants to Black education in particular and that the growth rate has decreased dramatically among the Black communities in those parts of our country where material economic improvement of their circumstances has taken place? One sees that the White growth rate in South Africa is stagnating or is perhaps already evincing negative growth, and that a drastic decrease in the growth rate of the other two communities represented in this Chamber has occurred. Among the Black people in the rural areas, it is still very high.

It is a fact, however, that we have a wave which we have to deal with and the moment that wave begins to level off and one experiences a stabilisation in the number of entrants to Black educational institutions, one will encounter a situation in which one finds a rectification in regard to this enormous investment which the country in general is now having to make in Black education and training.

No one in his right mind and no one who has any sense of responsibility can adopt a standpoint opposed to the investment of every possible cent that we can free for the training and education of people. Not only does it prepare them for a civilised way of life, but it prepares them to participate in a free enterprise economy in spite of the load of nonsense the hon member for Lichtenburg spoke about socialism. This is a country of free enterprise and any person who has the necessary training will receive his opportunities.

A second point I want to react to was also raised by the hon member for Barberton when he said that it was only after a considerable increase that we had ended with a lower deficit before borrowing as a percentage of the GDP.

Why did the hon member complain about that? Surely we knew, when we planned the additional expenditure in respect of personnel increases, that we would have to finance it properly. The then hon Acting State President also said this on television. Why does the hon member hold it against us if we end up with a lower deficit before borrowing at the end of the process of generating additional income and evaluating additional income, which we received as a windfall because we estimated carefully in a difficult situation, one in which we did not know how much would emerge from the phasing out of, for example, the debtors’ allowances? I cannot quite understand the hon member’s reaction in that respect.

A great deal was said about public debt. The hon member for Lichtenburg made a nonsensical statement about this as well, namely that it was increasing hand over fist. Dramatic statement! Crowds applaud! But what are the facts? I hope the hon member is listening now, and I hope he has the integrity which an hon member of this House ought to have to change his speech accordingly so that when his speech appears in propaganda documents, he does not mislead the voters. I am placing this on record, because we are going to use it against him if he does not change his speech! [Interjections.]

Public debt, expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product, diminished from 41,3% in 1978 to 33,7% in 1988. He said it was increasing hand over fist. Apparently the hon member was looking at the nominal public debt figures. At that moment he forgot about inflation. Later in his speech, when he remembered it again as something he could use against the Government, he took cognizance of inflation. Inflation, just like any other economic variable, is something which plays a part in all the comparisons one can conjure up for oneself in the economy. I hope that the hon member for Lichtenburg will remember this simple statement.

If he wanted to lambast the Government, he could have used the fact which I am going to mention now. However, the hon member is sitting there chatting to his colleagues, and he is not listening. In contrast public debt interest payments, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, increased from 2,9% in 1978-79 to 3,9% last year.

This means that the increase in the public debt interest cost is far rather attributable to relatively higher interest rate levels than to an increase in the overall debt burden. What I have told him now is a simple thing, but to the voters it is a very important matter. I trust that he will display the integrity of correcting this.

The interest on the increase in the public debt is the price we pay for the fact that we are at this early stage establishing certain infrastructures, facilities and investments in South Africa which will one day bear fruit in this economy. I want to ask him, when he addresses this Parliament again, to adopt a fundamental standpoint for or against public debt. He must decide whether he is opposed to the principle of causing future generations to pay in part for what one establishes, which will also be to their benefit. Let him adopt a standpoint in this regard for our benefit.

Then his colleague, the hon member for Delmas, came along and said that the deficit before borrowing must quite suddenly be 2%. How does he arrive at that figure? How does he arrive at that figure now? The guideline figure for the deficit before borrowing is 3%. It has been internationally calculated that a country in our phase of development spends approximately 3% of its gross national product, by way of its budget, on capital expenditure. That is the criterion. If I have to collate these two standpoints of the hon members of the CP, the one says we must under no circumstances finance anything but capital by means of loans. The other hon member says that the deficit before borrowing should be only 2%. In other words must we infer, if they are consistent, that they think this country is in a phase of development in which it can manage to spend only 2% of its gross domestic product, by way of the budget, on capital and infrastructure? Anyone who knows anything about State finances will shake his head sympathetically upon hearing this type of logic, but it sounds attractive to the voters. However it has no intellectual, planning or State administrative integrity.

As far as Government expenditure is concerned, the hon member Mr J Douw made a valid observation. On the one hand he said that one was concerned about the detrimental consequences of Government spending, because Government spending was equal to taxation plus loans. If one then places a damper on loans, it means that Government spending can only increase if taxation increases at the same time. Therefore any person who is asking for increased expenditure is by implication asking for increased taxation.

At this moment we are phasing in—with very great dedication and a great deal of effort under these difficult circumstances—a system of priority determination. I actually want to say forcing in, because to determine priorities is a difficult culture to be involved in, because it means the sacrifice of certain services, facilities and functions which one has always rendered to the public. It is not a popular matter.

On the one hand the hon member Mr Douw says it is a problem, but on the other hand he says there are backlogs in what he calls the wronged communities. There he has in a nutshell—he apologised, together with quite a few other hon members, for not being able to be here today— the crux of today’s problem.

Hon members referred to the R1 billion for unforeseen expenditure.

†The hon member for Sea Point called that buffer “shabby budgeting”. He can call it what he likes and I cannot blame him for not understanding it because he has never been in Government. I do not mean that in a nasty fashion because we know so well that we are treading a thin line.

If any additional expenditure which may have to be incurred is immediately passed on to the capital market, then this Government, on account of something which it could not reasonably foresee, will be responsible for a direct increase in the pressure on interest rates which we want to avoid. For that reason we built in that buffer. With all due respect to the hon member, I think it was a sensible thing to do and not a shabby thing, as he called it.

*Quite a number of hon members remarked on inflation. We have something to be proud of when it comes to inflation. We have achieved our objectives in regard to inflation in the short term. However our “inflation formula”, if I may call it that, is not entirely under our control. The hon member for Lichtenburg said it was poor planning. He did not have any plan to cope with a falling gold price. What is his plan for coping with a falling gold price, or does he not understand that if the source of half of our foreign exchange quite suddenly diminishes drastically and pressure is placed on our reserves during a period of relatively high economic growth it converts immediately into a declining trend in the exchange rate? Does he not understand that essential imports then immediately become more expensive?

I spoke about essential imports. A moment ago I asked one of my advisers for the latest available figure on Calendar 1988. The figure they gave me—this is, of course, subject to confirmation a little later in the year—indicated that as little as 16% of our imports last year were ordinary consumer goods. The remainder constituted capital and intermediary goods. In other words, a machine or something one imports in a machine to manufacture something, immediately becomes so much more expensive. These are not imports which one can simply cut off, and it has an immediate snowballing effect on the economy.

I now ask the hon member what plan he has to deal with these circumstances. Is he going to say to the importers: “I am sorry, my friends, no machines and no intermediary goods, because that is going to cause inflation.” What plan does the hon member have for a falling gold price? Let us hear it from him. What is his plan to deal with few reserves? What plan does he have, with his political policy, for the fact that we have no international banker?

He says we have no plan, but I say that we have achieved our objectives with inflation and we are proud of that. I shall have more to say about this in a moment.

I want to tell the hon member for Durbanville that I shall take his proposal to the Cabinet. I shall discuss it with the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs first, and propose that we should perhaps give attention to a productivity year. I think this could have considerable merit and that we should examine this matter properly.

I come now to the balance of payments. The hon member for Barberton and other hon members said that it would appear that fiscal and monetary measures, applied to reduce imports, had been inadequate. Yes, that is true. We have not cooled down the economy adequately. However the answer does not lie, as he and other hon members argued, in import control and more import permits. There is my colleague, the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs. Already we have to issue a whole series of import permits. We placed an enormous surcharge on imports in order to discourage imports by way of market forces. Nevertheless we find that imports are still occurring. As I said, however, it is the corporative sector that is investing. That is what makes it extremely difficult to cool down the economy. At the moment, so it appears to us, it is corporate credit rather than an excessively increasing consumer credit, but we can have better analyses of this matter later.

The fact is, however, that when it comes to restricting imports, South Africa in its Southern African context, as a member of the customs union with the BLS countries, and as a member of the customs union with the TBVC countries, cannot introduce an absolutely watertight permit system. It is as simple as that. If the hon member for Barberton wants to put that point again in a debate, I want to ask him very courteously today whether he will not consider also stating his party’s standpoint to us in respect of how they see South Africa’s position in Southern Africa. Our customs union agreement is a cardinal factor, not only in regional development, but in regard to South Africa’s international position. I should like to hear what he has to say, in some debate or other, about the question of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, as well as the question of the customs union agreement and whether he will respect it.

The CP, if we can believe them, is irrevocably committed to the rapid multiplication of independent Black states. In other words I must accept that when they talk about independence, they are talking about real independence. Then they are referring to a country which is as independent vis-à-vis South Africa as Zimbabwe is, for example.

Then I want to know from him what happens to imports and what happens to our soft borders. Is it a customs post? Every time we drive through one of the Black areas, will there be a customs union or not? These are cardinal matters which compel the CP, at some stage or another, to play an honest political game with the voters of South Africa. This is extremely important.

As regards the forward cover to which the hon member and other hon members referred, I just want to state this one point. Yes, the amount owing by the Treasury at the moment is an enormous amount. However, that amount can begin to change tomorrow or in a month’s time. I am not saying for one moment that in the end we are going to wipe out that total amount owing to the fluctuation of that balance. The simple truth, however, is that that money is already in the economy. I accept that the hon member did not argue that we should levy taxes now merely to settle that account, because to levy taxes now to settle that account would really, with all due respect, be a completely incorrect step.

In the end we paid a billion rands. Previously the hon member for Yeoville adopted a standpoint that was opposed to our not paying. Now that we are paying, if I heard him correctly, he criticised that too. However I shall leave it at that. The fact of the matter is that we have that balance, but it need not be made good in the short term. It is a matter between the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Reserve Bank. The fact that there is a balance there at present which would be beneficial to us if we settled it now, has no economic effect.

I want to concede at once that, with the exception of the creation of real income for married women receiving remuneration, this Budget did nothing to encourage savings; except in the case—as I said—of women receiving remuneration who are now taxed separately, and perhaps in the case of elderly people over 65 who now pay considerably less—those who earn more than R12 000 in taxable income, but less than R17 000.

However, we have done other structural things in this Budget that have had an important effect on the utilisation of savings, and the abolition of prescribed investment requirements is an extremely important matter. We can debate it further at a subsequent opportunity, but I think it is important that inter alia as a result of that step there is greater flexibility and professionalism—if I may put it that way—in our capital markets.

At present we are carrying out a whole series of investigations into the interaction between taxation and a number of variables in the economy such as taxation and savings, savings and investments, economic development, etc. In due course we shall come forward with the results of these investigations. The Reserve Bank is engaged in a study on savings as such—something which has not yet been finalised. Hon members will concede, however, that in this Budget at least we did not proceed in an irresponsible way with the savings of the people by not having an unnecessary large deficit before borrowing. Consequently we discouraged dissaving by the authorities in that respect.

A final point I want to raise is that we can spend a great deal of time discussing interest rates in this House today. Let me just say the following about interest rates. At present the economy is paying the price—although we could not necessarily have avoided it—for having made capital available at too low a cost for a long time. For a long time interest rates were negative and that caused capital to be utilised erroneously by both corporate investors and private individuals. Positive real interest rates are an important factor in the entire question of savings. When one talks about saving, one is immediately aware of the tremendously negative effect that inflation has on it. This is a matter which, of course, is also on the list of priorities.

Hon members spoke at some length about enlarging the economic cake. I think it was the hon member for Delmas who spoke about a growth rate of 5% to 6%. I want to ask him how, with the present limit imposed upon this economy owing to the fact that we do not have access to foreign loans, which limits us to a growth rate of 3% and less, he can speak of a growth rate of 5% to 6% without access to foreign investments. There is no doubt that a CP government would have no access to any loans anywhere abroad. I want to call upon a witness, but I do not want to betray a confidence. I politely want to ask the hon the leader of the CP, who is not here today, what an important foreign banker—in an important meeting one day with overseas bankers— told him about foreign loans if the CP were to govern South Africa.

That is only one opinion!

One opinion? If the hon member for Overvaal has any doubts, or is under any illusions, about the attitude of foreign bankers—I am not speaking about $1 million or $2 million, but about substantial amounts which tie up with South Africa’s cash-flow situation—let me invite him to my office. I am prepared to give him certain information which I cannot divulge across the floor of the House. If he then still displays such bravado about the so-called possibility of the CP obtaining foreign loans, I really will eat my hat.

The hon member for Delmas asked what had happened about the economic development programme. We have made great strides with that programme. Nine policy areas have been identified and must be developed in concert. There are no fewer than 30 advisory committees which will be involving the private sector and which are applying the finishing touches at the moment. We shall come to light with a cohesive, workable and practicable economic development programme, with a whole series of action programmes. The structural change we want to bring about in the South African economy in the future will be based on that.

†Mr Chairman, quite a number of hon members referred to the question of the rise in mortgage rates. There is no way that one can peg interest rates. Interest rates are nothing but the price of money. If one pegs interest rates too low or too high, on either side of the dividing point, it will bring about a distortion in the economy that will result in permanent structural damage to the economy.

There is only one response that the consumer can have in the modern world that we live in today, a world with fluctuating interest rates, and that is to exercise extreme caution when it comes to entering into contracts when buying a house. One must not over-extend one’s own resources when buying a house. Make room for the fact that there can be a fluctuation in the interest rate. If it comes down, it is to one’s benefit, but if it goes up, it should not jeopardise the most important investment in one’s whole life, one’s house.

There is no way that we can subsidise interest rates for everybody or for all houses. One can at best subsidise houses for a relatively small number of people in South Africa otherwise all the money that will come into the Treasury via taxes will eventually go into housing. It is simply an impossibility. One has to do one thing and not neglect the other. We cannot put all our money into housing. We cannot put all our money into welfare. We have a country with a diversity of needs and we have to achieve a well-balanced budget in apportioning the resources.

*The hon member asked about tax rebates. Anything is possible if everyone helps to pay for it, because one must not forget that a tax rebate forms part of State expenditure.

If one receives a tax rebate as a result of the fact that one has a policy, or something or other, this is tantamount to having received an amount from the State. It comes down to the same thing. That is specifically the problem that Mr Justice Margo and his commission identified. As a result of all the tax rebates we have granted, we have narrowed the tax base to such an extent that our tax rates have gone sky-high. The answer therefore lies in granting as few tax concessions as possible and in broadening the tax base as much as possible, thus keeping tax rates as low as possible.

I am afraid that at this stage of the game South Africa’s needs infinitely exceed its ability to meet those needs. For that reason one must determine priorities, and it is necessary for every political party to decide its priorities for itself and to spell these out to the voters. It is not possible to have the lowest possible tax and the maximum possible services at one and the same time.

The hon member Mr J Douw adopted a standpoint in opposition to capitalism. I want to state unequivocally that in spite of my appreciation for the intellectual contribution the hon member often makes, I have to disagree with him on this score. If we look around us at Africa, we see that there is a very good reason why South Africa is where it is.

Another hon member made a caustic statement about people in South Africa flourishing at the expense of the poor. [Interjections.] That is not true. I want to adopt the following standpoint, and I am prepared to stake my reputation on it. The simple truth of the matter is: I would rather have a large number of rich people in South Africa who each have a factory or a number of factories, who create many job opportunities and have many people working for them, than have no rich people and no job opportunities.

That simple fact I have just mentioned is the reason why the present events are taking place in Russia. That is the reason why people are turning their backs on socialism. By the way, to accuse this Government of being socialistic is really so much nonsense. Suffice it to say, South Africa needs more rich people and not fewer rich people. South Africa needs people who are investing more money, contributing more labour and creating more job opportunities so that more people in South Africa can have a higher standard of living. There is no way in which the State can accept responsibility for job opportunities. This matter has been hashed and rehashed to such an extent that it is as old as the hills by now. I want to state that view as being the Government’s standpoint in every respect. The answer for South Africa is a system of free enterprise and a deregulated economy with the minimum of State intervention.

The hon member Mr Lockey touched upon a matter by referring to home-owners making small payments initially and then, at the end of the repayment period, paying a capital sum comprising the amounts by which the initial payments had been reduced. I think that is a very interesting proposal. The department’s advisers have informed me that there are quite a few insurance companies that have a very interesting variation of that scheme. I think it deserves further in-depth investigation.

There are, however, a few problems we shall have to overcome in the process, and that is where risk undertakings such as insurance companies can play a role. The problem is the following: If one were to purchase a house of R50 000 and one paid 7,5% in interest over the first year, 10% for the following two years and 18% for the last 15 years, based on present interest rates, this would mean that the initial capitalised interest would be eliminated over the final 15-year period.

If the home-owner were to abscond after only five years, or were to die without any insurance, the amount owing on such a house would be R81 000. If he had been paying that house off to a building society, the amount owing would be R48 000. There is consequently an enormous additional risk that accumulates during the first few years of such a scheme. If one could eliminate that risk, one could profitably examine the scheme, because neither the State nor the taxpayer could accept such a risk. One could, however, try to involve the private sector and the home-owner so that they could carry a portion of that risk.

I have asked the department to conduct an urgent investigation into this matter, and I shall keep the hon member informed about the progress being made. We can debate the issue at a later stage this year.

As far as the aged are concerned, hon members had a great deal to say.

†I say with the greatest respect that it is not necessary to remind this Government of the hardship of the elderly. The hon member for Sea Point made the point that we dealt shabbily with the aged in the past Budget. I would like to ask him whether he would please tell us, when he next has an opportunity to address Parliament, what he would have done in the case of those elderly people who are now in the category which he referred to. Those elderly people receive some kind of pension of several hundred rand per month, but no longer pay tax as a result of the fact that this Government has increased the tax threshold from just under R6 000 to over R17 000 in a period of five years. What would he have done to help those people? Would he have given them a subsidy and, if so, what would that subsidy have cost him? Has he made this calculation yet?

The DP cannot prescribe to us or set an example for us when it comes to compassion. The difference is that we have to meet our compassion with money and that money we extract, sometimes almost forcibly, from taxpayers’ pockets. That accountability and responsibility lies with the Government of the day. I would like him to put himself in that position and quantify for us what he would have done and how he would have generated the necessary funds to do it.

*Today I want to make an important point. Of course I have not checked the figures, but I want to quote from an inaugural address last year by Prof Swart of Unisa concerning the calculation he made about taxpayers in South Africa. On previous occasions I have told hon members what is happening in the case of income tax.

Owing to the fact that we raise the threshold for the aged each time, inevitably this also drags the threshold for young married couples along with it. Each year potential taxpayers fall off the income tax ladder. This means that there is a concentration of taxpayers amongst the Whites. This makes indirect taxation so important.

†There I differ diametrically—in a nice way, though—with the hon member Mr Thaver. Indirect taxation is the only way in which people who cannot make a contribution via income tax can contribute towards funding the services they so richly enjoy in many cases.

*Prof Swart made a calculation by dividing tax into two halves. He then took the half of the tax paid by those in the higher income groups. This he qualified in the following terms.

†Half of the total tax paid, but that half is paid by those on the higher side of the income scale.

*For every one such taxpayer he found that there were three unemployed, 15 schoolchildren, one tertiary student and 58 people qualifying for partially or fully subsidised health services. Those are alarming figures.

†I think this clearly indicates that there is a limit. That limit is not determined by our morality or otherwise. It is not determined by the limit of our compassion, or our willingness to extend a helping hand to the pensioner, the aged, the frail, the child or to anybody else in need of services from the State. That limit is determined by the extent to which the taxpayer can make a contribution. We face a desperate challenge at this stage to spread this tax load as equitably as possible among the various kinds of taxpayers in South Africa. In the case of income tax there is a concentration in the higher income tax areas, yes, and at the same time that works negatively with regard to entrepreneurship. When collecting indirect taxation from everybody else one has to be extremely careful that one does not overextend the poor, as was also correctly argued. I think the figures I quoted must certainly have a sobering effect on us all.

Reference was made to the bread subsidy which is under consideration right now. We are reviewing it in the light of the fact that it has been necessary to increase GST by 1% since the previous decision on the bread subsidy was taken. We are reviewing this matter in the Cabinet right now.

I do not accept that this Government is not doing everything in its power to promote housing in South Africa on as wide a scale as possible. What did we do a few years ago? We literally put our hand into the piggy-bank of the Central Energy Fund, took R400 million and in the interests of the country put it into the SA Housing Trust. Last year we supplemented that amount by a further R45 million which came from the proceeds of the transaction between Iscor and the IDC. I do not accept that this Government can rightfully be accused of not doing for housing absolutely everything it finds possible to do.

*Here the hon member for Barberton and other hon members—and I say this with the utmost respect—again fell into a trap. I accept their bona fides, but I should like to place the matter beyond all doubt. The Margo Commission adopted the standpoint that income tax should be reduced and that working women should be taxed separately—not the way we are doing it now, but in every respect. The Margo Commission lay down an express condition, stipulating that this could only be done if comprehensive business tax were implemented and if retail GST were jointly implemented. That was an express condition. I do not want to waste hon members’ time, but here is a comprehensive quotation. [Interjections.] The hon member for Overvaal will not understand this, of course, and that is why he says it would be a waste of time to quote it.

As a result of the fact that comprehensive business tax has not been implemented, we were compelled to accept the Margo Commission’s second-best proposal. The Margo Commission likewise indicated, very expressly, that the second-best alternative, ie that we convert from GST to VAT, would very considerably limit our options and that we would therefore not be able to make the same tax reductions as we would in terms of the first option. That is why I am saying very categorically that the fact that we have meanwhile been able to tax working women separately to the extent we have managed to do so, and the fact that we were able to grant the relief we have already managed to grant, is something that the Margo Commission did not, in fact, think would be possible this quickly if that one option were not opted for.

I now want to ask hon members who argue that we are not implementing the recommendations of the Margo Commission’s report to tell us: “Very well, if you, as a Government, are not implementing the recommendations, I am telling you that you should then have implemented the comprehensive business tax.” If there is anyone in this Parliament who holds the view that we should have implemented the CBT, I invite him to a friendly discussion with me and Prof Michael Katz who argued this point with the Gatt people in Europe. I shall then make that confidential information available to hon members. We could not possibly do so. Apart from resistance on the local front by the business sector, there are other reasons why we could not do so, and this has drastically restricted the scope and momentum of tax reform in South Africa. For that reason I can say that I am proud of whatever we have thus far managed to do in that regard.

†I come to a specific question or two that were raised in terms of tax. I want to thank the hon member for Yeoville for his contribution. Again I hope it is not the kiss of death, but I really appreciated the speech he made. Now that he has been elevated to a senior position in his new party I sincerely hope he will not retaliate and become as aggressive as he has been in the past if today I say to him that I really appreciate the contribution he made. We took note of it and there is an awful lot of substance in what he said. That kind of speech is productive. However, he did that under the PFP flag and I do not think he should take the credit with him to the DP.

He made mention of the question of value added tax. Let me just give the assurance that in the Budget review we said that we would make it available six months before, and we will stick to that undertaking that we gave.

He also made mention of the fact that he reckoned that close corporations should be taxed at the same level as individuals. I grant him that; the principle is fully acceptable to us. We would have done it if we had had the revenue-manoeuvring room to do it. We cannot do it at this stage—not on principle but on account of the fact that we could not sacrifice the revenue. It is certainly something that we will keep in mind as we go along.

*The hon member for Southern Free State asked for a State lottery. I merely want to tell him that the NP also withdrew bonus bonds because we were not interested in coming into conflict with the Churches. Merely from an investment point of view we are not prepared to give any consideration to establishing a lottery.

And horse-racing?

The hon member must take up the question of horse-racing in another forum. There are people who say that there is expertise involved. I have my own suspicions, but I am not going to express an opinion about that. This does not mean that if one commits one sin, one should commit every possible sin. Surely that is not a logical argument either.

I want to tell the hon member for Southern Free State—I do not see him here—that there is no proof that a State lottery in South Africa would be so profitable that we would really be able to make a fundamental contribution to State expenditure.

The hon member for Berg River said that we were selling the family silver for all kinds of nonsense. I invite him to come to my office—I shall discuss this with him—or he can speak to my hon colleague, the hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation. It is devoid of all truth. If someone told him that, it is wrong, and if that is a conclusion he himself came to, I respectfully submit that he is wrong.

The fruits of privatisation are expertly and responsibly dealt with within very specific guidelines. If he would come and discuss the whole context of privatisation with us calmly and quietly, he would—and I say this with all due respect—gain a completely different perspective. I have given up all hope of discussing this in the House, because there are also other hon members in the CP benches who are still playing that old tune on their fiddles. I have given up all hope of giving them any understanding of privatisation.

Come now, Barend, what have you done with the money?

That is the truth, Koos!

Mr Chairman, there are other aspects of the hon member for Berg River’s speech which I would rather discuss with him privately. I think he made a very interesting speech. I want to move along more quickly now.

†I would like to ask the hon member Dr Zach de Beer whether he can really blame us in Government circles for not having taken the DP seriously to date? Until they have proven themselves we have all the right in the world to be suspicious. At this stage they are trying to bring together a lot of people whom I certainly believe cannot be brought together.

I would like to know what his view of Prof Sampie Terreblanche’s standpoints is? How can he reconcile the DP with the fact that Prof Sampie Terreblanche has been attacking the English establishment as enriching themselves at the expense of everybody else in this country? How can he reconcile that kind of philosophy with the DP? I would like him to explain it to us so that we can at least attach some degree of credibility on that basis to what they are trying to tell us economically. If they have managed to bring him to a drastic reversal in his thinking, I would like to congratulate them. However, that is something we would like to understand.

There is another thing that we would like to understand. I will never forget the naked and brutal shock on the faces of PFP members the day when Dr Van Zyl Slabbert summarily announced his withdrawal from Parliament—his resignation. I would like to ask the hon member to explain to us one day what change of heart has now all of a sudden taken place with regard to his accepting Dr Van Zyl Slabbert back into the fold. It is something that we on this side of the House would like him to explain to us.

The hon member should also not blame us for maintaining our viewpoint that they are soft on security. I would like him to tell us why the same faces suddenly brought together under a new flag should be so different from the PFP? Same voices, same faces, different flag!

The PFP was never soft on security!

A new enthusiasm, yes! We would like them to maintain that. As regards the security measures, however, we do not want the hon member only to say that he is not soft on security, we would like him to review the security situation in South Africa and tell us how they would have handled a situation which we could only barely contain with what they call the “draconian measures” at our disposal. Let him take his time.

*The hon member is a man who is calm and relaxed. Allow him to take his time, and then one day he must tell us in this House why we and members of the public of South Africa should not regard the PFP as being soft on security matters. [Interjections.]

I want to make a few remarks in regard to the hon member for Pietersburg. I see him sitting here in the front. Firstly I want to tell him that he and his party, since they are engaged in disseminating their partition propaganda, are honour bound to tell the voters out there what has been said by the leaders of two of the communities they want to partition.

How many times have we not had an opportunity, in the joint meetings in this House, to hear it stated, expressly and explicitly, that partition is unacceptable to the other communities in this country who are represented in Parliament at present? If they want to implement partition, what is stopping him from telling us where the borders of his partitioned South Africa lie? What is stopping him? Prof Boshof became so impatient with him and with the CP that he put that idea down on paper. Why have we been waiting so long for that idea to germinate? What is delaying the geneses of that wonderful idea which, according to the CP, is the answer for Southern Africa?

Give us a chance to conduct a meaningful debate so that we can see where the borders lie. Then we and our advisers, inside and outside the party, could examine the financial implications of such a policy of partition. Then we could determine what would happen to State expenditure, inflation and national service in the event of partition.

We cannot be blamed from drawing incorrect conclusions if we do not have the correct information, but according to the information we have, I have no doubt that the period of national service would have to be five years. How else would one keep people away from the beckoning lights of the city? The CP wants to be a White majority, unless they take to the bush where the city lights have not yet intruded. They could do so, but that is not how they see it. If they want to achieve their aims, they must tell us how long the period of national service is going to be. They must also tell us what the effect on the economy is going to be.

They must tell us what they are going to do about the TBVC countries and the governmental proliferation, because it costs a great deal of money. It is a costly option we are adopting, but we believe that it is one that eliminates conflict, and we are therefore prepared to ask the voters to finance it. If one wants to take it to the level that the CP advocates, the CP must tell one what it wants to do to make it possible to evaluate and quantify this system. Then we could meaningfully discuss this with one another and give the voters honest politics. Then hon members of the House of Representatives could decide whether they wanted to be partitioned or not. [Interjections.]

There is a portion of the country which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly spoke of as the hinterland and as a paradise at the time, but where even the ants have to walk on crutches because they are malnourished. These people accepted that, but now it is part of Prof Boshof s White homeland.

Give us an opportunity to enter into a meaningful debate with the CP. The CP clings tenaciously to that dream. It does so because it has become rigid in its thinking. However inept they may be at figures—and in a moment I shall indicate to hon members how inept the hon member for Lichtenburg is with figures—when it comes to politics they are obsessed with figures. They think that the politics of numbers is the answer.

Let me tell them that the politics of numbers is the politics of violence, because in the politics of numbers—as we interpret the situation with the information at our disposal—there is only one alternative if one does not get one’s way, and that is violence as an option. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon member whether he has actually considered whether the CP has become so afraid of a situation in which agreement is reached about the sharing of certain responsibilities and powers that they have latched onto a dream in order to avoid the issue.

Do they have such poor leadership, and are they certain that a White man would be safer in that dream homeland which surely cannot come into being, that he would be safer there than he would be in a country in which he has negotiated himself into an unassailable position?

You tell us how!

The fact that they get so excited about the question shows that they have not yet thought that far. The truth is that the NP would not, by a process of negotiation or by any other process, allow itself to be placed in a subservient position in the country in which it is living. The NP will not be subservient. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon the Minister please resume his seat. The hon member for Overvaal has made enough interjections this afternoon. Hon members of the CP must give the hon the Minister an opportunity to complete his speech. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We shall not allow the Whites to become subservient to any other people or ethnic group.

This type of oversimplification will not get the CP anywhere. This does not mean, however, that we preach subservience for any other population group, because the truth of the matter is that the major test for imaginative White leadership is now at hand. I fully and completely endorse what my hon leader-in-chief has said—I shall put it in a nutshell—and that is that we shall negotiate a new constitution in which everyone will participate on the basis of non-subservience in the country of our birth. At the same time we will not, in the country of our birth, be oppressors of those who live here with us either.

I endorse what my hon leader-in-chief said about there being no domination of one group by another. I endorse the fact that there is an enduring and undeniable need for an own community life without discrimination.

I endorse his desire for, and statement about having, a strong economy based on free competition. I endorse the social and economic upliftment of the less privileged, and I endorse the maintenance of law and order. In conclusion let me quote him:

He said that we should talk to the other population groups right now. I eagerly look forward to the advent of that new dimension to the discussion he has undertaken to initiate.

We have so much to be proud of. There are so many opportunities that this country now offers us. There are opportunities on the economic front. The opportunities presented to us in an extremely limited sphere we have seized with both hands. Last year we had the highest growth in the real GDP and GNP since 1984.

Our per capita GNP increased by approximately 2% in 1988. I want to ask the hon member for Lichtenburg to remember what I am now telling him. In a country such as America, for example, growth is measured by the GNP. We always use the GDP, but let us look at the results of that criterion. The per capita figure was 2% last year. In the past four years there has only been one quarter in which we did not succeed in administering the country in such a way that we could generate the necessary surplus on the current account—only one quarter in a period of four years. Yes, Sir, those are the constraints under which we have to administer the country, but in only one quarter did we not succeed in achieving the required figure.

Last year our inflation rate was the lowest in four years. Our public debt, as a percentage of the GDP, is decreasing and is lower than that of England, the USA, Japan and Canada. As a percentage of current State revenue, the Central Government’s debt is decreasing. Not the USA, Japan, Canada or West Germany can say about its country what I am now telling hon members about South Africa. Our overall foreign debt as a percentage of exports, now supposedly increasing by leaps and bounds, decreased from 171% in 1984 to approximately 85% last year—in other words, by half.

According to the latest available figures productivity, measured against the GDP per labourer at constant 1980 prices has increased by 2,2%— twice the average for the eighties. Remuneration per labourer, in real terms, is increasing for the first time since 1984. The unemployment rate— both the registered rate and that based on surveys—has been decreasing for two years now.

The deficit before borrowing, as a percentage of the GDP, decreased last year as against the previous year, and it is predicted that it will decrease even further this year. The deficit before borrowing of the public sector as a whole has consistently decreased since 1981 from more than 8% to 5% in 1987, which is the latest available figure. This has happened in spite of a gold price which is decreasing. In 1980—which the hon member for Lichtenburg’s advisers always present to him as the base-year— the average gold price was $612,94. Now it is less than $400.

We have had tremendous droughts and floods. We are faced with an intensive sanctions campaign. We do not have access to foreign loans. We have loan repayment obligations. We receive no assistance from the IMF. During this period we have had unrest, which undermines business confidence. We have had military action. We have an opposition which puts the fear of the devil into the hearts of every foreign investor. All these negative factors we have overcome, and we have had a series of positive manifestations, as I have just mentioned to hon members.

I want to tell hon members about the image of this country that is created by the CP. The hon member for Lichtenburg says that State expenditure, as a percentage of the GDP for 1989, is increasing at a rate of 32,4%. Do hon members know, however, what the hon member is apparently doing? I had my experts examine his figure. He apparently calculated this figure by taking this year’s Appropriation figures and expressing them as a percentage of last year’s GDP. [Interjections.] Yes, his figures are completely wrong. I asked for his speech and gave it to my advisers. They used his speech, not what I had heard. Those figures of his are completely wrong and cannot be used for purposes of comparison at all.

What is the truth about State expenditure? Hon members must now listen carefully. In 1989-90 State expenditure will be approximately 26,8% of the GDP, which is lower than last year’s figure of 27,3%. Those are the verifiable facts. The hon member cannot even make a simple calculation such as this. He had all the time in the world, but I had to react to his speech within a few minutes of his having resumed his seat.

I have already pointed out to him his allegations about public debt which, he says, is increasing by leaps and bounds. I do not know how much longer we, as a country, can afford such an Official Opposition. This year the South African electorate has an opportunity, like a rag used to wipe up a mess, to eliminate this kind of negative CP politics at the polls—distortions based on incorrect calculations.

The South African voters have a responsibility towards their children and towards the future of this country, and the responsibility lies in dealing with the CP in terms of the quality of the contributions made by its members in this House.

I am at least glad that it is parliamentary for the hon member for Overvaal to joyfully throw his hands in the air at everything I have said, now that he has managed to keep his mouth shut, but I want to place it on record that although the hon member for Overvaal has been silenced, he has indicated, by means of gestures, his complete support for what I am now saying.

What does the hon member for Lichtenburg tell foreign investors? He is a senior spokesman of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. He says: “Do not believe what this Government is saying when it speaks to you about investments.” He also says: “This Government is adopting a socialist course, in direct contrast to trends throughout the world, with everyone moving away from socialism.” He defines his socialism to suit himself. If he is the great exponent of free enterprise that he says he is, what do the traders in Boksburg say about the CP’s variation on the theme of free enterprise? [Interjections.] What do Boksburg’s traders say about free enterprise? Are they satisfied with the kind of free enterprise being implemented by the CP? Surely his arguments are not indicative of free enterprise.

This Government is not increasingly seizing control of the production factors of this country, because the simple truth of the matter is that we are systematically reducing the State’s influence on production factors. By privatisation we are reducing the overall Government sector’s share in the economy. Consequently there are opportunities for investment here, not only for South Africans, but also for overseas investors. This Government is extending an invitation to them on the basis of an economy which is becoming even freer by means of a process of meaningful deregulation. I therefore ask foreign investors not to take any notice of what the hon member for Lichtenburg tells them. I want to conclude by referring briefly to the opportunities that exist for South Africans.

†We have an opportunity under the leadership of the new hon leader of the NP, who was given the opportunity by the hon the State President to become chief leader of the NP and who is committed to expediting the process of reform, to give it a new dimension. I think that was a dramatic step, the fruits of which will be visible in the coming election and also in those things that he has already committed himself to. I think that there are opportunities looming in the near future for a renewal of the impetus of the process of negotiation in South Africa.

We are committed to a negotiated new constitution, one which will improve our international standing immeasurably, not because of the fact that they may approve or disapprove of it but because of the fact that the negotiated constitution will give South Africans of moderate orientation the conviction that their reasonable aspirations will be fulfilled.

Our international standing stands on two legs, the first leg being our economy. I have amply referred to statistics which place our economy right now in an enviable position in terms of comparable countries. Our international standing as an economic entity is beyond reproach at this stage. Economically speaking we are a country with whom the rest of the world and the bankers of this world would like to do business. I have proof of that. Only this morning I had an interview with an international banker.

Our international standing as a team to manage the economy of this country through its most trying and difficult years is shown in the confidence the international community has expressed in this particular team.

Our international standing in terms of the economic leg is firm and our international standing in terms of the political leg is something which holds a tremendous degree of promise. The challenge is whether the public of South Africa will respond and give our new leader, the NP and the new government which will be formed the opportunity to give tremendous impetus to the process of reaching a settlement in this country. In the process we will be proving the statistics of Africa wrong, that is our challenge. It is the value systems that we carry that give us the confidence that we, in fact, can say that we accept this challenge and that we will change the face of Southern Africa by a process of reasonable negotiation.

I conclude by making one statement which in my perspective is the most important: How sad it is that those participants in the process of a negotiated new constitution will not be able to see their efforts adequately underpinned by economic fruits coming from the system of free enterprise to the same extent that would have been possible had we not been constrained by international actions, which at this stage have proven to be totally irresponsible and ineffectual. How good it would have been if we had been able to release the pent-up energy and resources of this country to underpin the process of reform and the risk of those moderate leaders who will take part by delivering the goods to the people who will support them and nominate them in the negotiation process.

*Mr Speaker, it was a privilege for me to reply to this long debate because it is a new kind of debate. These are new circumstances in which we find ourselves. I am proud and grateful for the fact that I have been able to report positive results and that I can, with every justification, ask the South African public to take note of that, even if certain opposition members do not take note of the fact that this country has indicated that it has not succumbed in these difficult times.

Let me conclude by expressing my regret at the fact that I have just received a note in which I am informed that someone who is well-known to all of us, and who has played a major role in local government in the Transvaal, Mr Danie van Zyl, passed away this afternoon.

My sincere thanks for the opportunity to react. I trust that we shall, in the remaining debates, be able to discuss all the aspects that are possibly still left.

Order! It is with regret that I have learned of Mr Danie van Zyl’s death this afternoon. He made an exceptional contribution in the field of local government in South Africa. From our side I shall make the necessary response.

Mr Speaker, I have heard that we apparently have to close this shop temporarily on 26 May and therefore I shall be brief.

The CP will be voting against the passing of this Appropriation Bill inter alia for the following reasons. The recurring deficit before borrowing for which the hon the Minister is budgeting is being aggravated by the fact that the greatest percentage of the money which is being borrowed is being spent on non-capital expenditure which therefore makes it consumption expenditure.

In addition, the CP cannot vote for this Budget because the hon the Minister, in spite of the fact that he has increased GST and raised fuel levies drastically, has made no direct provision for tax relief for the normal taxpayer. By the hon the Minister’s own admission there is no incentive whatsoever in this Budget for the individual to save; on the contrary, saving by the individual is being discouraged.

Mr Speaker, this is in many respects an historic occasion as it is the first time that the DP will vote as a party in this Chamber and in Parliament.

The DP will vote against the First Reading of the Appropriation Bill for a number of reasons: Firstly, because the Budget does not address the long term economic problems of South Africa.

Secondly, there is an inadequate assessment of the priorities for expenditure and a failure to reduce the overall expenditure in sufficient measure.

Thirdly, in failing to address the priorities, the Budget does not adequately deal with social pensioners and other persons in need. It does not provide for filling the 2 500 vacant posts in the police force. These policemen are needed in order to fight crime. It also does not deal appropriately with the need to remove discrimination in the provision of social services in South Africa.

Fourthly, the Budget fails to give the necessary encouragement for the savings which the state of the economy requires.

Fifthly, it does not address the problem of fiscal drag which has had the effect of reducing the disposable income of people.

Sixthly, it does not provide sufficient fiscal incentives, nor does it indicate adequate action to promote the inward industrialisation that is necessary for job creation.

Seventhly, it does not give encouragement to worker and employee share ownership schemes.

In his Budget Speech, the hon the Minister raised serious problems which face the country. However, in its substance the Budget does not address the very problems which the hon the Minister himself has raised. For these and other reasons which have been raised by hon members of this party, the DP will vote against the Budget.

Mr Speaker, this afternoon the DP and the CP illustrated once again the old truth that the highest calling they see for themselves in this Parliament is to aspire against one another to be the official opposition. [Interjections.]

I think the hon the Minister mentioned a very important fact, namely that we had succeeded in buying time to solve our political problems. It is essential that we use that time. It is very clear to me that this only happened because the hon the Minister had the courage of his convictions to put South Africa first, above short-term opportunism, above party-politics and above emotionalism. He based his Budget simply and solely on logic and reason. His success and the success of his Budgets over the past few years are inter alia measured against the following:

†Firstly, he has achieved sustained positive growth over the past four years, despite almost insurmountable problems facing him. Secondly, he has succeeded in bringing inflation down from over 16% to a current 12,5%. Thirdly, the decrease in the deficit before borrowing has been a tremendous success. Fourthly, a sure sign of success is the fact that the unemployment figures for all races have declined considerably. Fifthy, the hon the Minister has successfully and positively started the structural changes in the Budget’s style and terms which form and will form the basis for further developments which must follow.

*In contrast to this success story I must assess the alternatives of the hon members for Barberton and Yeoville. The question is therefore what these alternatives are. This is where we have reached the cardinal, critical situation that both these hon members are critically negative, but unfortunately that is all. No alternative hypotheses were offered to these positive hypotheses and to this positive Budget which the hon the Minister presented. It was all mere criticism. Particularly if one considers the hon member for Yeoville, one sees that the points he made were intelligent and essentially critical points against a Budget, but he made the same mistake and lives in the euphoria of an opposition party by merely being critically negative and not stating his alternatives. This does not hold water against the success story of a Budget. It does not lay down a practicable set of rules. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Are the hon members in the House of Delegates who wish to vote against the first reading of the Bill entitled to make a declaration of vote?

No, it is only when a division can take place that that is the procedure.

As fewer than four members (viz Poovalingam P T; Rajab M) supported the demand for a division.

Question declared affirmed.

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—98: Alant T G; Bekker H J; Blanche J P I; Bloomberg S G; Bosman J F; Botma M C; Brazelle J A; Breytenbach W N; Camerer S M; Christophers D; Cunningham J H; De Beer S J; De Klerk F W; Delport J T; Dilley L H M; Du Plessis B J; Edwards B V; Farrell P J; Fick L H; Fismer C L; Geldenhuys B L; Golden S G A; Graaff D de V; Grobler A C A C; Grobler P G W; Heunis J C; Heyns J H; Hugo P F; Hunter J E L; Jager R; Jooste J A; Jordaan A L; King T J; Koornhof N J J v R; Kotzé G J; Kriel H J; Kritzinger W T; Kruger T A P; Le Roux D E T; Lemmer J J; Ligthelm C J; Louw E v d M; Louw I; Louw M H; Malan M A de M; Malherbe G J; Marais G; Marais P G; Maree J W; Maree M D; Matthee J C; Matthee P A; Meiring J W H; Meyer A T; Meyer R P; Meyer W D; Myburgh G B; Nel P J C; Niemann J J; Nothnagel A E; Odendaal W A; Olivier P J S; Oosthuizen G C; Pretorius J F; Pretorius P H; Rabie J; Radue R J; Retief J L; Scheepers J H L; Schoeman R S; Schoeman S J (Sunnyside); Schoeman S J (Walmer); Schoeman W J; Smit F P; Smith H J; Snyman A J J; Steenkamp P J; Steyn D W; Steyn P T; Swanepoel J J; Swanepoel K D; Swanepoel P J; Thompson A G; Van Breda A; Van der Merwe A S; Van der Merwe C J; Van Deventer F J; Van Gend D P de K; Van Niekerk W A; Van Rensburg H M J; Van Vuuren L M J; Van Zyl J G; Veldman M H; Viljoen G v N; Vilonel J J; Vlok A J; Welgemoed P J; Wessels L.

NOES—37: Andrew K M; Burrows R M; Coetzee H J; Cronjé P C; Dalling D J; De Beer Z J; De Jager C D; De Ville J R; Derby-Lewis C J; Eglin C W; Gastrow P H P; Gerber A; Hardingham R W; Hartzenberg F; Jacobs S C; Langley T; Le Roux F J; Lorimer R J; Malcomess D J N; Mulder P W A; Nolte D G H; Paulus P J; Pienaar D S; Schoeman C B; Schwarz H H; Snyman W J; Soal P G; Suzman H; Swart R A F; Treurnicht A P; Uys C; Van der Merwe J H; Van Eck J; Van Gend J B de R; Van Vuuren S P; Van Wyk W J D; Walsh J J.

Mr Speaker, now that the new Rules have been operative for approximately a year, it will serve a useful purpose if the House considers their effectiveness compared with the system which was in use previously. It is not inappropriate either to cover the entire parliamentary sphere in review.

In the first place I want to say that debating in the Great Hall is simply not answering its purpose. Regardless of the fact that mixed debating appears increasingly clearly to be worthless in this parliamentary Government, this Great Hall simply does not lend itself to effective debating face to face. It is nothing but a lecture hall. Neither do we debate—we are talking past one another! This week we have spent five days just listening to lectures. [Interjections.] All that has actually been achieved is that hon Ministers do not need to reply to debates three times. Nevertheless, we now have to listen to an hon Minister speaking three times as long in his reply. Some revel in making the fullest use of this extended time.

Secondly, the inelegant way in which the Rules were bent in September last year to save the Government from its greatest and most humiliating embarrassment ever is still in the forefront of one’s mind. Hon members will recall that amendments to the Rules were made in terms of Rule 2 (1) last year without the amendment being published or promulgated in advance.

Thirdly, the allocation of time to political parties remains unsatisfactory. I know that the hon Chief Whip of Parliament keeps coming up with arguments, for instance that we have more time at our disposal at present in joint committees and provincial extended public committees and that we are now supposedly moving away from a Westminster democracy.

We want to state this categorically. Whether it is a democracy in the Westminster, Bonn or Washington style, democracy must be seen to be done. It must not take place behind closed doors. It must not be extended to provincial capitals where non-elected administrators and nonelected MECs report to members of Parliament. The public takes no interest in that type of debate. They are not present in the galleries.

Look for instance at the extended public committee on provincial affairs in the Orange Free State which had to take place in Bloemfontein. Free State democracy was extended to Bloemfontein, but, when there was no accommodation in Bloemfontein, that democracy was re-extended to the Cape where the Free State debate was held.

This is ridiculous. It is a farce! Since 1 April the alarming events in SWA have escalated and to such a degree that the South African Government—note well— the South African Government—requested a special sitting of the Security Council and this was accorded them. On Monday, 3 April, the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly asked for a special sitting of the House of Assembly to discuss the SWA matter. Our argument was that an adequate number of MPs were present in Cape Town to discuss the Cape Province and Free State affairs and members of the Cabinet were all here too. Consequently there was a quorum present. Mr Speaker could nevertheless not approve that urgent debate because Parliament was fragmented in the provinces for a period of three days. Parliament was in session, however! All this while the situation in SWA was assuming crisis proportions! According to us this is not good enough.

I now want to get to the question of the coming election to which the NP is looking forward with unexpectant joy. The hon leader-in-chief of the House is the leader of the NP in the Transvaal as well as the leader of the NP in the country. On 12 March the hon the State President said on television that there could be no question of an election this year because orderly delimitation first had to be carried out. In terms of the agreement reached with the hon leader-in-chief, however, he had to give way. On 6 April, 18 days later, the hon the State President was still saying that it would be the best basis on which to hold a general election—seen from various points of view. Nevertheless he gave in to the hon leader of the NP and in the very place where the most effective disenfranchising of voters is the greatest and cries to high heaven—that is in the Transvaal.

Permit me to mention a few facts in this connection. The Transvaal has 76 seats and 1,685 million voters. The Cape Province has 58 seats and 852 570 voters. The Transvaal has nearly twice as many voters as the Cape Province but has only 18 seats more than the Cape. This is a total distortion. The Transvaal has 22 000 voters on average per constituency in urban areas and the Cape Province has an average of 15 000 voters per constituency. Constituencies in rural areas in the Transvaal—I am referring to the House of Assembly—have 20 517 voters and Cape rural areas have 12 900 voters.

Here are a few more disturbing contrasts. On 31 December 1988 North Rand had 40 651 voters and East London City 15 432 voters. Bethal, a rural constituency, has 30 000 voters and Beaufort West 9 000. Pretoria East has 37 200 voters and Green Point 13 700. The Transvaal is entitled to at least 11 seats more than the Cape Province, even if there is no increase in seats.

The hon the State President realised this and stated categorically that there would be no election before the delimitation had taken place but the hon leader-in-chief of the NP treated this with disdain. He is in too much of a hurry to become the State President. [Interjections.] He should recall the old adage that one should look before one leaps. [Interjections.]

Order! The Parliament Vote is under discussion.

I have finished with that, Mr Speaker. I merely want to say that we have been governed long enough in an atmosphere of disruption and uncertainty.

Mr Speaker, the hon member who complained that he could not debate here, certainly debated this afternoon. I would not regard what he presented to us as a lecture, because a lecture should comply with certain standards. [Interjections.]

Let me deal consecutively with the points made by the hon member. He complains that no debate takes place in the Chamber of Parliament.

In the House of Assembly too, where we debated with one another over many years, we often listened to lectures. There are hon members whose style it is to deliver a speech in a certain way. There are hon members who excel in making informative speeches which are delivered in a certain style.

Then there are hon members who debate, and also hon members who provoke other members in a debate and who then engage in a dialogue. This Chamber lends itself—for an hon member who can debate—to the hon member debating here just as well as he could do it anywhere else.

The problem experienced by those hon members and their party with debates in this Chamber is that here they are cut down to size. [Interjections.]

It’s a very small size too! [Interjections.]

Yes, Sir, because here it is demonstrated what a small factor they really are in politics. Here they cannot hide behind the green benches. Here they must also listen to the speeches of other South Africans who tell them how they feel. [Interjections.]

It is good for South Africa that we have an opportunity such as the one we have in this Chamber, where we can really speak honestly and frankly with one another. Those parties must also, just as we do in the majority party in the House of Assembly, account for the valid statements which are made by other hon members of the other Houses when they plead on behalf of their people and state their case.

The silence of the hon members of the CP when the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives told them with great responsibility and seriousness, on behalf of his people, that their policy for the Coloureds was totally unacceptable, was the most outstanding example of why it is a good thing that we debate here. [Interjections.]

It is a good thing. We do not recoil from the challenge to debate the real problems of South Africa here. We do not withdraw into the dream world into which those hon members want to withdraw.

Koos is still dreaming, even now! [Interjections.]

The hon member complains about the time allocations. Firstly he says that hon Ministers use too much time, and he blames it on the new Rules, but the hon the Minister of Finance would have had 300 minutes for his reply under the old dispensation.

Yes!

Yes, according to the old formula, which had always been accepted. He only had 90 minutes at his disposal today.

That is still too much!

I doubt whether he even used the full time.

He cannot!

That is why I say that it is not so. I have been informed that we bend over backwards, especially with regard to the allocation of time, to accommodate the opposition parties in the house of Assembly because the allocation is done per House.

With regard to this debate the Chief Whip of the House of Assembly allocated 25% of the time which should have been available to the NP to the opposition parties on a pro rata basis. [Interjections.]

For the sake of meaningful debate more additional time than they deserve is given to them on the basis of the support they have. For that reason we have nothing to feel guilty about when it comes to the allocation of time.

I come to the question of the provincial sessions. I have a suspicion that the hon members of the CP do not want to take part in the provincial sessions. They feel that here in the Cape they are hiding away from their power base in the Transvaal. I wish that we could hold many more debates in the Transvaal, so that the people in the gallery could see how the CP is defeated in every debate. [Interjections.] They are hiding away here in the Cape. Since when does the fiery Transvaler, who is addressing me so vociferously about delimitation, not want to participate and debate in his province? Does he want to hide away in the Cape? [Interjections.] There are deeper-lying reasons for it. There is something they seem to be ashamed of when they get to the Transvaal. [Interjections.] We shall have to look into this. I think that it is a wonderful and positive idea that, after the abolition of the provincial councils, we created an opportunity for our Administrators and MECs to account, in the province in which they work, to the public of that province for their administration.

This is the philosophical basis on which the decentralised sessions must take place. These are healthy democratic principles. The hon member does not complain if Parliament is unable to convene as a result of a recess. Now he suddenly says that Parliament has been disrupted because it sat elsewhere for three days. Is that a disaster? Perhaps there had also been a crisis the previous week. [Interjections.] Parliament does not sit throughout the year, and there is nothing that cannot wait three days, because there is a good Government which can in any case deal with the crisis in the meantime.

The hon member spoke about delimitation. I find myself in complete agreement with the hon the State President when he said that it would have been best if we could have had delimitation first. It is true that certain imbalances exist. Imbalances exist within provinces, and we shall certainly have to deal with the situation which has resulted owing to population shifts and changes since the previous delimitation. We in the NP know how we want to do it. We have a plan ready, without offending the other provinces, and now I speak as the leader of the Transvaal, who have their own unique problems, to restore the balance in a meaningful way, either to a large extent or completely in a meaningful way.

But that is not the reason why delimitation is not taking place. It is not as a result of the reasons mentioned by the hon member. What is relevant now is that we find ourselves in an election year.

The lifetime of this Parliament expires early in September 1989, and a choice had to be made because delimitation is time-consuming. Once the delimitation has been completed, new voters’ lists have to be compiled. Hon members who are familiar with the Electoral Act, know that the closing date for voters’ lists is a considerable period prior to the election date itself. Delimitation now would have pushed this country into an election date in respect of which there could have been no mobility, but by not delimiting now, the hon the State President and the Government reserve the right, according to the prevailing circumstances, to set the election date at an earlier or a later date.

That mobility at the end of a full term is a necessity for the democracy, because the result of an election that has been forced by a delimitation even into 1990, is that the whole country will be crippled by a year-long election campaign. [Interjections.] Do the hon members know why the CP is so anxious? They do not have money for the election, and they are afraid of the election. [Interjections.] They are not ready for an election. They are running away from an election. We on this side are ready, whether it comes now or tomorrow—we are ready to go to the electorate.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House whether he is planning to defend his constituency in Vereeniging.

If I should stand for the House of Assembly, I shall stand in Vereeniging. [Interjections.]

Those hon members are worried about delimitation. My question to them is whether they are ready to state policy against policy in the coming election campaign—I do not want to disregard the Chair; I merely want to react to this point— and not hide behind technical points. That is what the election should be all about; not about all these “red herrings” which the hon member is trying to drag across the path. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude and say that I agree with one matter that the hon member mentioned, namely that we, after the time we had with respect to the new Rules, as well as the amendments thereto, must ask ourselves if the Rules really comply fully with the requirements of our parliamentary democracy. On our side we feel that there are a few Rules which could beneficially be reconsidered in order to improve the functioning of Parliament, and we are prepared to institute a revision procedure in a constructive way. As a matter of fact we undertook to create such an opportunity when we introduced new Rules and new insertions at the beginning of this year. The early adjournment of Parliament might make it impossible to do so before the end of this session. If it should appear to be impossible, I want to undertake—we shall win the election again, and we shall again be the majority party … [Interjections.] … to constitute a committee directly after the election, to see to a possible revision and improvement of the Rules.

You will not have a constituency!

I should like to take this opportunity, during this Parliament Vote, firstly to thank all the officials of Parliament very sincerely for the good work they have done. All hon members of this Parliament have reason to be grateful. The service we receive is excellent, and we want to thank the Secretary and his team sincerely, as well as all the service officers who help us so regularly, and all the other personnel who are involved in ensuring that all the proceedings of Parliament function smoothly. I should also like to address a special word of thanks and appreciation to Mr Speaker, and to those who assist the Chair— the Chairmen of the various Houses. Their guidance is excellent and their impartiality is an example. It can be compared to the best of all modern democracies.

We are proud of our Speaker, and we are very grateful for the wonderful, firm, but fair manner in which he presides over the activities of Parliament and for the way in which he is also prepared to act as advocate for Parliament as an institution. With these few words I move that the Vote be agreed to.

Order! I thank the hon the Leader of the House in the House of Assembly for his contribution and for being prepared to deal with this Vote on behalf of Parliament and myself.