Mr Chairman, I wish to begin by placing on record a very sincere word of appreciation and gratitude to the officials of my department and of the ministry. Without fear of contradiction I want to state that there are few countries with people in their public service who are comparable to this group that is associated with my department and my ministry.

This is the seventeenth Vote discussion I have taken part in since I arrived in Parliament. I have always believed that the discussion of a Vote comprises two fundamentally important elements. One of these is the taking of stock with regard to the period under review. The other is that of stockpiling with regard to a responsibility for the future. I remain convinced that since the announcement of the election date, the election has probably dominated the thoughts of the candidates and their respective expectations with regard to their chances of success, and that the forthcoming election will quite probably also dominate this debate.

I think it is quite natural that this should be the case. I nevertheless wish to share an experience with hon members.

Now, for the very first time, all the political parties serving in all three Houses of Parliament are going to take part in an election campaign. This means that people of divergent convictions and standpoints will frequently analyse one another’s policies. I remember that during the war years too, when emotions were running very high—I was still at school at that time—we often ended up having physical fights with one another. I remember that they brought the chief of police to us. Nevertheless, this did not do much good, until a wise school principal called us boys together one day and told us that it did not matter whether we had fights or whether we hit or missed one another; in either case we were harming the school. I want to ask, and I include myself in this regard, that when we fight our opponents, we should do so in such a way that South Africa will benefit from it, and will not be hit.

There is a natural tendency among all politicians and candidates at election time to conduct opinion polls of the preferences, and often also of the prejudices of voters, and to formulate their standpoints and determine their strategies on the basis of the results of those opinion polls. I think it would be very short-sighted of any political party or candidate not to do so. On the other hand, it would be catastrophic if that were all we did.

The election is fundamentally concerned with the future of our country, our vision, our plan and our policy in order to meet that future. This requires of us that we shall not only follow, but that we shall also lead, even if this is often unpleasant.

In the process of taking stock, we shall naturally look back on the activities of the previous year. We shall quite probably also look back at the functioning of Parliament over the past five years. If we do that, we shall have to determine criteria against which we shall be able to measure our failures and our successes. I ask hon members to note that I use the word “our” because this institution, its activities, its successes or failures are our joint responsibility. I believe that these yardsticks or criteria ought to be the following—progress, security and justice. However, in my view, our stockpiling for the future will also have to bear relation to our vision and our plans for continued progress, security and justice, in the knowledge that the one is not possible without the other.

I do my own stock taking and stockpiling on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the NP. The first question I wish to raise is how we view the particular responsibilities and the ideals of the Government and of the NP in the process of political development in our country.

As the Government, the NP has the responsibility, together with others both inside and outside this House, of creating and maintaining the climate within which political development may take place. The extent of the success attained in this regard, is reflected in the following results of surveys that were recently conducted:

I maintain that not only do these facts reflect the credibility of the vision which the NP and the Government has for the future of our country, but they are also an indication of the credibility of the institutions that have been created and that are envisaged for further constitutional development. They also underscore the vision of progress, security and justice.

We may differ with one another, but the Government’s record is one of a government that gets things done. It is geared heavily towards security and stability, but it is also greatly concerned with what must be done and when it must be done. The secret of success—here, too—is to do what one has to do, and not what one wishes to do, and to do it with so much enthusiasm that people believe that that is how one wished to do it. That is a difficult responsibility and one which few people succeed in. We shall not, and we may not, allow ourselves to be deterred by foreign or local pressure of whatever nature. Neither may we be deterred by the fear of unpopularity. We shall have to do what has to be done in the acceptance of the fact that there will be support for it in the long term.

I want to say in all humility that there is no other party that has the proven record, the proven competence and the will to guide South Africa through such extremely complex and dangerous political development, but in negotiating and deliberating with others, the NP as a political party is the representative of a specific sector of the people of the country.

For this reason it is concerned with safeguarding what has already been accomplished. In the process of progress, security and justice this remains the primary responsibility of the NP. The NP also realises that it will only be able to ensure what it wishes to accomplish for its own people and what it wishes to do for them within an environment, including a political environment, of security, progress and justice for all the people in our fatherland.

For this reason everyone must be partners in the legislative, executive and judicial institutions of our country because justice demands this, but also because progress, security and justice for the Whites demands this. It would not be possible to ensure the safety of those people whom I represent if it did not exist in equal measure for other people. That is why the NP as a party is acting as an equal partner with any other party in the negotiations, but as the Government it has the responsibility to pilot those plans that have been agreed on by way of consensus through the institutions of Parliament.

We are co-operating and negotiating with leaders of other groups who have the same aspirations for the people whom they represent, and who have the same approach, namely that this can only be assured for their people if South Africa as a whole is prosperous and safe and if South Africa’s institutions in general serve the requirements of justice. There are many such leaders. I should like to afford them recognition today as worthy partners and as leaders who are co-responsible for the future, but who may also claim co-responsibility for a great deal for what has already been accomplished. They are sitting in this Parliament. Everyone sitting here has made a contribution in that regard. [Interjections.] I claim the success for all of us.

†What is our vision for South Africa? It is one of progress, security and justice, of national unity of purpose among all communities making up this beautiful but complex society.

Our vision is one of a democratic society and of a government in which all participate, a South Africa of equality amongst all the people based on protection of individual and group interests and rights. We would like to see a South Africa which, after 300 years of much misunderstanding, mistrust and conflict, will have developed into a fully democratic society with the responsibility for government divided amongst all and shared by all.

We would wish for a South Africa in which the grievances of the past are dead and buried and in which all of us will walk tall. This is my vision for South Africa.

The Government is often accused of being vague in its constitutional policy for realising this vision. The question is often put: Does the Government have a plan or a model for the future? I want to argue that the Government has a clearly defined constitutional policy; that the Government has a plan based on that policy; and that the Government also has a definite strategy to implement this plan.

Let us look at this argument. The constitutional policy of the Government comprises the following key elements:

Firstly, given the heterogeneous nature of South African society, the Government is committed to the protection of those groups wanting to be recognised as groups.

How?

By law. This can be realised, inter alia, by group participation in national decision-making, while the groups themselves decide on matters concerning their own interests.

Secondly, a balance should be maintained between the rights of individuals and the rights of groups in accordance with Christian values and civilised norms, supported—I want to emphasise this—by an independent judiciary and equality before the law. We are committed to the elimination of discrimination on the basis of race, colour or creed or on any other basis.

Thirdly, the Government realises that compulsory group classification and participation in political institutions are obstacles in negotiations and in finding solutions. I confirmed this in Parliament on 9 February this year. Many of the communities in our country rightly or wrongly associate compulsory group classification with racism and oppression. Many leaders will only be prepared to participate fully in negotiations once these obstacles have been removed.

Fourthly, the Government continues to support the choice of those, including the community that it represents, who seek group protection, but does not want to impose this on groups not wanting it. The Government wishes to offer groups and individuals a free choice in this regard. Such an approach implies that individuals who prefer to participate as groups will be entitled to do so and will also be protected in their choice. Others may prefer to participate in the political process outside any group context. This right must be equally respected and protected.

Fifthly, except for those regions that prefer to become independent, South Africa is an undivided state, and this means that all political entities and regions are entitled to participation in democratic government institutions and processes at the highest level. Let me state clearly that the highest level is the executive and the legislative level.

This must be achieved on a basis of responsibility over matters affecting only themselves, for those entities preferring that, and power-sharing on joint interests of all entities.

To this end the necessary legislative and executive institutions will have to be created at all levels of government to allow for decisionmaking on the basis of consensus between these political entities. The freedom of choice of individuals and groups in this respect implies that the existing groups will at any level be free to decide on participation and decision-making on a group basis.

Those who do not want to participate on a group basis will for the purpose of participation, form an open or unaligned group. To that end we have already abolished the Prohibition of Political Interference Act already. The existence of groups and participation by groups are based on the freedom of choice and association.

By doing so we remove the rigorous nature of the group concept and it becomes a spontaneous, dynamic aspect of our constitutional development. This is the constitutional policy of this Government.

*What about the plan? Frequently in our debates we confuse two concepts with one another, namely that of a policy and that of a plan. Based on the policy which I have explained, the Government has a plan for the future constitutional dispensation of South Africa.

The LP has a plan.

Everyone has a plan. Our responsibility is to look at what is so common to our plans that it can form the basis for agreement.

I want to say that the plan which I wish to put to hon members, is a continuous extension of our policy, and it entails the following. Firstly it is our policy that all political entities should be able to take part in the election of the head of State, because he is everyone’s Head of State, and that the capacity of the office in a new constitutional dispensation warrants some reflection. The formula in accordance with which this should be done, must be negotiated between all the parties who are to participate in the Constitution.

Secondly, our policy implies an executive authority or an authoritative institution at the highest level in which all the entities are represented; call it a Cabinet if hon members will, or a Council of Cabinets. The fact remains that there must be an executive authority in which all South Africans participate. [Interjections.]

I am not prepared to answer any questions now; I am making a policy speech.

The composition and appointment of such an executive authority must once again be the result of negotiations between political leaders. In order to avoid domination, however, decisions must be taken in accordance with a consensus formula.

Let me say this: Regional services councils were the first important constitutional development in this country in which there were built-in mechanisms for consensus decision-making. [Interjections.] We can discuss them in greater length later on.

I wish that I could succeed in doing one thing, and that once I had succeeded in doing it, that could be the end of my public life. I wish we could rid ourselves of our preoccupation with the idea that we must rectify everything simply by means of a vote. We shall never be able to rectify everything merely by virtue of a vote. We shall, in fact, succeed in doing this by way of understanding for one another. We shall indeed succeed in doing this if we understand one another’s respective aspirations. We shall indeed succeed in doing it if we can bring about reconciliation through negotiation. [Interjections.]

This Parliament, incomplete as it is, it the result of negotiations between leaders. The fact that we are taking part in it, has never implied that we think it is perfect. We have all said that it is a part of the developmental progress of the politics of South Africa.

May I say this today? Well, let us say it to one another. Look at the hesitation with which we shared our restaurants with one another. Look at the hesitation with which we shared the joint sittings with one another. Look at the hesitation with which we entered joint committees. Today it is a pattern of the functioning of Parliament. Every member, even those who did not support it, may lay claim to the credit for that achievement. [Interjections.] There is a statement to the effect that a fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer.

Thirdly, why should we hide away or run away from it? Our policy implies and demands a legislative institution dealing with the common national interest at the highest level. Call it a parliament or call it a congress, as hon members will; there is a legislative authority on the cards for South Africa in which all the population groups will be represented. [Interjections.] Details regarding the precise composition, powers and functioning of the legislature must be determined by way of negotiation processes. That holds just as true for mechanisms and methods for the promotion of consensus between groups for the resolution of deadlocks.

Order! Hon members are now making too many interjections and speaking too loudly.

Mr Chairman, in such a legislative authority, built up on the principle of consensus, an accompanying veto could be the instrument, and an adjudicating body, if consensus cannot be reached. What we cannot avoid is the fact that there will be such a legislature. I want to appeal to everyone here today not to shy away from this challenge, but to work together enthusiastically towards such a legislature which will be able to satisfy us all and which will imply no domination.

Fourthly: Those political entities that prefer to do so, may have legislative and executive institutions at different levels for decision making with regard to their own affairs. I want to state that these institutions, including these three institutions, could form the basis of the participation by the entities concerned in a joint legislature and an executive authority at the central level.

Fifthly, we must continue with the development of systems for participation in decision-making at the regional and local levels. A great deal of progress has already been made. The functioning of the RSCs could possibly form an important basis for further development at all levels. I foresee different systems at this level. Total uniformity in every region ought not to be necessary, because the circumstances differ.

At the local level the development of systems for each community will be proceeded with. The viability of those institutions must, however, be the yardstick for the establishment of fully-fledged local governments. Wherever a community does not have the necessary viability, we shall have to consider a new approach of joint representation, possibly on the basis of a mini-RSC for the same town.

These are the central elements of the constitutional vision, policy and plan which the Government has for South Africa. I maintain that it builds forth on the direction we have already taken and on the progress that has already been made. It is directed at a system in which numbers will not be the decisive factor.

If it is implemented fully, this plan will be based largely on federal principles, particularly insofar as the demarcation of powers for entities and regions is concerned. As I view it, however, it will not be possible for this to be founded on a completely geographical federal basis. It is not possible to fix all of South Africa’s constitutional realities and requirements geographically.

For this reason I say that our plan is aimed at the establishment of a unique democracy for South Africa, which has been made by us in accordance with the needs and the stage of development of our country from time to time. For this reason it is going to be a dynamic process, and that is why it requires people of courage to do this, people who will be able to allay other people’s fears and who will be able to raise and to satisfy their hopes.

†I said that the Government also has a strategy to implement its plan. This is the process of negotiation, and the only alternative we have is violence. One thing we cannot escape in this country is change and adaptation. One only has a choice in regard to the strategy or method by means of which that change or adaptation is to come about.

This is the process of negotiation. Any plan can only become a reality if it can be implemented and afforded. Furthermore, it must be acceptable to the majority of the population, otherwise there is no hope for stability, progress, justice and fairness. [Interjections.]

We believe that the particulars of a plan should be determined through negotiation by all peace-loving South Africans.

The Government regards negotiation as a process, and we are engaged in the furtherance of this process and its extension to all levels. We are involved in the promotion of various opportunities and forums for participation in negotiations. We are also attending to the obstacles in the way of negotiations. However, we would not want to be prescriptive in this regard. Like all interested parties we intend to put our plan to the voters and, if approved, to introduce it into the negotiation process. I believe that there can be no doubt whatsoever about where we stand and there can be no doubt about our sincerity about the future of our country.

*The examples of development and the examples of the building blocks that have already been laid and upon which further building can take place, represent a proud record for Parliament and include the political development of the self-governing territories, the modified systems of provincial government with the inclusion of members of all population groups, the joint executive authority in Natal, the local elections in 1988, the establishment of regional services councils as joint institutions, the work that has been done, and is still being done, in the President’s Council, the provision of free settlement areas, and this Parliament is also proof of the progress we have made.

Parliament is a success to the extent to which it has succeeded in dealing with conflict between the groups participating in it. I say today that we, and all hon members, have reason to be grateful and proud of our contribution towards dealing with conflict.

Parliament is a success to the extent to which it has led to effective consensus decision-making. Of course there have been times when we have not been able to agree and when the President’s Council has been asked to make the decision, but the President’s Council also functions in terms of the Constitution. We all went into it in the full knowledge that the resolver of conflict, if we were unable to agree, was the President’s Council. We should consider how many times in five years it was necessary to make use of that mechanism.

Parliament is an effective negotiation instrument in which all the participants can particulate and promote the interests of their communities. Go and look at the growth in expenditure in the appropriations of the respective Houses. Go and look at the improved education, at the improved housing, at the improved pensions and at the improved living conditions which have come about because leaders of communities have been able to come and emphasise the interests, the needs and also the pain of their people in Parliament.

Parliament is a particularly effective instrument for reform, as is apparent from the multitude of reform measures that have been adopted during the past five years, and which have also been our joint responsibility. All the participants, not only members of my party, have made a joint contribution for which I want to praise them.

The fact that the climate has changed from one of violence to one of peace, the fact that the institution of Parliament and the Houses have attained greater legitimacy, tell us that the venture we began in 1984 has been to the benefit of South Africa and all her people. [Interjections.]

All of us—I hope—have learnt in the process, although I hear that there are certain voices saying that they do not understand it.

All hon members are aware of the highlights. One of those highlights was when we jointly passed legislation here for the promotion of constitutional development.

We know about the bridges that have been built between people with strongly divergent standpoints, political approaches and interests, but also the confidence that has been developed through that co-operation. I am not so naive as to say that it is final and complete, but what I do say is that those who follow us will have a foundation upon which to build in the future.

Another milestone is the Promotion of Constitutional Development Act in which provision is made for a negotiation council. The council need not take the form proposed by the Act. The negotiation forum may be altered, but the fact that we were able to agree with one another in this regard, is important.

†Unbelievable as it may seem, the magnitude of the statement and the commitment made with the adoption of this Act, has not been recognised by all of us yet.

This Parliament adopted this Act according to its long title, and I would like to read that to hon members to refresh our memories, to assess the significance and the importance of what we have done.

*Who of us, and who outside this House could disagree with such an aim and objective? Who of us could dissociate ourselves from it? If there are still people, to the far left or to the far right, or wherever, who fail to see or to appreciate the momentum, the dynamics of this growth process, they are running the risk of missing the tide and of being left behind as irrelevant flotsam.

There is a will, there is a way, there are commitments, there is a way open for common growth on South Africa’s road to democratic political maturity. Carpe diem is a Latin maxim which urges us all to seize the day; to make use of the day because it passes so quickly. Let us do that together in this House and let us do it together with the people outside this House.

Mr Chairman, we listened with great interest to the hon the Minister’s address to this Committee. I believe all of us welcome his statements on democracy and on a democratic society for South Africa. We have listened with great interest to similar such statements in the recent past. Such statements, however, must be backed up by action.

South Africa stands on the eve of a general election. South Africa stands at the crossroads. Will we be taken down the road to ruin or will the road we follow together, as one nation in South Africa, be the high road to racial peace and to economic, social and political prosperity? These are questions which White or non-Black South Africans, in particular, must ask of themselves. If, at the end of the day, non-Black South Africans decide that apartheid in any form is justifiable, then we face a bleak future.

It is fair to say that there is no such thing as grand apartheid or as petty apartheid. There is also no such thing as White money or Black money, as averred by the CP and others like them. Apartheid is apartheid is apartheid, and we in the Labour Party say that all vestiges of apartheid must be removed if peace and stability are to be achieved in this wonderful land of ours.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, we welcome, among other things, the hon the Minister’s statement on a future South Africa with an independent judiciary. An independent judiciary per se does not go far enough. We believe such an independent judiciary must be armed with a Bill of Rights so that all laws and practices in this country can be measured in terms of such a bill of rights.

We find it particularly significant that the hon the State President, in his reply to the debate on his Vote, gave so much attention, as did the hon the Minister today, to a federal system of government for South Africa. What was regrettable, however, was that they chose to find fault with this system, which we, the Labour Party, would have placed before the proposed National Council for negotiation and debate. We do certainly welcome the fact that at long last the NP and the Government are finally giving attention to a federal system. We in the Labour Party have always had this as a plan for a future South Africa.

Until such time as we are convinced otherwise we remain committed to a federal Republic of South Africa with the boundaries of the states being determined by a process of negotiation. Such boundaries cannot and will not be determined by race of colour, not by one’s tribal affiliation, but rather by physical or geographic boundaries.

We take note of the hon the Minister’s statements on discriminatory laws. The Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act are two such laws.

Following on what the hon the Minister says, by implication it means that these laws must be repealed.

We have the anomalous situation in South Africa where we find that, as a result of the Group Areas Act, 37 000 housing units stand empty because of the obsession with separation. Those houses stand in so-called White group areas. Translated into financial terms this represents up to R2 billion worth of housing stock. So one can clearly see why these laws are obstacles to the peace and stability referred to by the hon the Minister.

Currently in areas of colour we have a tremendous backlog in housing. We concede that the housing units that are standing empty in so-called White areas will not address the backlog found in areas of colour, but making these available to all South Africans, regardless of race, will certainly create a new climate.

South African society, in the main, is governed by the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] As an example, the agrarian policy is based on the Group Areas Act. Only so-called White South Africans may own and purchase agricultural land freely. The rest of us may only do so by way of a group areas permit. To add insult to the injury suffered by South Africans of colour, foreigners are permitted to own and purchase agricultural land—worse still, in terms of the financial rand— while citizens of this country, who are prepared to make a valid contribution to food production and economic growth, are prevented from doing so. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister touched on the whole question of local government. It is a fact that for 25 years we have suffered under a system which I would like to call a master-servant system. We have a system where we have local affairs committees, management committees and community councils. Despite what the hon the Minister said today about progress in this regard, I do not believe that in this particular field we have made any significant progress.

It reflects again an obsession with separation based on race. The system is inefficient and ineffective. It is a system which determines that the master local authority, which is the White city council or the White town council, determines for the servant LACs and management committees what is good for them. This, I believe, smacks of paternalism. The alternative which is being forced upon these people is autonomy. Therefore, we in the LP believe that, in order to address the problems of this country, the system of local government needs to be looked at in depth. As it presently stands, it is totally unacceptable.

We listened with great interest to the speech of the hon the Minister this morning. His speech was statesmanlike and contained much of value.

We shall be watching the speeches of hon members in the run-up to the election because there is nothing that can damage relations in this country like a general election. We have seen it in the past. I want, therefore, to take up the warning of another hon member who stated in a previous debate that relationships following the general election will be determined by the statements made by, particularly, the NP and the CP. [Interjections.] We accept our responsibility.

Then prove it!

We do not have to prove it! We have proved it in the past five years—responsibly. [Interjections.]

That is right!

I doubt if that hon member for Caledon can say the same.

We shall be watching with great interest the statements in the run-up to the election because we believe that what the hon the Minister said from this podium today is of great significance. We say to the NP that they should back the words of their hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning with actions. They should repeal the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and create a climate at local government level conducive to reform. We believe the greater majority of people out there will support the NP in their efforts, if they do so.

Mr Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to speak after the hon the Deputy Minister. It is quite clear—after I have spoken it will also be quite clear—that there are certain standpoints, points of departure and perhaps also objectives which are not as readily reconcilable as our hon Minister hopes they are. I think when I have said what I want to say he will have to perform a fair amount of constitutional gymnastics to reach consensus.

I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that I took cognisance of what he said. I do not think the CP is totally insensitive to many of the things he said, but he adopted a fairly adamant standpoint on certain points on which we disagree outright. I think we can discuss this, but to achieve a reconciliation on these points seems a bit difficult to me.

I should like to react to several points touched on by the hon the Minister and which were also raised in the annual report. First I want to refer to a standpoint of the hon the Minister from which his view of constitutional development becomes clear. I am referring to a statement which he issued on 20 February 1989 in connection with the Free Settlement Board. It contains the following standpoint of principle:

The passage I want to quote continues as follows:

It is one thing to defend the individual’s right to free association and choice. We also do so. I think it is also one of the most important objections which has existed over the years and still exists against a system such as national socialism for example, which absolutises the people as it were until it has become an untenable straitjacket for personal freedom and conscience. I do not think we disagree at all on that.

Hon members are entitled to ask what our problem really is. In my opinion it lies in the following. The hon the Minister refers to the regulating role of the Government to ensure community interests. I submit that the State cannot assure an individual of group or community A that he must be accepted by group or community B. Community B also has the right to dissociate, i e the right not to associate.

I agree.

I assumed that we would agree on this. This is a point on which the hon the Deputy Minister will not agree with us.

The group or community therefore has a right to exclusivity. This is one of the forces at work in any people or community with an awareness of its own identity or self-awareness. It is immediately clear what kind of irreconcilable aspect we are dealing with if there are communities which lay claim to a self-awareness and identity and demand the right to protect this, and others which also pass as communities, but do not want to pass as a community and want to force the disregarding of identity on the other community.

I specifically maintain that the Government does not have the right to force members of one community onto members of another community. I also feel the Government must not allow itself to be forced to do so. It is not the task or right of the Government to guarantee for example that Zulu or Tswana voters who want to exercise their political rights within the White group will be placed on the same voters’ roll as Whites. This is merely an example. I am putting this specifically to hon members as something which is irreconcilable.

You are living in a dream!

Order! The hon member for Dyssels-dorp must note that the leader of a political party is in the process of stating his standpoint prior to an election. He must be afforded the opportunity to do so. The hon the Leader may proceed.

I also maintain that the Government does not have the right to give members of other peoples a guarantee that Whites for example will have to accept a mixed voters’ roll, that we will have to accept mixed residential areas, schools and that the character of the House of Assembly will be changed further into that of a multiracial body simply because, as the hon the Minister has said, the State is protecting the individual’s choice with regard to the group within which he wants to exercise his political rights, and is assuring his participation. I believe the hon the Minister may perhaps make this point a little clearer later.

I now want to dwell for a moment on the annual report of the Department of Development Planning and a few points in it. On page 1 reform is described as follows:

I want to make so bold as to say that this language sounds terribly perturbing to me, because this reform is a political programme of the NP, and the NP has set itself as its goal the transformation of the whole of society. I submit that to me this does not border on evolution but on revolution. It sounds revolutionary when a political party puts a political programme into operation, forces that programme on society and then says that there is an entirely new society. To me this smacks of revolution. [Interjections.] Give me a chance. I shall come back to this later.

I want to submit to hon members for their consideration the objections and reactions of a leader in South West Africa, Mr Kosie Pretorius, to the result of this new kind of change which has been brought about on the basis of political objectives. I am quoting this passage to hon members for their consideration:

He says the peoples of South West Africa, namely the Whites, never gave the South African Government or the Administrator-General permission to create a “new society” in South West Africa. However, they now have it.

Also on page 1 of the report it is said that South African society has already changed irreversibly during the past decade. I want to link up with this statement. As regards the irreversibility of certain situations there are in my opinion several examples of changes which are irreversible. There are seven independent Black states which will certainly not all back into a unitary state. I think this is irreversible. President Lucas Mangope once said:

I have quoted this to illustrate my point. I think something has come into existence which is irreversible.

There are six self-governing Black states which have accepted political power and other responsibilities within their own territories over which they wield authority. I do not know of one that would want to relinquish its land and its claim to political right and power. From what we can see they would rather like more of the same.

Now the question is: On what irreversible course has the NP now set the other communities of South Africa? What is the NP’s objective with its transformation of the whole of society? I want to ask whether there is no ambiguity? Is there not an inconsistency and a contradiction in its planning? I submit that there is. Some peoples are independent. Others are welcome to become independent. They even have the right to secede territorially. They run no risk of being dominated by other peoples in a unitary state because partition, the idea of segregation, self-reliance, autonomy, self-government and independence guarantee that they will not be dominated by another people in their own state.

However, that same right or opportunity is not being presented to the Whites, the Coloureds or the Indians. In other words, according to the NP’s history and its achievements—we gladly give recognition to those achievements of the past—national states (volkstate) are all very well for the Tswanas, for Venda, for the North and South Sothos, for the Zulu, for the Ndebele, for the Swazis and so on, but when it comes to the rest of the communities in South Africa, we get the impression that the idea of peoples, and even the idea of national states, is anathema to them.

The following is far closer to the truth. According to page 2, the Government envisages the reinstatement of autonomous provincial governments with legislative and executive components in which all communities will participate. Surely this is not in any way a reinstatement of the former provincial system. This is a revival of the UP-PFP view of the sixties and seventies of multiracial regions within a federal structure, which was decisively rejected by the NP. [Interjections.]

This seems to me close to a form of federation which the NP— the hon member for Turffontein will agree with me in this regard—referred to as a trick. I am quoting:

This is the UP’s idea of federation with powersharing—

This was the NP’s assessment of the powersharing of the UP.

We were told in the House of Assembly that the PFP’s idea was regions, but multiracial regions, exactly like those the NP is now talking about, in which all communities would participate. I submit that in certain respects a capitulation syndrome has taken root in the ranks of the NP and in the ranks of cultural organisations which support the NP.

If we had been dealing with giving other peoples a full-fledged political say, my party would have supported it wholeheartedly and fully. After all, one cannot give it to a community which does not want to be a community! If it is said that an end must be put to White domination over other peoples, the CP also says that.

However it is no longer a secret that the way is being paved for a Black State President, that Whites are being conditioned to accept Black majority rule—they expect it—and that a non-racial society is being advocated and suggested under the cloak of love for one’s fellow-man, reconciliation and the slogan of non-discrimination. In other words, White domination must simply be replaced by another form of domination. [Interjections.] My party says we are opposed to White domination of other peoples, but we also say that the course the Government is now adopting will in the long run—perhaps not all that long but rather in the short run—simply lead to another form of domination, namely Black domination.

Who says so?

I say so on the basis of the Government’s statement. It will lead to Black domination over Whites, Coloureds and Indians. My party and I will not be an accessary to the preparations for such domination. If there are hon members here who think they are simply dealing with a few stubborn Afrikaners who can soon be put in their place, I must politely point out that the Government is making a very big mistake! [Interjections.]

I want to go further. With all due respect, the hon the Minister’s assurance on page 3 that he does not support a majority system based on one man, one vote, does not mean much—I am sorry because whether it is a system of one man, one vote on a common voters’ roll or whether it is different voters’ rolls in one undivided country with equal value given to each vote, if one does not want discrimination, the numbers must be decisive. The hon the Minister has not yet given us a reply on that point and I do not think he has a reply but I should like him to come forward with it.

Assurances with regard to the domination of one people or group by another are meaningless in the South African set-up if one persists with an attempt at power-sharing among people who differ so greatly in numbers. How on earth can one—I am quoting from page 3—grant “democratically equal participation to all citizens in one system” without numbers being decisive?

When I was preparing my speech, I wrote that I hoped that I would not again hear the amusing statement that we are not dealing with numbers but with consensus. Yet I heard it again this morning.

We will not appoint members of Parliament on 6 September by means of consensus. The election of a State President takes place with numbers. I am mentioning this because it is obvious, but this is what they are forgetting in their argument. The constitution of the electoral college and that of the President’s Council is by numbers. In the constitution of the Houses numbers were also used, namely 178, 85 and 45. The constitution of the Cabinet is based on the numbers different parties get elected to their Houses and to this Parliament.

The leader-in-chief too.

The election of a leaderin-chief of the NP takes place by numbers.

Now I want to ask again how the hon the Minister will allow Black people to participate in the executive and the legislative authority of the entire country without representation in Parliament, because the hon the Minister says that Black people are going to be brought to Parliament. If the hon the Minister brings them to Parliament what will have become of the positive assurance that there would not be a fourth Chamber? I do not know whether it will have to be a meeting in a tree!

How is the hon the Minister going to give equal participation to 20 million-plus Black citizens in one constitutional set up without their forming a majority of 4:1 over the Whites, 5:2 over the rest of the population and the entire non-White population having a majority of 6:1 over the Whites?

What hope does one have of reaching consensus with Blacks if one were to propose that they would have less or even as many representatives in Parliament as the other peoples or groups? We already debated the point with them when the hon the State President said last year that he was also the President of all the other peoples and consequently the Black peoples must participate in the election of the State President. However, the hon the Minister says that the participation will be negotiated. Do they have any hope that 20 million-plus Blacks will agree to anything but the basis of a Black majority in the electoral college for the State President?

Let me take another example. If I am right there are virtually twice as many Coloureds as Whites in the Cape Province. According to what democratic gymnastics can one give the Coloureds less, or even equal representation in the unitary dispensation in the Cape?

I also want to know whether the forcing of different peoples into one political system is democratic. I submit that it is not democratic. Calvin said it was tyranny, and he was not an admirer of apartheid.

I want to ask whether it would be democratic to appoint a chief minister for the Zulus from among the Vendas. I do not think this is at all a vague possibility, but if it is, what makes people think that my people—I am saying this with all due respect—will put up with office-bearers, people in authority, public officials, MECs and Ministers from other peoples governing us?

The hon the Minister went ahead and appointed MECs to govern us in the Transvaal. I want to bring it to the attention of the hon the Minister that he appointed an MEC in the Transvaal to deal with land control, who has nothing to do with the community on which he must take decisions. I asked him what their arrangement was at Thabazimbi for example. He very politely told the Reformed Church there that the Black town was at least a kilometre away and that there were enough trees in between. They totally ignored that idea of the hon the Minister. It seems that his message did not get through to them.

The MEC told me that he had replied to me in December. I asked him to send me a copy of the letter. He has not yet replied. This is unsatisfac-. tory service, apart from the fact that it is an MEC who has nothing to do with the White and Black communities of Thabazimbi. He is nevertheless a person in authority!

I want to repeat here what I said to the Chief Minister of KwaZulu. After the general election of 1987 he spoke about the Black rage he would harness to sentence the Whites to life-long imprisonment in an open democracy. I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister what he thinks of such a remark. What does he think of such a remark that Whites will be sentenced to life-long imprisonment in an open democracy?

I said the following to the Chief Minister in Johannesburg in front of about a thousand people:

[Interjections.] I am referring to the Chief Minister of KwaZulu, yes—in 1987, after the general election. I said to him:

[Interjections.] Mr Chairman, allow me to say a few words about negotiation politics. I should like to say through you to our honoured Minister …

Order! The time the hon member has been allocated according to my list has now expired.

I shall negotiate with him later. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we listened with interest this morning to that part of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning’s speech in connection with the programme that he has in mind to develop a new constitutional framework which will satisfy the aspirations of all the people of South Africa and lead this country on a road to peace and prosperity.

I want to add to what the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development has said and that is that in a commitment of this nature, we will find a positive response from all people who are represented here and who have come here to contribute to reform through peaceful means. What we ask is that the programme and machinery be set in motion in order to ensure that this work is carried out as speedily as possible; that the goals that have so often been stated and restated in this forum, will be realized by the participation of all well-meaning South Africans committed to realizing a peaceful South Africa.

I want to refer to an aspect of the hon the Minister’s responsibilities, namely local government, which has been referred to again by the hon the Deputy Minister. This is a matter which involves our people at the local level. Each and every day and throughout the day they are subject to measures and problems which evolve at local government level. I believe that after some twenty years of experimenting with management and local affairs committees we must now accept the fact that this process which provides for representation by people of colour, namely Coloured and Indian people, has not served its purpose and therefore must come to an end.

I have said before that I believe we are reasonable people who understand the fears of the White communities, but their fears cannot be addressed in a manner which takes away from those of us in the Coloured and Indian communities any worth and dignity as communities. Therefore I make a commitment here again to say that my party and my people will certainly be prepared to accept direct representation in a local authority, not on the basis of numbers but rather on the basis of a compromise to allay the fears of the White community so as at least to make a meaningful start in direct representation.

I believe that that will be a tremendous step forward, one which we could defend on the clear understanding that with the passage of time and when fear, suspicion and doubt make way for understanding, there will be further adaptation and change.

At this point in time, in many of the so-called Indian town boards and local authorities, a large percentage of the rates collected is used for the expenses of paying for the town clerk and his staff. The communities themselves do not have the benefits which should flow from the rates collected as far as services and the improvement of services are concerned.

So long as small local authorities demarcated in terms of the Group Areas Act are placed in a position where they are forced to become local authorities, for so long will we have this problem of a community dissatisfied at having to pay large sums of money in the way of rates and taxes, but with very little return.

Only last week the chairman of the Southern Durban Local Affairs Committee, responding to a statement made by the mayor of Durban, made a categoric statement saying that we will not accept autonomy on the basis of ethnicity. If geographical boundaries are to be demarcated in order to create more local authorities where local authorities have developed into huge edifices, it will be considered as it is on a geographic basis. If that is going to contribute to the better running of a local authority the matter could be examined without prejudice. However, that cannot be so if demarcation takes place on the basis of separating people according to group areas and the race content of these group areas.

I want to remind hon members here present that not long ago Prospecton, which is an industrial area lying between two Indian group areas, Isipingo Beach and Isipingo Rail, was examined with a view to identifying its municipal area. The board ultimately recommended that Prospecton should go to Amanzimtoti. Anybody who examines this area will be satisfied that the Isipingo Town Board had more than a reasonable case for the incorporation of Prospecton into Isipingo.

I say, however, that if the claims of Amanzimtoti were justified then surely some basis could have been arrived at whereby a part of the rates raised in the industrial area could have been apportioned to the Isipingo Town Board. I believe that would have been an understandable approach, something which would not have been entirely correct but which would have made a financial contribution to Isipingo. This would have been met with some measure of satisfaction by the Indian community who now believe that this whole thing was eyewash and that the hearing and the findings just do not make sense. We cannot continue to defend developments of this nature and I sincerely trust that the hon the Minister will look at this matter with a view at least to ensuring that the resources generated by rates in this area can be shared by both local authorities, even though Prospecton may remain a part of Amanzimtoti.

It is also important that we remind the hon the Minister of the long delays and processes involved before an area which is being examined for proclamation as a group area becomes a reality. Whilst we have a large waiting list for homes, delays of one, two or three year before an area is proclaimed for whatever reason only increase the problem and the cost of providing homes. This often makes homes beyond the reach of the people whom the State is intended to assist.

When we arrived here in September 1984, Pelican Park where our parliamentary quarters are located was already serviced. Street lights were burning in 1984 and they still burn there, but there are no homes. The township was ready when we arrived in September 1984; it might have been ready even earlier. The problem is that there are certain servitudes and problems which preclude the registration of that township and therefore nobody can build on it or occupy it. I believe that the interest costs over a five year period and the escalation in building costs must certainly make for tremendous burdens on any authority that is to build homes out there. I believe we cannot allow a situation like this to go on. Some means or method must be worked out whereby, when land of this nature is identified for housing or when an estate is planned, these restrictions can be lifted. Some legal provision should be made whereby the property can be made available for people to build on and whereby the people who are allotted these plots can go to a building society or financial institution and borrow money. Pelican Park is a monument to the problems that have been experienced since 1984, and it is now 1989.

Again I want to refer to land usage, particularly on the coast of Natal. Unfortunately the vast majority of my people are resident within a 50 mile radius of Durban, Port Shepstone, Tugela and Pietermaritzburg. We are making serious demands on agricultural land in the coastal areas, valuable land which could be used for sugar cultivation. Therefore, I want to ask the hon the Minister why, if a beautifully planned operation has been completed in Richards Bay with vast acreage for homes, industry and commerce, we are not concentrating our energies in order to realise the development and growth of that vast potential city. It has infrastructure and everything one can think of but yet development and growth is not proceeding at the pace which was envisaged when that township was first talked of 25 years ago. Except for certain large industries there are acres and acres of serviced land on which large and small industries can be built.

What I am saying is: we have a port, we have a potential city, we have the population of Coloured, Asian, Black and White people. The place is raring to go but there is just not enough effort being made to induce people to set up industries there. I think that then we will be able to cater for a large number of people with home and work opportunities and thereby take the pressure off valuable agricultural land on the coast of Natal.

An area like Cato Ridge should also be looked at because it is equi-distant between Durban and Pietermaritzburg. It is ideal land for industrial purposes, there is a marginal farming area where land could be converted for building homes. This again will take the pressure off the demand for land in the coastal areas where land is tremendously expensive and it is difficult for the authorities to build homes for the people for whom the Government is supposed to assume responsibility at reasonable cost. Even in Cato Ridge Black labour is on the doorstep. They would not have to commute long distances. Here are major rail services, road services, water all these facilities are available. It is a question of realising the potential that is offered in these areas.

I would like to conclude by again emphasising that all of us here present have to make a deep and sincere commitment to work as speedily as possible towards the realisation of a constitutional model which must be worked out by all the racial groups in South Africa and acceptable to all.

We must do everything possible to create the necessary climate within our country by removing from the Statute Books pieces of legislation which have impeded progress in the past. The release of Nelson Mandela has to be reiterated again and, hopefully, when Parliament reassembles, we will be able to move forward towards the building of a new South Africa underwritten by all those people whom the good Lord has placed in this land.

Mr Chairman, there can hardly be a more appropriate comment on the speech by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly than the words of Goethe:

Are those not your convictions too?

Because what did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly do in his speech other than express doubts and misgivings about the policy of the NP and the Government? There was not a single word about the policy of the hon member’s own party, and on the very eve of an election! And that coming from the leader of a party that presents itself as a potential alternative government—not a single word about his party’s policy.

Of course the hon the leader has a problem in this regard, because the hon the leader’s party does not subscribe to his convictions. Then the hon member comes along and says he gets the impression that as far as the Government and the NP are concerned, the concept is iniquitous. The hon member for Brakpan, who sits behind him, talks about Afrikaners, whatever language they might speak. Does this tie up with the hon the leader’s belief as stated in his book Die credo van ’n Afrikaner? No, the hon the leader’s dilemma is that he is being pressurised by the hon member for Ermelo, who also sits behind him, and other hon members of the AWB who are forcing him to adopt a policy which is not in line with his convictions, and therefore the hon the leader cannot talk about his convictions.

That is all I am going to say about the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly.

Is the AWB haunting you? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, there is no party present in this Parliament who wants to maintain or retain the existing constitutional dispensation. The NP and the Government are committed to a process of reform in order to give all South Africans effective participation in decision-making and governmental processes at all levels in order to ensure the permanent, peaceful and orderly coexistence of everyone in this country.

In conjunction with the CP, hon members of the DP have opposed the existing constitutional dispensation from the outset with every fibre of their being. Indeed they are still doing so.

Wynand Malan did not!

Yes, the hon member for Randburg is, of course, an exception.

The Labour Party decided to participate in the present constitutional dispensation, with the avowed and express purpose of destroying it, and this is still that party’s standpoint. The same is true, to a greater or lesser extent, of other hon members of the House of Representatives and of the House of Delegates.

Everyone therefore wants to replace the existing constitutional dispensation with something else, but the cardinal questions in this regard are with what and how.

Basically there are two ways to bring about constitutional change—either by confrontation, which must lead to conflict and violence, or by negotiation, and on this matter the eighteenth century statesman-philosopher Edmund Burke remarked with great insight, and I quote:

The NP believes that a new constitutional dispensation cannot be designed for or on behalf of the various population groups of the Republic of South Africa, but can only be jointly negotiated by them. Hence it is also the stated policy of the NP that constitutional negotiations will take place between all population groups, all interest groups, with a view to a participation by all in decision-making and governmental processes at all levels.

The Government has also committed itself to the establishment of a comprehensive constitutional process of negotiation which involves all population groups and is aimed at the creation of a new constitution along these lines.

In all seriousness, I am now asking hon members of the CP in the light of comments made by hon members of that party in the House of Assembly, who say they are not prepared to negotiate with anyone about the future of the Whites in their own fatherland, whether they are going to participate in the process of negotiation on a future constitutional dispensation or whether they are going to boycott this process.

If they are not going to participate, they would be letting down the very people in whose interests they profess to be acting. If they are going to participate, what role do they intend playing in the process of negotiation—a constructive or destructive role? If they are going to participate, either in a constructive or destructive role, on what moral or other grounds do they condemn the NP and the Government, that advocate negotiation?

The hon member for Ermelo, who is the chief spokesman on constitutional affairs of that party, is still going to speak in this debate, and he should answer this question. If the CP is not prepared to participate in the proposed process of negotiation, and they should succeed in coming to power, how are they going to change the existing constitutional dispensation in order to implement or give expression to their policy? Hon members of the CP base their approach on majority occupation in a so-called ethnic state (volkstaat). The question is: What part of the Republic of South Africa is occupied by a majority of Whites? [Interjections.] How are hon members of the CP going to bring about majority occupation in any part of the Republic of South Africa? This is the question they must answer.

If they are not going to negotiate about that either, how are they going to bring about the change? Are they going to do so unilaterally? Are they going to do so by confrontation, conflict and violence? If they reject negotiation, that is surely their only option, except if, in line with their track record, they were merely to accept the status quo and cynically blame the NP for their own inadequacy. Bearing in mind the words I quoted from Burke, what course of action would they adopt when their confrontation approach has failed and given rise to conflict and violence?

These are the vital questions that the hon members of the CP must answer. It is essential for them to provide these answers now, and in no uncertain terms, before the election, because the White voters of South Africa are entitled to know this.

†I also ask hon members of the DP, jointly or individually, what is their position with regard to the negotiation process? What role, if any, will they play? Will they participate constructively, in earnest and in good faith with a view to ensuring a constitutional dispensation that will promote the permanent, peaceful and orderly co-exist-ence of all in South Africa; or will they devote themselves to the creating and erecting of obstacles and obstructions to prevent the negotiation process from succeeding, while they, at the same time, callously denounce the NP and the Government for not moving away from discrimination and apartheid; or will they shy away from the challenge and try to hide behind a smokescreen of preconditions, technical objections and claims without substance or merit? It is equally important that the DP or its members take a firm stand on the matter of their participation, or not, in the proposed negotiations. The public has a right to know.

*The process of negotiation can hardly be promoted by continually accusing one of the most important participants in the negotiating process of being the cause of all real and imagined injustices, and holding them responsible for the justified or unjustified grievances arising from this.

We on this side of the House have for the past few weeks grown sick to death of what we have had to listen to from the LP benches about how the Whites, and particularly the NP, have exploited the Coloured community throughout the years and continue to do so even now. I do not intend to examine the validity of these accusations. In passing let me refer, however, to the report of the Erika Theron commission and ask my hon colleagues in the LP during what period the Coloured community made the most progress in all areas. Who was responsible for the Constitution which gave hon members of the LP membership of and seats in this Parliament?

I appeal in all seriousness to hon colleagues of the House of Representatives and hon members of the House of Delegates not to allow a negative attitude towards their White colleagues on this side of the House, which is born out of grievances, to bedevil the negotiating process and thus prevent Black people from having a rightful share in the decision-making and governmental processes at all levels. [Interjections.] Apart from the fact that it is not morally justifiable, it is not in the interest of anyone in this country— quite the opposite.

The major obstacles to successful political negotiation in the Republic of South Africa are poor communication, mutual ignorance, mistrust and fear. I appeal to everyone in the Committee: let us improve our avenues of communication, replace ignorance with knowledge, mistrust with faith and confidence and allay fears with hope and love.

Mr Chairman, to me, the DRP and to the vast majority of South Africans outside these walls, the main item on the constitutional agenda at this moment is Black participation in the Government of South Africa; in other words, the extension of democracy to all South Africa’s people. Having said that, however, I must also say that my party’s stand is based on a definition of democracy which excludes the tyranny of majority rule by any class, race or colour group whatsoever.

With the opening of the doors of Parliament in 1984 to Coloured people and Indians, South Africa saw the beginning of the end of exclusive White minority rule. This form of partial democracy for Whites only has had its season—to borrow a phrase from the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs—and it is also rejected by my party as being anti-democratic. Minority rule as we have experienced it in our country has only been possible on the basis of the enforced exclusion from the institutions of Government and the subjection of the majority of South Africans.

While the undemocratic nature of minority rule is glaringly obvious, the tyranny of majority rule is extremely deceptive. The classic example of a society where democracy operates on the majoritarian principle to the detriment of minorities is of course the United States of America. Despite the tremendous efforts on the part of successive administrations in the USA rapidly to extend civil rights and to improve the quality of life of Black Americans, colour discrimination is very much alive in that country.

At the Democratic Party convention to choose that party’s candidate to run for president of the United States, the widow of the late Martin Luther King, Mrs Coretta King, said in her speech that her late husband’s dream of an America where all were equal was still being deferred. His dream was not yet a reality.

People get away with proverbial murder when it comes to race and colour discrimination in the USA, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, all the African democracies north of us and in Asia. When we point these things out to them, they reply that they do not have racial laws like we have in South Africa where we legalise discrimination. So clearly then, while one’s own kind is in the majority and in government, not only can one successfully pass oneself off to the world as a democracy but one can also discriminate against others to one’s heart’s content without fear of bringing down the wrath of the world on one’s head in terms of sanctions, boycotts etc, and being called the polecat of the world.

Talking of polecats, I think South Africans who claim to be patriots should now stop using that word about their own country. It reflects a political short-sightedness because if they were to look a little closer, they would discover more and bigger polecats in this world. It is a cheap form of politics to “get the Government to accelerate reform.”

However, the interesting thing about many of them who shout “polecat” is that they are the very ones who have been slamming on the brakes, slowing down and even halting reform.

We who sit in this Parliament by that very act acknowledge the legitimacy of this institution as the final authority in the country. We are saying that Parliament is the instrument and means to bring about change, and this change should be brought about constitutionally. If we do not believe that, we would have joined the ranks of the extra-parliamentarians long ago—some of us manage somehow to sit in both camps—but this does not mean that the parties who sit here should not differ as to what Parliament should look like. Indeed they do, and they are exercising a right that is part of the parliamentary system. These different viewpoints range from majority rule come what may, to the CP viewpoint as expressed by the hon member for Overvaal when he said the following, and I quote from Hansard, 7 February 1989, col 168:

The reality of Parliament now is that the NP forms the government of the day. All attempts to remove them by fair means or foul have failed up to now. The coming elections will give the opposition parties in the Assembly another opportunity to try, by fair means of course, to remove the Nationalists. The best of British luck to them; but I predict that they will fail miserably if nothing unforeseen happens like, for example, a successful foreign invasion of South Africa.

Those of us who will be coming back after the elections, will find the scene not much changed as far as the NP is concerned. They will still be in government but the tragedy of the situation will be that Black participation will be delayed another five years.

The hon nominated member Mr Douw bemoaned the fact just the other day that 80% of South Africans will be excluded from the coming elections.

What has gone wrong? The answer is very clear to me. If one cannot remove the Nationalists from power in the present dispensation, then one has no other option but to negotiate with them.

On the part of the NP, through the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, all that they could do in terms of laying down the constitutional framework for Black participation has been done. Apart from the myriad of sacred cows of apartheid legislation that have been slaughtered over the past five years, there is other legislation, either already on the Statute Book or in Bill form, that should have smoothed the way for Black participation by now, but the leadership of the majority party in the House of Representatives refuses point blank to negotiate. This is the reason why the country is being forced into an election that will delay Black participation in Government for another five years.

If hon members want proof of the truth of my allegation, they have only to listen to the words of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives himself. At the 1988 congress of his party he said:

He also said that it was now too late for the Government to make any concessions to get his party to change its mind.

In the dying days of this Parliament I have sat in joint committee meetings at which LP members have carried out their leader’s commitment to confrontation, conflict and obstruction to the letter. The leaders of the millions of Blacks who believe in reform and who are willing to participate in the evolving process of reform can blame the LP for delaying and deferring their dream for another five years.

For our part, we in the DRP have committed ourselves to winning the majority of seats in the House of Representatives in the coming election. [Interjections.] Those hon members can laugh as much as they like.

Pray hard!

No, it is for the voters to decide, not for that hon member. I can tell hon members here today that the Coloured community has had its fill of the LP, of its shocking image, of its complete failure to negotiate an acceptable dispensation for all South Africans and, worst of all, of its obstruction with regard to the entry of reform-minded Blacks into the decision-making process and its delaying of their entry for five years at least.

As recently as yesterday, as a result of a situation in which two Labour Party MP’s almost came to blows before a meeting of their constituents, those constituents walked out and called upon our party to meet them. Members of my party addressed 200 ex-LP supporters in Postmasburg, and my party has been established there.

If by some quirk of fate the LP does come back as the majority party, Black participation may be delayed further. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives has shown no sign that he will drop confrontation. A DRP victory at the polls is therefore a duty to our people and the country as a whole. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to associate myself with the approach of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who in the run-up to the election says that this is the opportunity for parties to state their case, indicating on what basis the election will be fought.

And I should like to do so using the basic points of departure which we set out at our founding congress and which were put forward by Dr Willem de Klerk. I should like to debate the issue with hon members.

Firstly the DP stands for a constitution which rejects race as a basis or as a building block—in general, a non-racial constitution. This means representative government on the basis of universal adult suffrage for all South African citizens as one South African nation in which various cultural groups co-exist.

This also means universal suffrage on a common voters’ roll for every level of representation and for all adult citizens of South Africa. It also means the formation of political parties through free association and free expression of opinion so as to enable political parties to proclaim their policies and to obtain electoral support for those policies.

What we are therefore saying very clearly is that we reject a racial basis for a South African constitutional dispensation, together with the existing institutions based on it such as the tricameral Parliament, separate bureaucracies for different race groups, separate local authorities and racial legislation such as the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act.

This is the gist of this view. Our present racial policy is going to drag South Africa into an abyss. It is unacceptable to the overall majority of moderate South Africans. It has a racial basis to which the modern world is opposed and which is increasingly going to plunge us into destructive isolation internationally. It is also impossible to implement, except for a White dictatorship, which would merely make everything in the country more vulnerable. It is unaffordable, because it inevitably leads to duplication, convolution and a conflict of functions. It paralyses State administration and results in uncontrollable State expenditure.

It does not offer the Whites any protection, but as minorities it drives us increasingly into a corner as targets for unrest and aggression. In this way we become an outcast without any influence. It is, in any event, morally indefensible and no settlement model. In fact, it is precisely this approach which stimulates the so-called total onslaught, bogs down negotiations, increases polarisation and confrontation, increases our isolation international—with all its fatal consequences for South Africa—and delays solutions.

The second point is that the DP stands for the best traditions of Western democracy. Our philosophy involves the protection of fundamental human rights and freedom of speech, franchise, association, private ownership, free elections, religion, language and culture, the restriction of authority of the central Government by the establishment of authority at various levels, among other things to bring the Government as close as possible to the people, sound labour relations based on collective bargaining, a system of private entrepreneurship, with conditions that are also conducive to a high growth rate and the acknowledgement that the State has a very important function to perform in human development and upliftment, and in addition drafting of a Bill of Rights maintained, protected and enforced by the courts.

The third point of departure is that the DP stands for the recognition and maintenance of cultural diversity and groups in a democracy formed by free association. We recognise the cultural, religious and language diversity of South African society and the right to these things must be reflected in and protected by a constitution.

For example, we stand for an electoral system of proportional representation, which provides for the utmost degree of political diversity to be guaranteed in representative politics and for representation in legislative bodies, and also for a type of electoral system which makes provision for the most feasible and acceptable executive authority as a separate electoral system. This is DP policy.

The DP rejects discrimination and domination of cultures and groups. The essence is that majority rule is not the only form of democracy, and then I am talking about simple majority rule.

†All South Africans share a common desire for peace, freedom, justice and prosperity and we believe that this can provide the essentials for national accord. A process must be set in motion which will establish trust, mutual understanding and convergence towards a shared future vision as the basis for a peaceful, negotiated settlement.

*We want to negotiate a constitution which provides for a federal system in which the powers of the Government are entrenched at the various levels.

The fourth point of departure is that the DP stands for an independent judiciary. We emphasise this. The independence of the judiciary and the sovereignty of the law should be entrenched in the constitution in order to ensure that such legal values and principles are not subject to Government policy or to the whims of those in power.

Exceptional circumstances may require the State to employ emergency measures for the maintenance of security, but such powers must be available to a limited extent and for a specific period. They must always be subject to the authority of the courts and legal provisions— legal control too—in order to prevent abuse, deprivation and the escalation of confrontation.

The fifth point of departure is that the DP stands for security. This is also a democratic value. The maintenance of law and order and security by defusing conflict, combating economic and social inequalities and protecting civil rights are emphasised. The various security services must preserve democracy. We also stand for the rejection of violence as a political instrument. Violence only begets more violence, and the outcome of a settlement that is achieved through violence merely carries the seed of later violence. That is why we firmly reject any violent form of change or transition. These five points of departure are the dream of a South Africa in which we would like to live.

We also have a sixth point of departure, which is also our programme of action and which essentially encompasses negotiation. Our declared programme of action has three legs. Firstly, there is the development of strong power bases in Parliament and in other representative bodies with a view to gaining control over them. The nature, the timing and the scope of our participation will be determined by strategic considerations. The second leg is the extension of interaction with other groups and individuals, whether they share our aspirations or not, with the specific objective of promoting negotiation, settlement, compromise and reconciliation. The hon the Minister said that those who wanted to lead also had to emphasise the unpleasant aspects. An unpleasant aspect is precisely talking to people who do not agree with one or do not share one’s values. If one only talks to those who agree with one, one is making no contribution to settlement, compromise and reconciliation.

The third leg of our programme is the development of a broad front of peaceful co-operation, relationships, joint strategies and alliances with organisations within and outside Parliament that pursue the same goals. The DP believes that parliamentary politics and extraparliamentary politics cannot and should not be separated.

The hon the Minister said that the most recent surveys he had referred to, indicated that approximately 86% of the Black population were in favour of negotiation. This is our experience too. It is true that the climate for negotiation has improved among all the population groups, and we must make use of those opportunities. I want to associate myself with what he said—we must seize the moment and achieve what we can. The DP believes that it is only through a network of negotiations that a negotiating forum can be created. Such a forum cannot be devised and enforced by one party alone. It is through a process of negotiation that South Africa will beled through a transitional phase into full-fledged participatory democracy.

I listened to the hon the Minister very carefully. It seems as if a shift has been made from race group to political entity, without giving new substance to the concept of a political entity. It seems as if the group is still the underlying concept. In the plan which the hon the Minister spelt out, he pointed to five main points. The first three were spelt out very clearly: Overall participation in the election of the State President, overall participation in the executive authority and overall participation in the legislative authority. In all three these points he emphasised the need for negotiation if success was to be achieved.

However, he then proceeded with his fourth and fifth main points and again stated the framework of own affairs— the entities which are going to form their own institutions at all levels, legislative and executive, the institutions of these entities then forming the basis, according to the NP’s plan, from which the first three can be constituted. When he dealt with numbers four and five, own and general co-operative affairs, the concept of negotiation did not appear under these two main points. Then he talked about further implementation. This makes me very concerned indeed. He did mention freedom of choice in his speech. Freedom of choice, however, was simply dealt with as an opportunity, whilst freedom of choice and of association, which is bandied about far more loosely, is a perpetual right that everyone has, within a democracy, and it is through the freedom of choice within the political context that political parties emerge specifically to represent people’s interests.

It appears that the Government—if one interprets them correctly—has come to the conclusion that the present group basis does not work and that attention should therefore be given to arriving at other entities by means of freedom of choice. When that choice has to be made, the entities form the new building blocks. There is no future in that kind of politics. The Government has already admitted as much by moving away from that, but it wants to come back to the same principle or framework.

The hon member for Mossel Bay also talked about negotiation and asked what our position was. I think I have made it clear, but I again want to emphasise that our negotiation covers the entire spectrum. It includes the NP and all institutions created within the Parliamentary context. It also goes further, however, because we do not draw a distinction between parliamentary and extraparliamentary politics. This brings me to my final point.

What about the ANC?

The hon member asks what about the ANC. Yes, it also includes the ANC. It includes discussions with groups ranging from the ultra-right to the ultra-left.

That is precisely the point I want to discuss with the hon the Minister and hon members of the NP. They say negotiation must take place over the entire spectrum. The hon the Deputy Minister has on occasion—I think it was in Parktown— stated that the ANC has the support of approximately 40% of the population. He was reported as saying that that was not a very high figure. However, it is considerably more if one looks at the basis of their politics, the “charter politics”.

If the Government is serious about negotiation, it has no choice other than to involve the ANC in the political process of negotiation. If we are honest about negotiation, we must all state the case in these terms. My appeal is therefore that we implement strategies to bring these elements together. At the moment there is still perpetual polarisation on the basis of the total onslaught. Holy war rhetoric is bandied about between the ANC and the Government. Both are equally inflexible in this approach.

If the Government is serious, now is the chance to look for facilitators, and to hold talks with the ANC at the request of and with the knowledge of the Government in order to bring them closer to the negotiating process. The involvement of the Russians in Southern Africa and the relationship that has been built up between the Government and Russian officials and representatives makes it possible for the Government to request the Russians to hold talks with the ANC in order to find out whether they, too, could not move closer to a process of negotiation.

When viewed against the background of the broader climate which does exist for negotiation, this is an opportunity not to be missed. I appeal to the hon the Minister to take the trouble to pave the way for South Africa.

Mr Chairman, until the establishment of the tricameral Parliament in 1984 the governing NP underwent a painful process of revision, one usually associated with the need for political powersharing with the hitherto unfranchised people. The details of the reconstruction policy of the Government need not concern us in this Committee. Suffice it to say that the efforts which commanded a great deal of attention resulted in the NP presenting to the electorate a new vision of power-sharing. All the main structural changes were accepted by the majority of the White electorate. It was not until the run-up to the elections for the Houses of Delegates and of Representatives that this consensus was challenged by the Blacks who were excluded from this constitutional exercise, as well as by most of the Coloureds and Indians and liberal and conservative Whites. Even those who led the challenge have not overturned the system. The reforms were a vital element of the background to the Indians’ and Coloureds’ induction into politics.

The social and economic reforms that were conceded were agreeable enough to them. The situation in which both the Government and the Coloured and Indian Houses found themselves was on the face of it simple: The Whites enjoyed a majority in Parliament and the Coloureds and Indians appeared to be satisfied with the offer of communal representation in a Parliament where Whites controlled the power. We in the House of Delegates, the House of Representatives and more particularly all in Parliament are faced with the awesome responsibility of making decisions in adverse circumstances. The majority of South Africans rejected the tricameral system and still do. No point is served in stating that the Blacks have their own administrations and their own parliaments. If the Government continues with its politics of prescription we shall face the consequences of the even less credible alternative of urban Black representation in Parliament.

May I at this stage suggest that if the Government continues with its obsession of resisting pleas for Mr Nelson Mandela’s and other political prisoners’ release until they declare their renunciation of violence, it should not relinquish its commitment to constitutional development and political reform. It should look at an alternative which would break the current impasse between the ANC and itself.

Let us examine this alternative: The Government will not talk to the ANC because of its ties with the South African Communist Party. Should we not therefore isolate the ANC from its military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, and the South African Communist Party and initiate talks with the ANC? While I concede that this package is still far from resembling any substantial policy for meaningful democracy in South Africa it does more to boost the country’s standing in relation to the outside world and certainly enhances the prospects of a genuine move toward some kind of democratic functioning. It would definitely be a better alternative than the present option of a bullet for bullet approach.

I want to reiterate that my proposals are not meant to be a political solution. They are designed to develop and restore people’s confidence in a government without abandoning the rule of law and democratic process. Let us not go by default. Look at what we are going through presently. A few days ago during the debate on the budget of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs hon members almost unanimously endorsed the efforts of that Ministry in cultivating good relations with Africans, the Soviets and the world community as a whole. Earlier the hon the Minister of Finance revealed to us the scope for a huge improvement in our economy, a great rise in standards for consumers and the opportunities our leadership would mean for our friends. Similarly I believe now is the time for the hon the Minister to grasp the political and constitutional opportunities these developments have evoked.

Our Government consistently boasts that life for South Africans is comparatively better and is changing faster than ever before. But can the Government say the same for its housing policy which has become trapped in what was a well-intentioned policy but which has now become an outdated framework? This policy—I am referring to the Group Areas Act—is not only costing an inordinate sum in subsidies but is also frustrating the wishes of a population the majority of whom are either homeless or are still living in the tenure of the Government and its devolved authorities in public sector housing. To suggest that there is a growing awareness of the shortcomings of the policy would be an understatement. The policy of residential segregation has become increasingly inadequate to deal with the problem of homelessness, social well-being and urban and rural renewal.

While there are imperfections in the market there is no evidence that the Group Areas Act solves these imperfections. Restrictions on the settlement of people according to race is in direct conflict with the principle of the market approach which the Government is advocating with ever-increasing urgency and emphasis. Logically the Government is in conflict with its own policy.

Let us examine how the Government has become hostage to its own policy. Those who live in public housing schemes are in permanent tenancy. Both they and society are paying a high social price for this. The economy suffers from the almost total inability of the public housing dweller to move freely between local authority areas to change jobs. The council house dweller suffers from the lack of freedom to move within his own authority’s area to different accommodation more suited to his needs. I know this because my constituents suffer the same fate.

History will judge that the most significant trend of the twentieth century has been the trend towards the world wanting to live in urban areas. Open or free settlement areas in Durban would be of no significance to people of colour living and working in Pinetown and other centres which are unlikely to have their own areas.

The hon the Minister often argues that South Africa is a land of diverse people and that each group has its own culture and has a right to self-determination. The Group Areas Act, according to him, is not intended to discriminate but to differentiate, to protect one’s identity and right to self-determination and that there will be equal facilities for all groups. Ignoring the flaws in this argument remains a worrying problem.

What is emerging clearly is the hon the Minister’s and his department’s lack of sensitivity to the needs and suffering of the people. We all know that the Group Areas Act will suffer the same fate as the Immorality Act, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the pass laws. I ask: Why prolong the suffering and delay the inevitable?

Mr Chairman, I shall in a moment react to the hon member for Moorcross.

*I want to put a question to my good friend, the hon member for Randburg, who completed his speech a few minutes ago. I listened with great interest to the hon member’s exposition of his party’s policy. I want to ask the hon member whether he will tell South Africa and its people in clear terms whether his party stands for a system of one man, one vote in a unitary state. Will the hon member give us an indication in that regard?

Yes.

The hon member says yes; in other words, the hon member is confirming that his party is entering the election campaign in support of Black majority rule in South Africa. I now want to ask the hon member the following question. The hon member referred to the ANC. Is the hon member’s party, when they are in power after the election, going to unban the ANC and bring them into the government?

We shall bring them into the political process.

Then I want to ask the hon member one more thing. Once they have done that—the hon member said they would bring them into the political process—surely it goes without saying that they will then be accommodated in the government. Who will be in control of the security forces?

It goes without saying that they will take part in the democratic process.

They will take part in the democratic process? If they allow that, while the ANC is still committing acts of terror against the country, my question to the hon member is who is going to be in control of the security forces in his government?

The Government.

The ANC or a government of which the ANC is part, while it is still committing acts of terror against the Republic.

†I should like to come back now to the speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates. I want to tell him that when we look back on the past five years, I believe hon members in the House of Delegates—I say this in all fairness to them—do not have as much reason to be proud of the functioning of the Constitution as we can have on our side. They should in fact have less reason to be proud of the functioning of the Constitution as a result of their disconsolate five years of unstable and greatly self-seeking participation. The mixture of tragic and comic behaviour on the part of hon members in that House, as they know themselves, cannot be blamed on the few shortcomings of the Constitution.

Having said this while I look into the face of my friend the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in the House of Delegates, sitting right in front of me here, I am sure there are many hon members, of whom he would be one, who are heavily burdened with the responsibility of rectifying the image of their politicians—an image which does not do either their community or our country any good.

*Mr Chairman, with reference to the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development, who took part in the debate earlier, I want to tell him it would probably be a fair summary of the broad stream of politics in the Coloured community over the past five years if we were to say that in these five years the frustrations and the grievances of many years were aired and in addition received country-wide publicity. These have been five years of ample confrontation and of a great deal of threats and invective with regard to the “Boere”, as we had to hear from this Deputy Minister once again this afternoon.

To the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, I want to say that over the past five years he and his party have dangled visions of the so-called uncontrollable anger of the Whites in front of people—an anger which was to have sent that hon leader and his party back to this Parliament with a great deal of force and power so that they could move Coloureds and Indians out of their ministerial positions and out of the Constitution to where, thanks to the NP’s policy, they had come from.

Naturally this did not happen, and there are three reasons for that. In the first place the excessive demands and statements made by hon members in the House of Representatives, such as the hon member for Dysselsdorp, were mellowed by the realities of South Africa. Secondly White impatience and feelings about the conduct and statements of leaders in the Coloured community were mellowed by a degree of sympathy and understanding for the fact that the abuse of the “Boere” and the excessive demands of these hon members were the symptoms of a neighbouring community, of people who share the language and faith of the Whites, which was in a state of torment.

We are simply talking from our hearts!

Thirdly, the NP developed an understanding for the fact that many hon members of the House of Representatives do not have the ability to express the torment of their communities in such a way that they move the Whites in a positive sense.

The truth hurts!

In addition so many of the things these hon members have said over the past five years have been true or half true.

They are true!

When we look back, these have not been five wasted years. They have definitely not been five wasted years.

On the one hand there is a mentality among a certain group of voters that relates to easily visible drama, to break-throughs, to miracles within six months. On the other hand there is a feeling of anticipation in the country, anticipation that there will be leaders with the ability to accept responsibility, leaders who understand that South Africa cannot make constitutional progress as long as its leaders abdicate their responsibility to the masses in the street, or to groups and people who, like parasites lay claim to rights without accepting the responsibility of their rights.

The hon the Deputy Minister said: “Statements on democracy must be substantiated by actions.” †I agree with the hon the Deputy Minister. I absolutely agree with him but I will come back to that point in a moment.

*Not for a long time in modern politics has as firm and sincere a hand of co-operation been extended to groups and people as under the leadership of the hon the State President and also the new leader-in-chief of the NP, the hon the Minister of National Education.

A new dimension must now develop with regard to this question of co-operation and joining of hands. Co-operation is not offered out of sentiment. The friendship and comradeship of joining hands also implies discipline and responsibility among those who are involved. When there is co-operation among groups, obligations are undertaken on both sides and benefits are not promised only by the one side.

The question is not whether we can use fine words in public. When there have been enough threats, complaints and abuse with regard to apartheid, and when there has been enough confrontation, the question is whether the other communities’ leaders have the ability also to command those communities to perform. The question is whether there is not already a generation of Coloured and Black people who will no longer be able to complain about dispossession. The country and its people are looking forward to their economic and scientific achievements. The question is whether the complaints about apartheid will not show over a period that they were nothing but a smokescreen to obscure deficient performance, “inappropriate action in disguise”.

Mr Chairman, I should like to speak about a situation in my constituency to which I referred on a previous occasion, namely the situation in Suurbekom and the Government’s policy of mixed residential areas there. [Interjections.]

Look at their reactions because this is a very sore corn. The hon the Minister knows that it is a sore corn and I shall show him that this corn is festering at the moment and festering against the NP. [Interjections.] Before referring to that, however, I want to pause at two other matters briefly.

In the first place, I should like to ask the hon the Minister what the Government intends doing about the squatter situation involving a large number of Blacks at Port Nolloth in the constituency of Namaqualand. This is the constituency of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. That hon Minister has done nothing about this problem in his constituency.

It is your homeland!

Whether it is my homeland is not the issue at present.

I ask the hon the Minister, who governs the country, what he intends doing regarding this problem. Apparently the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs is so afraid of negative publicity about this squatter problem that he has even requested the members of the Port Nolloth town council to ensure that this matter does not appear in the newspapers as it could embarrass the NP.

We are told that the people in Port Nolloth are up in arms about this uncontrolled squatting about which the Government is doing nothing. [Interjections.] I ask the hon the Minister what he intends doing about this. [Interjections.]

Order! I request the hon member for Dysselsdorp for the second time to limit his interjections, please. The third time I shall have to ask him to withdraw from the Chamber. The hon member may proceed.

In the second place, I should like to ask the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to spell out the final constitutional objectives of the NP in this debate, before the general election of 6 September, and to tell us where they are heading with South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in Piketberg:

As if we have to ask South Africa’s friends what has to take place in South Africa! He said:

Before we prorogue Parliament, that hon Minister must tell us where he is heading with South Africa so that we may announce it from public platforms.

We shall do that ourselves! You need not say it on our behalf!

The hon the Minister must tell us whether he agrees with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Are we supposed to take fright now?

That hon member need not take fright because I can tell him that the voters know for whom to vote. All the hon member need do is tell us where the NP stands.

In the third place, during an NP meeting the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry said that South Africa would not be ruled by a Black Government within the following 10 years. If it is not within the following 10 years, will it be within the following 11 years? The fact is that the consequence of what the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry says is that South Africa will be ruled by a Black government. In spite of this the hon member for Caledon made a sanctimonious fuss here today about what the NP stands for. If that hon member is not informed on what the NP stands for, he should take a look at what the hon the Minister of Finance said recently in London. According to the Cape Times of 2 May 1989 he said:

Just look at the semantics—just as if the voters cannot see right through this! There is no mention of “majority rule” because that would range them with the DP and that would leave nothing of the hon member for Caledon’s argument. Now they are playing with the words “a Black majority in a future South Africa” but in practice they are the same. I am looking the hon the Minister in the eye and ask him to tell us whether this is Government policy, namely that they stand for a Black majority in a future South Africa. [Interjections.]

Will you listen if he tells you?

The hon the Minister is not answering me.

I shall reply to you but will you accept it?

I shall accept what the hon the Minister says but then he is not to come up again with semantics which nobody understands. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer briefly to the situation in Suurbekom. Suurbekom consists of two areas, the area west of the Johannesburg-Potchef-stroom road and the area east of the Johannes-burg-Potchefstroom road.

It is north and south.

North or south. I differ with the NP on the points of the compass just as I differ on many other points.

The situation now is that one of these areas has been declared a Black development area while the area on the other side of this road is still a White group area according to the Statute book and NP policy. I now ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether that is correct.

Yes!

The hon the Deputy Minister says this is correct. Now I want to point out to him today that scores of Indians, Coloureds and Blacks live de facto in practice in this White area. Does he deny this?

Who sells to them?

The hon the Deputy Minister is not replying to my question because he knows that I am telling the truth. Now he asks who is selling that land to those of colour. I shall tell him.

A few days ago somebody from my constituency telephoned me and said that the Government was turning White residential areas into de facto mixed residential areas through its policy. It tells the country out there that it is a White residential area, but de facto those of colour are living there already. The Government is making it absolutely impossible for us—that is the voters—to sell our land.

Mr Chairman, I am still speaking about the situation as regards Suur-bekom and that portion of Suurbekom to the east of the Johannesburg road which, in terms of NP policy, is a so-called White group area but is mixed de facto in practice and the hon the Minister cannot deny this. I say to the hon the Minister that he is placing the residents in that area in an impossible position. They do not wish to live in a mixed residential area and that is why they want to sell their properties to get away from the mixed residential area but, because Whites do not want to buy property there, they have only one option. The hon the Minister does not even offer them a choice while he says his policy offers people possible options. They have only one option. They can only sell to those of colour because Whites do not want to buy there. They can only do this if the area is officially declared a free settlement area.

The people are placed in an impossible position regarding their most important investment, that is their property.

Aren’t you asking for this?

Of course we are not asking for it. We say that the people should be saved from the dilemma in which the Government is placing them.

My wife and a number of ladies from Suurbekom handed a petition on the subject to the hon the State President. The hon the Minister knows about it and he replied regarding the other portion of Suurbekom that it had now been declared a Black development area. That places the residents in such a great dilemma. Does the hon the Minister know, for instance, that the people there go in fear of their lives as a result of the crime rate which has increased hand over fist? Surely the hon the Minister knows, because it is NP policy, that the residents in that part of Suurbekom even have to sell their land to Blacks. More than 30 transactions have been cancelled recently because the Blacks do not have the money to buy the Whites’ land there. Why does the Government not expropriate that area and pay reasonable compensation to the residents of that area which is a Black development area?

I can furnish the hon the Minister with the name of a leading figure in that area. Telephone Mrs Lulu Willemse. I have her permission to mention her name in Parliament. Telephone her and ask her under what distressing circumstances the people in that part of Suurbekom have to live. I hold the hon the Minister responsible for the fact that the people go in fear of their lives, that they are attacked daily and that this family to which I am referring has already been attacked quite a number of times by Blacks who have moved into Suurbekom. The hon the Minister caused that mixed residential area to come into being but I tell him today that as sure as fate he will pay the price in South Africa for the way in which he is treating the Whites.

I want to conclude by referring to the hon member for Caledon. He asked the DP whether they would include the ANC in the Government. It is NP policy that it will negotiate with the ANC if the ANC renounces violence. I ask the hon the Minister whether he will admit the ANC, once they have renounced violence, to this Chamber and his parliamentary constitutional dispensation? [Interjections.] Now the hon the Minister is not replying! I shall tell the voters that the hon the Minister does not reply to this easy question. The hon the Minister is silent because he cannot reply to it. [Interjections.] I have further questions for the hon the Minister about the ANC. Once the ANC has renounced violence, will they be admitted to the electoral college for the election of a State President or not? If the ANC is admitted to the electoral college for the election of a State President, there can be only one result and that is a Black state president; then we will have arrived at a completely Black government in South Africa. This will be to the detriment of the Whites’ future in South Africa.

Mr Chairman … [Interjections]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I request that a convention be established here that after a speaker has spoken at the podium and has to move through the benches, no comments be made about him and his speech.

Order! The hon member for Border may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The hon member for Losberg asked the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning whether he would admit the ANC to this Chamber. We on this side have already answered this question clearly. We say yes. We have said clearly in this Chamber that we have the same objectives as the ANC, but merely differ in our methods. We are here already and we envisage the same destination, but mountains have not toppled and still less have the skies fallen.

†There are many concepts which have been expressed by many of those who have taken part in this debate with which we can identify. We can identify with the concept of peace as opposed to the concept of violence; that of freedom as opposed to that of oppression; and that of justice as opposed to that of injustice. We can identify with the concept of prosperity.

We too have a vision that embraces fairness, security, justice and a national unity of all communities. We too seek a government in which all can participate. We are especially pleased that the Government’s constitutional policy has been spelled out here today, although it would appear that the CP are not aware of it. There are many aspects of it with which we do not agree and which we will debate as time allows. There are many aspects in respect of which we find that we have common ground with the hon the Minister. Like the DP, we notice a distinct detour by the NP away from the rigidity of race as the basis of its policies to the more liberal concept of choice and association.

Here I want to pause and pose a few questions. In allowing choice, is the hon the Minister now going to allow everybody in South Africa one man, one vote on two separate rolls, the A roll embracing the present set-up with a fixed number of members in the Houses of Representatives, Delegates and Assembly, the B roll structured on a one-man-one-vote basis, which even the DP can slot into, and the representatives of both the A and the B rolls coming together to elect a State President? Is something like that envisaged by the Government at this stage?

The hon the Minister says that all people will have the right to elect the State President. He says that all people have the right to be elected to the legislative body of this country and to be represented in the Cabinet. Now, if all people are going to be represented in the Cabinet in this legislative body of Parliament, how is he going to do it? Can he spell that out for us clearly? This relates also to the question posed by the hon member for Caledon to the hon member for Randburg, because that would mean that the hon the Minister also believes in an ultimate Black majority.

I am pleased that the question of where we are going along this constitutional road has raised its head again. Does there always have to be control by a White body for anything to be democratic? By sheer weight of numbers, we will have Black majority rule in this country in the next century whether we like it or not. What we are concerned with today is that we must have peaceful rule in South Africa, irrespective of who is at the head of affairs.

This brings me back to the hon member for Caledon.

*He wanted to know when we were going to achieve something. In spite of all the laws which discriminate against us and about which we are quarrelling, as the hon member accused us of doing today, we have reached the point where we are today. How much further would we have been if it had not been for those laws which have discriminated against us?

In 1910 some of our people went to England to make representations so that we could be permitted to form part of the South African system. It was in vain.

We had representation in the past but hon members know in what way we were deprived of that right in the old Senate. Hon members know this and I need not remind them of it. In spite of everything, we are present here today and we are prepared to make our contribution.

†We are prepared to accept the challenge which the hon Minister issued here and to bring our contribution for a better South Africa in which everyone can have a say.

*I want to ask certain hon members of the CP whether they negotiated with God at any stage to be born with a White skin in this country. They did not.

†It is purely by chance and an accident that they are White and I ask them to please see further than their Whiteness. They must not be myopic in their outlook because, by coming to this Chamber and pleading for White rights, they are abdicating their right to rule South Africa since South Africa does not only consist of White people alone but also many others. By their constant utterances from this podium that they are only concerned about White rights, they are abdicating their responsibility towards the total South Africa.

*They speak about their homeland and also want to put me into a homeland. Again I ask, as the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Representatives also asked here, where the homeland is into which they want to squeeze me. Tell us, this is election time. They must tell us where the homeland is into which they want to squeeze us. [Interjections.] They are as silent as the grave because they do not have an answer. [Interjections.] We want to say plainly that we are not interested in their homeland. We are South Africans.

†We are born in this country and by any standards are civilised and comply with the Western norms which the NP has preached about. We also want a direct say in the affairs of this country.

*We do not want to be caught up only in own affairs. Own affairs are there to serve a purpose, which is to bring less developed places into the twentieth century. Let us understand this clearly once and for all that own affairs should not be there forever.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development spoke here about a system of management committees. For the past 21 years those people have been serving in an advisory capacity. When will they ever sit around the council table and how will the Government accomplish this? That is the headache. We are sick and tired of giving advice. We had a split here recently caused by the Official Opposition. Where are they now? It seems to me that they have run away.

You also broke away.

I am at home now. Don’t worry me.

They broke away because of a third-tier system of government. They wanted to continue giving advice while we are sick and tired of that now. We want a say. That is why they are no longer with us today. They blame us here today by saying that it is through us that the Blacks cannot get in here. I have not heard such rubbish for a long time and that from a man who says he is the Leader of the Official Opposition. He knows he was talking nonsense here.

On the road ahead I want to be recognised as a person just like the millions of people out there. The hon the Minister himself furnished statistics here on how many people renounce violence. Why can the doors not be opened to those people? We are prepared to let the Russians and Cubans come here. We are further prepared to break bread with them as part of the peace effort, but when our own people of this country are involved—our own brothers—we are suddenly reluctant. It is not only Black people who are trained overseas as terrorists.

A boy lived behind us and I am going to tell hon members why he became a terrorist. He was at Sunday School as a Sunday School teacher when a building was burnt at that school. He was locked up for six months. Later he went to Dower College where he received training as a teacher. When trouble broke out at Dower College, that boy called Brown was locked up for another six months. Because of the fact that he, a Sunday School teacher, had been locked up for six months, and after he had had nothing to do with the matter at Dower College for which he was locked up again, he decided to become a terrorist to mean something. Today that child was shot in the Mobil attack in Durban. In the same way there are many of our children who are leaving this country today. We came here to be given a chance so that every South African could take up his rightful place. We do not want our children to leave the country too.

When I was at university, I was invited to attend the Patrice Lumumba University in Russia. I was on the way to Patrice Lumumba but I first wanted to call at home to say goodbye to my mother. My mother, who worked in a kitchen, said to me:

That was the only reason why I did not go to Russia. What happened to the people who went to Russia? [Interjections.] They were all shot on the border in the early years. It is by the grace of God that I am not lying dead there today as well.

Because you are safe in Parliament!

I am not safe in Parliament; there is still a great deal of fighting which has to take place here!

If we therefore scold and talk here, do hon members know why we are doing this? We are doing this because we want to be treated as equals in this country and as nothing less than equals. In the same way every person out there who is a South African wants to be treated as an equal. Hon members certainly do not need laws to protect their Afrikanerdom! Hon members will die as Afrikaners but they do not need laws to protect them. Similarly we on this side do not have laws to protect us. If hon members would only look at the component which comprises the House of Representatives here, there are all kinds sitting there but we live in peace and love. [Interjections.] We have no problems with that.

We are grateful that we came to this Parliament to act as catalysts in order to reconcile Black aspirations and White fears. These were clearly visible in the conduct of the hon member who moaned and groaned like that. What is the name of the place about which he made such a fuss? Suurbekom. These are White fears at their worst. [Interjections.] We shall change the name from “Suurbekom” to “Soetbekom”; then things might change. Hon members must also give us the power, however, to make all those members honorary Coloureds; then we would have no problems in this country. While they hide behind their whiteness, they are going to wreck South Africa on the road ahead. I hope that hon members will broadcast this message when they fight the election campaign which lies ahead, which is that the CP is going to wreck this country if its members come to power.

Hon members know that we have a conflict situation in this country which we on this side are trying to defuse. That is why we are here. That is why we have participated. The hon member for Mossel Bay was right. We came to scuttle this Constitution, as it stands now—not for the sake of scuttling the Constitution but for the sake of replacing it with something better which will be to the benefit of all people in South Africa. That is why we want to do this. That hon member also put a question. Show us when Coloureds made most progress, they wanted to know. Nine months after Van Riebeeck’s arrival—that is when we made most progress. [Interjections.] If the NP had applied the laws to us which were applicable to them in the past, we would have been ahead of them long ago. The question is when we made most progress.

The past 40 years.

The past 40 years? No, the hon member is wide of the mark. Before that time, when we were free South Africans— because the NP started boxing us in when they took control of affairs.

And now you are sitting talking in Parliament too!

The NP denied us the right over many years to a seat here in Parliament. Anyway, to sit here is not the alpha and the omega of our struggle in this country!

†We will be what we ought to be when you are what you ought to be—and then both of us will be free. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I gladly follow on the hon member for Border. Of course his speech invites comment, if he will forgive me for putting it like that to him.

In the first case this hon member raised a very interesting matter. He said that we must convey the message that if the CP comes into power, they will destroy this country. [Interjections.] Together with that it is a fact that his hon leader, Rev Hendrickse, confirmed that he would do nothing to help the NP in their fight against the CP.

Now I want to ask hon members what kind of logic we are dealing with here. What kind of logic is it when a person in fact opposes a party when he knows that if he does not work with that party but against it, he will be the cause of the situation in South Africa deteriorating? This statement comes from a party, as the hon member said himself, that sees itself as a catalyst between White and Black fears. If such a party, which sees itself as a catalyst for peaceful change, now opposes peaceful change, what kind of party is that? What is the objective of such a party? What legitimacy does such a party have?

This argument must be seen in conjunction with the fact that the LP voiced their opposition to our changing the Constitution so that a Black Minister could also be included in the Cabinet. They used the excuse that the Black people with whom they spoke said that they were not interested.

To conclude this subject, I want to remind the hon member that the same Black people were also opposed to the LP participating in this Parliament. Nevertheless the LP did so because they thought that they could serve a purpose in the aim for peaceful development. That was the point of departure. Whence this sudden sensitivity?

I wish to refer to RSCs. Personally I reckon that the principle of the legislation on RSCs is one of the best ever tabled in South Africa. I support it whole-heartedly.

The Free State Agricultural Union requested certain changes to the legislation on RSCs before they would co-operate. These changes requested by the Free State Agricultural Union, stemmed solely from the rural nature of the province of the Free State. After all we produce more than half of all grain in the RSA while our industrial development is extremely limited. For that reason it is pre-eminently an agricultural region and we feel that the relative contribution of the two sectors in our specific case, will differ considerably from that in the other provinces.

Our request is that the hon the Minister will use his powers in terms of the legislation so that we shall obtain better representation on the RSCs by means of our rural councils.

I think the RSCs are the one kind of body that will ensure that we achieve an enormous upgrading of all underdeveloped areas in the Free State. In this way they will relieve the artificial pressure on the amenities for Whites. Secondly I am of the opinion that the most under-developed areas are to be found on farms and rural areas, and not in the towns and squatter camps as such.

Today I want to appeal to the South African Agricultural Union to change its standpoint in respect of participation in the RSCs. The South African Agricultural Union requested its affiliated bodies—that is the provincial affiliated bodies as well as the farmers’ association—not to become involved in the election of office-bearers of the RSCs. If one wants to talk about shortsightedness, this is it, because if one considers the stated aims of the South African Agricultural Union, they are it is in reality to promote the interests of the farmers. The objective of the South African Agricultural Union is the promotion of the interests of the farmer.

It is a fact that if the South African Agricultural Union does not want to become involved in the election of the rural councils that are being incorporated into the RSCs, they will lose a very important say in the form of government in this country. The South African Agricultural Union demands that it be consulted about the appointment of people who are involved with the Financial Aid Council of the farmers and with Land Bank appraisers.

Why should the South African Agricultural Union deny itself the right to be involved in the election of people who are going to help to make the decisions on how money is spent in their area? [Interjections.] If we forfeit that right of the South African Agricultural Union, then we become merely another organisation and the rural councils will come and tell us, as farming community, what we must do. With the present SAAU policy we have a body that has been elected outside the SAAU, a body which is not linked to the constitution and the principles of the SAAU, and now they must represent our farmers. Is that in our best interests as farmers? It is not in my interest as a farmer if people who are not part of my organisation, people who do not share my principles and people who do not have the same basic standpoints as I have, prescribe to me how the funds levied from me, in the area in which I live, must be applied. If that is the case, what will become of the SAAU? In this standpoint of mine I want to appeal to the SAAU to reconsider their standpoint with regard to this matter. They will have to realise, now that the Act is there, now that the regional services councils are there, that it is an Act like any other Act, for example the Income Tax Act, and that politics is no longer an issue. It is not concerned with politics any more. It is now concerned with doing the best for the farmer under the present legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Heilbron began his speech by saying that the LP were obstructionist in their approach to their contribution in Parliament. I want to remind the hon member that it is not only the LP. Those of us of colour did not come here to be supportive of anything but initiatives of reform. All of us in the House of Delegates or the House of Representatives will not support any piece of legislation which is not directed towards finding solutions to the constitutional problems of our country.

The Group Areas Act has caused a tremendous amount of suffering among people of colour. Is now not the time to call a halt to this suffering? During the debate on the Foreign Affairs Vote a lot of praise was heaped upon the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department. We heard of perestroika and glasnost and the thawing of our cold relations with diplomats from Russia. We are now debating the Vote of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who is in the same Government as the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Unfortunately, there is not to be much singing of praises today as this Ministry administers the Group Areas Act. My concern is that on the one hand we are able to and have a yearning for extending hands of friendship to people other than South Africans, and that we are making all attempts to win friends and influence people who are outside South Africa, but within the borders of our country we are not succeeding in finding each other as we should.

I want to refer to what is happening to the Indian people of Pageview. How can we glibly talk about reform while we force people to move out of an area where they have lived for generations? Do we have to continue to settle matters of human rights and rights of domicile in courts of law? That which is happening in Pageview is to me distressing indeed. I concede that the present uncertainty is causing the area to deteriorate, that some structures in Pageview need to be demolished and that the suburb needs to be renewed. The way to do this is not through forcibly evicting people but through allowing the Indian people of Pageview to do to Pageview that which the Indian people did to parts of Mayfair. If one wants an example of urban renewal then Mayfair is an example and the cost to the State was absolutely nothing. I know that the Octavia Hills flats have been earmarked for resettling the Indian people who reside in Pageview. There are many people who will gladly move into the flats, but the people of Pageview should not be compelled against their will to be flat dwellers. A letter from a resident of Pageview which appeared in a Transvaal paper sums up the situation very well, and I quote:

This letter is signed by a Mr Phillip Machanick.

My plea is that Pageview will be proclaimed a free settlement area and that the people will be allowed to get on with the business of living.

The Administration: House of Delegates is presently involved in an investigation for the development of the vacant land known as Burgersdorp and the acquisition of the Octavia Hill flats. This preliminary report is now available. This route may be an alternative should this be absolutely necessary. I therefore submit that in the light of present day circumstances we put behind us the attitudes that caused pain through the application of the Group Areas Act in the past and try to find each other. I am convinced that we are capable of doing much better than we have in Pageview.

This then brings to mind the fact that we have entered a period of intense canvassing for votes in the general election. Will there be repeat of that which happened during the 1987 House of Assembly elections? The CP will of course unashamedly capitalise on transgressions of the Act. Whether the NP candidates will attempt to outdo the CP will be watched with interest.

I must record my appreciation to the hon the Deputy Minister for responding positively to our representations in respect of the issuing of permits to all 21 affected Indian families at Windmill Park. The question that begs an answer is: why cannot this genial hon Deputy Minister be of assistance in Pageview?

What about Mayfair?

What about Mayfair? May-fair should be dealt with and Pageview should be dealt with in the same way. The people of Pageview and the people of Mayfair are people; they want to live!

You do not have the facts!

Well, give me the facts then. The facts that I have at my disposal indicate to me that more should be done for the people of Pageview than we are doing. I would welcome the facts.

Did you support the Free Settlement Areas Act?

I am always in communication with the hon the Minister. We want to talk and resolve this problem by talking with each other. We cannot afford to solve our problems by going to court. We cannot do that in South Africa. We need to do something better than that and that is my plea. It is the plea coming from the heart on behalf of the people. We have a constituency and we cannot allow the people to continue suffering under these …

Did you support the Free Settlement Areas Act?

I did not support the Free Settlement Areas Act because it was linked to the vicious Group Areas Amendment Bill. It was linked. It was a package deal. I said, and I repeat, had the Free Settlement Areas Bill been brought separately we may have given consideration to it but the package deal which was imposed on us made it impossible for us to look at the Free Settlement Areas Bill at that time. The hon the Minister knows it.

It is not true!

Yes! It is common knowledge that the Group Areas Act was also an instrument by means of which thousands of people of colour were deprived or in other words legally robbed of their properties. Now When it is legally possible to restore these properties to the former owners as the result of the properties falling in open central business districts or free settlement areas, should this be achieved by authorities demanding their pound of flesh?

My submission is that if compensation for the expropriation of the property was R72 000 there cannot be any justification for that property to be sold back to the former owners for R178 000. In this regard I take issue with my colleague the hon member for Klip River when he says, and I quote from a news item which appeared in the Daily News of 17 November 1988:

Can the hon member place a monetary value on the sentimental attachment to a property owned by a family for generations? Can the hon member, or anyone for that matter, pay for the pain and suffering of people who had their properties expropriated during the dark era of the sixties and seventies? The only reason for that was that those properties belonged to groups other than the White group. In the words of the hon member for Klip River the properties were expropriated at market value. My plea now is that that value should be the value at which the properties were expropriated.

Are we prepared to carry on rubbing salt into old wounds? There is an opportunity now of redressing the injustices of the past, and such opportunities will also present themselves in future. My plea is that the profit motive be not allowed to intrude when these negotiations for restoring those properties are undertaken.

I am not advocating a monetary loss to the State, but what I would certainly agitate against is continued exploitation and heartlessness in our dealings with one another. Let us not only talk of reform. Let us please practise the reform about which we talk.

The views expressed by me today are in support of the sentiments expressed by the hon the Minister when he spoke here earlier. He said we needed to progress towards a democratic society in which security and justice would prevail and in which there would be no misunderstanding, distrust and conflict, and, above all, that we should bury the past and walk tall into the future. It is important that we make it possible for all of us to walk tall in a society free of discrimination based on race and colour, where apartheid is a nightmare to be forgotten.

The hon member for Caledon referred to certain shortcomings of hon members in the House of Delegates. We are not overly proud of some of the occurrences in our House over the past year. He will concede though that the hon members of the House of Delegates have themselves taken steps to get rid of unseemly behaviour. In this regard I do not think we will do good by pointing fingers at each other. Hon members of the House of Assembly have also lowered the dignity of Parliament in the past. What is necessary is that when we come back to Parliament after the general election we should all get down to building a South Africa to which we can all be proud to belong and in which we can all walk tall in the building of a nation—all of us together.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow him in what he has said, although I obviously have a great deal of sympathy with the pleas he has made here this afternoon.

I want to talk about the subject of negotiations, particularly arising from the hon the Minister’s speech first thing this morning. It has been a topic which has been discussed by other speakers during this debate. It has been discussed very freely around the country in recent times. We have even had the new leader in chief of the NP giving us the news that one of these days there will be a great indaba. I must confess that, when the NP talks about a great indaba, I find it strange coming from them after they had rejected a smaller indaba a few years ago.

I want to speak to and address the hon the Minister on the Natal Indaba. It is now nearly two and a half years since the Natal Indaba completed its deliberations and formulated proposals for integrated second-tier government for the Natal-KwaZulu region. The immediate and overhasty reaction of the NP in Natal, which rejected the main thrust of the proposals out of hand because primarily they did not conform to the group concept philosophy of the NP, is now history.

It certainly came as a shock not only to those who had been actively involved in in-depth deliberations over a period of eight months to find maximum consensus in respect of the desired constitutional future of the two regions; it also came as a shock to many well-meaning people— outside observers in the rest of South Africa and in the international community. These were people who had seen the indaba as the “only show in town”, as it was described, representing a willingness and desire on the part of South Africans of all races to seek a negotiated settlement of the problems which divide our society. Even if the indaba was involved only on a regional level at second-tier government level, it was seen by many observers as a genuine effort to find a solution to the problems within that region.

I believe that the hasty and abrupt rejection by the NP in Natal also seemed, at the time, to pre-empt the possibility of the Government giving objective consideration to a set of constitutional proposals which were still to be presented to it by an indaba which was widely representative of the people of Natal. However, much of that is history.

Since then there have been spasmodic debates in this House and elsewhere which have revolved around accusations and counter-accusations as to the operation of the indaba, the composition of the indaba and as to how it concluded its deliberations. Some even suggested that the PFP had hijacked the indaba, which in a sense was a compliment though it was totally untrue. Since then, too, there have been comings and goings at Government level and further discussion, and this hon Minister, I must say to his credit, has, as far as I am aware, never rejected the indaba proposals outright.

They have been considered, we know, and accepted by the KwaZulu Government. They have been referred back to the Government nominated provincial executive in Natal whose elected predecessors had been one of the coconveners of the indaba.

In more recent times there have been further discussions between the Government and the KwaZulu Government and there is a joint committee in operation involving the two authorities.

Earlier this year, this hon Minister delivered the opening address to the KwaZulu Assembly. Here, too, he was well-received and left the impression that the door was not closed on a number of matters including the Natal Indaba. I commend him for that.

I want to urge him to make use of this opportunity in this debate to take us into his confidence and tell us more as to the Government’s response to the indaba proposals. I listened to the hon the Minister’s speech with a great deal of interest this morning and I believe he set the tone for this debate by dealing with fundamental matters relating to our constitutional future on a high level. I hope he will respond to my plea today on the same level because it is a matter of genuine concern to the people in Natal and to many people outside Natal.

Much of what the hon the Minister said this morning, was positive and refreshing as a verbal exercise in giving a vision of a future South Africa—a South Africa free of discrimination, a South Africa where all races would be represented at all levels of government, a South Africa where even the hitherto seemingly absolute commitment to rigid group identities might be leavened by an acceptance of the principle of voluntary association recognising the pre-eminence of individual rights.

I may say that there were also anomalies in what the hon the Minister said this morning, for example, his commitment to the own affairs concept which is irreconcilable with voluntary association and a move away from group thinking. But these are anomalies which one can discuss at another time when one has had a chance of looking at the hon the Minister’s speech with greater time at one’s disposal.

Clearly though, if one accepts the spirit of his words of this morning, he and his Government have to put their money where their mouth is because it is impossible to reconcile most of the concepts which he embraced, and which we welcome, with the legislative record of his Government. The reality is that legislative discrimination abounds on our Statute Book and most of it stems from this Government over the past 40 years. Time does not, however, permit me to go into that matter any further.

I want to get back to the sentiments of the hon the Minister as expressed this morning and relate those to the concept of the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba. He conceded that compulsory group classification was an obstacle in the negotiation process. He stated that the decisions at all levels should be based on consensus. He committed his Government fully to negotiation and suggested that the alternative to negotiation was violence. I agree with him on that. He stated that, except for those regions that want to opt for independence, all communities can participate up to the highest level in one state. He also stated that at all levels of Government the principle of equal participation and representation and of consensus decision-making should obtain. He also stated, almost prophetically, that a legislative authority in which all people can participate is coming. He said that with meaning.

What then are the obstacles, from the Government’s point of view, in accepting the proposals of the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba? I want to quote from the six points of departure which were accepted by the indaba. I think they can easily be reconciled with the points mentioned by the hon the Minister in his speech today. These points are as follows:

I find this to deal, if I understood the hon the Minister correctly this morning, with principles which are largely the same as the principles outlined by the hon the Minister this morning. Where then does he differ from these points of departure? Why can the principles that were outlined this morning and which, prima facie, are almost identical to the principles contained in the indaba proposals, then not be embraced by the acceptance of those proposals?

The hon the Minister talks about his vision for South Africa and therefore I want to ask him whether, in that vision, he excludes regional initiatives or differentiated dispensations as between regions in the process of reform? Is he committed to a situation where there must be total conformity around South Africa as to what changes are made?

No, I have said that I agree that there need not be conformity!

I am very pleased to have the hon the Minister’s reassurance on that. I am pleased that that is so because we know that South Africa is a diverse society and in some sense that may make it a more complex society. Some people would suggest that that could be a weakness but the reality is that there is diversity in South Africa. I believe that that fact is not necessarily a weakness. There are obvious historical reasons for that diversity.

I believe that we can cater for much of the diversity which exists in South Africa and that a regional initiative such as the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba gives expression to that diversity. It should not be rejected merely because it does not conform with other constitutional models and plans for the rest of the country.

I think these are matters on which the hon the Minister, particularly after his recent discussions with the people of KwaZulu and the developments which have taken place, should make a definitive statement as the people of the country would like to know what stage the Government has reached in giving consideration to the proposals of the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the outset I would like to express my appreciation for the hon the Minister’s concern in respect of the constitutional development programme, and wish to assure the hon the Minister of our support in this respect.

Needless to say, constitutional change or reform to promote and establish the spiritual and material welfare of the people of this Republic can no longer be deferred, a matter about which I know he is quite concerned. We are all aware of the fact that time is running out and the whole process should accordingly be speeded up because our economy is being affected to the extent that the hon the Minister of Finance has warned us of the consequences. The most brilliant constitutional model will have no place to survive if the economy of this country is affected continuously because of the political instability caused by this Parliament and political parties who are not prepared to accept the reality that this country cannot be governed under the old policy of racial separation.

We cannot justify the existence of such a policy but at least we can justify to some extent our participation in the past four years in that we were able to get rid of discriminatory legislation which was then shelved while some legislation has been removed without affecting the White community’s rights about which fears had been expressed.

We are also aware that because of the initiatives for reform, the White community itself was separated, and hence the disagreement in respect of certain issues.

We cannot give our blessing to the continuous existence of the tricameral system of own affairs administrations. Apart from the cost-effectiveness of this venture which has of late been questioned by various sources, it remains to be seen how the Government’s action to ensure a true democracy for the Republic can be vested in a system which still keeps its people divided on a racial basis.

These conflicting issues can never be married. Further, the existing system does not accommodate a vast section of the population. The Black people’s wishes to participate fully in the governing process can no longer be ignored. As I mentioned earlier, time is running out and in finding the solutions to the vast problems which the Government has without doubt brought upon itself by various actions, it must seek consultation with all, irrespective of colour. In this regard I may just say that the hon the Minister has taken initiatives and we wish him well and hope that he will be able to bring about solutions to some of our problems. We will be the first to acknowledge progress but at the same time we also have a duty to draw the attention of the hon the Minister and the Government to areas which require attention.

The time is more opportune for the Great Indaba spoken of in this Chamber to take place and to find a constitution which will accommodate all the people of South Africa.

When the Indian and Coloured communities first participated in the tricameral system of Parliament, it was with a sincere desire to participate and to bring about changes in central Government for the stability and security of this country, and we acknowledge the statement made by the hon the State President calling on the White community to change or be prepared to die.

At the conclusion of this session of Parliament and before the forthcoming general election, let us all learn the lesson that playing the political game will cut the ground which is the stability of this country from under our feet and contribute to the destruction of this valued place, this land of ours. They are contributing to an unstable situation in which future generations will find it hard to survive. Have we not learned from the lessons of Africa? Are we blind to the reality that we cannot survive alone? Divided into separate ethnic communities, separate development has failed and any similar solution will not be accepted or survive.

This own affairs system, with its local affairs and management committees, must go and a timetable must be set by which a system must be evolved—I am aware that the hon the Minister is trying to find solutions—to bring people together in direct contact.

Our survival and the security of this country can be achieved only by a government in which the Blacks are accommodated and in which we can sit together and govern this country jointly.

My submission is that the present time is opportune for responsible leaders from all political sides to join, as the motto of the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs so rightly states, “hand in hand” in an endeavour to seek the constitutional solutions which will bring the people of the Republic together rather than enforce further separation.

I would like to touch upon the statement made by the hon member for Caledon. The instability he mentioned in relation to the House of Delegates stems from the own affairs system of government, which gave some hon members the opportunity to usurp certain powers. Parliament has paid a heavy price for this. Legislation must be reviewed to reduce the unlimited privilege afforded any hon member of this House before and after a crime of fraud has been committed. The solution would certainly lie in a single Parliament and a single administration. This would solve many of our problems.

In these last days of the session, it is my wish to appeal on behalf of the House of Delegates to the hon the Minister, who has so sincerely pushed for reform in this country, to hon members of this Parliament and to all South Africans to bear in mind that the future of this country lies in the hands of all of us. As I have already mentioned, the political game we might wish to play will not solve our future problems, but will create instability. The generations that come after us must not be obliged to depend on decisions made in the past. We have learned from our recent bitter experience of the Boksburg issue and other issues, and we must keep away from things of that sort which divide us further.

In conclusion, it is my wish that the forthcoming elections will be fought on the basis that in this country which we value so highly, reform will take shape in such a way that we will not only be able to serve ourselves but in fact be an example to Southern Africa and the rest of the world.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to respond to the hon the Minister’s speech, but I would like to say that he made some valid points which, I am sure, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will deal with in his reply.

*This afternoon I want to talk about regional services councils as a building block for a possible future constitutional model. When I talk about a possible constitutional model, I find it striking that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly has not revealed one jot or tittle of his future constitutional model. Of course he is most afraid that the electorate at large will see, once the thin veneer is scratched off, that what they have there is a model which really consists of so-called rejects. I can only predict—I say this with all due respect— that if the CP is not a rejected party after 6 September, South Africa will be a rejected country. That is certain.

The only thing we in South Africa need to make a winning country of this beautiful country, is a constitutional model which will emerge in evolutionary fashion from a constitutional development process of which the foundations were laid as early as 1910 and of which the finishing touches will ultimately come about through negotiation.

What then are we seeking? We are seeking a model which must give substance to the claim of all the people and communities to political rights—no one can get away from that; not even the CP—and in which neither a minority group nor minority groups dominate, no matter how we define the groups in future.

We are seeking a model by means of which the revolutionary energy that is being generated at present can be relayed through positive forces of reform to a level of competitive action. I include the so-called Boere revolutionaries, about whom this despicable paper in front of me, Die Volk-stem, which contains a photograph of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, reports among other things: “Ons boere moet sorg dat ons deel van die revolusie bly.”

We are seeking a model which will unite moderate and sensible people in such a way that the things they have in common will receive far more emphasis than those things that divide them. There is no ideal model, but we are seeking one that can combine all these extremes.

We are seeking a model in terms of which all the major groups, each according to its own perspective, will see the light. There must be hope for everyone, including the Whites. It must be an open and flexible model which will allow development.

It must be a model in which there will be a constant visible test of alternatives in one country, which will therefore provide a spontaneous discipline which will guide communities away from unsuccessful or even disastrous policies. In other words, it must also give voters the right to vote with their feet.

With these general guidelines in mind, it goes without saying that existing models must be considered first, and one can immediately make the following deductions. There is no instant model which can be bought for South Africa’s heterogeneous communities. No such model exists. Secondly, unitary governments have a poor historic record in ethnically divided societies. Thirdly, when it comes to the redistribution of poverty there is no more appropriate model than a revolutionary, socialist autocracy, and fourthly, limited democracies have functioned reasonably successfully during the past 100 years.

With this wealth of knowledge and experience at the disposal of the policy-makers, the builders of constitutional models, one can definitely accept that this Government will play these trump cards at the conference table. It will play hard for a constitutional model in which maximum recognition will be granted to participants. For the sake not only of the Whites, but of all the people in the country, it will play with determination for building blocks or parts that have stood the test of time or are faring very well on the test circuits.

Without being prescriptive, the Government will be neglecting its duty if it does not tell the voters of South Africa unequivocally that effective local and regional government must form an integral part of a future constitutional model and that regional services councils already represent a very important milestone on the way to a negotiated constitutional dispensation. The hon the Minister said that this morning. It must be a dispensation in which all communities can control their own affairs in the first place, and in which they can decide together on matters of local, provincial and national importance. The scope of the constitutional implications of regional services councils only becomes apparent when one tests them according to the abovementioned prerequisites and sees that they comply with almost all the requirements.

I merely want to single out a few of them. Regional services councils take decisions on the provision and financing of most facilities and services which determine the immediate quality of life of the respective communities in a certain region which have a common economic destiny. From a counter-revolutionary point of view, therefore, they are of inestimable value.

In the second place decisions are taken by representatives of all communities on the basis of consensus. We heard from various quarters today what a great part consensus politics will play in future. Decisions are taken on development preferences and funds are allocated to projects. In this way subunits are granted an effective say and new opportunities for fundamental participation and involvement in accelerated and co-ordinated development are created.

As a result it would not be excessive to regard each regional services council as a parliament in miniature, in which representatives of all four population groups get together and meet for the first time—note, for the first time—to decide by way of consensus on important matters that affect everyone, such as the allocation of large amounts of money which are collected from the taxpayers. The success attained by means of consensus politics on this level will definitely play a part in preparing the road to power-sharing on higher levels of government as well as in eliminating the fear of consensus government.

The hon member of the CP who has just made such a noise must take cognisance, for example, that the regional services council of Pretoria—in which CP town councils such as Brits and Akasia, which recently unanimously accepted the budget of that regional services council, are represented—is a council which in two years has made a visible contribution to improving the quality of life of the people in that region.

That hon member would do well to listen, even he is not interested in the progress of communities.

With regard to the creation of structures, an imaginative contribution has been made for those various population groups in the economic and social spheres. Even more importantly, a unanimous decision was taken that the levy rate of these regional services councils should be increased. Why? Because they have become more aware of the needs of the region, and of one another’s needs, and therefore want more money to meet those needs.

In the last place it is a system which is really open and flexible, and which can grow and grow, as the various requirements of different regions develop. In this way one develops effective regional government, and therefore important building blocks of a future constitutional model. There is no doubt about that. If we reject that, we will be rejecting an important building block for the future. If one lends one’s ears to historic determinists, one must believe that South Africa is headed for its Armageddon. To me it seems that those hon members believe that. History teaches, however, that there are no fixed and unchangeable trends which guide the course of things irrevocably in a certain direction. Human creativity below the ways of God can cause history to take turns that no one could have envisaged in advance.

We on this side of the House believe that South Africa has sufficient potential, especially human potential and goodwill, to work out a good democratic future for everyone by means of hard work and with a desire for joint survival. The part the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister, their competent officials and this whole department play and will play in this future, cannot be overemphasised. Consequently we on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting this Budget.

Mr Chairman, first permit me the opportunity to refer to the speech of the hon member for Caledon earlier today in this House.

This hon member tried to give a survey of parliamentary politics over the past five years and added something of a preview too. I want to refer to a few of his statements. He said inter alia that Brown leaders of today and their children would have to prove to their own community and the world in the next five years that complaints about apartheid were no longer a smoke screen behind which they were trying to hide their own inadequate performance.

Let us tell each other frankly that one has people in South Africa who live in two different worlds to some extent—those who stood on the wrong side of apartheid and those who, whether they had contributed to it or not, stood on the other side. From these points of view we have our own experience of reality and we shall continue to feel the pain long after it has disappeared.

Let us examine his other point in which he referred to whether we are achieving anything or not. What is the truth? Much as my party, the LP, abhors own affairs, it is a fact that under the leadership of the LP the education budget of the House of Representatives has increased over the past five years from R762 million in 1985 to R1 792 million this year. Since the LP has been dealing with the affairs of Brown communities in this Parliament, 57 new primary schools and 50 new secondary schools have been built. During this year five new primary schools and 11 new secondary schools, as well as seven new hostels and eight school halls, are to be built. In the sphere of community development, funding has increased from R215 million in 1985 to R429 million this year. [Interjections.]

The LP has an upliftment strategy which it follows purposefully. It does not need to prove anything over five years, as the hon member for Caledon suggests. When I have said all this, I underline it again. The degree of achievement of the LP at this level should not be interpreted as if we are now prepared to endorse the entire question of own affairs. We believe that it is merely the road which will ultimately lead to a goal which is a unified South Africa.

The LP believes, however, that right will have to prevail, not only within the Brown community but also within the Black community and the broader South African community. That is why we welcome the sentiments which were expressed earlier today by the hon the Minister. We took note of the hon the Minister’s sentiments and we shall drive him to a new South Africa, even where he does not wish to go himself. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is too slow!

The hon member for Dysselsdorp is quite right. We believe that Black people should also obtain a participating say South Africa. We understand only too well the question of Black aspirations and White uncertainties. We as a party believe that South Africa’s salvation lies in the direction of a non-racial geographic federation based on South African realities and on the choice of the individual. We are bedevilling these aspirations within South Africa, however—I hope the hon the Minister will pay attention—as long as the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act remains on the Statute Book.

Let us refer briefly to that episode at King’s Beach and we ask what happened to the Jacobs Committee’s report on the beaches of Port Elizabeth. Did this committee say that all beaches should be open? Why the silence? Are we to have an announcement after the election? [Interjections.]

Before we lapse into technicalities, let us say that the report actually belongs to the Cape Provincial Administration. Let us ask, because they ultimately fall under the hon the Minister and they have to report back to the hon the Minister at some time or other, after all. I want to believe that enough time has passed and that they have actually reported to the hon the Minister. Let us be honest and tell each other what the report says. Does it say that the hon the Minister and I may go and sit there happily together or not?

†It is my party, the LP’s view that as much as we deplore violence, we cannot wish away groups such as the ANC. If we are to ensure a peaceful future for South Africa, then we must talk to all South Africans and start communicating with all interest groups, including Inkatha, the homeland leaders, urban Black councillors, the ANC and the Pan African Congress. There are various issues on which we differ fundamentally with many of these Black groups, but we cannot wish these people away.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in particular has to remember that if there is a substantial number of people with a certain political viewpoint or a certain political stand we must find a way to accommodate them. We can submit these interested groupings to the law of the land but we cannot pretend that they are not there. I am well aware of the complexities of the society which the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning in particular has to operate in. There are other fundamental differences in our society, there are inequalities and there are injustices but I am realistic enough to realise that in a complex society such as ours conflict will be removed with great difficulty. Instead I believe we should all be actively working towards the constructive accommodation of conflict. We should move towards a point at which we can live together with the least amount of violence. My party believes that the way to such a situation lies along the path of a geographical non-racial federation, a federation in which a person’s ethnic base is not necessarily the deciding factor.

*Black people, whether my friends of the CP like this or not, will ultimately have to take their rightful place in this Parliament. Let us tell each other this frankly. Not even a flood of allegations, accusations and warnings will stem this tide. There is no turning back. My party will hasten this process so that this country of ours may move in the direction of the normal, acceptable practices of the world. In this process all South Africans will have to be consulted and, let me sound a warning, not only those who are represented in this Parliament. In this process we shall have to circumvent the falsity of extremes but we must also do this without detracting from the truth. We share a great deal with one another in this country, we have all been thrown together into the melting pot which is South Africa. We share Western culture, we share English as the international language, we share a Christian view of life, we share economic activities and, whether we like it or not, we are at the point of taking up and sharing real political power in this country. We share citizenship and all South Africans must grow closer together to share many common loyalties. In the process we must look at those symbols which we have today and which are perhaps dear to our hearts but which offend many people unnecessarily. Let us see whether we cannot do something about that.

It is a lie to say that the wheels of history can be thrown into reverse. Whoever does this is playing with the blood of this country’s children. There is no reason why the Afrikaner has to exist in opposition to other people in this country. Today I want to address a special word to my friends who say that they control the Transvaal. I want to tell them that there is no reason why the Afrikaner has to exist in opposition to other people in this country; on the contrary, the Afrikaner will have to learn to exist together with other people in this country. Whether this is accepted grudgingly, it is a fact that in the new South Africa a white skin alone will not be a guarantee of privilege. In a new South Africa one will be gauged by his ability to achieve. I want to emphasise to the NP that South Africa is one nation even if it is composed of groups with differing cultural history. In the building of a new South Africa we must guard against elevating the umbilical cords of dissent, identification and the gregarious feeling to the unassailable. We must guard against permitting our efforts to retain White group identity—it makes no difference how one tries to hide this—to cause us to let the opportunity of establishing a peaceful new South Africa slip through our fingers.

Mr Chairman, I would like to compliment the hon member for Diamant on his very positive speech which is quite a normal feature when he leaves this podium.

There is just one point that I want to take up that he mentioned. I have great difficulty in associating myself with those people who talk unconditionally about speaking to the ANC. I think we ought just to pause and think about what the reaction was of Mr Reagan towards Arafat and the PLO. He was not prepared to discuss or to have any association with the PLO or with Arafat until such time that he renounced violence. Immediately he did that he was duly given the recognition that was promised him.

The other question I think we should ask ourselves is: Is Mrs Thatcher discussing issues with the IRA?

I think those are two very important points which should not be forgotten. If we are now going to go on our bended knees and start talking to the ANC—who have not renounced violence—then I think we are putting ourselves in an extremely invidious and disadvantageous situation.

I want to deal at the outset with the speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Could I have his attention? I am about to pay him a compliment but he is so used to getting compliments today that he is not responding with any alacrity.

With great respect I want to say to that hon Minister he has made a courageous and a very historical speech here today. I compliment him on it and all the time that he was delivering his speech I too felt somewhat like the hon member for Berea, I could hear the echoes of the indaba coming through that speech from time to time. I think those of us who had something to do with the indaba realised that perhaps it was not after all such a dismal failure as a political exercise.

In spite of the Progs!

Leave the Progs alone!

I would also like to say in reference again to the speech of the hon the Minister that I do think that the tone of his speech does tend to highlight the fact that this is a genuine attempt at last to ensure that events do not overtake the orderly process of reform.

What we have to realise on the other hand are the dramatic implications of the speech that he has made today because those implications are going to be far-reaching. They are going to have far-reaching consequences locally as well as internationally.

I want to associate myself with a certain point that he made and that is that responsible change can Only take place through this Parliament.

Today’s speech will mean that the Government will find itself faced with a credibility challenge. It will now have to produce the goods and I want to warn that it will also have to prove its sincerity because failure to do so will destroy for all time its trustworthiness. If this happens it will have the result of jeopardising the whole process of negotiation in the future and will have a profound effect on future racial relations in this country.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that hopes have now been raised and the first step in the implementation of so major a constitutional exercise is to assess the manner in which existing structures which have been built up over a period of 40 years will be accommodated in the so-called new dispensation—whether they are going to be dismantled or whatever the case may be. This in itself will be an enormous undertaking.

Let us take, for example, one of the first, and possibly one of the most important questions that need to be answered; here I refer to the destinies of the self-governing and independent states. Will they be dismantled? If so, by whom, and how would this come about? It is a well-known fact that one of the problems at present is the conflict of opinion which exists between people within the same ethnic group. This has been triggered off largely because of the difference in attitudes and lifestyles between rural and urban dwellers. It is this difference of opinion and outlook that will have to be addressed before negotiations towards a common association can be meaningfully identified.

I want to point out again that this will involve breaking down many cultural barriers that exist today.

I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon member for Randburg. It was a good speech. It was interesting, and I did not doubt its sincerity. Theoretically, I thought, it was an excellent exercise, but I want to be quite frank and I want to state clearly that when one analyses its application against experiences in other parts of Africa one questions the practicability of implementing some of the utopian ideas it contained.

I agree that a tremendous amount of goodwill exists at the present time on all sides which must be capitalised on, and one is pleased to note that it is again the style and the basis on which the indaba negotiations took place that have given a lead by emphasising their important role in bringing about what one can only perceive as a completely new attitude in our own political thinking.

In the few seconds I have left I just want to say a few words about the tricameral system. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mooi River will forgive me if I do not follow upon his speech, as I want to address myself to a few aspects relating to the constitutional policy of the CP.

*As I said, I should like to discuss a few aspects of the CP’s constitutional policy. I want to begin by saying that in my opinion there is no way in which the CP can get its constitutional policy of geographic partition off the ground without seeking the co-operation and the agreement of the other population groups. It can achieve this only if it negotiates with them and persuades them to do this.

It is interesting to note that since its inception in 1982, the CP has consistently run away from two matters with reference to its policy of geographic partition. The one is negotiation, and the other is indicating the boundaries of its partitioned South Africa. It is striking that all the right-wing groups which are pursuing the dream of a White state have drawn the boundaries of their state. Their maps are known, and are there for all of us to see.

The map of the AWB, for example, comprises the restoration of the Boer Republics of the Free State, the Transvaal and Northern Natal. The Oranje-Werkers want to build their Afrikaner homeland around the growth points at Morgen-zon and the Verwoerd Dam on the Orange River. The Afrikanerstigting of Prof C W A Boshoff recently made the boundaries of their White homeland known, admittedly in semidesert area, but the area has been made known. Only the CP says nothing about its boundaries. I find that very interesting. The CP, the political standard-bearer of the right-wing movement in South Africa, says nothing. The CP, the political leader, should actually have been first, is conspicuous by its absence when it comes to the details of its constitutional policy.

What we have here is an irony. The right-wing cultural leaders, who are also members of the CP and of whose organizations the members are more or less all members of the CP, have their ground-plans ready. The right-wing political leaders are not saying anything, however.

I contend that this silence is a calculated silence and that there are two reasons in particular for this calculated silence. The first is that the CP leadership—note that I say “leadership”; not the members here at grass-roots level—rejects all the models of the groups to which I referred a moment ago. They reject the model of the AWB because they are convinced that there is too much land in the Cape Province and Natal to give it all away. They reject the Oranje-Werkers Plan as a naive attempt, and they reject the plan of the Afrikanerstigting for the same reason. I think that secretly the CP is ashamed of the Afrikaner-stigting’s wanting to lead the Whites into the desert.

But there is a second reason. The CP knows that if it puts forward its plan, it will be making itself just as vulnerable and will be pulling the carpet from under its own feet. It is best for the CP to say nothing. If it remains silent, it can preserve the semblance of having a map and boundaries. The moment it shows its hand, however, its whole house of cards will collapse, as will its party. The CP realises that by far most South Africans and by far the majority of Whites do not really take the homelands or states of the AWB, the Oranje-Werkers or the Afrikanerstigting seriously, and consequently it cannot afford to get into the same boat as these groups. For the sake of political survival, the CP must refrain from being specific. No plan, map or boundary of the CP-partitioned South Africa may see the light, especially not until the CP comes into power. Only then, once it has taken power, will it emerge with its map or plan. Now, however, it is expedient to run away from it.

I said there was a second aspect of their policy that they were running away from. That is the aspect of negotiation. In order to get the partition policy off the ground they have to negotiate with other groups. The hon member for Mossel Bay dealt very effectively with this matter this morning. The CP has to change the Constitution, and consequently has to negotiate with the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. Then they have to negotiate with the Whites, the Coloureds, the Asians and also the Blacks to move to their new fatherlands, to move hither and thither to their new fatherlands. Can hon members imagine what new Great Trek we will experience then? It is too good to be true. If a strong NP Government could not manage that in 41 years, there is no democratic way in which a CP government will be able to force millions of people into their own fatherlands.

The CP realises that, and that is why they run away from negotiations. They do not even try to negotiate. I maintain that they purposely shy away from negotiation because they know that no one wants to negotiate with them about a pipe-dream. They say, however, that no one will stop them from implementing their policy if they come into power. That is very interesting, because here the CP is alluding to confrontation with anyone who dares stand in their way in achieving their purpose. I want to concede to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly that he has rejected violence as an instrument for effecting change in South Africa, but if one listens carefully to what he says, allusions in his statements can often be interpreted as confrontation. In this connection I want to refer to his speech in the House of Assembly on 12 February 1988. Hon members can look this up in Hansard, 12 February 1988, cols 817-821. Unfortunately there is not enough time to go into detail on this. I merely want to quote what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly said as follows:

He then says which company he is referring to, and refers to the Protestant Reformists, and to N P van Wyk Louw and Dr Verwoerd. He then concludes by saying:

Perhaps he is a reformist too!

On 21 February 1988 Rapport ran a very interesting article written by Anne-Marie Mischke, in which she gave a review of the statements on violence made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly since May 1982. I want to ask hon members to go and read this article again. It is really an anthology of statements made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly on confrontation, on the tiger in the Afrikaner which should not be awoken and about slumbering White power. I quote from his speech at Nylstroom on 31 October 1983, in which he said:

[Interjections.] Hon members of the CP are shouting “hear, hear!” It is very interesting to note that we read and hear about statements with reference to violence and confrontation, but nowhere do we read that they have made an appeal to the inhabitants to get together to negotiate about the possible problems in the constitutional sphere. We have an idiom which says “from the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks”. I want to tell those hon members that they must refrain from their belligerence. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to say a few words about housing and the provision of land, particularly in what I call the FWV area. I say the FWV area because I no longer call it the PWV area. The reason for this is that the PW era is now over and we are about to enter the FW era. If FW, however, runs away from Vereeni-ging, that area could very well become known as the KWV area. [Interjections.]

The report of the President’s Council on the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill of November 1988 came to the conclusion that there is a shortage of identified areas for the settlement of people. The President’s Council urged the Government to accept as a matter of urgency certain suggested amendments. The President’s Council also came to the conclusion that if the amendments were not accepted, the implementation of a general policy of orderly urbanisation would be severely frustrated.

In their submissions to the Joint Committee on the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill the Urban Foundation, in a memorandum dated 25 July 1988, set out an alternative approach to informal settlement. The Foundation said that an informal housing policy should consist of two components. Firstly, there should be an upgrading of existing informal settlements through the legalisation of the settlements; the provision of security of tenure; the installation of rudimentary services; the development of community facilities; and the erection of more substantial or formal housing.

Secondly, the Foundation said that there should be the establishment of site and service schemes where new land is formally laid out as a township and divided into sites and streets where sites are sold and occupation allowed immediately. In due course services could be upgraded, facilities provided and private housing stock improved in a process called consolidation.

They drew attention to international experience which indicated principles to guide informal housing policy. These include ensuring that development projects reach the poor; managing the consolidation process; a legislative framework that allows for the unique circumstances of each settlement; medium term development of balanced and viable communities; and the protection of private property.

I have taken some time to quote from the President’s Council’s report and the submissions of the Urban Foundation as I would like the hon the Minister to advise the Committee what progress has been made in these matters.

What progress has been made with regard to the amendments to the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act? The hon members of the Minister’s party on the President’s Council have told the Government to make urgent amendments to the Act and I would like to know what progress has been made in this regard.

This committee was of the opinion, and I quote them when they say:

They also urge that the Act should be rationalised so as to further the process of orderly urbanisation. This was a fairly strong recommendation and I hope that the hon the Minister will advise this Committee what steps have been taken to give effect to the report from the President’s Council. It is his people who made this recommendation in fairly strong words concerning urgency and highest priority.

I hope too he will advise us what progress is being made with regard to housing and the provision of land, particularly in the Witwa-tersrand area.

Certain land was identified last year, particularly an area to the west of Soweto. Subsequently this land was found to be undermined and possibly not suitable for housing. Will the hon the Minister inform the Committee what progress has been made to ensure that this land is indeed suitable and, if so, what arrangements are being made to release it for development? Will he also inform us as to what the situation is with regard to Weiler’s Farm, and what progress is being made with the provision of accommodation at Orange Farm? These are sensitive matters but because both squatters and farmers need to be reassured that their best interests will be served, I believe the hon the Minister should tell us what progress is being made in this connection. Will he also advise us whether the principles enumerated by the Urban Foundation which I mentioned earlier, particularly those relating to the poor, will be taken into account?

Special provision has to be made for the poor. Land has to be set aside for the poor as they are the ones who need assistance the most. In this connection I would hope the Government would commit themselves to a programme of annual targets so that they and the private sector can be held accountable with regard to the availability of land and the provision of housing, particularly informal housing. Informal housing is a special form of housing that differs fundamentally from formal housing. Special attention should be given to this problem and I therefore feel the regulator of annual targets is appropriate. The adequate provision of informal housing will therefore be measured against the need of the people, particularly the poor people. In this respect I believe the Government should encourage provincial and local authorities to accommodate informal housing projects as much as they possibly can.

I agree.

Adequate and suitable land must be identified specifically for informal housing and acquired by the relevant authorities and held in reserve until required.

The existing subsidy policy needs to be altered to provide for subsidising land and infrastructure. The private sector should be encouraged to become involved in the provision of informal housing.

I trust the suggestions I have made will facilitate the availability of informal housing and I look forward to the hon the Minister’s response.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the previous speaker for his positive contribution, for a change, on the subject of informal housing. I think the most important point he mentioned was the necessity for the private sector to get involved in the provision of housing for the poor.

I want to begin by congratulating the hon the Minister on his speech of this morning. I honestly think that it is one of the most important speeches he has made since I became a member of Parliament, recently as that might be. I think that those of us who are in the same party as he is view the statements that he made today with excitement.

The contribution that the DP is making towards the constitutional debate is, of course, of interest to this House. The DP is a young party, but some of its antecedents go back over 30 years. The hon member for Berea and I are possibly the only two here today who were at the congress which saw the birth of the Progressive Party. The obstetrician who was responsible for the birth of the old Progressive party was, of course, Dr Verwoerd, with the announcement of his independent Ban-tustan policy.

The old United Party was caught in a dilemma. The question was whether they should honour the promises made by General Hertzog in the Land Act of 1936 to grant extra land to the so-called Native territories in the light of the fact that these would now be excised from South Africa.

The late Douglas Mitchell took the line that independence was not part of the promise, and he was not prepared to allow any more South African territory to be given to foreign states. Those opposing him felt that the promise should be honoured and that independence would grant more freedom to those living in the areas which were to become independent states. The result was that in its infancy, the Progressive Party was to support the Verwoerdian ideal.

I can well remember the Progressive Party’s attempts to woo Bantustan leaders. The conference at Baluga was arranged with the usual razzmatazz and hype to achieve this. I think it was only in about 1974 that the Progressive Party expressed its opposition to the concept of independent homelands.

In the meantime, the Molteno Commission had been appointed to work out a constitutional policy. The result was the qualified franchise, in terms of which suffrage would be open to all races, but subject to qualifications of minimum income, wealth or educational standard. That educational standard was equivalent to the United Nations definition of literacy.

This idea, of course, goes back a long way to the original fancy franchise policy of Lord Glenelg, who was the British Colonial Secretary in the first decade of the present century. His idea was a multiple-vote system whereby an individual could be granted any number of votes from one to ten depending on income, wealth or education.

I think that the Progressive Party eventually realised that this policy was both patronising and paternalistic, and a later commission was set up under Dr Slabbert to redraft policy.

The result was something which nobody really understood but in terms of vagueness and inexactness, can favourably be compared with the proposals put forward by Dr Worrall when serving on the President’s Council. But then Dr Slabbert went awol and Prof Olivier was given the task of redrafting a constitutional policy. Unfortunately, his efforts never saw the light of day and we now have a new policy from the DP.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Berea is also an old Sap.

*Let us look at the policy and principles of the new DP. We have all seen a document consisting of a preamble with which most members in this House agree. [Interjections.] I can also agree with that preamble. It is followed by a main principle, namely the establishment of a true democracy rejecting race as a basis. A second and consequential principle, which then follows, is a representative government on the basis of general adult franchise for all South African citizens. However, this is followed by a policy programme. There they say:

The hon member for Randburg admitted this morning that it meant one man, one vote and also Black majority rule. That is what he said to us this morning. [Interjection.] It then goes further.

In the third section an electoral system, such as, for example, proportional representation and/or a multiple voting system, is mentioned.

†We then have a conglomeration of loose ideas, the result I believe of muddled thinking in parts and of compromise for the rest.

What is apparent is that we have a proposal for universal franchise on a common voters’ role.

This is an ideal that can one day be realized when South Africa has become a homogeneous, nonethnic, unilingual state with a single and exclusive First-World economy. This is a dream we can all aspire towards but there are only two problems. Is it possible; and, if so, how long will it take to get there?

We cannot attain perfection in this world. We must accept that incremental change is the only way towards proceeding realistically and responsibly towards evolving our future.

With its fine ideals and lofty aspirations the DP finds it difficult to deal with reality and everyday problems. They cannot even deal with the status quo and take simple decisions as to whether they are to seek representation in the next election in one House, two Houses or three Houses. Having done their somersault on the application of the hon member for Claremont to rejoin their party, it is up to them to explain to us what the differences are between themselves and the LP because if these are dialectical disagreements, what are the issues going to be on which they are going to fight the LP?

It was apparent that the former members of the NDM were prepared to accept the hon member for Claremont but were not prepared to accept the hon members of the House of Representatives because participation in the House of Representatives would upset that mythical beast, the so-called extraparliamentary forces. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to start with a few general comments. In the first place, I want to refer to the hon member for Bloemfontein North’s remarks on the fact that, as he expressed it, the CP had not yet published the blueprint of their envisaged state. The interesting aspect is that this is exactly the same as may be said of the NP. The only difference is that the NP has been trying to indicate final boundaries for a few decades.

Tugela Mouth in Natal is a telling example. Hon members could well ask the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid how a piece of land was initially proclaimed as part of KwaZulu. They then discovered that they had not followed all the prescribed procedures and recently, about a year and a half ago, steps were again taken overhastily in an attempt to rectify what had been botched but there is no certainty yet on the amount of land in the Red Hill farm area which is to be incorporated with KwaZulu. This is only one example among many. The hon member and his party should therefore drop the story about blueprints and look at their own plans. [Interjections.]

As regards the recent statement or alleged statement by the hon the Minister of Finance that it is inevitable that there will have to be a majority of Blacks in the Government of South Africa and the hon the Minister’s enormous effort to explain that this was not to be misunderstood and that he actually did not intend it to sound so drastic, we merely wonder why there is such a terrible fluttering because surely this is stale news regarding the NP policy. If we look at the minutes of the meeting of the NP chief executive of the Transvaal of 20 June 1987, after the 1987 election, it states expressly in the minutes:

The consent of the majority of Black people therefore has to be obtained. In connection with this, we can also refer to the speech of the hon the present State President on 30 September 1985 in which he said inter alia:

In other words, if there is universal franchise in an undivided South Africa of which all communities of South Africa form part, surely it is only logical that the majority of the people in the government of that country will be Black people because they have the numerical advantage.

A further reference in this regard comes from the speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on 23 April 1986 in which he said inter alia:

We say again that logically, based on these statements, there will be a majority of Black people in the Government.

A second aspect which I want to raise briefly deals with the entire question of negotiation with the ANC. This has been raised a few times already in this debate. I found it interesting to see in Die Matie, a student newspaper, of Thursday, 13 April of this year, what a certain student, who attended the negotiations with or the visit to the ANC in Lusaka, had to say about that visit. It is interesting that within the space of two paragraphs there was a concealed admonition to both the NP and the DP, for listen to what this student said. One could say that she was first addressing a message to the NP and I quote:

It is the ANC that sees the success of ANC violence in the conduct of the Government and specifically in its acceptance of power-sharing and its “adapt or die” political cry.

Addressed to the DP, the people who pride themselves that there has been a decrease in violence as a result of their negotiating with the ANC, the ANC had the following to tell the students at the beginning of April in Lusaka, in the words of this student:

She then quoted the ANC speaker and said:

Those were the words of one of the delegates while DP speakers prided themselves on the fact that the ANC had abandoned their attacks on targets in consequence of their negotiations. It emerges clearly from this statement, however, that the ANC is leading the DP by the nose.

I want to refer to the report of the Department of Development Planning, in which certain terms are used. My hon leader has already referred to some of them. I should like to quote from it. It reads inter alia-.

I want to explain the word “democratisation”. Lower down on the page one finds:

One the one hand we have democracy, democratisation and democratic politics. On the other hand, it is stated further on:

What is happening in this report is that bringing in a diversity of Black people in their various ethnic relationships is held up here as democratisation and part of a democratic process. This is a totally confused concept because the terms which are used here do not apply to the process which is indicated.

If we look at the HA T, democracy is defined as follows:

[Interjections.] If we look at Die Afrikaanse Woordeboek, democracy is explained as follows:

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

Mr Chairman, I am sorry but my time is very limited, in contrast with that of some NP speakers.

Mr Chairman, if I give the hon member some of my time, may I ask him whether Switzerland is a democracy?

We are speaking about the terminology which is used in this report now about the South African situation and I am indicating to the hon the Minister that and incorrect concept is used for the process which is being explained there.

The HAT has the following to say on “demokratiseer”:

That is the meaning of “demokratiseer”.

Die Afrikaanse Woordeboek, 1955, Deel 11, defines it as follows:

And then regarding the concept “volk”, one finds in the seventh edition of Van Schaik’s Verklarende Afrikaanse Woordeboek that the first possible meaning given is “inboorlingarbei-ders” and then, when one is referring to “volke” or “volkere”, the meaning is:

The same work has the following to say on “nasie”:

Consequently it is clear from all these references that, when one is speaking of democracy, one is speaking about people’s government. If one says one will throw different peoples together in one governmental dispensation, this in not democratisation; in fact, it is exactly the opposite process because people’s government is then being removed and replaced by a system of another type. [Interjections.]

Secondly, I should like to refer to the handling of democracy by the NP and I find my point of contact in the application of the Group Areas Act. Surely some note must be taken of the will of the people in a democracy, we assume, but what happens in the implementation of the Group Areas Act? In reply to questions which we have put over the past session, we have received the following statistics …

Order! I have allowed the hon member additional time, but even that has now expired.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to participate in this debate today. The previous speaker, the hon member for Roodepoort, is part of the so-called moderate wing of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. The speech I prepared for today is directed specifically at that wing and the hon member may as well listen to it.

I want to tell the hon member, with reference to the ANC, that whether it is the ANC or the CP which wants to exert its influence over the governing party, the NP is dedicated to reform. We are reform-orientated and no one will divert us from that course. The path we are following is that of level-headed South Africans.

I think that the time has come to speak candidly to certain hon members of the CP in the back benches. I think that as back-bencher, I have the right to do that. [Interjections.] I do not have time to react to the hon member for Potgiet-ersrus, but I looked up every occasion on which an hon member of this Parliament reacted to him. If one sees how the hon members reacted to him after he had made a speech, it is a damning judgement. There is a saying that goes: He was judged by his peers and found wanting.

Today I want to make the assertion that positive racism is the greatest ally of the CP. If one looks at the splintering in the right-wing groups then there is truly one thing that runs through all these groups like a golden thread, and that is racism. Next to the search for an own country, racism is the other cornerstone and in my opinion it is the one the right-wing alliance is most enthusiastic about. If one looks at their conduct, not only in this House but elsewhere as well, one finds that a large part of the CP caucus has accepted racism. Today I want to ask where the hon Mulder brothers fit in. In an article in Die Suid-Afrikaan of December 1988, Wessel Ebersohn wrote an article “Hulle soek nog na ’n eie land” and he quoted Prof Boshoff:

Then Wessel Ebersohn asked the following question:

Ironically he said Boksburg—

And then came the answer:

I assume that that is the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke. I assume that he was present when the interview was conducted. Today I want to ask him categorically: Is it true that that was his comment? Does he agree with Prof Caret Boshoff’s plan for the new White homeland? I want to ask him when he will be desperate enough to move there.

The cold-blooded racism of the Afrikaner-Weer-standsbeweging is known to everyone. It is repugnant even to the non-AWB members in the CP. If the AWB disappears, what is going to become of its supporters? Are these supporters, these racists, welcome to serve in the CP together with the Mulders? How far does political opportunism impel one? Today I want to ask: Quo vaditis, Mulder brothers? Their right-wing allies are cosily egging one another on with theories of racial superiority in which distorted religious undertones occur.

When the Blanke Bevrydingsbond was banned, what became of them? Have they also been swallowed up by the CP’s political opportunism which exposes its principles in all their nakedness before the cohesive factor of racism? Today I want to make the statement that the CP policy advocates positive racism, supposedly founded on the love for what is one’s own, which allows them to discriminate in favour of their own race.

What does this racism, which the hon members for Randfontein and Schweizer-Reneke tolerate, look like? What does the racism look like which they tolerate for the sake of the political opportunism of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly? I want to quote to hon members from the newspaper Die Stem of 30 November 1988. Hon members must be familiar with it. He writes in an editorial column under the headline “KP-armoede of NP-armoede of Bybelarmoede”. They addressed the editorial to our hon national leader, the hon the Minister of National Education. I quote:

Referring to these members as if they were idol worshipers. He continued:

“Babelse hervormingshuis”, in other words this Place. Listen further:

Thus the editorial in Die Stem. I want to ask the hon members whether they agree with this. I want to ask them why, when Die Huisgenoot publishes an article about their deceased father, they are sensitive about correcting it.

Because it was a lie!

Let me ask the hon member a further question, Does he agree with his hon leader, because when he was asked to comment on the AWB he said that he was not going to condemn people who agreed with him about the free continued existence of the Afrikaners, and who served the interests of the Whites in their own homeland.

Political opportunism wins again. Principles are clearly of lesser importance. It is more important that we scratch one another’s backs in the right-wing stew pot. Die Volkstem of March 1988, a so-called independent right-wing newspaper, has on its front page a poster comprising a photo of the hon member for Randfontein, and on the same front page it has a photo of the hon member for Standerton. On page six of the same newspaper there is a photo of a smiling hon member for Schweizer-Reneke.

This newspaper is teeming with racist remarks from beginning to end. Does the hon member agree? Why does he not write a letter to that newspaper? Die Volkstem of February 1988 devotes a whole front page to the CP with the headline “Boumateriaal: dis die KP”. I ask the hon members again, I ask the hon Mulder brothers, whether they really want to associate with these people.

Surely they are not at home in this company. They know it. They know that they do not belong there.

The mouthpiece of the Blanke Bevrydingsbe-weging, Die Kommando, wrote as follows in its issue of March, 1989:

I ask those hon members once again whether they want these people on their side. Do the hon members blame the level-headed South Africans when they doubt their sincerity and their integrity when they look at all these statements of the right-wing movements? Why is it that they have less support outside the Transvaal? It is because their right-wing publications have identified the Transvaal as a Boerestaat. Together with that— the cohesive factor of racism—they continue to build on those two crumbling principles.

We in the Cape and in the rest of South Africa know that we are situated outside the Boerestaat. That is why it is only the motivation of racism that remains for the CP supporters in the Cape. We in this part of the country, just like the Transvalers who reject the CP policy, are not racists. That is why the cohesive factor falls away, and we shall continue to reject the CP.

I want to conclude. The credibility of the Mulder brothers is at stake. The cloak that hangs around them, that they are ostensibly not as radical as their allies, is falling off. The time has come for them to declare publicly whether they feel at home in this boiling, bubbling, right-wing, and racistic alliance.

Mr Chairman, hon members will probably not take it amiss of me if I become involved in the fraternal quarrel taking place in this Chamber. Now that the election has been announced it is quite clear that the first blows are being struck.

I would very much like to become involved in this fraternal quarrel, but unfortunately we are not yet on one voters’ roll, because then it would really have been a fight worth watching. However, while these fights are under way, my hon colleagues in this Chamber have forgotten that important things have taken place in the interim about which not a word has been said. Nobody dropped dead either. The next thing we knew we were taking part in joint debating. I also enjoy seeing all hon members of all parties participating so happily. Meanwhile not one of them has said to me: You, Hotnot, stand aside; you are not going to speak here. This took place unnoticed. I submit this is progress in the right direction.

I am not prepared to fetch the future from where I was born either. That was when we still spoke about the “Boerewinkel” and a “Hotnot-winkel”. I am not prepared to go back to my unhappy childhood when, if there was no sugar in the Coloured shop we had to have coffee and porridge without sugar for supper, because we were not allowed to buy it at the White shop. Today we are here, and who are the people who serve clients in our supermarkets? Today Coloured people serve clients in all our big supermarkets. What is more not a single hon member in this Chamber has ever voiced his displeasure in this regard.

Let us therefore put an end to this fraternal quarrel and rather start working for a better South Africa. This is our country, in the same way that it is everyone’s country—all of us sitting here today—if we just work together for a better South Africa tomorrow.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning recently attended the investiture of the new mayor of Lingelethu West. There I saw something which really touched me. The Police male choir sang “Nkosi, Sikelel’ iAfrika” and the vast majority of Whites present in that hall gave them a standing ovation. Is that not progress in the right direction?

More is said here about the ANC than the ANC says about South Africa. We could therefore just as well talk to the ANC. It would not make any difference. Recently everything we have said here has revolved around the ANC. We should therefore hold discussions with them as soon as possible if this will be the solution.

We will nevertheless have to look at things like permits, which are unfortunately the responsibility of this hon Minister. It is his responsibility because of the position he holds. Two medical doctors, people who must render an essential service, want to create a facility in my constituency which does not yet exist there. However, they are afraid that the permit they have applied for cannot be allocated to them. Why? They are White. They want to help people; cure people. They do not want to kill people. They are not coming there to proclaim left-wing or right-wing radical politics. They are coming there with the sole purpose of doing what they promised to do when they took the Hippocratic oath. They are battling to get a permit. Surely that is not right! Then one gets the latest addition, namely the singing at Lingelethu West, and that is what I want to refer to.

The town council of Mossel Bay refused to allow a non-White choir to sing. Is that not a disgrace? A CP controlled town council has the audacity not even to want to listen to singing in these modern times, and this in an economically viable area which must create employment opportunities for us and help us out of our economic crisis and isolation! Investments must be made, but the town council in control there does not even want non-Whites to sing there. It is a tragic day for South Africa that, in this century, we must still accept such reprehensible acts. I simply cannot associate myself with such things, and I hope that the forthcoming election will put everything in the right perspective.

Obviously I also have a problem. I also want to address my hon colleagues in the NP. We must not blame the CP for the events in Boksburg and Carletonville. It is simple! The hon members must say where they stand. They must delete the Act, then the CP will not be allowed to do what they are doing at the moment. We can then take them to court if they put up notice boards. The hon the Minister knows how it hurts me to drive past those notice boards in the Strand and Gordon’s Bay which read: “Beach and seafront for Whites only. No dogs allowed.” The notice board reading “No dogs allowed” should at least be put elsewhere, because I do not know of dogs which can read. Those notice boards cause great unhappiness.

The hon the Minister must please give me a reply to the problem I have. There is an election in the offing and there are Whites living in my constituency, Macassar. Those people want to vote for me. What can I do, because they are Whites? I have Blacks living there; I have Indians living there. I have never paid any attention to the Group Areas Act. My record will attest to the fact that I have never given permission for a permit to be issued for someone to come and live in a so-called Coloured area. My reply has always been: This is God’s earth and man must decide where he wants to live. It is his choice.

Now I am asking, since we have the problem, where those people in my constituency must vote? They want to vote for me. Unfortunately I must tell the hon the Minister—we just happen to share the same constituency—that they are not going to vote for him, but for me. They are not going to vote for him because he cannot interfere in my constituency. I am going to register them. [Interjections.] That is not much good to me or to the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister says it is a good thing for me. I do not need those votes, but I want to accommodate them in the total South African set-up. That is the direction we must move in.

Let us take the development of Macassar Beach as an example. How many letters and how much time has been wasted in battling to get that beach proclaimed a Coloured beach? To this day it is, to use a legal term, “an unproclaimed beach”, because it is a “fisherman’s haven”. Must I now chase away a White man who wants to catch fish there? Must I chase away a Black man who wants to catch fish there?

The hon the Minister can come there one New Year’s Day and see what South Africa looks like there. It looks like God’s flower-garden, because one comes across people of all colours there. I have no incidents. I can understand these fears we had, because we come from an era which is no longer acceptable to any of us and we must now start doing something about this. We must forget about right-wing radicalism. We will always have them with us. In the same way that we read in the Bible that we will always have the poor with us, we will always have these objectors with us too. We must forget about them; we must build up this beautiful country of ours. We must carry on. We must do this work with determination.

I want to congratulate the hon the Minister. This morning I was almost able to say: “That is the new Chris Heunis I am hearing now.” It was a totally different story. I am not suggesting that the hon the Minister has made an about-face. All that has happened for a change is that this hon Minister has eventually started to tell us clearly which direction we are heading in.

The hon the Minister will remember that on 23 May 1985 I asked him in the House of Representatives to take his foot off the brake. He would seem to be getting into gear now. I want to congratulate him. He must make more courageous speeches like the one he made this morning. South Africa needs it. [Interjections.] South Africa is looking forward to this and although there is an election, this is the time for us to face the voters with courage.

We cannot wish away our future. We must determine our own future and that is surely what we must do in this highest authority. I recognise the fact that I am here. That is the reason why I can stand here today and tell my colleagues face to face what I think—an opportunity I never had before.

Perhaps the first five years were a trial run and the home stretch may still be far away, but we must not tackle this like the race between the tortoise and the hare. We must not run one day and hide behind a bush the next. We must finish this race. We will have to stand together to the end. At the end of the day we are talking about South Africa; we are not talking about White or Black South Africa—we are talking about one South Africa. I hope I will live to see the day when we become one strong nation.

So many initiatives are being taken in foreign countries. In the diplomatic sphere South Africa is excelling, but we must also have that confidence at home. We must also put right what still has to be put right here at home. When I say this I am not saying it with any bitterness in my heart. I am say with the courage of my convictions that there is still so much which can be done. Must we first be in conflict with one another before things are done? When will we sit down and listen to one another properly? We have come to the negotiation table but it is now time for us to listen to one another. We must speak sincerely.

In one respect one can say something positive about the CP. They are at least honest. One knows where one stands with them. I am now asking that in this country, when we talk about sitting around the negotiation table, we will get people together. Let us come together, let us sit and tell each other what we think. We do not say this because we want to scold.

The NP must not think that we are saying these things out of bitterness. The bitterness we experienced in the past can never be compensated for. All we can do now is to work out a more peaceful future for ourselves and for our descendants. We can do this by simply joining hands and moving forward into the future together.

Mr Chairman, it was with great understanding and piety that one listened to the seriousness and enthusiasm with which the hon member for Macassar spoke. I shall try to return to a few of the hon member’s arguments in the course of my contribution.

In this debate there were continual appeals for equality with respect to all people in South Africa. I do not think that we on this side of the House have fault to find with that, but one must issue a warning. We have listened to a very interesting debate. However, there is one thing that we must make clear to one another. The illusion exists that if we abolish apartheid, whatever the perception is that we attach to it and whether we are in favour of it or against it, and if there is no apartheid and no discrimination in South Africa anymore, we are going to solve our socio-economic and social problems. Then we are living in a fool’s paradise.

Having said that, I should like to tell the hon member for Macassar and the hon member for Randburg that there are certain realities which no one in South Africa dare possibly ignore. This is simply the way things are in South Africa.

In the first place there are the realities of the diversity of our community. I think that we all accept that. No one can quarrel about it. Secondly there is the reality of the way of life of the communities which have been established in South Africa over the years—associations and dissociations. Thirdly there are backlogs and aspirations, especially those of our underdeveloped communities. We in South Africa must bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of the so-called have nots in South Africa and the overwhelming majority of the Third World component in South Africa are people of colour. It is not anybody’s creation. It is a world-wide phenomenon. It is not peculiar to South Africa. The other day I read an article in a newspaper that dealt with America, and I quote:

That is in America and not here in South Africa, where there is supposed to be discrimination and apartheid or whatever the arguments are.

I am sorry that the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development is not here at the moment. We can argue with one another about this and reproach one another. We can accuse each other and speak about this with bitterness. However, this is South Africa. The question is what we are going to do to correct this matter. When we hear a speech such as the one made by the hon member of Macassar, we shall listen to it and, together with him, try to solve these problems. What is true, is that we have a joint responsibility to uplift the Third World component in South Africa. That is why, for example, the abolition of the Group Areas Act, No 36 of 1966, will not solve our physical planning or our housing problem overnight. We can abolish this Act tomorrow, but if we abolish this Act we are not going to solve all the problems. All that I want to emphasise with what I have just said is that there are no simplistic solutions for the upliftment of 70% of our population, who belong to the Third World.

Our problems are complicated even further by the urbanisation process, also of Black communities in South Africa. At present it is approximately 40% and in the year 2000 it will be between 60% and 70%.

It is not strange to South Africa. The White community, too, has gone through the bitter experience of the poor White question. Breadwinners of White families migrated to the cities and mines. Their families followed them and lived a hand-to-mouth existence in outside rooms.

Naturally there are also fears in the hearts of our people. There are fears of being crowded out and fears concerning established rights.

These fears are not groundless. I want to tell the hon the leader of the LP that it is not only the White people who have that fear. I want to refer to a document, and I am not doing so disparagingly. I am doing it because I want us to discuss these matters.

I have here a document. Apparently it is a public document. The hon member for Silvertown compiled this document when he retired as national secretary of the LP. I shall quote something dealing with the fears of suppression because the hon members say that we must educate our people so that they are not afraid of people of colour. Let me tell you what their own party’s experience was:

I assume that it was a fair survey that was made. Listen to the result according to the hon member’s document.

I am not saying this disparagingly. All I am saying is that those people who are supporters of the LP, the Coloured community of South Africa, also have those fears of being crowded out of their own communities. That is why I am quoting from this document this afternoon.

You are misrepresenting.

The hon member for Johannesburg North says that I am misrepresenting. I am really not going to take any notice.

With this I want to say that the Group Areas Act, in our humble opinion, is merely a regulatory measure (ordeningsmaatreël) which of necessity has to be subjected to the demands of its time. [Interjections.] If better and more acceptable regulatory measures can be found, let us debate them. While we do not have them and while those fears exist, we need that Act to serve the interests of the hon member for Brakpan.

In the meantime measures have been implemented and urgent attention is being given—we must compliment the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister on this—to the physical planning process in South Africa. The Free Settlement Act deals with existing areas of which the character has changed and creates new areas for free association. The Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act deals with the whole matter of informal settlement by means of the declaration of transit areas and the purchasing of designated areas.

Furthermore there is the identification of sufficient land for the permanent settlement of all communities. We all wish to see the red tape cut through. We must make the land available as soon as possible so that we can overcome this problem of a fear of being crowded out and so that there is enough land for all the people of South Africa.

There is the involvement of the private sector in the establishment of towns and the financing of this type of area. There is the acceptance that the days of conventional housing are gone forever. Informal housing on the basis of site-and-service schemes on the part of the Government and the upgrading of such developing areas where the initial builder built a house that he could afford, that was not the responsibility of the State, is the direction in which we must move.

Let us stop hurling reproaches at one another. Let us stop uttering simplistic cliches and let us discuss the problems, because whether we are White or Coloured, we all have the same problem in South Africa, namely the upliftment of our masses in this country.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasant privilege to speak after the hon member for Turffontein. I want to thank him for a very good contribution.

I do not want to react fully now to all the matters relating to group areas or to land. Several speakers referred to these matters. I think there will be an opportunity later in the debate to return to these matters in greater detail. However, I do want to react to the hon member for Losberg, but he is not even here.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Losberg apologised for not being here on Monday, but he is not here at this stage either. I think I will react to his speech now in any case. [Interjections.] Can I dispose of the matter anyway?

The hon member asked questions about Suur-bekom here this afternoon. A few days ago the hon member also raised the matter of Suur-bekom in the House of Assembly, but I find it interesting that it was only this afternoon that we hear the first word from that hon member about the specific problems situated to the south of the Potchefstroom road. I should like to inform this Committee that the NP divisional committee of the constituency brought the problem to my attention approximately two months ago. We immediately began to look into it departmen-tally, and we are working on a specific solution in this connection.

This afternoon the hon member kicked up a great fuss about the problem. I understand that his wife has in the meantime written a letter to the hon the Minister in this connection, and we shall react to it. [Interjections.] Two months ago—I am repeating this now for the sake of the hon member—we took cognisance of the problem through the NP divisional committee and we are giving attention to the specific problem that exists there.

Of course we are considering the situation of the inhabitants there compassionately. I intend holding another meeting soon with some of the other inhabitants of the area north of that road, because they also approached me with the problem that was raised here by the hon member this afternoon.

However, I want to ask the hon member whether he is prepared to agree to our establishing a free settlement area to the south of that road.

Of course not!

He says no. Now the hon member must tell us what his solution is. What does he want to do there?

†Maybe I should also react to what the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs referred to earlier this afternoon as far as Pageview is concerned. In that connection I would like to say that I dealt with that matter a few days ago by means of an interpellation in the House of Assembly and would gladly send the hon the Deputy Minister a copy of that interpellation— my reply there—which dealt fully with the matter. I will therefore send it to him.

However, the point that I find very interesting is the fact that the hon the Deputy Minister very strongly opposed the Free Settlements Areas Bill about six months ago. He now wants to use the Act by asking us to make Pageview a free settlement area.

*I should just like to make a single observation with reference to the speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly and to the speakers of his party who have already participated in the debate this afternoon. It is very interesting, with a view to the coming election, that we now have an opportunity here which parties are obviously using to state their standpoints. This morning, right at the outset of this debate, we received a statement of standpoint and of policy from the hon the Minister, in which the standpoint of the Government in regard to the future was clearly spelt out.

We received the same thing from the hon member for Randburg in respect of his party’s standpoint which they are presenting to the voter’s. However, the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly is as silent as a grave. We do not hear a word from them. I should like to ask the Official Opposition whether they are having trouble with their policy? Why do they not place it on the table and why do they not spell it out? I have a suspicion that they are having serious problems with it.

They are having difficulty declaring and spelling out what partition means. The leader of the party is not present at the moment, but I nevertheless want to ask them, and I am doing so in great earnest, since the debate is a long one and two full days still lie ahead, that this party avail itself of this opportunity to tell us during the following two days whether it is true that they are no longer whole-heartedly in favour of partition or whether it is true that they are perhaps considering the option of secession? Is it true that they have accepted that they may perhaps have to run away and seize a portion and hive off by way of secession, and then allow the rest of the country to change into a non-racial community. They must tell us whether that is true. I have been told that there are members of that party sitting here in Parliament who adhere to that standpoint.

Name them!

I should like to hear whether it is true. I am asking the members of this party courteously to spell out clearly to us during the coming two days of this debate where they stand in respect of this matter.

The hon member for Randburg asked a few interesting questions here. However, he did us a favour with his speech which he made here today. It now affords us ample opportunity to assess it and, to point out to the voters during the coming election period what the consequences of that standpoint of the hon member and his party are. That was his purpose, and of course he had every right to do so.

Nevertheless I want to tell the hon member one thing: The hon member for Macassar pointed out in his speech that it seemed as though there was an obsession with the ANC in the process. The hon member pointed out that I had said on a previous occasion that the ANC allegedly had 40% support among the Blacks. That was at an early stage. What is very interesting, however, is this. According to reliable opinion polls, that have been repeated regularly over the past few years, it appears that the reply to the question put to Black people in 1986—to a cross-section of urban as well as rural Blacks who support them as a political organisation—was that approximately 43% chose the ANC. The reply to that same question today is that the figure is 20%. Moreover it is interesting to hear that that figure is less than 5% in the Coloured community, namely 4,9%. In the Indian community that figure is as low as 2%. The point I want to make is this. Let us forget about the discussion of the ANC and let us rather talk about how we are going to bring together the moderate people of South Africa who are represented here in Parliament, and of whom there are many outside. Evidently, according to this evidence which we have, and also according to the evidence given this morning by the hon the Minister, we should rather walk this path and get everyone together—including the opponents.

The hon member says the Government is not prepared to speak to its opponents. Surely that is not true. Surely we discuss matters with our opponents every single day. We discuss matters with them here in this place, and we discuss matters with them outside. Of course this is true. [Interjections.] In fact we are making progress along the path of negotiation, indeed we are also doing so by way of dialogue with our opponents, but surely not all those who are opponents of this Government are enemies of this Government or enemies of this State. That is why it is correct that we should also hold discussions with our opponents.

This afternoon I want to dwell briefly on one matter, and that is the question of group. The hon member referred to this, and I think it is important that we should also adopt a standpoint in this regard, with reference to what the hon the Minister also said this morning. The place of groups in our society, as well as the way in which this matter is handled, is a very important aspect in respect of our future constitutional development. That is my opinion. I believe that coping satisfactorily with this problems goes hand in hand with the progress that is made along the path of negotiation and further constitutional development.

South African society is characterised by the existence of various groups and communities. This is not an ideological fiction, but a sociopolitical reality. It is a feature of our society which is recognised by all political parties and organisations. However, we differ on the way in which this reality should be taken into account constitutionally and socially. These differences vary from the absolutisation of group to the deliberate denial of the socio-political relevance of this phenomenon of our society.

I have appreciation for both points of departure. On the one hand people are motivated by a need for security, and the need to cling to the security of the known.

†On the other hand, people take a stand against accommodating groups and communities constitutionally and socially on account of negative historical experiences of deprivation and exclusion. It is, however, a fact that our country accommodates different race groups. The existence of a variety of ethnic groups is also not disputed. South Africa is indeed mature enough to accommodate and reconcile individual rights and group interests. The NP believes that these realities should be squarely faced. If we are sincere about the goal of a new South Africa, we should be prepared to address these realities.

The Government and the NP hold a definite view on the group concept. We believe that our view is correct. We believe our view offers a solution to the problems of South Africa in this regard. We stand for an equilibrium between group and individual, between group and group rights. We stand for the social and constitutional recognition of groups and the right of groups to define themselves and to be protected by the State. We stand for the right of and the opportunities for groups to uphold themselves within a common constitutional dispensation of power-sharing without domination. We stand for the freedom of choice of individuals to realise themselves in or outside a group context. We stand for uniting individuals, communities and groups into one democratic South Africa.

However, the road to a new South Africa is not the road of the NP alone. We believe that a viable and lasting democratic system must be established through a process of negotiation and reform, a process in which all peace-loving South Africans should participate. In this process we must also take cognisance of the existence of different views and the desirability of and necessity for the group concept in our society and constitutional dispensation. The NP is therefore prepared to introduce its view into the process of negotiation and asks the same willingness on the part of others who hold different views.

The group concept is a fundamental aspect which will have to be addressed in the process of achieving greater clarity on long-term constitutional development. In the short and medium term, the Government will continue to identify and eliminate obstacles where possible. Many of these obstacles, however, relate to the outcome of negotiations on the group concept. These steps will be directed by the principles of the Government of the NP in respect of constitutional, economic and social development in the country.

The elimination of racial and group discrimination is an important principle that will serve as a guide-line in this regard. I repeat, the elimination of racial and group discrimination is an important principle that will serve as a guide-line in this regard. No-one should have any doubt about this. Our view of the group concept must also not be mispresented as so-called “new apartheid” or modernized apartheid.

*The way we deal with the group concept must not be seen as an attempt to entrench economic privilege. Our policy is not solely one of sharing political power, but also one of a fair distribution of prosperity and the creation of economic opportunities. Important steps have already been taken in this direction, and we shall keep on doing so fearlessly and with determination. We shall not allow ourselves to be thrown off course in this respect by people of violence and by liars.

Our actions can only be just and fair if they are determined by the interests of South Africa and all its people. In this connection it is necessary for people to say where they stand in respect of such important matters as that of group, but also of negotiation, power-sharing, violence and the preservation of law and order. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have two very important statements to make to the Committee. The first concerns prescribed investment requirements for financial institutions and the second a whole series of matters. Within the next few minutes I shall make copies of these statements available. I think that the second, in particular, is of very great importance to the chief spokesmen of the various parties.

In a case such as this, involving a whole series of secret and sensitive matters, it is unfortunately not possible to hold a prior information session or to make the information public. I invite hon members who want further information to visit my office in the lunch-hour. We have snacks there to fill up a few of the empty spots. We have already invited the media representatives, particularly those who will be reporting on this debate, to be present. All hon members are very welcome.

The copies of the statements will be here in a minute, and then hon members will understand why it was not possible to make them available in advance.

Firstly I want to say something about sound prescribed investment requirements. After the Budget debate a Bill, ie the Financial Institutions Amendment Bill [B 67B-89(GA)], was introduced in Parliament. The object of the Bill was to give effect to the decision to abolish prescribed asset requirements in regard to long-term and short-term insurers, pension funds and friendly societies, and this was debated on 28 April 1989. This Bill makes provision for the fact that the Minister of Finance may prescribe certain investment requirements and may authorise the Registrar to grant exemptions from those requirements.

With a view to ensuring the implementation of sound investment criteria, one must firstly rely on the managers, directors and trustees of the relevant bodies. Where appropriate, the actuary should furnish advice on the sound composition of the asset portfolio to fit in with the distribution and nature of the relevant obligations.

Where appropriate, the actuary will also be expected to satisfy himself that a sound investment policy is being followed, and he will have to confirm this in writing on a regular basis. It is thought necessary to prescribe certain objective requirements for sound investment, requirements that may only be deviated from with the prior consent of the Registrar. In view of the overall interest in the financial markets in regard to these requirements, it has been decided to make public, even at this early stage, some of the proposed requirements in consultation with the representative bodies of the relevant institutions. I emphasise that this matter has been clarified in consultation with the representative bodies of the institutions concerned.

The proposed requirements are briefly set out in the schedule to the statement. Hon members will also be receiving a copy of this. It is very technical and contains a large number of figures. It is not my intention to quote this to the Committee verbatim. It goes without saying that I am prepared to answer any questions about this at any stage.

The formal regulations will be published as soon as the amending legislation is promulgated in the Gazette. Institutions which are not, at that stage, able to adapt their investment portfolios in time will be granted an opportunity to apply to the Registrar for a concession. A new dispensation will provide considerable relief to financial institutions. It will also grant them much more freedom in regard to investment policy. In this regard I should also like to make a friendly though serious appeal to institutions for extreme caution in the sense that greater freedom should also go hand in hand with greater responsibility.

In particular I want to express the hope that institutions will adjust their portfolios in such a way as not to disrupt the financial markets, thereby having a negative influence on the economy. I trust that this very important structural adjustment will, in fact, promote savings, investment and job creation, thereby promoting economic and social development in the Republic. Then there are a number of percentage figures which hon members may peruse. I do not think it is of vital importance to quote these here at this stage.

I now come to the second statement which is of great importance to our economy.

†When the Budget for 1989-90 was introduced, reference was made to the strong expansion in domestic expenditure that occurred during the past year, and also to the necessity of curbing this expansion. The Budget therefore attempted as far as possible not to contribute to this tendency of excessive spending in the economy. It appears from the latest available economic indicators that a slight deceleration has occurred in the rate of expansion in economic activity since late last year. But there are still a number of factors which give cause for concern.

Firstly, credit extension by banks to the private sector which increased by R23 billion last year is still growing at an unacceptably high rate with the result that the money supply figures for March show that the broad money supply, M3, is still growing at an annual rate of almost 27%. Secondly, though the following trade statistics for March were very favourable and rough preliminary estimates indicate that the current account of the balance of payments recorded a surplus of some R1 billion in the first quarter of this year, the country’s gold and foreign exchange reserves have not changed much over this quarter. This indicates a further large capital outflow during the first three months of this year.

Thirdly, interest rates in the major Western industrial countries are still gradually moving upwards and the differentials between these and local interest rates are narrowing with the result that leads and lags in foreign payments and receipts are once again starting to occur.

Liquidity has furthermore been increased to a large extent as a result of the forward exchange cover provided by the Reserve Bank. The gold price thus far in 1989 remains far below the average level of $437 per fine ounce recorded during last year.

Relatively high seasonal Government expenditure at the outset of the new fiscal year caused the Exchequer balance at the Reserve Bank to decline and placed much additional liquidity in the hands of the private sector. The inflation rate as measured by changes in the consumer price index shows a distinct upward tendency and increased by 13,8% between March 1988 and March 1989 compared with an average increase of 12,9% during the 1988 calendar year.

Against this background and in the light of the economic goals set forth for 1989-90 in the Budget Speech, the Government considers it unavoidable that a number of further restrictive measures should be implemented now. The aim of this policy package is to address urgently the current disequilibrium caused by an excessive expansion in total demand and to restore the balance within the shortest possible time. The measures also aim to interfere as little as possible and only temporarily with the longer term goal of increasing total production and to adapt it to South Africa’s particular needs.

The policy measures furthermore attempt to maintain a healthy balance between monetary, fiscal and other measures so as not to place too much reliance on a single policy instrument such as, for example, a restrictive monetary policy.

We now come to monetary policy in the first place. The Government supports the Reserve Bank’s proposals to take measures to make credit extension to banking institutions by the Bank more difficult so that it will not be possible for banks to continue extending excessive increases in credit to the private sector. Such measures must, however, inevitably lead to higher interest rates. The Governor of the Reserve Bank has just announced an increase of 1 percentage point to 17% in the bank rate.

The Government is aware that interest rates have now reached a level where they cause serious problems for various sectors of the economy. The following steps will therefore be implemented to provide a measure of relief to those hardest hit for as long as the present high interest rates necessitate assistance.

Firstly, with regard to credit to farmers, the Reserve Bank will make the necessary arrangements with the Land Bank, enabling it to avoid raising the interest rate on its short-term advances at this stage. Long-term advances are not affected.

With regard to small business, the Government will make available a maximum total amount of R100 million to those institutions involved in channeling State assistance to small and medium size businesses, namely the Industrial Development Corporation, the Small Business Development Corporation and the other development corporations in order that they may assist those small businesses that are seriously threatened by the high interest rates.

Further details of such assistance arrangements will be worked out in consultation with the IDC, the SBDC and the other development corporations and will be announced by those institutions themselves in the near future.

Thirdly, with regard to housing loans of lower income groups, the Government is aware that a very large proportion of home owners already receive some form of subsidy on their housing loans. In the light of the present high interest rates the Government is nevertheless willing to grant temporary assistance to home owners in the lower income groups who do not receive other subsidies.

The Department of Public Works and Land Affairs has therefore been requested to submit proposals for such Government financial assistance after consultation with the other Government departments involved in housing and also with the Association of Building Societies of South Africa and the Clearing Bankers Association. Particular attention will also be given to the improvement of the existing scheme for firsttime home owners.

After consultation with the Ministers involved in housing the hon the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs will announce further details in this regard. An amount of R50 million will provisionally be set aside for this purpose. The usury rates will not be raised at this stage. This will provide a measure of protection for the smaller borrowers.

*Secondly, in regard to fiscal policy a variety of tax adjustments announced recently in the Budget, for example the increase in the rate of GST, is now beginning to take effect. It is therefore not considered necessary to make any further adjustments to existing taxes.

The total overspending in the economy is not only caused by the consumer demand of individuals, but also by large-scale corporate expenditure. In the light of the overall conditions of ample liquidity it has therefore been decided to impose a compulsory, negotiable loan levy of 10% on the normal tax payable by all companies on the following basis.

Firstly the amount of the loan levy for each individual company will be based on the normal tax, excluding any surcharge payable by the undertaking in respect of the preceding year for which an assessment has been issued. Secondly, if the levy thus calculated is less than R5 000—I am referring to the levy of 10% on the tax, calculated in terms of the most recent assessment—the company will be exempt from the loan levy. Thirdly the amount of the loan levy will be rounded off, on a downward basis, to the nearest R100 in order to facilitate administration and negotiability. The loan levy will be payable on or before 31 July 1989 by each individual undertaking on a prescribed form submitted to the Receiver of Revenue.

Fifthly, interest on the loan levy will be paid half-yearly at a rate of 16% per annum and will be taxable. Sixthly, the loan levy will be repaid after a period of five years. Lastly, the loan levy certificates, which will be negotiable, will be issued by the Treasury. This is a very important difference, if one compares it with what has been done in such circumstances in the past.

The Government is aware of the fact that this loan levy will be “retroactively” based on the financial results of the previous year, but cannot levy it on any other basis if it is to achieve its basic objective, ie the removal of excess liquidity from the economy at the present moment. Besides, any undertaking which is experiencing cash-flow problems will be able to trade or cede its loan levy in the market place since the loan levy certificates will be negotiable, with the interest rate based on prevailing market rates. The revenue from the loan levy is estimated at R750 million and will be dealt with as a loan receipt in the Government’s accounts.

This brings me to other measures. Firstly there is the surcharge on imports. Last year the Government imposed a differentiated-scale surcharge on various types of imports. At present there is a surcharge of 20% on the importation of capital equipment and components, with the provision of exemption by way of permits, in certain circumstances, for certain capital goods. A large percentage of imported capital goods have, in fact, been exempted by the Board of Trade and Industry. The surcharge on capital goods and components is now being reduced to 15%, but no exemptions will be permitted any longer, except in highly exceptional circumstances, for example counter-trade transactions, if these are recommended by the Board of Trade and Industry and, finally, a decision is taken jointly by the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology and the Minister of Finance.

Permits for exemption from the surcharge, which have already been issued, will remain valid. All other surcharge levies remain unchanged. Further particulars of the new levies, as applicable to the importation of capital goods and components, will appear shortly in the Gazette.

Then we come to hire-purchase conditions. As of Monday, 8 May 1989, the minimum deposits required in terms of the Hire Purchase Act will be increased in the case of a wide range of products which are more specifically luxury products and which, in the majority of cases, also have a high import content, whilst the maximum permissible repayment period, in the case of the majority of these products, will also be somewhat shorter. The old and new requirements in this regard are included in a schedule to this statement, and the required notice to give effect to these proposals will shortly be published in the Gazette.

Hon members’ attention is drawn to the fact that the requirements for the furniture industry, which is primarily based on local content, are not being increased, but that new requirements are, in fact, being introduced in the case of motor vehicles. These policy measures are aimed at containing the further expansion in domestic expenditure, which at present is causing singular problems, to such an extent over the next few months that we, as a country, can once again live within our means. As soon as the growth rate for domestic expenditure has decreased to a sounder level, which can be maintained in the long term, these temporarily restrictive measures will be relaxed.

It is therefore clearly not the intention that this direct intervention in the economic process will be of a permanent nature. On the contrary, it is and remains Government policy to keep the economy as unfettered as possible in order to allow every participant to give free expression to his own entrepreneurial talents. What we are doing here therefore involves normal fiscal and monetary measures aimed at stabilising the economy with a view to counteracting any overheating of the economy. By definition these steps are therefore temporary.

The Government’s long-term economic policy remains one of promoting economic growth and increasing everyone’s standard of living. In order to achieve this objective, short-term management of the economy is necessary to counteract excessive fluctuations in the business cycle. Without that, long-term objectives cannot be achieved. Our objective is to be able to participate freely in the world economy. That is a tremendously important point. It is our object to participate freely in the world economy. After all, we are and remain part of the world at large, but we can never lose sight of the fact that owing to the political and self-centred economic protectionist policies of certain countries we, as a country, are not being allowed to participate freely in the world economy. In fact, we are engaged in a struggle for survival against sanctions and boycotts imposed with the exclusive purpose of strangling our economy and facilitating its decline.

This set of circumstances, an unmistakable reality, make the normal functioning of our domestic economy extremely difficult. In the light of these negative factors, and also in the midst of a large outflow of capital since 1985, our growth achievements are even more remarkable, being indicative of the underlying strength of our economy.

If every participant in our economy, from the most humble consumer to the largest businessman, would only co-operate in cooling our economy down to a level that our country can afford, interest rates and all the other important economic variables could return to acceptable, manageable and, in fact, tolerable levels. For that reason the reaction of every participant in the economy to this package, and to the numerous appeals we are making, is of the utmost importance. Everyone has an important role to play. For the same reason it is also important for everyone who can still make do, for a while longer, with his harvester, planter, car, bakkie, refrigerator or whatever appliance, to do so. If it breaks down the first thought, in the interests of the country, should not be to replace it, but rather to repair it. We cannot now afford, in any shape or form, simply to continue with the high level of imports. Large quantities of machinery and other stocks have entered the country in the past few years. Large-scale wastage is taking place because we replace equipment too quickly, and the Tax Advisory Committee has been requested to thoroughly re-examine the depreciation formula.

Where higher production is required, particularly now, it is hoped, with a view to exports, that one should rather introduce second or third work-shifts than want to increase capacity at this stage. It is not the Government, but our country, which is asking this of all of us. Nor is it an emotional decision on which this request is based; it is the state of our country’s foreign reserves that demand it of us with a view to successfully countering the economic onslaught on us. We have successfully been doing this for four years now. We must therefore now take the correct steps too, even if they are, unfortunately, painful. There are few more desirable situations for a government, and in particular a Minister of Finance, than to allow an economy free rein to grow at will, and particularly to see what is happening in our country, ie wonderful growth in private fixed investment.

This is especially true, of course, in an election year, when one would like to allow these things to happen and would want to stimulate the economy further, but as was said during the Budget Speech, our primary concern should be the maintenance of a sound economy and not popularity in the election. That is what our country demands of us at this stage. We must now all spend less and, as far as possible, buy South African. Thus we would all contribute towards helping our country through a very sticky patch, and a dangerous one at that. We must reduce the inflationary pressure and protect our reserves which would make it possible for interest rates to decrease once more. That is what we would like.

To come back to the Vote as such, after having touched upon a few policy matters, I should very much like to inform hon members how important it is that we in the Department of Finance are engaged in reconstruction work. Hon members have perhaps noticed this in the media. Unfortunately it did not receive very much attention, but for those of us in finance, dealing with the policy and administrative aspects of everything connected with finance, this is a matter of the utmost importance. Let me put it this way: If hon members notice very far-reaching reorganisation taking place within the department in the near future, it should be a reflection of the seriousness with which we are approaching the whole matter.

Broadly speaking, we are separating the policy advisory component of our department from the administrative component. The Director-General of Finance, Mr Croeser—I think it is fitting for us to extend our sincere congratulations to him in this forum—chiefly has administrative responsibility for the management and further rationalisation and reconstruction of the department in his administrative capacity.

We have moved Dr Stals to Special Economic Adviser, and we are placing the Central Economic Advisory Service and the Tax Advisory Committee with him as the Economic Adviser.

All other specialist services furnished in the department are in line to be moved to that specific leg of the department. That leg will also deal with out debt-standstill situation, which I should like to get round to at the end of this debate.

This does not, by any means, signify that the department is going to be stripped of all its specialist people. Naturally the people working in the Department of Finance must have a thorough specialist training. I am speaking specifically of advisory services which are being shifted out and have to be rationalised under the Special Economic Adviser.

By the very nature of the case, the Minister of Finance not only has access to the policy leg of the department, if I can call it that. Because the people in the department are all thoroughly qualified specialists, he can also use them as a sounding-board and for new ideas on policy that may be forthcoming from them.

We regard this as an extremely important matter. I am very grateful that we can make use of Dr Stals’ services up to the end of his contract period of five years during which he is on loan to us from the Reserve Bank. At the end of that period of five years our present intention is that he will return to the South African Bank in a very senior capacity.

On this matter I would be very glad to answer further questions too, if hon members want to raise them, but at this stage I merely want to conclude with the following remark in connection with the structural and manpower situation of the department: We have a fundamental problem in competing with the private sector. If we have someone worth anything in the taxation field, he is worth three or four times his salary to people outside the department. We simply cannot compete. I therefore want to pay tribute to those highly knowledgeable people who, apparently for other reasons—emotional reasons, patriotism, loyalty—are still making their services available to the department, not only as far as income tax is concerned, but also when it comes to customs, financial institutions, and in fact every other leg of this vast department.

In our Inland Revenue Directorate we are soon to take leave of the Commissioner, Mr Clive Kingon, and hon members will perhaps recall that this was mentioned in the Budget Speech. I am very glad to be able to find someone like Mr Hannes Hattingh, who has a very profound knowledge of taxation and has made a great success of all the other very senior posts he has held in the Directorate, to replace him. Consequently he will be promoted to Commissioner of Inland Revenue from 1 July. We wish him everything of the best with the new task that is now going to rest on his shoulders. Again, just a word of appreciation and thanks to Mr Clive Kingon who is taking his leave as Commissioner of Inland Revenue.

At this stage let these few remarks suffice, and in the light of the announcements I made earlier, let me just bring this point home to hon members. It is nice to live in a climate of prosperity, even though it is relative prosperity. It is nice to go to a bank to borrow money if one wants to buy something. It is a simple fact, however, that just as an individual or a family has a limit to which it can raise its standard of living, without getting itself into serious difficulties, a country likewise has such a limit. What is more—and I have repeatedly emphasised this before—this country of ours must function internationally on a cash basis. Every one of us can improve his standard of living by having access to a bank. One can buy a car now and pay it off. One can now afford a house and pay it off. In the process one already has that higher standard of living. We as a country do not have this. Although we had that avenue in the past, as a country we unfortunately cannot do this now owing to the fact that, for a variety of reasons, we have been cut off from international bankers. It is not merely a question of politics. I do, in fact, expect many cynical remarks from opposition members in this Committee and outside this Committee about that question. It is simply being naive to say it is a question of politics and dismiss it as being the result of Government policy.

In this statement I said very clearly—and I want to emphasise this—that there are countries such as Australia and Canada that have a fundamental interest in climbing on the anti-apartheid bandwagon, assuring markets for themselves which they would otherwise not have had if South Africa had not been boycotted. The Australians do not even display common decency in regard to this matter. At one of their labour party congresses a year or two ago, they brazenly and shamelessly adopted a resolution in which they instructed their labour government to say: “Support sanctions against South Africa in regard to those commodities with which Australia is richly endowed and in which it does good international business.” Not that we actually had much of a choice, in many respects, but if we had not allowed the rand to move downwards or depreciate, we would not have been able to retain that international market as we have, in fact, managed to do.

It is therefore clear that a country like South Africa cannot maintain the standard of growth which it would like to maintain, and which it is capable of maintaining, without access to international capital. It is a pathetic situation, even tragic, if one compares us with other countries. As a percentage of our export earnings, our total foreign debt is about 85%, whilst in comparable countries it is in excess of 302%. We are going to negotiate our debt-standstill position for an amount of less than $10 billion.

In international terms an amount of $10 billion is actually nothing. We have paid off more than $2 billion. We have succeeded in converting $4 billion into longer facilities. An amount of $300 million has gone, via the financial rand, into share investments. Therefore, by the end of the year we shall probably have discharged more than 50% of our total foreign debt which was in the net and which we have had to deal with since 1985. From that point of view we are a country which is completely underborrowed. The issue is primarily one of the pressure being placed on us owing to the fact that we do not have access to foreign exchange.

Mr Chairman, to all of us facing an election year this is a clear sign that we shall all have to ensure, with realism and enthusiasm, but specifically with realism, that this country’s domestic political problems are solved on a basis that will stabilise this country and make it possible for the leaders of those represented here in the first tier of government, but also those not yet represented here, to tell the outside world to get off our backs.

In our country we have the prospect of living together in peace and of achieving another first in South Africa, ie that of establishing a democratic system here in which people can live together, can share responsibilities and, yes, can share power on a basis that not only grants protection to the individual, but also to those who want to identify themselves as groups, that protection which, in a multi-ethnic country such as ours, is an absolute prerequisite. It must happen in a way that will not be an insult to anyone, because for those who bear the brunt of insults, there is no prospect of peace—those who are outraged, make war. As long as there is such an attitude amongst moderates in South Africa we shall have difficulty in normalising our international political position.

Mr Chairman, before I attempt very briefly to reply to the hon the Minister’s announcements, permit me also on behalf of our side of the House to thank Dr Chris Stals for the valuable service he has rendered as Director-General of the department. We want to wish him everything of the best in advance in the new important post which he is to occupy. We also want to congratulate Mr Croeser as new Director-General of the Department of Finance. We also want to thank Mr Kingon of Inland Revenue, and to congratulate Mr Hattingh.

What the hon the Minister said, was true, namely that the private sector is prepared, and is also in a position to pay particularly experts in the field of taxation far more than the State is able to. How one is going to solve that problem in the long term, I cannot tell hon members at the moment.

Mr Chairman, I want to react briefly to the very important announcements which the hon the Minister made. I do not believe he expects me to react at such short notice, because he made some far-reaching announcements.

As to the prescriptions which are now to be abolished in respect of investment in prescribed assets, we are now breaking new ground and practice will have to show what the effect of this will be.

To a certain extent the hon the Minister has disrupted my entire prepared speech, because I had wished to speak, inter alia, about the overspending which is taking place at present, and particularly the tremendous increase in the overall money supply, which in my view is due chiefly not only to the demand for money, but in fact to the oversupply of credit by the commercial banks to the general public.

One can speak from personal experience of one’s commercial bank sending one a fine, well-prepared letter at the beginning of the year, telling one that it was grateful to note how responsibly one had made use of certain credit facilities in the past, whereas one has never made use of them. They then invite one to borrow additional money to purchase a caravan or a refrigerator or a motor car, or whatever. As far as I am concerned, this is an invitation by the commercial banks to our people to spend more money and to take more credit. I want to appeal to our banks to change their ways. We know that there is murderous competition between the banks and we understand why they are doing this, but consumer spending cannot be allowed to get out of hand.

Insofar as the increase in interest rates is concerned, I must say at once that this is very bad news for the economy and that I am not sure whether we are not now going to have a repetition of what happened in 1983-85. Experience has taught us that an increase in interest rates alone does not have the required effect which is expected of it. We are grateful that the hon the Minister mentioned that the Reserve Bank would negotiate with the Land Bank in order to consider the position of the farmers. The fact is that we in agriculture simply cannot afford the present interest rates. It does no good to tell the farmers of South Africa that they must work more economically and to saddle them with high input costs and on top of everything else with an interest burden which their industry simply cannot bear.

As to home loans, which are to be immediately affected, it is all very well to say that we shall give subsidies to the lower income groups, and we welcome that, but I am thinking about the other people who do not fall into that category and who now have to pay a tremendous price on loans which they took out in the past at interest rates which were affordable to them. Now they have to bear a drastic increase in their interest burden.

To come back to the Budget, I want to refer to the tremendous proportions which the cost of servicing the public debt is beginning to assume. We see in the Budget that the costs of taking out loans, for which an amount of R998 million had been appropriated during the previous year, have increased this year to R2 508 million. We should like to have an explanation for this colossal increase. I ought to have attempted to obtain the information beforehand, but I did not do so and for this reason I am asking the hon the Minister now. It has become customary since 1985-86 not to include these costs in the form of discounts in the annual expenditure. Consideration has been given to spreading it out over the years for the repayment of the securities, but now that is not being done either. The fact remains that this is a debt which the State has accepted an obligation to repay. I find it somewhat disturbing that the costs related to the taking out of loans should have increased by such a tremendous amount within a single year. One cannot but also regard those costs as an expenditure for which the Treasury will have to accept responsibility, albeit in the long term.

When we look at the amount that is being requested this year for the servicing of the public debt of R9 972 million, and we compare this to the deficit before borrowing, we see that virtually the total loan requirements of the State are apparently being used to pay for the servicing of the public debt. For the individual this would amount to him borrowing money against his house to enable him to pay the annual interest on his loan. In this connection I want to refer—I have already referred to this and I do not believe the hon the Minister has reacted to it—to the obligations which the Treasury has toward the Reserve Bank as a result of the losses it is suffering particularly on forward exchange cover which it provides. My information is that at present that shortfall already exceeds R10 billion. It is also true that that difference or loss may only be paid in terms of Reserve Bank legislation with the approval of the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Minister of Finance. The fact remains, however, that it is an item of expenditure; it makes no difference whether it has to be paid today or in five years’ time. It is an item of expenditure which does not appear in the budgeted figures.

It reflects a drastic increase for last year. If my figures are correct, the shortfall on exchange transactions from 1 April to 28 February 1989 amounted to R6 230 million. In view of the downward trend which the rand, together with the gold price is presently displaying, one asks oneself what that shortfall is going to amount to this year. We should like to have a projection of what the expected loss in this sphere will be as well. One could perhaps ask whether the time has not arrived for the State, and particularly the hon the Minister of Finance, to look into this. Is it still in the interests of South Africa, and of the economy in particular, for the State to accept responsibility via the Reserve Bank—and therefore also the taxpayers—for the losses on these foreign exchange transactions?

The hon the Minister referred to the selfish actions of foreign powers who are boycotting us for their own selfish reasons. We have no time whatsoever for boycotts, but when a country like the USA places an absolute ban on the importation of agricultural products from South Africa, I ask myself why we permit Christmas turkeys, which are dumped on South Africa’s markets, to be imported from the USA. I am merely asking.

I now want to come to saving. In view of the fact that the domestic sector of our economy is no longer saving as a result of taxation, the inflation rate and inflation expectations, and the fact that, according to the documents at our disposal, the State absorbed 78% of those private savings during the previous year, the hon the Minister said on a previous occasion that a thorough investigation was now being conducted into the effect that taxation, in conjunction with the inflation rate, is having on saving, and we should like to know how far the investigation has progressed. I think it is vitally important that savings—including private savings by individuals—be encouraged. Viewed in the light of our present inflation rate, which is now once again going to be fed by the increase in the interest rate announced by the hon the Minister, it is no longer worth an individual’s while—regardless of how patriotic one may be—to really save, since the interest which he may possibly earn on his savings are taxed, so that after payment of tax he retains less of the interest than the inflation rate is.

I do not have much more time. An appeal is being made to us not to become hysterical about corruption in Government institutions in South Africa. We do not intend to become hysterical, but if we are expected not to point it out and not to indicate to the voters of South Africa the proportions which corruption has in fact assumed, the Government is expecting too much of us.

When one looks at the reports of the Auditor-General and at other commissions that have conducted investigations, one finds that corruption in the Government sector has assumed proportions which are simply unacceptable to a country like South Africa. It is not good enough for the present Government to say that they intend to eradicate corruption. It is all very well to say that, but, as the saying goes, the proof of the pudding lies in the eating thereof. That is the yardstick. When all is said and done, the executive authority is, in the final analysis, accountable to the voting public for what takes place under its auspices. I cannot but say that.

Our standpoint is unambiguous, namely that corruption in all sectors in South Africa—there is corruption in the private sector as well—must be rooted out without fear or favour. It makes no difference what one’s personal position or his political affiliations are. We shall support the hon the Minister and the Cabinet—which in my view will only be there until September—in whatever they do in the meantime. [Interjections.]

In conclusion, we shall make a thorough examination of the announcements which the hon the Minister made this morning. We are afraid that inflation is going to be fed by the higher interest rate, as well as by the surcharge which is now no longer going to be exempted in respect of certain imported goods. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Barberton. Of course I am going to support many of his viewpoints, although I am tempted to differ with him on others. I differ especially on the question of sanctions where he referred particularly to the USA.

I do not believe we are really independent of world markets at this stage and that we can really stand on our own. I fear the day will dawn when America will say to us that they are no longer dependent on our strategic minerals precisely because they themselves have created substitutes for them. That will definitely not be to the advantage of our country.

I also agree with the hon member that corruption should really be rooted out totally. With reference to the question of this morning’s announcement, I want to mention that we fully support the investment prescriptions which the hon the Minister briefly explained here this morning. We know of course that they will be deregulatory and job creative and they will also effect savings, and therefore we want to welcome them.

However, it was with concern that we took cognisance of the monetary and fiscal adjustments that the hon the Minister announced here this morning. This is because of the increase in the taking of credit and the spectre of inflation. We want to support the hon the Minister in the attempts to make it more difficult to obtain money. I will return to this later in my speech. I do not actually think the solution lies in raising the interest rate.

I want to tell the hon the Minister I welcome the R100 million voted for the small business sector as well as the R50 million which will serve as a temporary support for housing for the lower-income groups. As one of those who come out of the low income group, I want to say I also welcome the fact that at this stage consideration is not being given to raising the rates of financing costs. However, I wish to know, and this is very important, if these restrictive measures are temporary or permanent. I also wish to ask if we are truly verging on bankruptcy and if we now have to borrow money from our companies.

I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Barberton’s words of thanks and acknowledgement to certain officials. In the first place I wish to thank the Commissioner for Inland Revenue, who will soon be heading for a well-deserved period of rest, for his selfless service to the country and especially to our committee. It is especially the modest way in which Mr Kingon distinguished himself as an extremely knowledgeable person, that I will remember. We wish him God’s richest blessings and hope that his free time will be extremely pleasurable. At the same time we wish to welcome Mr Hattingh to this extremely responsible position.

I also wish to thank the Auditor-General and his officials sincerely for the help and the guidance they have given the joint committee during the past year. We also dealt with the historical Auditor-General Bill last week and I can already imagine them effectively performing their watchdog function and also exposing corruption in this manner. I also wish to thank the rest of the officials in the Department of Finance, especially the officers of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Registrar of Financial Institutions and the Commissioner for Customs and Excise.

The hon the Minister mentioned this morning, and I read in the Press last week, that Mr Gerhard Croeser had been promoted to Director-General. I wish to congratulate him sincerely on the increased responsibility that has befallen him. We know he will perform his task in a superior manner. We also wish to thank Dr Stals. We want to wish him strength in the new post he is going to fill.

During evidence before the joint committee it became apparent that an acute staff shortage is affecting the Department of Finance’s activities in a negative way. Evidence was given that because of a shortage of capable staff in the directorates of Internal Revenue and of Customs and Excise, the State is losing a considerable amount in taxes. There is simply not sufficient manpower to do the necessary physical inspections. The Commissioner for Customs and Excise testified amongst other things that during the past financial year inspections had been done at only 5 224 organisations out of altogether 46 868 enterprises on the inspection register, in other words, at only 11% of them. This state of affairs should definitely not continue. Does the hon the Minister realise how much sales tax is lost yearly due to the lack of staff? I need not elaborate on this, because everyone knows how much money ends up in the wrong place. I repeat that this state of affairs cannot be tolerated any longer.

The country loses millions of rands in tax, which we cannot afford in this time of fiscal shortage. Available statistics clearly indicate that considerably more tax was earned last year than was estimated. We can definitely improve on this if concerted attempts are made to recruit capable staff.

I do not accept, as we are often told, that people of colour do not wish to work in this department because of their so-called low salaries. I refuse to believe that salaries are so low that people from my community do not wish to accept them, particularly when they are acceptable to the White component of this country. We are involved in a reform process and I would like to see the Public Service delivered from its lily-white appearance. Increased income simply means tax relief for the taxpayer who is already carrying a very heavy load.

Strict monetary and fiscal measures to keep the growth momentum of the economy moderate, represented the most outstanding characteristic of this year’s budget and we could clearly see this morning that this had not succeeded. A direct consequence of this—I know the hon the Minister will not agree with me—is an increase in insolvencies. I therefore welcome the R100 million which is being made available again this morning to the small business sector. In the same manner that help was provided in the past and more recently to maize fanners, I believe that the hon the Minister should give serious consideration to providing similar support to small business enterprises which are being strangled economically not only as a result of the recession, but also as a result of the restrictive measures. One often reads about the large numbers of people who are retrenched as a result of this, and I wish to appeal to the hon the Minister to give consideration to the granting of a tax rebate to businessmen who do not retrench their employees but rather keep them on on a half-day basis. In this manner the further impoverishment of our people will be controlled.

I do not wish to contradict myself, but I prepared myself for this last night and it was of course confirmed this morning by the further restrictive measures that have been introduced. It is a well-known fact that the economy has not cooled down sufficiently and is at present growing much too fast. The hon the Minister should really return to this later. He should also explain to us what the implications are of the statement he made here this morning. At this stage it appears to me as if the economy will have to be cooled down in such a manner that a real growth rate of only about 1,5% will be achieved this year. I would like to know whether the hon the Minister would agree with me in this connection. We definitely cannot afford such a low growth rate since we need an average growth rate of 5% or more per year in order to provide for the approximately 400 000 new entrants to our labour market every year. I know of course that the hon the Minister still refuses to admit that our economic problem is a structural phenomenon. The time is ripe for credible attempts to be made to remove the obstructive factors. I am burning with curiosity to know what the hon the Minister told Mrs Thatcher in this connection. [Interjections.] I know she definitely put the question to him. The hon the Minister is laughing, but I know Mrs Thatcher is a good friend of South Africa and I believe that she will help us in the implementation of an upliftment programme similar to the Marshall Plan.

I previously referred to the further cooling down of the economy. I wish to ask the hon the Minister this morning whether he really believes that the increased interest rates will have the desired effect. I doubt it, since the consumer is naturally insensitive to increased interest rates. Credit registration officers seldom pay attention to raised interest rates in that they simply request that the payment period be lengthened. In this manner the sting is taken out of the increased interest rates. I believe the solution does not lie in the increasing of interest rates, but in the drastically shortened discharge period. The consumer will then definitely feel it in his pocket and will act with greater discretion in acquiring credit.

The increase in interest rates has, as I said previously, a further negative effect on small business undertakings. This is a part of the private sector that plays an important role in the creation of job opportunities. South Africa is a developing country with a fast growing population. We must therefore under no circumstances restrict entrepreneurs.

While I talk about development, I would wish to indicate that I would truly appreciate it if the hon the Minister could inform us about the activities of the Development Bank of Southern Africa. I put a similar question to the joint committee and I was requested to put this question during this debate. I have no doubt that the Development Bank of Southern Africa provides an exceptional service to the self-governing and national states, but I have also been told that the Development Bank is presently involved in development actions in undeveloped areas within South Africa.

Apparently the so-called Coloured rural areas that are the result of the work of missionary stations have been forgotten. Precisely because farming is done there on communal ground, these people find it difficult to acquire financial support. I believe the Development Bank can play an important role in this area not only in the creation of job opportunities, but also in assisting with the production of food. An explanation in this regard would really be appreciated.

In conclusion I wish to say that I believe that with the guidance of the Almighty we shall be able to find solutions to our country’s problems. One important precondition will however have to be met, namely that recognition will have to be given to the interaction between the economy and politics. I naturally welcome the hon the Minister’s announcement today that an in-depth investigation is being made into the restructuring of the economy. I suppose I should say that we are actually busy with our own “perestroika” in South Africa.

There will have to be further political progress in order to reduce civil unrest. There will have to be further political progress to restore business confidence and to modify overseas perceptions of South Africa and to provide us with access to the international capital market. The hon the Minister mentioned this morning that this is essential, and we believe that it is only by way of sweeping political changes in this country that we shall be able to tell the world to get off our back. Until then I do not believe it is possible.

Our economic system must also be adapted in such a way as to encourage individual achievement and abilities, and to afford everyone equal opportunities and acceptable circumstances whereby private initiative and effective competition will be stimulated further.

Mr Chairman, I listened with great interest to both the hon member for Barberton and the hon member Mr Douw, who in my opinion made very responsible contributions to this debate.

†Before I proceed with that, I would like to say briefly that with the election in September as announced by the hon the State President I think we have come to the end of an era. It was my pleasure and privilege to serve as chairman of the Joint Committees on Finance and Public Accounts since the last election. Consequently at this stage I wish to say thank you to my deputy chairmen, the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Gezina, as well as to the two chairmen of the other two Houses and every other member of the committees. I think they all contributed wisely to the functions of these committees of ours.

*At this stage I also want to tell the hon the Minister and his Deputy that it was a privilege to work with both of them, because they handled both finances and us with forbearance and great responsibility. I want to congratulate and praise the hon the Minister, his Deputy and the department most sincerely for the way in which they have succeeded during the past four years. I shall refer later to a wonderful success story which I think took place as a result of this hon Minister’s handling of finances in South Africa.

At this stage I should like to associate myself with the congratulations to Mr Croeser, as well as to Dr Stals, on their new positions. I also want to welcome Mr Hannes Hattingh, and because I must bid farewell to Mr Kingon, I want to tell him that I am mentioning his name with acclamation.

Several years ago, when I was the chairman of the old Cape Divisional Council, we took leave of an official who served there for 50 years. It was customary to call that person in, present him with his golden wristwatch and then invite him to have a cup of tea. On this occasion, while we were standing there drinking our tea, one of the councillors came along and said: “Sir, sir, we will never forget you. Sir, sir, for the service you have rendered we will never ever forget you. What is your name again?” [Interjections.] We wish Mr Kingon a very happy retirement.

I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Barberton and say that I agree with him 100%. Corruption must be eradicated. I welcome the fact that he mentioned that we should not simply say that steps will be taken. I think it is his and my duty as MPs—and I mean all hon members of Parliament—to take the responsibility of Parliament on ourselves and convey that message to the public outside in order to maintain our status as members of Parliament by telling the people outside what steps are being taken in every case of corruption which has been uncovered and has become known.

I think I am speaking quite correctly if I ask the hon member for Barberton whether he agrees with me that not a single case can be cited in which Parliament and the Executive did not take action as soon as there was the slightest suggestion of corruption. We must give attention to the importance of this facet, so that we do not allow politics to exercise more influence than the status of Parliament and its hon members. I think we must give very serious consideration to this.

As regards the question of inflation which the hon member mentioned, I agree with him and the hon member Mr Douw that whereas we welcome these facts and the announcement by the hon the Minister—not because one welcomes these steps which are being taken, but because unfortunately it is essential—in my opinion one must praise the hon the Minister for having the courage of his convictions now and during the past four years to put the interests of South Africa before political expediency. I want to congratulate him that he and the executive had the courage to put the interests of South Africa first and were able to make essential announcements.

I did not agree entirely with the hon member for Barberton when he said that this would only fuel inflation. I think if one looks at the hon the Minister’s announcement, one can see that he incorporated built-in and selective safety valves. Firstly, we must accept that as far as his announcements are concerned it has been made quite clear by the hon the Minister that this is a temporary measure only. Secondly, it is unfortunately essential, but thirdly it is very important that it is selected.

In this connection I should like to refer to a point the hon member Mr Douw made when he asked whether the hon the Minister could reduce hire purchase repayment periods. I refer him to the schedules and I know that the time he and I and everyone had to look at them, was extremely limited. However, I want to make the point that the hon the Minister in fact anticipated that request by the hon member and I therefore want to quote a few excerpts:

We also see that the deposit on photographic cameras, enlargers and reducers, etc, has been increased from 20% to 25% whereas the repayment period has been reduced from 18% to 12%. [Interjections.] I beg your pardon, the deposit has been increased from 20% to 25% and the repayment period has been reduced from 18 months to 12 months. This is a long list and I think, with all due respect, that the hon the Minister has already addressed the aspect mentioned by the hon member.

Also with regard to the announcement made by the hon the Minister, I want to say with very great responsibility that I think that if one looks at the figures with regard to our imports, which totalled R8 676,7 million in 1988, compared with the figures available thus far for 1989, which have risen from R8 million to R10 015,2 million, then one really realises the impact imports have had and are still having, and how essential the measures the hon the Minister announced this morning are. One welcomes the fact that although it was essential, the hon the Minister concentrated on treating the lower income group with as much care and consideration as possible in this respect. Nor did he consider it necessary to increase GST at this stage, but only increased the bank rate by 1%, so that it now stands at 17%.

I agree with the hon nominated member Mr Douw, and I think the hon member for Barberton, when they said that they did not think the interest rate was adequate to deal with the matter. Surely that is why the hon the Minister has announced the surcharge on imports. In this connection I have already referred to import figures. He also introduced a loan levy. It is interesting that the hon the Minister has announced a loan levy which is negotiable. In my opinion this is an innovation which has not existed in connection with loan levies before. The percentage interest payable on this is 16%. This is market-orientated and competitive with any investment which can be made today. That is why, in my opinion, the hon the Minister handled the matter in the most reasonable and responsible way possible.

I merely want to tell the hon nominated member Mr Douw that one might possibly find a very interesting situation if one were to ascertain how many Whites and how many non-Whites are working for the Public Service. I make so bold as to say, and this is a mere “guesstimate”, that the numbers will be a big surprise to both of us. However, I agree with him that the factor which must be considered is the matter of productivity and the status the different groups in South Africa have in the Public Service. He and I and all hon members of Parliament must concentrate on trying to convey a future syndrome of hope to all population groups in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, now that we are dealing with the Budget for the last time during this session of Parliament, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the hon the Minister of Finance, the hon the Deputy Minister and the chairman of our Joint Committee on Finance and Joint Committee on Public Accounts for all the assistance and expertise they have given us. I can only say that I have learnt a lot in the years I have been here.

We also want to wish those officials well who are retiring. I believe there are many of them. Without mentioning names, I would like to wish them all well, especially those we know, the Commissioner for Inland Revenue and the Director-General of Finance.

Mr Chairman, I have noticed something today: In previous years the hon Ministers used to run from one House to the other to attend the debates on their budgets or the Bills they were responsible for. Today we see the members running from one House to the other, either to attend a Public Extended Committee or deliver a speech. However, we can conclude that we are definitely on the move—maybe for the good.

Mr Chairman, the Department of Finance is a very fortunate department in that it has about the best financial brains in the country, from the charismatic Governor-General of the Reserve Bank and his able team to the Director-General of Finance and his. Together they can justifiably be called the A Team.

It is not an easy task for a country like South Africa whose policies are unacceptable, internally and internationally, to balance its monetary and fiscal books. We really wonder how these people have managed to balance our books as they have done. It sounds like magic, if not a miracle.

I have grave doubts about the possibility of a similar performance if the rand continues to drop against other currencies and causes our foreign debt to rise sharply. In such a scenario we will have to introduce stricter control of imports and only the absolutely necessary items would be allowed to be imported. At the same time we have to vigorously expand our exports by exploring new markets.

At this point I want to mention the fact that we know how some people have manipulated the import permit system to import goods and export capital. We have to watch that very closely and I know the hon the Minister has his hands full to deal with that kind of shark.

Our raw materials and minerals should be turned into finished products for export. This will have two advantages, namely the protection of our balance of payments and the creation of jobs for our people.

We could speak for days on end about the budget of this department and the Treasury because there is so much to deal with. However, in the short time I have I want to touch upon a few other matters. Let me begin with taxes. For far too long the hon the Minister has been putting his hand in the taxpayer’s pocket. It is now about time he put some money in his pocket. [Interjections.] Our personal taxes in particular are too high. The hon the Minister has agreed and said that we would have to attend to that. We have to consider that after the man in the street has been heavily taxed he also has to pay GST with the money he has left. At the end of the day he is left with very little. No wonder our savings have dwindled to almost nothing.

There are some ideas that could be introduced. People do not work if they have no incentive. If the higher bracket is reached because of inflation and bracket-creep there should still be incentives. If a man has reached this level and earns even more, he should be given some incentive otherwise he will ask why he should work so hard if he does not get anything for it. This is something to think about. Even the hon the Minister would work harder if he could still get some tax exemption from a certain bracket onwards.

I now come to a very sore point. While we can commend and congratulate where it is necessary, we must also be able to criticise where we find reason to do so. Coming to write-offs I think it is scandalous that a debt of R460 million has been written off for the maize farmers. Why them? There are small businesses that are struggling and closing down every day. Why not help them too? Farming is also a business. The only time a farmer does not do well is when he does not change his 380 Mercedes every year or does not buy a few hundred gold coins. [Interjections.] I am totally against writing off taxpayers’ money in this way and the hon the Minister will have to explain how he manages to do so. [Interjections.] If the Cabinet approved it then the Cabinet should also be blamed.

We heard last year that R300 million had been given to the agricultural sector. There the Minister wears two hats and very soon, from what we hear, he will not be wearing any hats.

He is wearing two hats. He is the general affairs Minister of Agriculture and the own affairs Minister of Agriculture. That hon Minister told us that an amount of R300 million was allocated for farmers who have suffered losses due to natural disasters. However, when we discuss this with the hon the Minister he says it is own affairs. When we come back to the hon the Minister of Finance he says no, it is general affairs. Eventually we gave up and we never got one cent from the R300 million. We are representing our people and we are supposed to answer to them as to what we are doing here and what is going to take place. This hurts us very much. I am not in favour of own affairs. Own affairs are something that one has at home. However, if one creates own affairs one must be fair with the allocation of money to other groups as well.

Mr Chairman, I have very little time and I do not want to waste time in coming to the points I want to discuss. All I want to say with regard to corruption and bribery, is “ek stem saam” with what all the other speakers had to say. When someone steals a small item in a supermarket, he does that on impulse. I know of people who have been sentenced for up to three years for doing that. When people in the public sector, who are supposed to be guardians of the taxpayers’ money, do not carry out their duties properly, we must establish some kind of punishment that will fit such a crime. These people are normally well paid and when they retire they are still healthy— if not wealthy—people.

I now come to the Boksburg bunglers. A person wanted to open a small business in Boksburg. He was looking around for a small place but could not find one. He went into a large supermarket. It was very quiet in the supermarket. He went to the owner and said to him, “Sir, I want to open a small business in Boksburg.” The owner of the supermarket looked at him and he said, “No, Sir, you do not open a small business in Boksburg; you start off with a big business.”

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has preceded me has drawn the attention as to how one can fail in business without trying. That can obviously be done very easily if the wrong economic and political policies are applied. One of the things that we have to remember is that macro-economic policies affect the ordinary individual in regard to the way in which he lives and the way in which he conducts his affairs.

In the short time that I have available, I would like to start off by saying that it is somewhat sad to say goodbye to the present Commissioner, Mr Kingon. He has rendered sound services to our country. In the same breath I welcome Mr Hattingh to the job and, based upon past experience and past performance, I believe he is a competent person. I want to congratulate him on his appointment and want to say goodbye to Mr Kingon at the same time.

I should like to talk on the reorganization in the department on another occasion. I should, however, like to mention Mr Stals’s task in respect of macro-economics and his ability at the re-negotiation of debt. His experience is vast, and I am sure it will be put to extremely good use. Over the years I have watched the new director, Mr Croeser, grow in this administration. Hon members will notice that his progress has been somewhat more dramatic than mine. However, over the years that I have known him, he has proved himself to be an extremely able and dedicated person with a very high intellect. I think the hon the Minister has made a good choice in appointing him to that job. I wish him well.

I thought that I was coming here during a long weekend to have a nice quiet chat about the economics of South Africa. I thought that I would say let us forget about politics for a moment because the reality of South Africa is such that this may be the last opportunity in which we can have a quiet economic discussion in this House.

It can still be nice.

I am always nice. Knowing the hon the Minister and knowing from experience what can happen, I thought that I had better prepare two speeches for today.

Sir, you will see from my writings in the Press on Sunday what I forecast might happen. It actually happened a lot quicker than even I thought it could.

I think the most important part of the hon the Minister’s speech was the end of it and not the beginning. The end of it was important and every single word that he said I want to endorse. I want to say without any hesitation that I could not have said it—in all modesty—in a more effective way had I spent three months preparing it. Unless we put the politics of South Africa right we are not going to get the economics right. However, at the same time we have to get the economics right to help us put the politics right.

The only future for South Africa is a democratic future; a future in which everybody participates and in which we share both politically and economically. I believe that if we back the hon the Minister and that is the philosophy that prevails, then South Africa will get back on the road to a sound economy and we will have tranquillity and stability in South Africa. However, we have must have the will to do it and be prepared to make the sacrifices to do it.

One thing that needs to be said is that this country has, even as a result of the problems of the debt standstill, gone about paying its debts. This country has paid a price for paying its debts. It is still paying a price for paying the debts. Other countries have taken an easy way out. We can look at what has happened in South America where they have just not paid. However, the reality is that the bankers of the world should actually appreciate the sacrifices that South Africans have made in order to preserve the creditworthiness of this country.

As a result of it our growth is limited and not as many people are employed as should be. As a result of wanting to be honourable and pay our debt we have had to pay these prices in economic terms. As a result of it the announcements that have been made today are being made in order to ensure the creditworthiness of South Africa in this world. Somewhere out there in the wide world someone has got to get up and say that these South Africans are honourable people who seek under the most difficult circumstances to honour their obligations. I think that needs to be said.

There are a couple of things which are fundamental in relation to what is taking place here. The hon the Minister can ask the people of South Africa to make sacrifices. However, he has to tell them that they are making them and also why they are making them.

I was given—I am sure the hon the Minister must have seen it—a document that was prepared called Economic Management. It was prepared in New Zealand. It was prepared in a rather noble way. The outgoing Minister of Finance had a document prepared in order that after the election the new Minister of Finance would know exactly what was happening in the economy. Everything was set out fairly so that he could deal with it.

One of the important points that appears from this document is that if hon the Minister has policies which he wants to sell to the public he must explain these to them. He must go into detail to see that they understand them. He must go and see that they can monitor that he is doing the right thing. I would like to make an appeal that the policies that are being announced are properly marketed and understood because in that way he can get the public to help make sacrifices for them.

I must tell the hon the Minister that when there are sacrifices which are required from South Africa, as far as I am concerned—I have done it in the past and I will do it again—I will back that when it has to be done even though it may seem that one can take political advantage in attacking it. That is the test that we should be applying to ourselves.

When there is criticism I hope that it is accepted in a constructive way. I am worried about the impact that all of this is having—the sort of see-saw situation that we see is developing—in regard to employment in South Africa.

One of the dangers that we have to bear in mind is that when tough economic measures are applied which cause unemployment, this can possibly create instability. The last thing we can afford to have at the moment is instability at a time when the country is going into an election phase. That would be the most dangerous time to have that kind of instability, bearing in mind how the voting public might react in those circumstances.

The other point is the question of communication which can be as important as inflation itself. The public perception of inflation is such that as much as they are told not to spend—as the hon the Minister has tried to do today—they say if they do not buy today it will be more expensive the next day. The result is that one has to create a feeling in South Africa where inflationary expectations are dampened and where we eliminate this atmosphere of having to spend today because tomorrow it will cost more. These are to my mind real things which need to be looked at in relation to what we are trying to do in order to get the economy down once again to what I believe is a more reasonable basis. The problem is that we are dealing with developments as they occur when pressures take place. For instance, imports were still going up in April while the production capacity in South Africa was going down. If production goes down internally and imports go up, it is the exact reverse of what we want in South Africa. We want production to go up so that employment can be created, and on the other hand we want to dampen imports in order to make sure that we safeguard our balance of payments.

I want to make an appeal, and I intend to persist in it, that until such time as we get the policy of inward industrialisation going, until such time as we produce the things which the lower income groups require and demand, until such time as there is no more pressure on imports, and until we create the jobs to satisfy our own people in South Africa, we are going to find ourselves continuously under pressure in regard to the balance of payments and our growth will be restricted. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the joint committee under the excellent chairmanship of the hon member for Vasco and the vice-chairman, the hon member for Yeoville. I think we have set up a record by passing I think it was six Bills last Friday. The hon member for Yeoville had to leave rather hastily, but I understood his problem. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sea Point, and I think other speakers as well, launched an attack on the reserve of R1 billion in the Budget. We have also read in numerous newspapers about how we are going to waste that money.

†I have a feeling that the hon member for Sea Point never studied public finance. If he should have the time to study for example the Canadian system, he will discover that they have three types of reserves in their budget, namely reserves for statutory overruns, operating reserves and provision for policy reserves. When one studies the British system one will discover that reserve or surplus is a part of the British budget. So I cannot see why the Government was criticised when we introduced a system well known in the UK and Canada.

*The reason for this amount of R1 billion is to set a limit, because there is an additional budget every year. It is also to indicate to the departments that this is the maximum additional expenditure that is going to be permitted. If we succeed in keeping expenditure below this amount, we will, of course, have fared very well. We cannot ignore that; to keep expenditure down is one of one’s objectives when one draws up a budget. There has been considerable criticism lately. On the one hand people say that everything is going to be given to the Blacks, and that is socialism, but on the other they say that this Government only believes in a capitalist system and exploits everyone, especially the lower income groups. This Government believes in a capitalist system, a free market system.

†However, this Government also believes that there is the ugly face of capitalism one has to see to. That is why we have the redistribution of income to assist the lower income groups.

*When we say that, we come to an interesting problem that the new Democratic Party has. I was rather sad to read in the Cape Times this morning that the architect of the democratic policy was not my good friend, the hon member for Yeoville, but the great guru of Stellenbosch. If there is anyone with big problems, it is that guru of Stellenbosch—the one who deserted us. I think the DP has terrible problems with the question of distribution of income. We know they have three heads. We know there is the “boere” head of Dr Worrall; there is the ANC head of Wynand Malan, and there is the PFP head of the hon member Dr De Beer. [Interjections.]

Today I want to take a look at their problems. I want to take a look at the man from Stellenbosch, the new architect of the DP’s economic policy. Not long ago he said we should get a distribution of income which would decrease the Whites’ income, their standard of living, by 30%. This is in his books, and is common knowledge. What is so interesting, however, is that, in the course of time and with his entry to the DP, he has been talking more and more carefully. In the speech he made this week, he even said one should be careful with one’s democratisation, because if one goes too quickly, the redistribution of income will cause problems. In a prior speech he said he had spoken a great deal with the other colour groups, and he thought they were going to be responsible, because if they got the one man, one vote system and a joint voters’ roll, he hoped they would not ask for that terrible redistribution, the 30%. It seems to me that he had a chat with his leader, Dr Worrall, who must have warned him to ease up a bit. He spoke this week—I do not want to read that to hon members now—and now he is very careful. I shall quote only a section of what he said. The report reads as follows:

He has moved away from his old story to some extent, therefore. It is interesting that that is this new party’s whole problem. They say that they are going to get the economic growth rate going quickly, and if there is a high economic growth rate, they are going to have the income for that redistribution. Then they say, however: “We cannot get that rapid economic growth going unless we accommodate the Blacks in Parliament first.” The man from Stellenbosch talks about how we have become impoverished. Naturally, the English taxpayers paid for his training too; he did not pay a cent. That was at Stellenbosch, of course. I was there too. Interestingly enough, they probably paid for mine too. That is the DP’s problem. They do not know how to reconcile things. Must they grant the political rights first? I shall come to that. The system in South Africa is a non-racial system. They no longer use race as a criterion. No, that is out. One man, one vote and a common voters’ roll are what they believe in. They do not know quite how to deal with it, because if they do that, that majority party is going to come forward with that redistribution of income very quickly. And then, is South Africa going to get more investments? They say they are going to get many more investments. But is South Africa going to make progress under that system of that Black majority government— because that is what it is, and they say so themselves. This morning’s Cape Times says so too. They say:

I am very sure that they are not going to get that foreign capital.

I should like to go on to this man from Stellenbosch. Since he has left the Afrikaners, he no longer likes us either.

Do you want him to come to Parliament?

He will not get a seat. If he stands against me in Waterkloof, I will give him a hiding.

Then he comes to the Afrikaner. He talks about the NP Government. He says:

He goes on in that vein and then says:

We have had so much expansion in the Public Service and State corporations that we have corrupted the Afrikaner completely.

He is not only opposed to the Afrikaners, however; he is also opposed to the English businessmen. Elsewhere he says they are the laissez faire people who have no understanding of the problems of the Blacks in South Africa. He goes on to say they are just as corrupt as the Afrikaners. Let me read it to hon members:

This is the architect of the DP. [Interjections.] The leader of the one head of which our friend from Stellenbosch is a member is also becoming afraid of this one man, one vote common voters’ roll. In Durban he said that they were thinking of a canton system or a federal system, or a kind of restricted franchise, or whatever. That is the approach of the new head. Let us take a look at the old head, however, the one that has already had so many leaders.

The hon member Dr De Beer made an interesting comment—I think it was during the No-Confidence debate or the Budget debate—viz that the voters knew the DP’s stand with regard to a common voters’ roll. The voters also know the CP’s stand with regard to a common voters’ roll, but the voters do not know the NP’s stand.

Sir, we do not have a problem. We are opposed to a common voters’ roll. So is the CP. Then surely I am correct in concluding that the DP advocates a one man, one vote system with a common voters’ roll. Why do they not say so? They need not be afraid. We shall understand that. They will be honest in saying so.

[Inaudible.]

They can merely make a statement and say they are opposed to a common voters’ roll, and then we shall know where they stand, but they cannot tell me that I do not understand them. I ask them to have one of their speakers rise today and say they are opposed to a common voters’ roll; then both we and the voters of South Africa will know where they stand. They cannot say that, however. [Interjections.]

We have said it over and over again.

Said what?

[Inaudible.]

No, they have not yet told South Africa exactly where they stand.

I am going to take that PFP approach further. Who are their great thinkers? Apparently they are at the university close by in Claremont. [Interjections.] The one is the guru from Stellenbosch, but let us take the guru from Ikeys. I think it is time to refer to the second Carnegie Report on Poverty and Development. I want to quote something interesting that is appropriate to the PFP policy. The introduction says, and I quote:

Surely I am correct now. Surely that is what I read in the newspapers as being what the new DP says. The same report says on page 277, however, and I quote:

It is the capitalist system that is ostensibly “vulgar”. I quote from page 258:

I find that very interesting, and I think we must get the clear message on page 258, and I quote:

That is the objective. That is exactly what we hear from the DP. Then in the end they come— and it is important for South Africa to know this, because after all, it comes from their thinkers— and talk about a commonwealth. These are the sources, the public sources. It is a commonwealth, and it must belong to all the inhabitants of South Africa. The DP has already used the expression “universal suffrage”. They shy away and one head is already facing in the direction of a canton system or a federal system. Then they must tell us loudly and clearly that they are also in favour of the common voters’ roll. We are waiting to hear that, because then we shall know what kind of budget we can expect from this party. Then we shall also know about the 30% impoverishment that is going to take place. We shall know how much foreign capital we are going to get and how this country will collapse if such a party with so many heads follows so many different policies. Then we shall also know what to do with them in the election.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I was tied down again today by duties in one of the other committees and could not listen to the entire debate. However, I glanced quickly at the statement which the hon the Minister made with regard to measures which were taken to cool down the economy. I believe that the measures seem to be of a remedial nature and we believe and hope that they will have the necessary recuperative influence on the economy. The hon the Minister also referred to financial management and I want to make to make that the theme of my speech today.

The new word which we have often heard recently in the political vocabulary is “corruption” and this has become part of our discussion. It is being used by the opposition parties as the so-called “bogeyman” word. It is used so freely that one is almost forced to believe and can almost conclude that corruption has been discovered for the first time and that it has only made its appearance now—as if there was never any such thing as corruption before. It is true that recently there has been a strong reaction to corruption.

A commission of investigation was appointed and strict action has been taken in the case of people who have been found guilty in this regard. This has been spelt out in the Press and the public media. It has been the news of the day. This was done because action was taken. When the Government introduces measures to curtail corruption, it is strung up as the only party which is guilty of it. The actions of the Government were directed specifically at having corruption and rumours of possible corruption investigated with a view to subsequent decisive action.

The fact that corruption takes place can surely not be attributed to the Government and the NP. The fact that there have been a few incidents of corrupt action within Government bodies, does not, after all, make the Government guilty of corruption, and even less the NP.

The contributory cause of corruption can usually be traced to an improper or insufficient management system. For that reason I would welcome every possible method which could be used to establish a better style of management. For that reason I welcome the Auditor-General Bill which was debated last week. With the adoption of this Bill, the importance of external auditing and control is reconfirmed.

The Joint Committee on Public Accounts has been recommending and requesting this autonomy for a long time. The fact that the Joint Committee on Finance approved it unanimously and supported amendments to place the personnel control under the supervision of the Auditor-General, is an indication of how seriously this whole matter of financial control and supervision is taken.

It is clear that financial control cannot only be enforced by means of auditing. Healthy financial management by skilled people remains the prerequisite. Mismanagement, and in particular, financial mismanagement can occur so easily in the absence of people with proper financial expertise to staff and manage the financial sections in the various departments.

It is very clear to me, and I made enquiries across quite a wide spectrum in this regard, that there are not always truly financially skilled people in the various departments to apply financial management. It would seem to me that we have fallen behind in the process of appointing financially trained people in relevant posts.

An administratively well-qualified person, no matter how good he is, does not have the knowledge and expertise to make arithmetical analyses and financial judgements. While the head of the department still remains the accountable official, and must ultimately take the responsibility, many problems could be ironed out if a structure existed in which financially skilled people were able to share the responsibility of financial management in the various departments with him.

On enquiry during the meetings of the Joint Committee on Finance which followed the discussion of the Budget, we were informed that only 15% of the approved bursaries for financial training were permitted. That means that only 15 out of every 100 bursary holders receive financial training. That is not good enough. Furthermore it appeared that the post of the Accountant-General was established at the level of Director. Financially skilled people are very well paid, in the private sector as well. The private sector takes care of its financial personnel. They are well-trained and receive proper remuneration. They also ensure that they attract such people by means of proper bursary awards.

Unless we follow this policy in the Public Service, we are going to reap bitter fruits. I therefore want to appeal today for a proper infrastructure which can accommodate the financial demands of every Government department. If we fail to establish skilled people in the structure, we are not going to address the problem of inadequate management. The Government and the Commission for Administration will have to pay urgent attention to this matter. I am not requesting that the personnel structure in the various departments be expanded; on the contrary, a public service need not necessarily be large and clumsy to function well and effectively. In fact I am a proponent of a smaller and more effective Public Service. I am appealing for expertise and effective performance. Skilled, well-paid officials are necessarily also those who function more productively in the carrying out of their daily tasks.

If I am therefore making an appeal today for the appointment of financially skilled people in the financial sections of the various departments, I am also making an appeal for the upgrading of the work content and I trust that this will lead to better financial control and the ultimate elimination of mismanagement and corruption.

Mr Chairman, naturally I shall not agree with all the political speeches that have been made here. I differ drastically, but rather want to concentrate on finance. When I heard the hon the Minister make the two very important announcements this morning, I realised it was probably a very difficult task to handle. In the book Die Owerheidsfinansies in Suid-Afrika Mr Van Staden says the following:

We know the Government has made the inflation rate a high priority and when we therefore co-ordinate the fiscal and monetary policy, we will have to admit today that the Government has failed dismally in its attempts to curb inflation. It has failed in its whole fiscal policy. I can mention as an example that a growth of 12% to 16% was predicted in the monetary supply. We are now already experiencing a growth of 26% or perhaps more. This growth in the monetary supply is due to the demand for bank credit which rises in spite of high interest rates. The hon the Minister has today again by implication announced higher interest rates. We heard today that 16% would be paid on those loan levies and this means by implication that the Reserve Bank will charge a rate of 17%. The question now arises as to why.

The answer lies in the first place in the fact that his people have a lack of confidence in the future. In the second place there is a lack of confidence in the Government because it could not succeed in controlling inflation. The result of this is that nobody wants to save anymore. That is why internal expenditure is rising. One can add to this a very high Government spending, and then total spending becomes hopelessly too much.

Increased domestic spending results in increased imports. This places pressure on the balance of payments as a result of money flowing out of the country. This morning we heard again that the gold price was $376,75, and the decrease in the price of gold also means a subsequent capital outflow for us. The result is that the net reserves decrease and therefore the exchange rate decreases. When we have a low exchange rate, the inflation rate goes up. This leads to less confidence in saving. If there is no saving, investing becomes extremely difficult. Consequently no sound investment can takes place.

What are the consequences of this? It is shocking when one reaches the following conclusions. In this connection I am going to quote from sources I have used, namely the Suid-Afrikaanse Reser-webank-bulletin, page S102 and the Central Statistical Services. I wish to point out to hon members that South Africa is actually involved in a process of impoverishment. I wish to take this pattern of impoverishment in South Africa over a period from 1981 to 1988. Unfortunately I then have to present the following. In the first place, current income has risen by 195,6%; direct taxation has risen by 336,5%; income after tax is therefore 184,1%. Simultaneously the inflation rate has risen by 159,9%. Therefore, income after tax and inflation has risen by 9,3%. However, this is not the full story. The full story is that the population growth has risen by 18,5% during this period. The income per capita after taxation and inflation has therefore decreased by 7,8%.

The hon the Minister is now attempting to correct these mistakes by raising interest rates. However, he is also experiencing another big problem, namely the steady increase in Government spending. That is why the deficit before borrowing is relatively too high and this neutralises the effect of the monetary policy on the economy. We know and admit that Government services have to be financed. We on this side of the Committee say the Government should set its priorities straight. If the Government addresses these services, it will have to accept its political policy as the biggest cause of this situation. If the Government were to continue on this road, South Africa would be plunged into further misery.

The matters that wreck the economy are coming to the fore more strongly. I wish to highlight four of these matters. The most important of these are surely social unrest, excessive urbanisation, corruption and socialism. Let us look at these matters. If we address social unrest, we have to accuse the NP Government of not maintaining law and order. Look at how long a state of emergency has existed in our country. If we speak about excessive urbanisation, with the emphasis on excessive, the Government is also to blame for this. How will the Government overcome this problem? In the manner it is handling it now, it will cost the country billions of rands. What is worse, unfinanced urbanisation is no miracle cure for the economy or for politics.

This Government has a very poor image on the outside about corruption in all its forms because during the last few years the extent of corruption has increased under its rule.

I have to say that the main cause of socialism is the artificial redistribution of wealth. However, I admit that redistribution is but one of the three legs of socialism. The other two are central planning and nationalisation of assets.

The present Government is applying a policy of redistribution of income by bringing about a narrowing of the wage gap which has no connection with productivity. This is a policy which causes current State spending to soar which, according to all evidence, is detrimental to economic growth, specifically where spending is increasing as a percentage of national income. An increase in taxation follows this of necessity and, because this is not enough to finance the increasing spending, use is sometimes made of the creation of money and/or the Government has to borrow money.

It does not seem to me that the hon the Minister is gaining control over State spending, because I want to tell the hon the Minister now that, if he maintains that State spending will only increase by 15%, I will take this with a pinch of salt.

You can bet your farm on it! [Interjections.]

What about your farm?

I would venture it, but I do not own one.

It is easy to venture it if you do not own one. The mistakes of the State are, however, largely diverted to the taxpayer, because the State is saddled in addition with that huge debt of approximately R70 billion and the servicing of this State debt during 1988-89 was approximately R8,055 billion. This is an increase of approximately R450 million more than the R7,605 billion which was provided for in the 1988 Main Appropriation.

If the Government cannot wriggle out of its present sick financial economic cycle, South Africa is heading for an economic collapse. [Time expired.)

Mr Chairman …

Go for him!

I am sorely tempted to do so, but I think I shall resist in this case.

†Let me associate myself first of all with the sentiments of appreciation expressed towards the retiring Commissioner for Inland Revenue, Mr Kingon.

The job of Commissioner for Inland Revenue cannot be a very popular one with the public. The public perception—erroneously so—is that the Commissioner for Inland Revenue is merely Ali Baba and his Receivers of Revenue the 40 thieves. However, I want to express my appreciation for the work that Mr Kingon has done. Whenever I needed his counsel and whenever I interviewed him with problems of my own constituency he was most sympathetic and most understanding. However, needless to say, in the end there was no discount. [Interjections.] My voters had to pay.

*In the first place I just briefly want to refer to a statement which the hon member for Barberton made here. He referred to the rise of 1% in interest rates. He went on to say that interest rates were not the only measure with which to cool down the economy.

The hon the Minister reacted to that statement in his speech by pointing out that he was using a variety of measures to try to cool down the economy, inter alia the changes in hire purchase conditions, the curtailment of the term of repayment and also the announced increase in the deposits which will have to be paid from now on.

This measure, namely the introduction either of stricter or more lenient hire-purchase conditions, is an old fiscal measure which has been used in the past. It was effective in the days when 90% or more of all credit transactions took place under the hire-purchase system. Since bank credit has become so freely available, however, it is no longer adequate, and other measures also have to be implemented. Since bank credit is so freely available it would be wrong of the hon the Minister to tighten up only on hire-purchase conditions without looking at the availability of bank credit.

The loan levy on companies at least has the advantage that the loan certificates will be negotiable. When these have been paid, the companies can therefore get their money back by exchanging them. The great mistake made by our opposition speakers, and they keep on doing this—I think they do it on purpose sometimes— is to think that the South African economy is experiencing normal times. The hon the Minister referred to that this morning, and I am pleased that he again emphasised that we are not experiencing normal times. There are, for example, the embargo on our loan capital from international sources, the boycotts against us and also the oil boycotts which people so often forget about when mentioning the obstacles in running our economy in a normal way. I think South Africa not only met its commitments with regard to its debt repayments to the international world in a remarkable way, but also performed remarkably well under the prevailing circumstances.

The State is facing a complex problem. To try to convince anyone that these adjustments to abnormal circumstances can take place without any sacrifices being made, is oversimplifying the matter and is a figment of the imagination.

This morning an opinion on inflation was expressed, namely that the public thinks that one should buy today because the article will become more expensive tomorrow. I do not know whether this is really the public’s perception. Personally I do not believe it is, because when one looks at the figures, one finds that private consumer spending was at its highest when the inflation rate decreased from 20% to approximately 12,5% in 1987 and 1988. If it is true that people buy because goods are going to become more expensive, they should have bought more during that period. However, that was not the case.

While on the subject of inflation, I want to say that the Government and the financial administration of our country are faced with problems which virtually dwarf the question of inflation, because there are many other other priorities which are much more important than inflation and which demand attention. Some of these have been imported, but no one has answered my question as to whether foreign boycotts can be overcome in any other way than by supplying cheaper products to the world markets. No one has given me any other solution. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to start with a small technical matter which was raised earlier this morning, namely the difficulty of having to take part in more than one debate simultaneously, particularly where the subject matter is similar in the two debates. The obvious drawback is that one misses earlier speeches in the debate and is therefore unable to respond. In my own case, I participated in the privatisation debate earlier and therefore had to miss the hon the Minister’s speech.

Secondly, now that the date of the election has been announced, it is extremely difficult not to introduce political standpoints in this debate. This was obviously a temptation the hon the Deputy Minister could not avoid and he devoted much of his speech this morning to an attack on the DP. It is obviously not possible to react to every detail. However, I would like to react to one particular point which the hon the Deputy Minister devoted a lot of his time to. That concerned the policy of the DP regarding a common voters’ roll. A policy document was tabled and unanimously accepted at our founding congress and I would like to quote from it because I would like to clear up this misconception. Under principles the document state quite clearly:

Under our policy programme it goes further to spell that out even more clearly, and I think this deals with the point made by the hon the Deputy Minister. We stated:

I think that was adopted unanimously, as I have said earlier, but it was also comprehensively reported in the Press. I think that makes our standpoint clear. [Interjections.]

We believe the hon the Minister and his department are caught in a cleft stick. No matter how well they try—and in many instances they do manage the economy—their efforts are frustrated by a bankrupt political ideology. I would like to endorse what the hon member for Yeo-ville said earlier. We have acted honourably regarding our foreign debt commitments and I believe we can be proud of that. These onerous responsibilities are a direct result of the political confrontation that we experience in our country.

Real per capita growth has increased during the period 1960 to 1973 and has declined since then. Personal taxes are higher than they should be. The hon the Minister has recognised that himself and when our growth approaches 3% it becomes necessary to take steps to cool down the economy because of balance of payments limitations.

It is instructive that this Government fails to acknowledge the real cause of our economic woes. They blame the bogeymen of sanctions and disinvestment and the lack of capital investment, particularly from overseas. These are symptoms, not causes. They blame our “enemies” whilst failing to remove the log of wood from their own eyes. Now they are in fact dining with some of those enemies at the Cape Sun.

Do you support it?

We were not invited.

They blame the burning down of our economic warehouse on a fire, without identifying who started the fire. Of course, the real reason for our economic collapse is a complete lack of foreign investor confidence in our economy resulting directly from the acts and omissions of the NP. The “acts” were its reckless subregional policy and incidents such as the blowpipe affair. Poor housing, education, and long travelling distances have lead to appalling levels of productivity, certainly far lower than that of our major trading partners.

What needs to be done therefore? The DP has clearly set out the necessary steps in its policy and programme of action.

Firstly we have to achieve an internal settlement in South Africa which will be politically acceptable to all South Africans. This will increase overseas and local confidence and lead to investment and the opening up of new markets.

Secondly, we need to free the economy. South Africa, with its rich diversity of human and natural resources, is ideally placed to be the Southern African variant of the Pacific Ring phenomenon. This requires letting all South Africans free to enterprise in conditions of equal opportunity. As one distinguished American sociologist once remarked, however, “There is nothing equal about ten fat and unfit people running the mile against Roger Bannister”.

Because of the uniquely discriminatory laws and practices, the State has an immediate responsibility to fulfil a development function to ensure that all South Africans can compete more or less fairly; in other words, that there should be basic equality of opportunity.

In this regard we have expressed our deep concern at Government failure to achieve its own ten-year programme to achieve parity in education. Housing for Blacks within reasonable distance of their work remains an unfulfilled promise, and there remains a chronic shortage of land set aside for them, even for the most rudimentary of informal housing settlements.

I do not believe that this Government is capable of achieving sufficient progress in good time. Its prime objective should be to remove the uniquely discriminatory legacy created by the apartheid system. Their failure will result in us losing the economic initiative to Marxism.

In the short time available to me I should like to turn to the subject of housing loans for the lower income groups as a specific area. We are pleased to note and support the hon the Minister’s plan announced today to grant temporary assistance.

It is a fact that these people face situations of feast and famine. Low rates induce them to buy, probably beyond their means. They then face enormous financial hardship when rates rise, as we have recently experienced. I believe that the people living in Blue Downs are a prime example of those who have had to suffer under these circumstances.

No doubt the situation will reverse when interest rates fall, but in the meantime it is a good idea that some way be found to even out the situation. We are pleased to note the hon the Minister’s plans to take some action in this regard.

Mr Chairman, with reference to the hon member for Pinelands’ speech, there is one point upon which all of us in the Committee agree, and that is that we must find a political solution which will be acceptable to everybody in this country, and as the hon the Minister quite rightly pointed out, that is a primary priority for us as Nationalists.

Before coming to the matter which I want to address today, I should like to point out to the hon member for Delmas a few mistakes which he made. Unfortunately he is not here now, but maybe it would suffice to point out that he said we were creating a problem and promoting socialism by trying to bridge the wage gap without obtaining a corresponding improvement in productivity.

If the hon member had taken the trouble to read the National Productivity Institute’s latest report on productivity, he would have noticed a very interesting fact, viz that labour productivity has in fact improved and not deteriorated as he claimed.

Initially it remained constant during the preceding four years, but during 1987, the last year, it improved. In other words, the inclusion of other people in the economy and the attendant narrowing of the wage gap had a positive influence on productivity, and not a negative one. When people make such obvious mistakes, they must forgive us for not paying any further attention to them.

And then they say that they are Christians!

Today I should like to talk about the South African tax system in a variable economy. There is a perception that South African citizens are overtaxed and that this has caused an enormous drag on economic development and private investment. I believe, however, that this is only partly true. It is only partly true. The fact of the matter is that despite a tax system which does not discriminate against any population group, only honest taxpayers are being overtaxed and large sections of our population are not making their rightful contribution to the Treasury. The proof of this lies in the fact that the Margo Commission not only made its own often “radical” tax proposals—such as VAT which differs completely from GST—but also recommended those proposals; and that the Minister accepted that recommendation; and also took the necessary steps to appoint a permanent tax advisory committee in order to ensure that future tax reform would take place on a continuous basis to ensure that each one contributed his fair share to the country’s finances.

When referring to taxes which are not recovered fairly, one should beware of comparing figures and making calculations and then drawing certain conclusions.

I want to mention an example. If I were a member of the CP, I could have made much of the GST figures for 1987-88. If one were to assume that a country’s GST has to increase or decrease in proportion to the total of the national growth rate plus inflation—in other words, if one were to accept that GST increases directly in proportion to nominal growth—one could calculate that there was an unrecovered loss in GST of approximately R380 million in 1987. The same figures for 1988 show an overrecovery of R500 million for 1988-89. Therefore one must take care when looking at these figures.

I think there are two phenomena which cause most of the problems when recovering revenue. Firstly taxpayers show a disconcerting general lack of tax ethics in paying their taxes honestly. In addition to the normal resistance people have to paying taxes, the situation is aggravated by the fact that the CP is trying to canvass votes by impressing on voters that so-called White taxes are being used to “give too much to the Blacks”. Hon members can well imagine how this kind of propaganda contributes to breaking down people’s moral values and sense of duty. On the other hand the activities of the revolutionary forces, particularly among the non-White sector of the population, are responsible for the fact that it has become extremely difficult to recover taxes in those sectors. In the second instance the development of the informal sector has created a very big tax problem. Although I am greatly, and I want to repeat greatly, in favour of this development, I am extremely worried that this sector falls almost completely beyond the net of the Receiver of Revenue.

Estimates of the extent of this sector vary between 12% and 40% of our country’s total economy. If such a large part of our economy falls outside the tax net, an unfair burden is placed on other taxpayers. It is therefore necessary to find solutions which will enable everyone to fulfil his commitment to the finances of the Republic of South Africa.

Firstly we shall have to create a more favourable climate for the taxpayer with regard to reasonable taxation. There is a widespread perception, which is also encouraged by our opposition, that individual tax has risen tremendously because of fiscal drag. According to the figures at my disposal the average increase in individual taxation over the past four years was only 3,5% per annum. That does not represent excessive fiscal drag. While I am talking about reasonable taxation, I want to tell hon members that one should also work towards a situation in which people accept that taxation is reasonable.

I have two problems with taxation. It has almost become an institution for me to mention one of them. That is that GST is levied on unprocessed grain sorghum foodstuffs, whereas other unprocessed staple foodstuffs, which are similar to grain sorghum, are exempted. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology made a splendid announcement the day before yesterday. He said the order books of South Africa’s exports overseas had been filled. Overseas countries therefore want to buy our commodities. They are very satisfied and pleased with what they purchase from us and the goods we manufacture. They are satisfied with the commodity, they are satisfied with the price, but they do not wish to invest funds here. There is no appreciable investment on their part.

Why then are there so many orders and so few investments? The Swiss banks have four criteria which they apply in respect of investments and loans. We can safely measure our country against those criteria. They say it is unlikely that they would grant money to a country in a state of emergency. In that way they are referring to a country which finds itself in an unrest situation and one in which there are political problems that cause tension. In South Africa we have had a state of emergency for three years now and I see no end to this state of emergency. Who will invest in a nation in which a state of emergency is prevailing? Those who invest there, are as the hon the Minister said himself, stupid.

The second criterion of the Swiss banks is that they do not invest in countries which display socialistic tendencies. What is the situation in this connection in South Africa? During the past few years the Whites have become poorer by 1,7% in regard to the redistribution of wealth. How much is not being taken away from the rich by means of taxation to distribute to the poor? Own initiative is being stifled. Daily we see how we are slowly but surely changing into a socialistic state. The State is taking more and more and leaving less and less for own planning and development. [Interjections.]

The third criterion is squatting. It is a well known fact that squatting encourages poverty if it takes place in an uncontrolled and undisciplined manner. Look at the large cities of the world where poverty is rife. Go and look at the squatter settlements which handicap the cities so that they cannot survive economically. What is happening here? Uncurbed squatting is taking place in South Africa. Some people maintain that up to 7 million squatters have settled in and around our towns and cities during the past few years. The financial demands are becoming abnormally high. Will hon members lend money to a country which allows squatting in such an abnormal and undisciplined manner?

Finally, no foreigner will invest where corruption is rife. Let us subject South Africa to this test. We have always referred to the African countries in a scornful manner and said: Look what it is like north of us; look at the corruption. Now, what about our own country? Why did the previous Minister of Manpower resign? Was it only gossip? Why did the hon member for East London City resign? Was his relationship with Mr Palazzolo only gossip? Why have so many commissions been appointed during the past two years? Was this only gossip? [Interjections.] What about the Vermaas incident and his pals? Was this only common gossip? I am not even mentioning the many investigations into the Department of Education and Development Aid. What about the 17 questions the hon member for Roodepoort put to the hon the Minister of Transport? Are there also irregularities? Who said some times ago: In a certain department this is only the tip of the iceberg? Will you invest in a country where so many commissions have been appointed to investigate inexplicable matters? Why does the hon the Minister then expect it of others?

While I am talking about corruption, I wish to state that I do not believe there is one hon member of Parliament who would condone corruption. I believe we all wish to eradicate it. However, my question is not whether we condone it, but who is the best qualified to eradicate it. This is a question the voter should answer. The Government has been proved to be soft on corruption. [Interjections.] They issue warnings and accuse the DP of being soft on security, but the NP is soft on corruption.

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

I am sorry, but I do not have the time.

On 4 September 1987 I issued a warning about the financial rand. Instead of listening to me, the hon the Minister said I was crazy and stupid. [Interjections.] He can go and read the old Hansards. He turned a deaf ear to so many warnings and that is why the voters will return a CP government to this Parliament on 6 September. [Interjections.] The people of this country are sick and tired of seeing their hard-earned tax money vanish through irresponsibility.

This brings me to the financial rand. Twenty months ago I said there were indications that financially strong undertakings were abusing the financial rand. What was the hon the Minister’s answer? He dismissed me as being crazy and stupid. If one makes an honest attempt to make a meaningful contribution and to serve one’s country and people, then you are crazy and you are stupid. [Interjections.] Who is actually crazy and stupid? The one who warned in time or the one who ignored the warning, the one who made a mockery of the warning? On 6 September the voters of South Africa will give us these answers. I want to say this afternoon the CP will return with an increased majority and the few Nats who will return, will return with smaller majorities. They can put that on record. [Interjections.]

I want to plead with the hon the Minister to abolish the financial rand. There are many who feel as I do about this matter and they are from the all parties in this Committee. Even the NP supporters say something is wrong and the financial rand can go.

Tell us about the implications.

I am thankful for one positive step, namely the Reserve Bank is getting top bankers to clamp down on currency fraud.

What does the picture look like ahead? I see us slowly but surely sliding further down the slope. Take inflation for example. After an attempt by the Government to control it, this monster is again going its destructive way. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, allow me to associate myself with the congratulatory message to the officials of the Department of Finance. I fully support it.

This is probably the last debate on the finances of the past five years. However, I hope it is not my last one, because I intend to come back for a very long period. [Interjections.] The hon member is welcome to say that, but I shall definitely return.

The past five years were a learning process for me. What I have learnt over the past five years in the two committees— the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Public Accounts—has given me a much broader insight as to what is really happening in this country. If one is a member of these two committees and deals with at least ten departments annually one gains a wide-ranging insight into what is really happening.

I should like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Finance for his support and guidance during the past five years. I also want to thank my colleagues in this committee and I want to thank the deputy chairman for his guidance, especially as far as technical matters were concerned. I also want to thank the officials who have always been prepared to help with financial legislation which had to be explained in detail because of its technical nature. This is especially true of tax legislation.

We have really gone through a learning process these past five years. I am not as lucky as the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance who became a Deputy Minister within five years. However, I also hope to have a position when I return. [Interjections.] I want to thank the hon the Minister and his Deputy Minister. I do not envy the hon the Minister his position as Minister of Finance, because after the announcements of 4 February about the affairs of the country it is amazing that he is still part of the NP caucus. This is especially true after the announcement on Wednesday last week that there was going to be an election within four months.

South Africa’s economic situation is really in a sorry state. Every day the man in the street has to deal with increases in interest rates, price increases, increases in food prices and all these things. If one looks back on all the ups and downs since 1985, I think the hon the Minister has done a fantastic job. It puts a great strain on someone to keep a country going financially, especially in the years 1986-87. I think the hon the Minister did his duty.

It is true that South Africa went through a very difficult time these past five years. For this reason I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on the two loans he raised overseas during the past few months. I do not want to discuss them in detail because the last time the hon the Minister addressed us, he indicated that some of this information was confidential. He also requested that we not divulge the origin of such loans and the names of the people who acquired them. I hope that the hon the Minister managed, during his visit to Britain, to get a loan of a couple of rand for us. That must be true, because if one considers the medals the officials are going to receive and the statements of this morning one can be sure that we received a couple of rand from Britain to make these things possible.

I should also like to react to a few statements hon members made here, especially about the redistribution of wealth, Black majority rule, a common voters’ roll and the reasons for disinvestment. The hon the Minister admitted at the end of his speech that there were political problems because of the policy of the NP. There are problems in South Africa because of the policy of separate development.

South Africa has no choice but to arrange a great indaba or national convention at which we can discuss a new policy and future for South Africa. This is a result of the so-called apartheid system, that is separate development, with the various names given to apartheid over the past 40 years. It is as a direct result of this system that people such as the clergy become holier than thou. One cannot always believe and follow these clergy because they really preach the gospel, especially the hon Dr Boesak. [Interjections.]

I say “hon member” because he surely is an hon member since he is politically active and does not concentrate solely on his work in the church to preach the gospel of reconciliation. For that reason he is surely part of politics. One should ask oneself why it is that there are still people who, in spite of South Africa and their love of South Africa, appeal for disinvestment and boycotts against the country on all levels to plunge this country into deeper ruin. These people hope that a new South Africa will arise out of this mess.

However, it is not going to be that easy. We must consider the loss of lives and for that reason I want to ask once again why Bishop Tutu appeals for disinvestment, why Allan Boesak appeals for it, why Black radical leaders believe that South Africa can only arise again out of the ashes. We must start considering this. Could the reason for this not be the policy of the NP, or the hate-filled campaigns of the AWB, the CP’s disdain of the people of South Africa and God’s creation?

I am also a human being and a creation of God, but when I listen to what hon members of the CP ask for and what they proclaim from public platforms one wonders whether there are still people of colour and Blacks in this country.

A redistribution of wealth is a fact of life in South Africa. I would like to tell hon members today that with the new federal republic of Azania, after the great indaba, we will also have a redistribution of wealth in agriculture and a restructuring of farms. It is the recognised policy of the LP which was decided on during the congress of 1985, namely that during the great indaba we will appeal at the negotiation table for the redistribution of land and wealth and for the nationalising of certain parts of South Africa’s banking and mining industries. I am saying that we shall plead for this and that we shall negotiate this at the indaba and that that is not the be all and end all. However, it is our policy to negotiate at this table for a federal system and a new dispensation in South Africa.

There is no difference between what the CP practises in Boksburg and what the NP practises in other towns. I find it ironical that the Press started a witch-hunt against the CP, conducted especially by the hon member for Boksburg. What is the difference between the lake at Boksburg where signs were erected and the Florida Lake at Roodepoort where our people still cannot go? There is no difference. The only difference is that a sign was put up at the one lake and at the other lake one is told politely that one is not allowed there. I think the NP might as well stop its campaign because it is ridiculous to compare the two, to blame one because people of colour cannot swim in that lake but at the same time prohibit those people in your own backyard. What is the difference between swimming in the Boksburg Lake and not being allowed to swim in the sea reserved for Whites? There is no difference.

We must sit around a table as soon as possible to negotiate about a new dispensation and a new South Africa. What is the difference between the homelands policy of the CP and the separate development of the NP?

[Inaudible.]

There is a vast difference between what the hon member preaches and a federal system. The hon member said there was a minor difference here and there. In my opinion, however, there is no difference between an apartheid system and a homeland policy.

[Inaudible.]

I think we must abolish everything and then sit down at a table where we can discuss matters. I also want to invite hon members of the CP to sit at that table and discuss common voters’ rolls and this Afrikaner homeland. Maybe we will be able to incorporate this homeland somewhere in the geographical federal system. After the great indaba and after a Black majority government comes into power the CP might draw up a memorandum and submit it to Nelson Mandela to negotiate on a new homeland.

I would like to return to two aspects which are important to me. I have mentioned it in previous debates. In the previous debate I mentioned the problem of small businesses, but the hon the Minister did not react to that. Here we have a great source of income and tax which does not go to the Treasury. In the previous debate I asked that we should try to increase the limit from R50 000 to R120 000. The small dealers will then be unable to evade so much tax. I discussed this matter in detail and I want the hon the Minister to consider it once more. I discussed the matter with the Commissioner of Inland Revenue as well, and he also said that it was a good idea.

There is another hole which swallows up tax on a large scale at this stage, and that is the Black taxi industry. In this operation there are businessmen who become millionaires but do not pay any tax at all.

Now you are discriminating against them.

The hon member said that I was discriminating against the Black taxi-owners. I am not discriminating. Does he think it is fair for those Black business people to put the money of the poor in their pockets?

No.

The hon member agrees; he thinks it is unfair. Then why did he say that I discriminated against them?

It is a criminal offence to steal tax money and I think the hon the Minister should investigate this. [Interjections.] That hon member is reacting to it.

Another issue I want to discuss is the peak the building industry reached last year. Now, however, we get the bitter aftertaste. The State helped our people to acquire housing. However, we now have a problem. Many of our people took out loans to build houses. I encouraged our people because I believe that once someone builds his own house he develops pride in protecting what he owns. Six months after the houses were built and the building contractor left the residential area our problems started. There are creaking houses, ceilings that collapse and roofs that leak. Then the problems start. I talked to the banks and building societies in my constituency. They told me that nothing could be done about it because the retention period had expired. However, the voters come to me and say: “You are the person who encouraged me; you are the person who brought the building contractor and organised meetings with us.” They say we were the people who encouraged others to acquire housing loans. At the time we paid 14% and 12%, but at present the interest rates have reached 18,5%. The houses are now collapsing and the LP is being blamed for that. We cannot do anything about it. It is a problem. The hon the Minister said he could not do anything about it but I would like the Minister to consider legislation to bind building companies and contractors in some way or another to a longer period after the house is completed or for them to be responsible for a certain period. That is a problem. At this stage there are 28 houses in my constituency with cracks so wide that one can see through them. The walls are cracked and there are doors that cannot close properly. The kitchen cupboards are falling apart. This is bad workmanship.

It is the wily English.

I would rather not react to that. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister should try to pass legislation in this regard to help us to help our people. It is a problem and after the R750 million that was made available in 1987 we shall have a worsening problem.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Western Free State. Unfortunately I do not have time to comment on any of the points he made in his speech, but the hon the Minister, who received praise from the hon member, will no doubt do so.

†The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Gerhard de Kock, who is highly respected in international banking circles world-wide, recently delivered an address to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on the topic “Economic co-operation and market-oriented growth policies: The only solution for sub-Saharan Africa”. The basic part of this solution was defined in the increased use of market-oriented economic policies. It is clear that in the Southern African countries to the north of us, post-independent socialist experiments by most of them have proved to be dismal failures. Sub-Saharan Africa remains desperately poor and is becoming poorer. For the region as a whole the ratio of foreign debt to exports of goods and services was 367% in 1988. South Africa is some four times better off than this. Excluding South Africa, the ratio has accelerated to almost 500%, more than three times the average for all developing countries. The foreign debts of these countries have increased from less than $5 billion in 1970 to about $62 billion in 1988. According to the World Bank, since 1980 only 12 of the 44 sub-Saharan African countries have been able to service their debt regularly. It is something South Africa can be proud of—we do.

The per capita gross domestic product fell by almost 1% annually between 1980 and 1987. South Africa has outperformed these countries substantially in spite of problems forced upon us by a hypocritical world through sanctions and disinvestment, these moves not supported by the vast majority of Black South Africans. These facts were supported today by the hon member for Western Free State.

In achieving the goal for growth-oriented adjustment in South Africa and the countries to the north of us, economic co-operation is essential, as is the application of similar priorities of financial control, such as the restoration of fiscal discipline by curbing the growth of Government expenditure and reducing budgetary deficits and the establishment and maintenance of positive real interest rates—today’s announcement seems to be following that trend—exchange rate reform designed to achieve realistic market determined exchange rates, and the abandonment of minimum wage determination at unrealistically high levels. In this regard the recently announced programmes for improving productivity are most welcome, I believe.

In curbing expenditure in South Africa our Government has recognised that priorities must be determined and a new process of priority determination was formally introduced with the establishment of the State President’s Committee on National Priorities in 1984. As far as Government spending is concerned—an aspect which receives great criticism from the opposition parties, and often without foundation— certain guidelines have been set down, and I would like to mention some of these.

State consumption expenditure must be curtailed as far as possible. Great emphasis must be placed on expenditure of a socio-economic nature. Services must be provided to an extent and a standard which the country can afford. Provision of social services must be focused on the really needy. We must stop helping people to become a nation of beggars. To alleviate the burden on the ordinary taxpayer in general, services must as far as possible be undertaken on an economic basis so that the user personally pays for services or products.

Dealing specifically with the State allocation in the budget on education, I should like to make some observations. Of the total employment of personnel in the public sector of 1,663 million people—this includes the SATS, Posts and Telecommunications, local authorities and public corporations—57,6% are employed by the Exchequer. These 1,663 million persons represent only 15,6% of the economically active population of 10,657 million—a most favourable rate, I think, compared to the rest of the Western world.

Of the Exchequer corps totalling some 957 000 people, the largest portion, 257 000 or 26,8%, are employed in servicing education. And so it should be as education is such a vital part of our future development and success. Expenditure on education continues to rise at a faster rate than the inflation rate, and thus the accepted process of normalisation in education has obviously been difficult to sustain.

Expenditure at university level in the Budget of 1989-90 has received the usual critical comments, yet the average increase in subsidies provided for all universities is 18,65%. Natal University was even more fortunate. In the Budget of 1989-90 an amount of R108,341 million is provided as a subsidy for current expenditure, loans, redemption and interest, an increase of R20,327 million, or 23,1%.

University authorities claim that their subsidies have been cut by more than R27 million. Should they have received the further R27 million, their increase for 1989-90 would have been R47 million, or 53,8%. Surely no one in his wildest dreams could have expected such an increase, to the detriment of other institutions doing valuable and essential training of our manpower, such as the technikons, technical colleges or even trade schools.

I accept that a subsidy cut may well have been made, based on the Natal University’s application under the subsidy formula, but we can only finance what is affordable. Having been educated at Natal University, Pietermaritzburg, I am dismayed at the lack of progress in the provision of facilities, sporting and otherwise, since the 1960s. It is clear that this institution has fallen a long way behind other universities in South Africa, including its sister campus in Durban, in the way of general residential, student union and sporting facilities. Clearly investment is needed for education expansion, and it is essential that our universities attempt to counter the affects of the shortfall on their optimistic budgets by improving efficiency and academic selection as well as promoting the image and encouraging donations from local communities.

In the government’s declared policy of deregulation and privatisation one of the basic criteria is that net fixed asset investments in buildings and other facilities must be limited by means of rationalisation in order to ensure better utilisation of the existing infrastructure. I have made this plea before and do so again without any excuse. Perhaps it is not this hon Minister’s job to reply to this, but it is my conviction that the training of our teachers—so vital in the bridging of the gap between our population groups— should receive priority attention. To achieve this it is essential that existing facilities be open to all groups. Several White training colleges have in recent years been forced to close down. The Edgewood Teachers’ Training College in Pinetown is only 40% utilised. Integration at university level is now an accepted norm and this should be extended to all, for really effective utilisation of existing infrastructure integration at training colleges is essential. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure indeed this afternoon to follow on the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South and I endorse his last statements. University education is integrated, so why not the other tertiary education? Why not the teachers’ training colleges which would be an asset to the country? I fully support him on that issue and I congratulate him for his courage, coming from the ruling party, to stand up and make that statement out of his true conviction.

In the second place today is the first time in five years that I am going to agree with the hon the Minister of Finance. This morning the hon Minister of Finance made a statement that our problem lies in politics and if we solve our political problems, we solve our fiscal and monetary problems as well. There I fully agree with the hon the Minister. Once we do that and once we get together to solve our political problems we will be making history. Following on that, a country’s history is shaped according to difficulties it encounters. These difficulties have offered us problems and they claim solution from us. These difficulties has been different in different parts of the world and in the manner of our overcoming them lies our distinction. South Africa has been given a problem from the beginning of history: The race problem. Races, ethnologically different, have in this country come into close contact. This fact has been and still continues to be the most important problem in our history. It is our duty to face it and deal with it in the best interests of our country. That is the degree to which I agree with the hon Minister.

I would like to refer to the hon State President’s opening speech in Parliament on 5 February 1988, where he made some very bold statements—not unlike the hon the Minister did today—about solving our problems together. The hon the State President said, and I quote from Hansard:

Further on the hon the State President continued:

Still further he said:

These are very wise words. At the time I applauded these words. However, that is where it remained. It rests in Hansard. I would like to question the Government. The estimates of appropriation have jumped by 40% from 1988 to the present. What happened to this undertaking and commitment the hon the State President gave us? It has not been complied with. Therefore I am forced to say that we of the opposition cannot attach any importance to any statements made within this Chamber. We regard them as cosmetic statements made to gain outside support and friendship.

I am sorry to say this, but I am not apologising. These are the facts! I repeat that the hon the Minister of Finance is my old friend. I am extremely sorry to make these statements and I hate to say I am not going to apologise. These are the facts of the matter. It is the reality the Government must face.

Here the hon the State President said that the Government was looking at curtailing expenditure. What did we experience? We experienced a 40% jump in taxation. What would the fuel price, for example, be if there was no fuel tax, which I estimate to be approximately 32 cents or 33 cents per litre? The man on the street is being taxed indirectly.

The Government talks about privatisation. Reference is made to overseas countries having private road contractors, private this and private that. It is very good for a First World situation where each and every individual contributes to tax at a lower tax rate. There one can have privatisation with regard to essential services like transport. However, here we have a unique situation. It is unique in the entire world that we have a small First World and a large Third World component. In this country 80% of the population belong to the Third World component. How does one transplant a First World situation, which has proven to be successful in a First World country, into a Third World situation? We are heading for trouble. It is another indisputable fact.

Mr Chairman, the tax increase surprises me. With regard to the hon the State President’s opening speech I ask the hon the Minister and the Government what they are essentially going to do about the situation. We have to solve our political problems. It is a process which will continue. However, we must take stock of our shortcomings in order to solve these problems. The greatest Government expenditure is the bureaucracy. There is a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy in this country. This is the only country in the world where one finds some 1 045 ministries. Take the homeland Ministers and the own affairs Ministers in this Parliament and add the general affairs Ministers, and it adds up to 1 045 or maybe more Ministers.

This is the only country where we are trying to divide health services. I would like to applaud Dr Van der Merwe of the J G Strijdom Hospital for taking the right steps. One cannot divide health services! If that was the case, I would like to see the Government drawing a partition here so that the people of colour on this side of the Chamber do not breathe the very air they are breathing on that side. However, can one do that? Can one draw a partition here and prevent people of colour from breathing the same air as White people? One cannot do that. One cannot divide air. It is free for all. One should not divide health services. I do not see the logic of that other than the creation of extra jobs for pals and party supporters.

The most important thing is that their own party supporters are leaving them. Some 40 to 50 years ago the NP needed the support of the farmers to come into power. Today those farmers are deserting the NP and are joining the CP. What is this Government doing? Every second year they pump millions of rand into agriculture. Why? I can prove that anybody can produce food on the land. The NP ideology, however, prevents people of colour from farming. They deem it fit to open the CBDs and the commercial and the industrial areas of the country. They deem it fit to create open settlement areas, but in that vital area of food production, where there should be no colour-line, they adhere to the Group Areas Act so that farming remains in the hands of the Whites. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it has been an honour for me during the past two years to deal with the people in the Department of Finance. I think we have the finest department, the best Ministers and certainly one of the best chairmen. It was even interesting to work together with the deputy chairman although he is not on my side. It is a good committee.

As an ordinary old “dorpsjapie” I would love to know where I am going to live in the end. Will it be in Azania, Morgenzon or a “Wit tuisland” somewhere in the Kalahari? [Interjections ] I found today that I ended up in Azania and seeing that we are involved in an economic debate, I want to say I agree that economics is the finest or truest form of politics. I think the hon gentleman who spoke today must just bear one thing in mind when he chooses a name like Azania, which is the ANC name for the post-apartheid South Africa, and that is that the whole of the ANC is living on hand-outs and we have the most powerful economy in Africa. If I were he I would think twice about which side I chose. [Interjections.]

I agree that ethnicity is a problem which we all have to solve together. My party and I are against racism, but let us not bluff ourselves that we can have open schools when six million children speak Zulu and others English and other languages. It will be very very difficult to teach them in the same schools. [Interjections.] Let us also face the realities in a hospital when some patients may demand halaal food and others Christian food. These are problems which have to be solved.

But give them the choice.

The greatest single fallacy in this Parliament is what the opposition always say, viz that our economy is weak. That is balderdash. Using the UN economic report for 1988 which is anti-West and pro-communist I can tell them that our GDP is as high as the average GDP rate. Our 3% GDP improvement in real terms for 1988 is better than that of England, Australia and Switzerland. [Interjections.] Those hon members do not want to listen. I know it is hard for them, but they should take the facts between the eyes.[Interjections.] The real cause of our problems in this country is not that we have a weak economy …

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister must please grant the hon member an opportunity to make his speech.

Our problem is not a weak economy but the fact that we have a birth rate which is impossible to curb. It should not be blamed on the NP. I think the birth rate in my group is about zero. They must not say either that we are responsible for the birth rate because there are different tiers in society. The birth rate in the rest of Africa is greater. That is the problem; not the economy.

The other fallacy that the opposition parties depend on very heavily, is that the Government is responsible for inflation. If I spoke for an opposition party, I would be ashamed to show my ignorance of economics. If I came to any committee of this nature and said a government was responsible for inflation, I would be ashamed of myself. People are responsible for inflation. The law of supply and demand determines inflation. The factors of production in any country have a limit. If the people of a country want to buy more than the factors of production can produce, one gets inflation. The greedier people get, the more they buy of what is available, and the worse inflation gets.

Everywhere governments have the tools in their hands to curb inflation. They cannot make inflation; they can try to curb it. There is the monetary aspect of curbing inflation. One can do what was done in this Parliament in this Committee today by lifting the interest rates. That is all that the Government can practically do to curb inflation. One can also curb inflation by attacking it on a fiscal level. One can tax people more and more. One can take the money out of the economy. If one takes R1 out of the economy, it takes out R5 in the end. One can thus curb the economy. It escalates.

A government can curb an economy but cannot be responsible for inflation. What is responsible for inflation in any country—also here—is that when we import R1 out of every R3 in our GDP, our people buy whatever they like whenever they like when they do not have the cash to buy it and they buy the best: fridges, motor cars, deep freezes, radios, TVs, videos, hair-driers, calculators, electronic toys, you name it … [Interjections.] They buy it and that is a cause of inflation.

[Inaudible.]

I will come to that now. It is interesting to note that the average increase in wages last year was higher than the inflation rate. Therefore, even with everything that we buy and with everything that we are responsible for, we still do better with wages. [Interjections.]

Now we come to Mr Butcher and the people that cause our troubles on the other side. If we can lift the factors of production and get more and more factors of provocation would be better into this country to produce more and more we will not have inflation. If those machines are operating, we will have a wider base and can produce more. Customers will have lots at their disposal and the prices will not go up. What has stopped us, however? When Mr Butcher butchered our ability to import money into this country, he knew what he was doing, because he is going to stop us from broadening the base of our factors so that we can produce more. Disinvestment was one of the brightest and the best blows that the socialists in this world could strike against us. [Interjections.]

I now get to the United Nations themselves. The hon member says we are doing well; I say we have a wonderful economy. If I was the ANC I would beg the NP to stay in power because I do not know anything about economy. Now we get to what the ANC says. In the United Nations’ report of 1988 the ANC says that in most sub-Saharan countries agricultural production per capita stagnated or fell. [Interjections.] The United Nations’ report says that the current account deficits expressed as a percentage of exports are back to the level of 1977 in Africa. Exports in these Black states went up by 2% over 13 years. Imports went down by 11% over 13 years. Compare this to South Africa’s achievements last year. In one year exports went up by 18% and imports went down by 16%. Seventy per cent of these Uhuru countries live on subsistence agriculture. They have a crumbling infrastructure and a shortage of basic agricultural inputs. Real wages have dropped by 50% since the Uhuru years in the 1970s.

In Uganda the minimum wage in 1972 covered the family’s basic needs twice. Now it covers one quarter of its needs. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I intended to talk about economics but I listened to the hon member who has just resumed his seat, and I think when he reads his Hansard and actually looks at what he said, he is going to be absolutely horrified.

He is the man who said that anybody who says certain things will really be regarded as a fool. With great respect, when he says that a Government is not responsible for inflation but that inflation is caused by completely different factors which he listed, I must tell hon members I am ashamed because I have not done my job as deputy chairman of the finance committee. The hon member for Vasco should be ashamed that he should come along and say such outrageous things. Let me just ask this simple question: Who prints money? Who prints paper? Who creates money? Who does it? The DP does not own the printing press. Even the CP does not do it. However, if the authorities keep the money supply under control—if I may just give him a little elementary lesson—it will deal with one of the main factors of inflation.

There are two kinds of inflation, namely the demand inflation and the cost-push inflation. They are two different things. One of the things—with great respect—on which we have to differ with him is that he comes along and says that people must not buy things. I am in favour of people buying South African products because that is how our people stay employed. Does the hon member want our people to be unemployed? Does he want a complete stop in the consumption of locally produced products? He should then go out and tell the people in his constituency that that is the policy and that he wants them to be without work. He should go and tell them that that is what he wants.

Let me give hon members an example. This man has—with great respect—the audacity to talk about how rich we have become. Does he know that in 1987 there was a real personal disposable income per capita increase of 2,7% that made us very rich! However, in 1988 there was a—1% in real disposable income. He is living in a different world to the rest of us. He does not know what is going on in South Africa if he actually believes that last year disposable incomes went up, because even the Reserve Bank does not agree with him. The hon the Minister will not agree with him either. He might not admit it here. However, he is going to take him outside and give him an economics lesson.

Having since this morning studied the statement of the Governor of the Reserve Bank, I would say that the measures which have been introduced today are much harsher than appears from the hon the Minister’s announcement. I think we have to look at a thing in a realistic situation in which we ask ourselves: If steps had been taken earlier, would there not in those circumstances have been a situation where the steps would have been less harsh than today?

Unfortunately one of the reasons why steps were delayed is because the hon the Minister, who has been straining at the leash to do something—and in fairness the Governor of the Reserve Bank as well—has been kept back by the absolute political uncertainty which has developed over the past two or three months in South Africa. Nobody knew when we were going to have an election. Nobody knew what we were going to do. Periods of political uncertainty are bad for any economy. If we acted quicker we would have had less of a problem.

The other thing which is quite a clever move—if I may say so—is that there is no doubt that the increases in interest rates are not only going to affect short-term rates but also long-term rates. The Government knows it has to borrow more and pay more if it goes into the market. What did it do? It passed legislation on Friday last week in terms of which we abolish prescribed assets and today, on this Friday, we are compelling people to invest with the Government at a rate of 16%.

So the Government is assured of its money and at 16% in a really clever move. I would like to employ whoever thought of this viewpoint of shrewd finances. He really knows how to handle this. However, the reality is that someone is going to suffer. In another respect, one cannot accept this; there is a different way in which the levy could have been tied to the provisional tax payment where, if one is not going to make the same profit as the previous year one can ask for a reduction. I would ask the hon the Minister even now that when a company can show that there has been a dramatic decrease in its income compared with its income the previous year, it should be given relief, otherwise people can be driven unnecessarily into a difficult situation. One must bear in mind than even though these certificates will be negotiable once there is a mass of them on the market and people want to deal with them, their price will go down, and if long-term interest rates go up, the capital value of those certificates will go down.

I am also worried that a conflict will develop between the urban areas dweller and the farmer. At every turn there is adequate relief for the farming community, but inadequate relief for the people who live in the urban areas. I want to say with great respect that the concession which is being given in order to deal with small businesses and the IDC, is not enough to help the ordinary urban city dweller. I believe there is going to be hardship to the lower income groups and to the middle income groups which is going to be the result of this.

There is one major subject on which I would like to hear from the hon the Minister, for in his announcement this morning, he said he saw domestic fixed investments as an encouraging sign as to what has happened. I believe domestic fixed investment, particularly in the private sector, is one of the most vital things that we need in South Africa in order to produce so that we can consume, and get inward industrialisation going. I must say that I am so disappointed that from the SA Reserve Bank has come a week ago the comment that the increase in private fixed investments is not a desirable feature at this time. I will go along with the hon the Minister in seeking to restrain consumption expenditure in respect particularly of imported goods, but I cannot go along with the concept that when at last there is confidence to get involved in a private fixed investment it should now be dampened. I can give the hon the Minister the quotation where it is said that this is now going to create a problem and that therefore we have to do something about it. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister that we do not do that, because whatever else happens, the confidence of the investor in South Africa has to be maintained.

I now want to deal with some other matters, such as the question of bondholders. We have been told that there would be relief, but we do not yet know the details of it. I think we also need to be told without any delay what is going to happen when the tax-free investments for building societies are phased out. I think a serious situation is going to develop. Insofar as housing is concerned, the middle income group has traditionally depended upon building societies. If every interest rate they have to pay is going to be market related, it will have a major effect upon their ability to get housing.

There is a second factor that worries me. Traditionally the lower the amount borrows, the higher the rate of interest. The lower the amount one invests, the lower the rate of interest one gets on one’s investments. So one pays more when one borrows less and one gets less when one invests less. Let us look at the mortgages which are been given to the lower income groups in the R10 000 to R20 000 category. In most cases those people do not understand what happens when interest rates go up.

They are not sophisticated people; they are like the hon member for Germiston, they do not understand economics. Therefore one has to forgive them. [Interjections.] One cannot really hold it against them. There is a problem in regard to arrears that are developing there. There is a problem that virtually only one building society is lending to these poorer people in South Africa. We have to do something in order to look at that situation.

I see an answer in that the Post Office Savings Bank is also not going to be able to issue tax-free investments. I think that the Post Office Savings Bank should be privatised and that it should become a mortgage bank. We should have a development in South Africa of a new mortgage type of bank which can have as its basis the Post Office Savings Bank, which really should be taken away from the Post Office, with its marvellous network throughout South Africa. It is therefore all ready-made for a real mortgage bank in South Africa. I would like to make that appeal today.

Lastly I would like to make an appeal in respect of what perhaps is a broader issue. There has been talk—both the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Finance have spoken about it—of a Marshall Plan for Southern Africa. When we have a maize surplus—even at a time when we are experiencing our own economic problems—I would like us as a nation to say to the starving masses of Africa: “Here is maize; here is South Africa, we are prepared to help you.” I would like us to go into Africa with a plan to save its starving people and to make our surplus agricultural products, which we are selling at a very substantial loss in any case, available to the starving masses of Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is always a privilege to follow on the hon member for Yeoville. He always has very interesting ideas and with most of them one could happily associate; of course, one has to disagree with some of them. I would have liked to enter into debate on that. I will, however, come back to a few of the items but unfortunately time does not permit me to enter into a detailed debate.

*The 1989-90 Budget deals with the realities of South Africa. The hon the Minister has already indicated that it is not an election budget. Nevertheless, in computer language it could be described as a user friendly budget. This Budget has effectively embodied the principle of separate taxation for married couples and the considerable expansion of SITE further facilitates great administrative savings—savings concerning labour as well as administration—for the taxpayer as well as the receiver of revenue. With this Budget the hon the Minister has taken an important step along the road of tax reform, which is in accordance with the policy of the systematic implementation of the Margo Report. The inevitable pain which we will consequently have to endure in the short term has been limited to the minimum. Hon members will have to agree that the Budget as well as today’s announcement will ultimately be geared to growth. I will come back to this later, since I know it is a contentious statement.

During the past year South Africa has shown a growth rate of approximately 3,2%, which is a considerable improvement on the previous year. However, the greatest single economic problem facing South Africa is that we need an average growth rate of approximately 5% in order to accommodate the population structure and growth of South Africa. Experts are of the opinion that the maximum economic growth rate cannot exceed 3% without spelling danger to South Africa. Greater economic growth will cause the economy to get out of hand, which will be marked by excessive increases in price, according to these experts. To establish steady growth, it often happens that the authorities handle the economy with a stop-start approach as soon as there is a substantial deviation from the golden formula of approximately 2,5% to 3%. This control is primarily regulated by fiscal and monetary measures which are sometimes discernible in the form of drastic adjustments to the interest rates, as we are now in fact experiencing.

On behalf of the private sector I should like to plead for extreme care when adjusting interest rates. No single item is to the business man as unpredictable and problematic as fluctuating interest rates. I appreciate that there are very few alternatives left to the authorities and the banking sector, and that it would be dangerous to interfere in the supply and demand of capital and in the money supply. For this reason I am grateful that the hon the Minister was somehow able to sweeten these essential but painful measures.

It was important to give consideration to these financing periods to discourage the demand for credit, or in the case of hire-purchase and leases even to the required minimum deposit percentage. In that regard one can plan for the future, and it is not a punitive measure for what has already been done in the past.

I would like to express an opinion on the informal sector and specifically on the growth rate of the informal sector. The growth rate of this sector is hard to establish, but according to speculation it could be as high as 12%. According to Mr Leon Louw of the Free Market Foundation the Gross National Product of South Africa could be undervaluated by between 20% and 40%, specifically because the activities of the informal sector are not taken into account in official statistics.

The Small Business Development Corporation calculates that there are 625 000 unregistered, unlicensed informal persons or bodies not paying taxes and that are responsible for between three million and four million job opportunities and that are making a contribution of between R15 billion and R20 billion to the gross national income. Should these figures be correct it would imply that South Africa’s growth rate for 1988 was actually closer to 5% than to 6%, as opposed to the official Reserve Bank figure of 3,2%. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am almost in the same position as that depicted in the well-known anecdote, which is in fact true, about what happened in Parliament when an hon member, who was fairly henpecked, dropped his papers whilst he was making a speech. While he was trying to pick them up he looked up anxiously at the gallery and said; “Don’t worry, dearie, I’ll get back into my stride in a moment.” [Interjections.]

This is, of course, a very useful method we have of conducting a debate, being able to finish in one day. I do want to say, however, that for those of us who have to govern the country, it is a little difficult to do full justice to all the hon members who participated in the discussion. I shall therefore try my level best to do so, and if I do not succeed, I tender my apologies in advance and will see whether we can give the necessary attention to these matters by some other means. I therefore crave indulgence if I possibly omit to mention something here. It does not mean that we have not taken note of it, but that we shall, in fact, be dealing with it by some other means.

I should like to thank hon members very sincerely for their participation. I honestly want to say that what has repeatedly struck me this year, in these meetings of ours, is that because we have less time, it seems as if everyone is working much harder at giving more force and substance to these speeches, making them more meaty.

I want to extend my very sincere thanks to hon members for the very thorough study of the subject that is reflected in these speeches. This definitely makes a better contribution to financial and economic policy and their implementation in general.

Also permit me, Mr Chairman, to extend my very sincere thanks to the hon members who expressed such kind sentiments to the officials of this department. My sincere thanks, in particular, for the congratulations to those who are being transferred to other posts or have been promoted. My sincere thanks, too, for all the kind words to our colleagues who were chairman and deputy chairmen of these committees and who do not have an opportunity to reply themselves. I also extend my sincere thanks for the kind words quite a few hon members extended to me and to my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister.

The policy package I announced this morning is not the product of my labours, nor exclusively that of my colleagues or the Director-General or the special adviser. It is a team effort involving a whole series of related departments, including the Department of Agriculture and the Board of Trade and Industry, under chairmanship of my colleague. The Reserve Bank also made its contribution, giving us an opportunity, I believe, to announce a balanced package of measures this morning. I thank hon members who reacted to that for the time which, in the face of very great demands, they spent on it. It is no easy matter to view in its proper perspective, and to hon members who took the opportunity, at lunch, to join me when we informed the media more extensively, I also extend my sincere thanks for their interest.

As is customary with this kind of debate, and since I have not had an opportunity to make a proper analysis of trends in the various speeches, I shall resort to the old method of doing justice to hon members’ contributions, where at all possible, by reacting to their speeches.

The hon member for Barberton kicked off by referring to a figure which I really could not trace. He spoke about a tremendous increase in public debt costs from R900 million to R2,4 billion. He meant a specific kind of Government stock, because it cannot be public debt in that sense and it is not public debt in the general sense either. I would be glad if he could send a note across to me about that, because I cannot reply to him. The nearest I could get was to linking it with a specific kind of Government stock which could perhaps be declared as a result of the fact that we sold a lot of granny bonds, resulting in a shift away from other stock. That is all I can say about that.

The hon member argued that the deficit before borrowing was used for servicing debt, and I want to tell him that that is really not a valid argument. As a legal man he ought to concede that my comments on that are correct. Debt does not have any colour, any label, and revenue does not have any label either once it accrues to the State. To compare deficit before borrowing and the servicing of public debt with each other is really an unusual way of doing things. Unless one finds oneself in the wonderful situation of having surpluses, a situation in which Mrs Thatcher found herself on a few occasions, one would always have public debt and the servicing of public debt until such time as one has discharged all the previous debts. If there is no revenue surplus over and above the expenditure for a specific year, there will be a deficit before borrowing. To compare those two aspects and say that we are borrowing money to pay interest is really, in my view, a slightly tenuous argument. I trust the hon member will concede that that is an unusual kind of emphasis. Although it is possibly a good piece of propaganda, that is not really how Government finance are managed. I really do not think that he wants to imply, by that argument, that he is of the opinion that the State’s deficit before borrowing could cheerfully have been greater, as long as it was greater than the public debt costs. I really do not think that that could have been his standpoint.

The truth is that in the midst of extremely difficult conditions we have moved closer to the ideal figure of approximately 3%. That is not because the UN says so, or because international government financial experts say so, but because that is normally the average amount of the Budget, in other words the amount of the Budget as a percentage of the gross domestic product devoted to capital expenditure. For that reason we are approaching the 3% mark, but that is not an all-embracing criterion. I have previously told the hon member, have I not, that our public debt as a percentage of our GDP has decreased. The servicing of our public debt, however, has increased considerably as a percentage of the Budget. That is as a result of the fact that we pay much more market-related rates and have a higher interest-rate level. One’s interest-rate level must be high if one lives in an area in which one has a relatively high inflation rate.

We can talk a great deal about savings, but the simple truth of the matter is that large-scale tax concessions do not help one all that much if one does not have considerably attractive real interest rates. Nor does it help—in such economising circumstances to which he also referred—to seek an alternative in tax concessions. One can do anything in a country if one is prepared, ultimately, to relinquish one’s tax base altogether. It is therefore a structural problem that we are, in fact, still grappling with.

As far as our obligations to the South African Reserve Bank are concerned, the hon member will remember that two years ago we showed a considerable profit. At that stage we made considerably more than R1 billion in profit. This money has already been pumped into the system. We have already paid off R1 billion, which has also helped to reduce liquidity ever so slightly. The fact is that for us, at this moment, working off this debt is not such a great priority.

The moment the fetters have been removed from this economy, and there is a turnaround, we shall see a different turn of events in those specific accounts. In my opinion we shall have to determine the best method for dealing with that matter when, under those circumstances, our rand begins to firm up. At this stage, however, it is really not a great cause for concern to us. I think the hon member will concede that it would not pay us to devote an excessive amount of attention to it at this stage.

The hon member referred to en embargo on agricultural products. I have really not had an opportunity to go into that matter, or to have someone else to do it for me, but I shall duly provide the hon member with an answer to this question. There are, of course, serious problems one can run into. If one is in the position in which South Africa finds itself, and one imposes a complete embargo, one is travelling the same road of boycotts and sanctions, which is not in line with our policy.

Secondly one does not seek confrontation in regard to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and similar international arrangements which, thus far, it has been very valuable for us to maintain intact.

The hon member referred to the question of corruption. Corruption, of course, occurs in any country. It occurs to such a degree that, with all due respect, even clergymen cannot succeed, with their prayers, in keeping members of their congregation from committing that sin. Likewise the Government will not be able to keep people from corruption, despite all the legislation we have at our disposal and all the measures we are able to impose. There is no way of doing that. All a government can do is enhance its financial and administrative measures to such an extent that it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone to commit acts of corruption, and when a person does so, he must be duly punished, and I am sure no one in this House disputes that in any way whatsoever.

The hon member for Barberton also said that inflation was going to be reinforced. As far as cost-push inflation is concerned—the hon member for Yeoville correctly distinguished the two categories of cost-push and demand-pull inflation—it is, in fact, true. To the extent that imported capital goods, subject to the 15%, have to enter the country—we specifically want to deter people, with that 15%, from bringing that piece of machinery into the country—and this would otherwise mean the virtual demise of the purchaser, and he pays 15% more and passes that on to his consumers, it is in fact a cost-push factor.

To the extent that high interest rates—this 1% and the other 1% increases of the past, which will hopefully not be applicable for very long if the public co-operates, and our sincere plea to all, the entrepreneurs and consumers, is to adopt the proper attitude and co-operate to reverse this interest-rate graph—were to be passed on to the consumer, they would represent a cost-push factor.

There is, however, another side to that equation. Our whole object with this package, following upon the packages of August-September of last year, and other steps we have taken, is specifically to reduce demand, is it not?

If the demand were to cool down in the process, the manufacturer and the dealer would no longer have a market for that high-priced product, unless he were prepared to participate in competition which would result in lower prices. If demand were to decrease, prices would also have to decrease, provided the consumer insisted on it. If our measures were to have the desired affect, there would be a general decrease in demand.

I cannot accept what the hon member said, ie that the Government is responsible for corruption. I made very rapid notes and do not know if that is precisely what he meant. That is the problem if one does not have a copy of the Hansard speech. The hon member for Witbank and I previously had an altercation because I had not been able to consult his Hansard speech. I therefore want to qualify this. I jotted down here “the Government is responsible”. I really find that unacceptable. Like the hon member, I find it unacceptable that there is an increase in corruption, but I find it equally unacceptable that the Government should accept responsibility for that. The truth is that if it were not for this Government, which took steps, by way of various commissions, to delve into these aspects and get at the truth, that corruption and those malpractices would have gone undetected. The Government is therefore responsible for exposing this and for doing the rounding-off work. As I said last time, I am afraid that we shall have to deal with that very carefully. I endorsed the hon the State President’s warnings about not unnecessarily hurting people in the process.

The hon member Mr Douw said quite a few things with which I disagree and also quite a few with which I agree. I respectfully want to point out to him that we do not borrow from companies because we are bankrupt. There is too much liquidity in the company sector at the moment. We are, as it were, taking a piece of blotting paper and soaking that up.

†For that reason—coming to the hon member for Yeoville—we cannot use the provisional tax system for that purpose. We want to reduce that liquidity right now. That is why we have this mopping-up operation. We want to absorb at least the equivalent of 10% of last year’s company tax. We want to absorb that money and freeze or sterilize it and not allow it to go back into the economy if possible. The only real way we can do that is to base it on last year’s tax.

[Inaudible.]

I will give the hon member an opportunity to ask a question.

There is a most important point here. In the process of deciding on this particular course of action we considered very thoroughly that which bothers the hon member for Yeoville. A company which made a very sizeable profit last year can be in a totally different position this year in which case levying 10% right now from that particular company—that company being in a less profitable position this year—can be a devastating blow to it. For that reason we made it a negotiable instrument. The day before yesterday when my officials and I looked at my little screen we saw that 1993 RSAs were at 15,98%. We decided to make it 16% which will make it market-related so that that particular company can take it immediately and sell it in the market. I have no doubt that the hon member’s fear, that there will be a total flooding of the market which will translate into a lower price for that particular piece of paper, is unfounded.

It can certainly also be used as collateral. However, we would not like to support its use as collateral with a bank.

*The hon member Mr Douw wanted to know whether the package would become temporarily permanent. The truth of the matter is as follows. I am asking the public of South Africa, from the humblest consumers to the biggest businessmen, please to pause for a moment and look at what difficulties lie ahead for us if we do not place something of a damper on economic growth, because if they do not co-operate with us, these conditions will be with us for a long time to come. If the public, from the top right down to the bottom, were to co-operate and immediately scale down bank credit, as one of the facilities they make use of in their lives, and postpone purchases for a while—particularly those that have a high import intensity—these measures could be of short duration and we could reverse the whole graph and achieve much more attractive parameters than in the past.

The hon member referred to acute staff shortages. In this regard we are having a difficult time of it. An hon member wanted to know why we did not employ so-called people of colour. I want to repeat that colour plays no part when it comes to the employment of people with the right qualifications. We need them. Bring us the accountants. Bring us the people with a mathematical background, the B Comm and chartered accountants. We make use of specialist staff packages at the moment to make it attractive for young chartered accountants to work in our department. Bring us the people. There are no restrictions on the employment of people with such a background. An Indian in Durban was, in fact, recently promoted to a very senior level, the third most senior person in charge of a specific office. We have no problems with appointments, but what we are looking for are qualifications. We are not engaged in an “affirmative action programme” merely on the basis of the colour of someone’s skin. We have no preferences for White or any shade of White.

The hon member requested assistance for small businesses, similar to that granted to maize farmers. I want to make it very clear that it is not a question of assistance to maize farmers, but to the maize industry. They make a sacrifice for that; in the process another subsidy bites the dust. That is a subsidy which is going to be employed in future to assist the industry to rid itself of this incumbrance. It is a shortage that has built up over a long period, and it just goes to show that one should not interfere with the market. When one interferes with the market, one makes trouble for oneself.

Looking at the storm raging around the question of corruption, I cannot emphasise my point strongly enough, and here I want to make a categoric statement. A subsidy gives rise to corruption! An unnaturally low tariff gives rise to corruption. Lower tariffs for agricultural diesel give rise to corruption.

Lower tariffs at Overvaal or at Piesangrivier or Keurboomsrivier give rise to corruption. A tariff that is lower for a state-orientated body than for the private sector gives rise to corruption. At the same time one saddles oneself with structural difficulties if one meddles with subsidies or the market situation in regard to a commodity. I welcome the fact that the maize industry is moving towards a market-related position. Personally I am very satisfied with that.

The hon member must have taken note of the fact that through the Small Business Development Corporation and the IDC, to which I referred earlier, we do help small business undertakings. The hon member asked whether we should cool down the economy to 1,5%. No, Sir, that is not our criterion. I cannot say today at what growth rate level we will ultimately end up. What I can say, however, is that we now have to cool down the economy to get the balance on the current account to such a level that we can meet our international obligations. Within those limits it is “anybody’s guess” what our growth rate within specific parameters can be. It cannot be 3%, but it does not necessarily have to be 1,5% either. What I mean is that we must achieve the maximum economic growth rate within the parameters of the changes we are making.

The hon member spoke about the Development Bank of Southern Africa. As far as that Development Bank’s mandate and stature are concerned, it is specifically required to grant assistance to less developed areas, etc, but I want to invite the hon member preferably to hold discussions with Dr Simon Brand who, in conjunction with his advisers, recently worked out a wonderful strategic plan for the Development Bank of Southern Africa. I am asking him to let us duly examine this for a moment, at a round-table conference, rather than trying to give a proper answer to that question now.

The hon member for Vasco rightly said that this was the end of an era. We do not know how many of us will be taking part in this debate next time round. We have never known, in any event, but an election frequently sounds a death knell. For that reason I should also like to take this opportunity to extend my sincere thanks to those hon members who participated in discussions in these debates and who did a fine job of work in the joint committee and the standing committee. It has always been a privilege and a pleasure to be able to debate issues with them. The hon member for Vasco did so. About his other comments that I jotted down, I agree with him, and I do not need to repeat that. I am also referring to other hon members’ reactions to that.

†I thank the hon member for Southern Natal for his kind remarks to the staff. He referred to sharks who export capital. We would like to get hold of these sharks. I am aware of the fact that the surest way to catch a shark—it is very cruel and the Greenpeace people are very much against catching a shark in this way—is to give him a nice piece of meat and to put a float of some kind on it so that the shark eventually drowns itself.

This is also what we have in mind when it comes to the exporters of capital. They will ultimately drown themselves. We will not be too sorry if those sharks, from a criminal procedure point of view, come to a rather nasty end. However, it is always difficult because one finds that these people leap-frog one in terms of the methods they contrive.

The hon member was correct in saying that people do not work without incentives. We know that from a tax point of view as well. We are trying our level best within the very difficult constraints that we work within. He also said that they did not get 1 cent out of the disaster fund of R3 million. I would like him to take this up with me again. The last I heard was that they were satisfied. I did not hear of the problems that he had encountered.

I come now to the hon member for Yeoville. I thank him for his first speech. He made some very constructive remarks.

What about the second one?

I think the hon co-leader of the DP and I will have to agree to differ on that. All I want to say with regard to his first contribution in terms of economics is yes, we hope that these measures will be so tough that they will have the desired effect on the market.

However, we do also have a reasonable—although maybe still inadequate—safety net from the point of view of our special job creation programmes and special training programmes where we make a tremendous contribution towards increasing the general level of training in South Africa by recruiting the unemployed and giving them special skills by means of a crash course in order to allow them to go into the private sector or via the informal sector if that is the way they choose to go.

I thank him for his enthusiasm on the issue of inward industrialisation. He is absolutely right. Until we get inward industrialisation going the whole employment situation in South Africa will be under tremendous pressure. I also agree with him that we must break the inflation expectation of people because that entices them to enter into purchases which otherwise they would not have done if they had not been under the influence of an inflation expectation.

*I thank my hon colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, for his contribution.

Politically speaking, he set the cat among the pigeons, but he did obtain some interesting results which he will probably make good use of in his constituency. I think he has achieved his objective.

The hon member for Gezina spoke about our staff problem. He is not here at present. He made his apologies; he is participating in one of the other committees. On 1 May of this year we had no fewer than 202 chartered accountants, via the SADF and the Manpower Board in our employ. We are very grateful for this arrangement. It is absolutely fantastic experience for them, and we obtain very good results. It has been our experience that when these men enter a specific geographic area or tackle a specific bunch of assessments, they collect much more money than would otherwise have been the case. It is also a great opportunity for us to use them to train our staff. We express our thanks to the SADF and the Manpower Board, and also to the men who thus furnish a contribution. We do, of course, try to motivate them as much as possible to remain with us, and occasionally we succeed. Recently we made a very attractive package available to retain the services of some of them. I share the hon member’s concern about the fact that only 15% of those who have bursaries receive training. It really is a major problem as far as we are concerned.

The hon member for Delmas said that we were soft on inflation. [Interjections.] Those hon members say we are soft on everything.

Soft on corruption.

Yes, that is right. I cannot say that I advocate our being soft on corruption; anything but. I would rather be soft in many areas rather than as hard on racism as the CP. They are hard on racism. A person of colour gets no mercy when he comes into contact with the CP. I do not think that the hon members for Delmas and Witbank did themselves and their party any great service today.

Today they gave us the four points on which the CP was going to tackle us in the coming election. The four points involve the social unrest, excessive urbanisation, corruption and so-called socialism. I want to look the hon member for Delmas straight in the eye and ask him whether, if he were given the opportunity to make a decision today, he would lift the state of emergency. An answer will not be forthcoming; he will not give me a reply. I am sure that will continue to be the case, but I also want to ask him: If the CP were to govern the country, what state of emergency would not then be imposed?

A state of extinction.

Yes, that is a very good description. I am asking this in all sincerity, and not in an attempt to steal a political march. I want to look the hon member for Delmas squarely in the eye and tell him that he knows as well as we do that he does not have a snowball’s hope of implementing the policies of his party without large-scale military and police intervention. He would need powers far and beyond those existing under the present state of emergency. Since when has the CP been on the state of emergency bandwagon? Surely that is a leftist bandwagon. Surely the DPs are the ones who say that if we were to grant all the political rights that we are allegedly withholding, a state of emergency would no longer be necessary. I just wonder in what circumstances he thinks the CP can create a South Africa in which the situation would not be worse than the one the Government is experiencing at the moment. Surely it is not true that he would be able to implement his policy of partition without recourse to violence.

In his next point he referred to excessive urbanisation. What would he do to stop excessive urbanisation, a phenomenon that cannot be checked anywhere in the world? What powers would he not need, and would he not have to implement by means of force, to check urbanisation if, according to him, that is one of the problems we have, one of the aspects that presents us with political problems.

His colleague, the hon member for Witbank, went so far as to say that these same four reasons were the reasons why Swiss banks did not want to do business with us.

I have never called the hon member for Witbank silly or stupid, but do hon members know what my problem with hon members of the CP is? Eventually one begins to have a few doubts when, after one has criticised their standpoints and they have been given a licking, when in all fairness one has given them all the facts and invited them to talk to one and to one’s people so that they can get the proper information, they come to light with the same standpoints that have been proved to be wrong. Then either a person is not able to understand the truth when it comes to economic affairs—which then relegates one to one of those categories—or one has such an obsession that one does not want to understand. I will not label the hon member silly or stupid as an individual. If he is under that impression, let me tell him that that was not the intention.

Today, however, he came to light with several views that cannot be described in anything but those terms. How many times must we put the facts on the table for those hon members so that they can understand them and stop making such pronouncements? I regard this as an insult to the voters. For them it is nothing to insult us here by repeating the same opinions over and over again. It is, however, an insult to the voters to think that one can get away with this kind of nonsense.

That is, after all, too ridiculous for words! The reason why the Swiss and banks in other countries, except for the USA, because there it is against the law, prefer not to do business with us is because there is a financial reason for this, although there are also political reasons. The fact that we are in a debt-standstill position groups us with those countries that have a debt problem, even though our debt problem is totally different to theirs. Their central banks have a stipulation that if they have dealings with a country that has a debt problem, extra reserves must be deposited with the central bank as a cushion, in case that investment goes sour. That extra reserve amount is 30%. That is the fundamental financially quantifiable fact why we have problems getting money.

I do not want to say a great deal about that; it is a well-known fact, and the hon member for Western Free State also referred to it, but very recently we obtained a very modest additional sum. We nevertheless managed to have two reasonably large loans rolled over. This was reported in the Press. Is it because there is less social unrest, or less excessive urbanisation, or squatting, as the other hon member called it, because he mentioned the same four points, or perhaps less corruption? The hon member for Delmas and the hon member for Witbank say that banks in other countries do not want to invest with us because we are supposedly corrupt. Heavens, where does he get that from? I just want to ask the hon member for Witbank whether he has recently spoken to an overseas banker. Surely that is a simple question. Has he recently held discussions with a Swiss or German banker? He is not answering my question, and I therefore take it the answer is no. He nevertheless draws such brilliant conclusions, in which he includes corruption as one of the reasons why they do not want to invest with us. He has therefore not discussed matters with them and ascertained their reasons for doing so; he conjured up those reasons in his armchair, as part of his party-political propaganda. The hon members for Delmas and Witbank must not blame us if we draw certain conclusions about the motives underlying such statements, because they cannot stand the test of validity, logic and reasonableness in relation to one’s country. Both hon members say that we have a socialist Government and an excessive redistribution of wealth. To what degree excessive? We previously asked them to tell us how much would be the correct amount, if we were to have a slight tendency in that direction. They must tell us what reductions we should make so that this is no longer excessive. That is what they must tell us. If the hon member takes a stand in opposition to urbanisation, then he must take a stand in favour of phenomenal development in the less developed areas.

If we come along with money for the self-governing and national states, or for the TBVC countries, they say the money is being wasted and they tell the voters we are doing everything for the Black man—in the process they use a nasty term when speaking man to man—and this is what they then tell the voters.

Surely one cannot do both. One cannot, after all, have the best of both worlds. They also tell the voters they can save money and drastically cut State expenditure. When the voters ask them how and where they are going to do so, they say that the Government is wasting all this money in the Black areas, and then they use this other name for it. [Interjections.]

One of the results of the fact that we as a Government, although we are now doing our best to stimulate development there, did not do enough there in the past, is that we have this degree of squatting today. I also want to tell the hon member for Witbank that there is a great deal of Swiss money in countries with much greater squatter problems than ours.

Can he now blame me for dismissing his views as being unfounded, and even stupid, if he comes to light with such viewpoints? Let me tell both those hon members something. Those are the four points on which they are going to give us, the NP, a financial drubbing in the election. Let me tell them that if those are their four points, we are going to have a royal time with each other. Thank you very much for today’s information and for these poor arguments, because it makes our task, as the purveyors of information, that much easier.

What I am advocating to hon members is that if they want to participate, and give us new guidelines as far as these matters are concerned, they should at least do so on better grounds than these four points on which they based their case here this afternoon.

†The hon member for Kuruman said to the retiring Commissioner for Inland Revenue that he did not have a very popular job.

*I want to tell the hon member for Kuruman that this applies to all tax collectors. Throughout the history of mankind we have always been unpopular, because we always take too much and give too little. In these modern times, with the severe limitations on the scope we have, it is more true than ever. That is why we extend our sincere thanks to those colleagues who showed a bit of understanding for the complexities of the matter we are dealing with.

The hon member spoke in support of quite a few of the aspects contained in the earlier statement. I should like to thank him for that.

†I am happy to see that the hon member for Pinelands is here. I trust that the references I made earlier with regard to the Central Bank restraints under which foreign bankers must operate also satisfied the hon member’s points with regard to the so-called lack of foreign confidence.

I wish to take up one particular point with that hon member. He made the following statement, if I noted it down correctly. I would appreciate it if he would give me a nod if I am on the right track. He talked about “reckless sub-region policies”. I see that the hon member is nodding his head. Well, I would then like to say to that hon member that that is a rather reckless statement to make. I would appreciate it if he would qualify that, because I am not aware of any “reckless sub-region policies” that we are pursuing. I have the privilege to sit on the State Security Council. If he talks about military affairs, I can say to him it is time he has a discussion with the hon the Minister of Defence. If he talks about economic policies, obviously he is not well informed, and I am quite prepared to have a discussion with him, also in my capacity as chairman of a small special Ministers’ committee on sanctions. I think that that statement can be rather harmful, and it should not be used in that fashion.

*I am grateful for the wise words of the hon member for Heilbron about the excessive or inadequate recovery of GST. These are insights that it is very fitting to convey in these specific conditions. Yes, Sir, that is right. The perception that one is being overtaxed does inhibit investment, and that is why we are so keen to have the tax burden shifted away from personal tax to indirect taxation. I am referring to that area of personal taxation in which achievers are actually rewarded for their contribution to the economy. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon member in that regard. Value added tax is, in fact, one of the ways of getting our informal sector to make a fair contribution. Let me tell him, on the other hand, that we cannot simply say that the informal sector does not pay any income tax whatsoever. I have a few wonderful anecdotes I could tell about this. It is a sensitive matter, because we want to encourage the informal sector, but with their co-operation, as far as possible, we are investigating ways and means of making their tax contribution a fair one.

I have already replied to the hon member for Witbank’s contribution. As far as the hon member for Western Free State is concerned, I do think that the figure of R50 000 that he mentioned is a good figure when it comes to an increase. We still have problems with the businesses, particularly those that furnish services, but at the moment we are giving attention to that, and the hon member’s suggestion is certainly something which acted as a very strong incentive for us to give attention to it at this stage. The hon member spoke about the redistribution of income, something to which I have already referred. At the moment I do not want to go into that in any more detail.

†The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South is to be thanked for his statements on education. Despite the problems that we have in this country we do certainly invest quite considerable and in fact our investment in education is much greater than that of comparable countries.

The hon member for Camperdown made apologies, but he made a lot of statements over which I will do battle with him on another occasion.

*I thank the hon member for Germiston who breathed quite a bit of life into the debate. With his unorthodox style and his statements he probably had quite a few hon members fairly hot under the collar.

†He greatly inspired the hon member for Yeo-ville to give us a preview of his election speech style and we also thank the hon member for Germiston for that particular excitement which he brought about. [Interjections.]

I would like to say that I agree with the principle that the low income mortgagee should be assisted, so that on a relatively permanent basis he can get assistance to afford a house. I would say, however, that I do not believe that we should have a bank with a low mortgage rate structure. We should rather identify the need and help the individual. This we can do because of the highly computerised environment within which the building societies and banks operate. There are other things which I would also like to respond to, but my time has run out. I beg of the hon member for Yeoville to forgive me for not giving a fully detailed response save for one further comment.

I think the standpoint of the SA Reserve Bank, which was expressed in my absence, relates to the fact that at this stage we would like to reduce the influence of machinery which is so capital intensive and which makes this economy very capital intensive, purely on the basis that we cannot afford it at this particular stage. I think that is the best explanation that I can put forward at this particular point, because in all the meetings at which I was present, Dr De Kock was very excited about the fact that we have this tremendous rise in the rate of private fixed investment. Therefore I do not think there is anything sinister about that particular statement, save to serve the purposes which we are pursuing right now.

*Let me conclude with the hon member for Jeppe who touched upon a very important fact in connection with the informal sector. We are not making enough out of the informal sector, and that is an extremely important part of our overall strategy of restructuring the country’s economy with a view to creating that number of job opportunities and maintaining that growth rate without which we would not be able to manage.

Mr Chairman, before the debate on administration and privatisation proceeds, there are one or two announcements, as well as a few remarks with regard to privatisation, that I should like to make to the Committee.

Since the hon the State President spelt out the Government’s policy on privatisation in greater detail last year and made certain announcements in this regard, great progress has been made in the implementation of the policy. If economic conditions allow it, the privatisation campaigns will enable us to very thoroughly test the capabilities of the investment market as early as this year. This trend will continue and will also increase in scope over the next five to seven years. I can therefore tell the Committee that the process of privatisation is well under way. The Government is convinced that privatisation can make a mammoth contribution towards increasing the efficiency of the South African economy—naturally to everyone’s advantage.

It is not my intention to report fully this afternoon on the progress that has been made in every sphere; neither would there be enough time in which to do so. Legislation has already been tabled to make possible the privatisation of Iscor—I should like to refer hon members to the Conversion of Iscor, Limited, Bill, which has been tabled and which will probably be discussed in Parliament during the coming week. It is not my intention to deal with Iscor today. I shall make public more details regarding the privatisation of Iscor when the legislation is discussed.

However, I should like to make one or two remarks at the beginning of this debate about the possible privatisation of Eskom.

†I announced earlier this year that the chairman of Eskom, on behalf of the management, submitted a draft report or working document to me about the privatisation of Eskom. That report was compiled by an internal working group in Eskom supported by financial and legal consultants. The report covered, amongst other things, the historical background and present structure of the industry, legal aspects, financial and economic aspects, other issues such as the market capacity to absorb Eskom, the capacity or overcapacity in the industry and other aspects that made an impact on the macro-economy in South Africa.

It is also interesting to note that the report states very clearly that Eskom is indeed privatisable, but that other aspects needed further investigation. Both the State and Eskom are conducting additional investigations and consultations. When these are completed the Electricity Council will finalise its proposal and submit its recommendations to the State.

I have now requested Eskom and the privatisation team to undertake the following further investigations. Firstly they must investigate what the likely financial consequences will be if Eskom were to become a taxable entity at this moment. This investigation is to be undertaken as soon as possible. Secondly it must be established what the most advisable corporate structure for Eskom is. In this exercise the creation of shares in such a corporate structure and the consequences thereof will also be looked into. Thirdly a financial consultant must be appointed to evaluate the financial model and its inputs as contained in the draft report as soon as possible to enable further studies to be undertaken in connection with the proposed privatisation of Eskom.

These and other matters need to be investigated in the interests of the many stakeholders to ensure the smooth and successful transformation of a very important industry in South Africa. All these exercises will be done in close co-operation with Eskom. I trust that we will be in a position to make further announcements in connection with the privatisation of Eskom in the near future.

There should be no illusions about the Government’s conviction that all these parastatal organisations, as well as other Government enterprises, need to be investigated with a view to privatisation. The underlying philosophy that we have spelt out before in Parliament and on many other platforms, is that privatisation and deregulation will play a significant role in correcting structural imbalances which have developed in the South African economy over a long period of time. In other words, privatisation and deregulation could make a significant contribution towards putting the economy right; towards improving the performance of the South African economy.

However, criticism is sometimes lodged against the investigation of—not even to talk about the privatisation of—enterprises like Eskom. Arguments that tariffs will necessarily rise beyond acceptable levels when Eskom becomes a taxpayer and a distributor of dividends to shareholders must be regarded as largely superficial since most of the criticism, up to now at least, has not been based on thorough financial analysis and investigation.

It also does not take into account certain commercial efficiencies that should flow from the privatisation of the relevant enterprises, nor does it address the current situation where low tariffs are being subsidised by the taxpayer and nobody really knows the size of this subsidy. The fact is that when an enterprise is not a taxpaying entity and renders an important product or service to the community, somebody else is having to pay for the perceived low tariff of that service. There is—as we all know—no free meal. Someone is paying and it is obviously the taxpayer.

It is often argued that the relatively low level of electricity tariffs in South Africa is conducive to economic growth. That may be so, but while it may be true for some of the major industries, the taxpayer in general has to make up for that loss of income to the State and nobody really knows what that hidden subsidy amounts to.

It seems that an undue burden rests on the taxpayer who is not a major consumer of electricity. As a matter of fact households consume approximately 10% of all electricity used.

The philosophy is therefore that the cost must fall where it lies, that it must be correctly allocated. We can have no proper discussion about priorities if we do not allocate the cost correctly. That means that the user of the product will have to pay a market-related price.

The Government has said before that in cases where an industry is detrimentally affected by the level of the electricity tariff or whatever cost-input, and it is deemed that such industry is vital to the South African economy, the Government is prepared to subsidise.

The fact is that we have to restructure our economy and correct imbalances that have developed over the years. It is in this connection that the Government is very serious about making these enterprises tax-paying entities, widening the tax base and exposing the community to the fact that products and services cost something in real terms. It is only when the real cost of these services and products are known that the community will realise the importance of the need for better utilisation of our scarce resources in South Africa. It means that we have to be more efficient in our use of things like electricity, or any other service that has been rendered by any of these organisations. Everybody, and particularly the taxpayer, will stand to gain from such a policy.

Naturally, certain aspects need further investigation, since ready-made answers do not exist and it is a complex matter. It is the Government’s intention to act in the most responsible way before any final decision is taken about the privatisation of such enterprises as Eskom. We owe it to the consumer, the investor and certainly to the employee to act in a responsible manner and the Government is therefore employing experts to consult in these investigations. We will not take any decision before we have thoroughly investigated every aspect of the matter.

Since I have referred to the appointment of expert consultants, I will briefly deal with this matter. It has been taken up in the Press recently and I believe it is important to state clearly the Government’s position in this matter. The Government, as I have said, advised consultants to assist it in analysing the possible privatisation of these enterprises. In this regard one can say that the process of privatisation has itself been largely privatised. This process obviously requires that the Government makes appointments of private sector institutions or individuals to act as consultants. The competition, as hon members will know, between the various candidates, be it in the financial, auditing or engineering field, among stockbrokers or among advertising agencies, is very fierce. In order to avoid any allegation of preferential treatment or rumours of interference by politicians, I have established a tender panel.

The tender panel that has been formed for purposes of the appointment of State consultants in connection with privatisation consists of a wide range of individuals, representing various interests in the economic life. These are Dr Wim de Villiers, chairman of the tender panel, Mr Tony Norton, president of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, Mr Malcolm McDonald, General Manager: Finance of the IDC, Dr W E Solomon, Director: Department of Finance, Mr Johan Grabe, Chief Director: Administrative Development in the Commission for Administration, Mr Jasper Nieuwoudt, chief executive of the Office of Privatisation and Deregulation and Mr Pieter van Huysteen, chairman of the Privatisation Unit.

The panel is responsible for issuing tender enquiry letters, the evaluation of tenders and for appointing consultants. These appointments must be agreed to by the Minister of Finance and I.

When the privatisation of an enterprise has finally been approved and the financial consultants, to conclude the process, have been appointed, as in the case of Iscor, it becomes their responsibility to make further professional appointments. The tender panel will approve the final recommendation of the financial consultants after having satisfied themselves that the market has been searched judiciously, that the submissions have been evaluated fairly and objectively and that any costs related to such services fall within acceptable and budgeted guidelines. It is, after all, the financial consultants that have the responsibility for a successful placing and pricing of the shares.

Unfortunately rumour-mongering and gossiping amongst contenders to gain an edge over the others has occurred. This reflects badly on those who are party to it. We operate in a very small financial community and I would urge everyone involved to apply their minds to the challenges ahead and to refrain from unnecessary and malicious insinuations that are in nobody’s interests. The procedures and disciplines in accordance with which consultants are appointed are clearly defined. Certain checks and balances regarding the expenditures in respect of these services have been introduced and I am confident and comfortable that the process is working. Unfortunately everyone cannot get a mandate to act as a consultant, but over time those experts who have prepared themselves properly for the privatisation process will have the opportunity to participate. Government has instructed the tender panel to co-ordinate appointments of consultants in such a way that there will be a fair spread of work.

*Mr Chairman, one last remark before I afford hon members an opportunity to take part in the debate. I also consider this an important occasion because this debate is the last Vote discussion at which the present chairman of the commission, Dr Johan de Beer, as well as his colleague and fellow commission member, Dr Rassie du Plessis, will occupy their posts. Both of these gentlemen will be retiring from the Public Service at the end of June after long, outstandingly successful careers.

I do not know why two such talented and energetic gentlemen are retiring at this early stage. I think many opportunities still lie in store for the talents of these two gentlemen to be used. We are not dealing here only with two outstanding officials who, owing to their ability, have distinguished themselves and risen to the highest posts in the Public Service, but also with two eminent people—they are people of calibre and people of impeccable integrity.

Unfortunately, Dr De Beer cannot be here today, owing to a very minor operation, but these two gentlemen have really made their mark in the spheres in which each of them has moved. Dr Johan de Beer has been a member of the Commission since 1 December 1982 and became chairman on 1 July 1984.

†After a few years in private practice Dr De Beer entered the Public Service in 1957. In the period 1957 to 1982 he distinguished himself as a very able administrator and managed the country’s hospital and health services with great skill.

*At the tender age of 36 Dr De Beer had already been appointed as Director of Hospital Services in the Orange Free State. Thereafter he was appointed as departmental head, and secretary of the former Department of Health, which later became Health and Welfare. He held this post for more than 10 years. Under his able leadership a great deal of development took place in the country’s health services and a great deal of progress was also made. In this way a sound foundation was laid for the future. As a result of his exceptional abilities Dr De Beer was appointed as a member of the commission and later as its chairman.

Dr Rassie du Plessis has rendered excellent service to the public administration for an uninterrupted period of 36 years. From a very humble and lowly level in the clerical and administrative ranks he has risen to the highest post in the Public Service. His ability as a public administrator led to him serving as administrative head of two departments in succession, namely the Office of the Prime Minister and thereafter the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. He was also accorded the singular distinction of serving as Secretary to the Cabinet. When a vacancy arose in the commission in 1984, it was virtually a foregone conclusion that the choice would fall on him.

Insofar as both Dr De Beer and Dr Du Plessis are concerned, they functioned as a two-man commission for virtually five years. There was no precedent for such a composition. In that respect these two gentlemen performed some pioneering work. Together, these two strong, talented individuals actually formed a very formidable team.

It would take me a very long time if I were to attempt to deal here with all the achievements of these two gentlemen. I shall content myself with referring briefly to but a few of the highlights to which they have contributed: A new Public Service Act and a new Commission for Administration Act; innovation in the appointment of heads of department, or the so-called term appointments; a new employment policy for the Public Service; the rounding off and establishment of occupational differentiation as a personnel practice; far-reaching developments in the field of labour relations which are now culminating in the proposed system for collective bargaining; the administrative implementation of a new constitutional dispensation; the institution of more programmes for the promotion of efficiency, including training and particularly management training; functional evaluation and privatisation; the development and rationalisation of the State computer and data communication services.

†I think hon members will agree with me that just the few matters which I have mentioned constitute an impressive record of achievement and testimonial for the two retiring members of the commission. Throughout their tenure as members of the commission, their advice has constantly been sought and highly valued by those in Government and also in various other fields.

I would like, on behalf of the Government and all hon members of Parliament, to convey to Drs De Beer and Du Plessis our sincere thanks and appreciation for their selfless devotion to duty over so many years and the truly admirable way in which they have served this country.

*I also wish their wives a happy and prosperous retirement. I think those ladies will now have their hands full at home. I believe, however, that owing to the special talents of these two gentlemen, they will not lie idle at home for very long. I believe that we may also look forward to the State being able to rely on their talents once again.

It is also a pleasure for me on this occasion to welcome Dr Piet van der Merwe as the appointed chairman. Dr Van der Merwe is well known to everyone. This is the first discussion of the Vote since his appointment and I should like to welcome him here. Dr Van der Merwe has distinguished himself in every one of the fields in which he has moved so far—not only in the academic sphere, but also later in the Department of Manpower where he stood at the helm and made a large contribution to the development of labour relations in South Africa. I believe that the experience he gained there will also be of great value and use in his present post. I should like to wish him everything of the best. I look forward to working with him in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I consider it a privilege to make the introductory speech on behalf of the CP in the debate on this Vote. In the first place I should like to associate myself with the hon the Minister and express our sincere appreciation for the service which Dr De Beer and Dr Du Plessis furnished our country over many years. We thank them sincerely and shall genuinely miss them.

In the second place, I should also like to congratulate Dr Van der Merwe, who has been appointed as the head designate. We hope he will fare very well in his new post and we on this side of the Committee look forward to enthusiastic co-operation with him.

I should next also like to congratulate Dr De Beer and his personnel on a functional and concise annual report in which the multifaceted activities of the Commission for Administration are expressed. My congratulations to Mr D J Putter too, who was appointed to the position of Deputy Director-General: Commission for Administration as from 1 June 1988.

We should also like to express our thanks to Mr G N de Villiers, the former Chief Director: Administrative Development, who retired on 1 September 1988. We wish Mr J J Gräbe, who has been promoted to that position to replace him, every success and we look forward to co-operating with him in this new post.

The CP has taken note of the post standstill policy of the Commission for Administration and support the programme of rationalising of services within the context of the Public Service. Nevertheless we should like to take this opportunity to advance the following reservations regarding rationalisation to the hon the Minister and request him to give them his attention.

In the first place, rationalisation should never mean a lowering in the quality of services. In the second place, rationalisation should also not be embarked upon and carried out in such a way that it may lead to a psychologically insecure working situation for the public servant, especially regarding the question whether the Public Service offers him or her a working future. In the third place, rationalisation should not result in human qualities being adversely affected by it in new appointments. The objects of a sound Public Service should remain those of being effective and skilful and of furnishing the public with quality service which is cost and time effective.

In this connection I should like to spend a few moments on a sensitive matter. A public servant is in the service of the State and—I am sure that all hon members will agree with me on this—not in the service of the Government of the day. For that reason a public servant may never be made the victim of the political policy of the Government of the day. That is why the public servant should be outside politics, without the Government of the day preventing him from having his own political views. The public servant should have a guarantee that the Government of the day will not victimise him and influence his opportunities for promotion adversely on the basis of his personal political standpoint.

The public servant’s independence, free from any political pressure, should be guaranteed contractually and legally. In my opinion the time has come—I am expressing this quite objectively—that the Commission for Administration should launch an enquiry in this connection too and make recommendations on how and by means of what mechanisms this political independence of South African public servants may be guaranteed.

The commission’s report adds that on two occasions the commission found it necessary to advertise overseas for exceptional expertise. I should like to know the following from the hon the Minister in this regard: Which posts were involved in this connection, whether South Africans had resigned from these posts, what the reasons were for these resignations, whether the posts have been filled in the interim and at what post grade.

In the short time at my disposal, I next want to comment briefly on privatisation. I am obviously unable to react in full to the announcements which the hon the Minister made because I learnt of them for the first time from his speech.

The CP indicated in the past that we have no—and I underline no—objection in principle to privatisation. We say that every case of privatisation should be considered on merit. [Interjections.] For instance, the CP has no objection to the privatisation of sewerage works of local authorities—something which is currently the order of the day.

The CP has serious objections, however, to the objectives proffered by the Government concerning privatisation. I want to refer to two such examples because to the best of my knowledge they are the two most important, if not the only two. The Government says regarding the objectives of privatisation that the returns on privatisation must be used for the payment of foreign debt and the upliftment of less developed areas.

Privatisation can, and I emphasise can, have its advantages but then the State should not use the returns on the sale of its assets to finance its current expenditure. I should like to ask the hon the Minister with respect to reply to this specifically and to assure us that the State will not use the returns on privatisation for current expenditure.

Shortly before his tragic death, Dr Fred du Plessis said that the family silver should not be sold to buy flour for baking bread. This would not be to the advantage of the South African economy. He said that privatisation would not serve its purpose in such a case. I should like to add the following to this: In privatising, do not sell the family farm and pay the proceeds to strangers. [Interjections.] That is why the CP has fundamental reservations regarding any privatisation programme. I should like to refer to a few of these reservations.

Who are these strangers?

The strangers are the foreign debt.

Firstly, privatisation should not result in any forming of monopolies in the private sector in such a way that competition would be eliminated. Secondly, privatisation should not result in lowering of quality. Thirdly, privatisation should not promote price rises. The hon the Minister referred to this in his introductory speech. Fourthly, privatisation, and we consider this important, should not result in the disappearance of parliamentary control over Government services and in ministerial responsibility to Parliament falling by the wayside.

In the fifth place, privatisation should never become a defence mechanism behind which to hide to promote the Government’s integration programme. In the sixth place, privatisation should never result in Afrikaans as an official language suffering in the business world.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon member is not aware of this in Natal, he would do well to take a look at how Afrikaans sometimes suffers in the business world in other provinces. [Interjections.]

In the seventh place, privatisation should create no redundancy or transfer psychosis among officials and make them feel uncertain as to whether they have a future in their careers in the Public Service. In the eight place, privatisation should never be used to finance current expenditure of the State and returns on privatisation should not be used to supplement State revenue from taxation and finance the social care programmes for so-called less developed communities. Then the proverbial slip will be showing a little too much concerning the weak conditions of the SA economy.

I should like to conclude by saying that the objects of privatisation should be outlined clearly. There should be a clear statement on what is to be privatised and how it may be implemented in practice with due cognizance of the consequences. What has once been carried out in an ill-considered fashion because there is currently a shortfall in the Treasury will be very difficult to undo again. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I consider it a very great privilege today to participate in this debate as my party’s chief spokesman on privatisation and deregulation.

During the debate on this Vote, I should like to pay attention to three aspects. One of these is the privatisation of hospital services. It is common knowledge that South Africa has a large Third World developing sector which cannot keep pace with the current astronomic increases in medical costs and treatment.

At this stage it seems unlikely that Government expenditure on health services will be able to keep pace with the rise in medical costs. This also means that these services will be privatised in future. As an example I may mention that in the 1987-88 financial year the province of Natal recovered only R42 million in the form of fees in comparison with the R550 million which they spent on hospital services in the province concerned during that year.

I should like to know from the hon the Minister how the problem of affordability will be dealt with in our health services in future. It is very clear at this stage that Government expenditure in this connection will not be able to keep pace with tariff increases in this specific area. On the other hand, it is equally clear that privatisation would be catastrophic for the lesser-privileged part of our population.

I next want to concentrate on the supply of energy, including electricity in our country. Statistics show that only 1% of the population in some of our national states have the use of electricity as a source of energy. In our rural Black communities only 3% of households have electricity. Against this, only 29% of Black communities in our urban areas have electricity as a source of energy. These statistics are by courtesy of Dr Anton Eberhardt of the Energy Research Unit at the University of Cape Town.

According to official Government statistics, 95% of Black households in the OFS do not yet have electricity as a source of energy. Against this, 93% of Black households in Natal, 87% in the Cape Province and 79% in the Transvaal do not yet have this source. In our main metropolitan area, the Witwatersrand/Vaal Triangle area, only 35% of Black households have electricity as a source of energy.

The hon the Minister’s comment today that the relatively low costs of electricity in South Africa are a result of the indirect subsidy of the South African taxpayer can have only one meaning— electricity will become more expensive in future in consequence of a privatised Eskom. The hon the Minister mentioned statistics, for example, that only 10% of our electricity in this country was used by private households or taxpayers. In determining this 10%, the almost 80% of our population which does not yet have this main source of energy is not taken into account.

The question which arises now is whether electricity from a privatised Eskom will become more expensive or cheaper. If I am interpreting what the hon the Minister said correctly, it means that there will be bad news for the 80% of the population which does not have electricity yet. I want to know whether, in their inquiry into the privatisation of Eskom, the Government paid attention to the problem of the electrification of our Third World developing households in South Africa.

If Eskom, which is a State monopoly now, lands in the hands of a private sector monopoly— which will be less sympathetic and more disposed to profit-taking—we shall certainly be landed with a situation which could hold far-reaching implications in the provision of energy to our Black and Brown communities in this country.

The impression exists among those of colour in the population of this country that after 40 years these semi-Government institutions have had relative success in solving the problem of poverty regarding the Whites of South Africa. In as far as these institutions could offer sheltered employment to specific Afrikaners, the time is ripe for them to be sold. The question we want to put now is: What is to become of that part of our population which is still to be assisted by means of subsidies and State aid to reach a First World level in this country?

I next want to concentrate briefly on the privatisation of Foskor. In my opinion this could hold fewer economic implications for the underprivileged part of our population too. I feel that the time has come for this organisation to be privatised. I want to know from the hon the Minister what progress has been made in the privatising of this specific organisation.

I next want to pause briefly at the provision of housing to the underprivileged portion of our population. If one looks at the statistics of the Urban Foundation, it appears that the housing backlog in our Black urban areas amounts to approximately 900 000 units. In our national and independent states it is also approximately 900 000. Taking the natural increase in our population into account, we shall require 2,8 million houses by the year 2000 merely to accommodate our population. This means that in the region of 400 000 units have to be built annually in comparison with the approximately 40 000 units which the State and the private sector built in South Africa last year—this does not even supply 10% of the actual need if we want to satisfy this need.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to what extent progress has been made in the deregulation of our building regulations in this country. We are saddled with the situation that our building regulations differ not only from province to province but even from local authority to local authority—and this in an era when building costs are also very high and interest rates are going through the roof. As far as the provision of housing is concerned, we try to force First World standards on people who cannot afford them. In addition, bureaucracy at local government level—I am referring to municipalities with their regulations, SRCs with their regulations and taxes and also the Province—handicaps the provision of housing. It is very clear that we should look into what the people who need houses in this country can afford. Deregulation in this field will have to receive urgent attention.

In conclusion, I do want to say that my party is not absolutely opposed to privatisation. In as far as it can contribute to reducing our bureaucracy and allowing our country to function on a sounder level, privatisation is welcomed. My plea to the hon the Minister in this debate, however, is that he should not forget about the large Third World sector in our country when he privatises. When one looks at countries like Britain, it is clear that privatising held serious implications for the unemployed in that country. The people who could not afford it really felt the pinch.

Just temporarily.

The hon member says “just temporarily” but we should remember that 80% of our population need subsidies in this connection. Unsympathetic privatising could have catastrophic results for the political and social order in this country. I want to conclude my appeal on this note.

Mr Chairman, I will not follow up directly what the hon member Mr Lockey had to say, but in the course of my speech I shall be referring to quite a few of the matters that he raised.

If I may, I should like to come back to the hon member for Losberg.

I think he and the hon member for Overvaal should get their acts together because just recently the hon member for Overvaal was at the British Embassy to give them an overview of CP policy. Having given that briefing, he then allowed questions. Obviously some of the questions were very pertinent and to the point because the hon member then said that if the CP ever came to power, certain officials would automatically be fired. So much for what the hon member for Overvaal has just said.

He was referring to the SABC!

Mr Chairman, I would like to deal with certain aspects of privatisation, which in my opinion is one of the most dynamic political events to have emerged from the entire reform package.

We have seen the debate which took place allowing the SATS to become a company, to be privatised as and when the opportunity presents itself. In the future we will no doubt also debate other disciplines to be privatised, such as Iscor, Eskom and others as yet unknown. There can be no doubt in my mind that a repetition of earlier debates—which I believe is time-consuming and really an exercise in futility—is going to take place.

May I therefore respectfully ask the hon the Minister if we should not consider doing the same as the French government did. They passed one enabling statute which gave the government the power to sell its assets without coming back to Parliament every time a discipline has to be privatised. This would of course obviate the political wrangling that goes on with each subsequent public enterprise that has to be privatised. When the French looked at privatisation they had five objectives in mind which equally apply to South Africa.

The first objective was to reduce the burden of the Exchequer and to reduce the state’s budget deficit. The second objective was to consolidate the political grip of capitalism by building up popular capitalism. The third objective was to make the economy more competitive. The fourth objective was to reduce the interference of politics in the working of commerce and the fifth objective was to bring workers into share ownership.

Under this umbrella, so to speak, we in this country can also add the effect of subsidies and distortions and the effect of regulation and deregulation. Fortunately, insofar as the latter is concerned, a Bill has been published for comment and hopefully we will see its successful passage through this Parliament before we prorogue to choose a new Parliament. We have also seen the result of deregulation and of a now thriving business in the formal sector which is the development of a private passenger transport system known as the minibuses. It is estimated that some 120 000 minibus operators are operating in South Africa of which only one-third are licensed. The remaining 80 000 belong to the informal sector. This in itself has had a giant impact on our economy. It has affected our car industry and the sales of petrol, tyres and spare parts and has contributed to a flourishing panelbeating industry. Most of these minibus operators are individuals who not so long ago would have been amongst those seeking employment in the market place.

To get back to privatisation, concerns are being expressed in a number of areas. The first area of concern is what happens to the funds derived from privatisation. Here I believe the Government must come out loud and clear and—if necessary—include in legislation that all proceeds from privatisation will be devoted to reducing the national debt.

While the Ministers have said this from time to time, it must be made more explicit because, with respect, this effectively deals with those opponents of privatisation who claim the Government is selling the family silver. Furthermore, by ensuring that the proceeds are devoted to the capital account, the Government will prevent itself from using privatisation as a means of masking increased public expenditure.

Another point of concern is the sale of a particular public enterprise. There is always only one way in which price can be measured and that is that value is the yield on the potential. Here again it may be a very useful exercise if the politicians were not involved in the setting of minimum prices for any enterprise to be privatised.

If we once again look at some other countries, independent committees were established and they were charged with the duty of setting the selling price in each individual case. This prevented any accusation that the government could manipulate prices for political purposes. This thereby also minimises the risk of accusations of corruption and effectively curtails all political objections in this regard.

A major point of concern with privatisation, especially among the public servants, is job security. Many consultants will openly say when one speaks to them that when one deals with the upper echelons of the service, they are very enthusiastic about privatisation. However, at middle management level the scene is one of reluctance and even outright antagonism towards privatisation. This is mainly, I believe, due to fear of losing the power base. If this situation is in fact true, it should be addressed as a matter of urgency if the Government is going to make privatisation the success it can and should be. The employer must be shown that in fact he will benefit and that furthermore it is in his own interest to participate in privatisation.

I believe that in this country, with its shortage of skilled manpower, any public servant worth his salt should have no fear that privatisation will entail massive job losses, or the loss of his own job for that matter. I believe the Government must have the political courage to ensure that any public enterprise that is overmanned and that is a candidate for privatisation, reduces its staff by means of natural ways, such as nonreplacement of personnel who go on pension or who resign, before privatisation takes place. As an example I cite the SATS, which has made enormous strides in this regard over the last five years, without any action from unions or staff associations, because no person was laid off work or retrenched.

What the public must remember is that before the Government can dispose of any discipline to private enterprise it must be viable, because without being viable the intrinsic value will not be realised. Herein lies the challenge for many public servants. Whether they like it or not, there exists in the world a distrust of the State as a manager of commercial enterprise. Notwithstanding that distrust, I believe that the majority of public servants are just as capable as those persons in commerce and industry. It is just a case of them becoming profit-orientated.

Also very important is the aspect of skilled manpower which I mentioned earlier. No successful privatisation can take place without staff, and competent staff at that. Any conglomerate or consortium wishing to purchase a discipline from the State by way of privatisation must have the necessary staff who know the workings of such an enterprise. In turn, the public servants are that staff. The public servants must also be assured that the State will negotiate a deal for them that will not leave them any worse off as far as benefits, wages or conditions of service are concerned. This must be emphasised and reemphasised. It is common sense that by bringing vast numbers of employees and small investors into the programme, and making them shareholders of the privatised companies, they are obtaining a stake in the companies and the programme itself. It is up to the Government to include everybody in the action and to make them see that there is an opportunity for them. Privatisation must not be seen as a programme only for the rich. The Government, when privatising, must also favour the small investor, because in that way one can take power from the hands of the few, and spread it more widely.

There are many opportunities, standing out like sore thumbs, in the service sections of the public service. To name but two: Catering and cleaning services. Is there any reason why the staff presently employed by the provinces, local government or the central Government in these categories could not negotiate a buy-out of these services? Of course there is no earthly reason why this move should not take place. It is just a matter of initiating such a move. The more people we can involve in both the formal and the informal sector, the better, because I believe in this way we will increase productivity. It always increases productivity when one has a personal stake in one’s particular work environment.

Then of course there are those who fear a greater Black involvement in the economy. Little do they realise that the more Black trained specialists we have, the more the taxload will spread. Furthermore, one will be creating wealth, which can only be conducive to sharing instead of fighting over the presently diminishing economic cake.

My allocated time is almost over and in closing I wish to appeal to the hon the Minister to privatise as much as is humanly possible. I was pleased to hear from the hon the Minister this morning that this in fact is what he had in mind. I believe it is imperative that we must bring in as many of the private sector experts as possible into the action when we are promoting any enterprise to be privatised.

Mr Chairman, I wish to extend my compliments to Drs De Beer and Du Plessis on their distinguished careers and services to the department. I wish them well in their retirement.

The privatisation and deregulation of functions, activities and properties from the public sector to the private sector are most welcome. I regard the venture as part of the reform process in this country. The eighties have witnessed bold moves by the Government to give the private sector the opportunity to develop and grow with the minimum State intervention and regulation. I say this is a bold move in view of the conditions that are prevalent in the country. I refer to the unequal society, extremes of poverty and wealth in a capitalist country and the First and Third World conditions that exist. Perhaps this move is due to world pressure in the form of disinvestments and boycotts and the constant reference to South Africa as an oppressive state that denies the non-Whites the opportunities for equal participation in the country’s wealth.

Privatisation and deregulation carried out in their proper perspective could revolutionise South African society. There is tremendous potential if privatisation is carried out in the manner it should be carried out so that the indigenous people, those people who have been denied the opportunities, could now participate in a free market system. With that participation we will see nothing but improvement of society, the acquisition of wealth and status, improvement of quality of life and to a certain degree contentment as well as pride in the country.

In the South African situation I cannot see privatisation being achieved overnight. The Government must exercise discretion, ensure that everybody benefits and that wealth is distributed equally. It should not be the case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Exploitation must be avoided in every circumstance. In a free-market system everybody must be given the chance to participate without any interference. Naturally the producer will endeavour to get the maximum price for his product and the buyer will endeavour to pay the minimum for the purchase of that product. The labourer will endeavour to get the maximum wage, whilst the entrepreneur will aim for the maximum profit. Therefore the State should be involved, even in a free enterprise system.

Together with privatisation it is important not to create monopolies. Monopolies will in turn lead to overpriced commodities and services, to the detriment of the general public. Therefore it is incumbent upon the Competition Board to monitor closely and take action timeously against monopolies and cartels. The Government is aware of this, hence the statement in the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation. I quote from page 9, paragraph 5.2.6 as follows:

The Government is aware that monopolies can be detrimental to the free enterprise system. Therefore vigorous competition in the marketplace will ensure that the consumer gets value for his money. Competition is necessary and vital for privatisation to succeed by keeping prices of commodities and products at realistic values.

In this respect deregulation should be considered wherever necessary and without prejudice. Functions, activities and properties should be transferred on a basis of free choice and participation. Opportunities should be available to every prospective entrepreneur to compete in a free market system. Monopolies and competition are factors that the hon the Minister has to consider seriously because sometimes monopolies can be abused.

Let us take a simple example such as managers. If there are too many managers and too few workers, the salaries and wages are so high that the better part of the money is taken away by the managerial assistants, so much so that the poor worker gets very little money. This in turn can push up the cost, because if there are too many managers and there is too little work, productivity suffers and commodities are sold at a higher price in order to pay these people.

Let us look at monopolies in airlines, for instance. Who travels with the airlines? It is mostly executives, Government officials and perhaps tourists, but not the ordinary man. Who is going to pay for their fares? Industrialists and institutions have to pay the price. How are they going to recoup it? They simply increase the price of commodities. We therefore have to be wary of these things.

Small and big business have an important role to play so that their prosperity contributes to an expansion in the economic growth to such high levels that it provides ample opportunities for employment. In order for the South African economy to prosper, both the entrepreneur and the consumer will have to make a concerted effort in order to have justice and fair play. If money is accumulated on one side in a capitalist world where the rich get richer and the poor poorer, there will be an imbalance. This imbalance will not be acceptable. As hon members have seen, it results in strikes and other protests which will not do the country any good.

Mr Chairman, I would also like to deal with the subject of privatisation. My colleagues will later deal with the Commission for Administration and conditions of service. Like many of the previous speakers, we too have made it clear on a number of occasions that we support the Government’s intention to privatise State institutions and functions. However, we have issued warnings in this regard. In brief, we say firstly that privatisation must be based on economic, and not ideological grounds.

Earlier this morning, the hon member for Losberg outlined the CP standpoint on privatisation. I must say that I disagree totally with his point that privatisation must not lead to integration. I believe that this view stems again from a failure to recognise the fact that racism has no part to play in the economy. Secondly, we believe that shares must be held as widely as possible and with preference given to employees.

Thirdly, we believe that it is a mistake to simply think that we can follow the steps taken by Britain and use this as a guideline. We have to recognise that many South Africans are suspicious of the system of capitalism which they reject as a product of apartheid. This could only be changed by a massive education programme, advertising, a clear demonstration of goodwill and a willingness to share. Fourthly, we must not replace State monopolies with private monopolies, because competition must always be present. This point has been made repeatedly this morning and, I believe, has been clearly emphasised.

Fifthly, Government must be unequivocal in its intentions and not refer to privatised institutions where its intention is, in fact, to retain a controlling interest. Sixthly—this is another point that has been made frequently this morning—the interests of employees, who are powerless in the process, must be protected. Finally, privatisation cannot in any circumstances relieve the Government of its basic responsibilities, namely to ensure the basic infrastructure for development and for essential services such as education, health care, social welfare and housing for the frail, the needy and the disadvantaged.

I believe the Government has failed in its responsibilities in the area of health care. The hon member Mr Lockey dealt with this earlier on, but I would like to go into the matter in greater depth. I wish, however, to support his plea for housing deregulation for the destitute in our economy.

Dr H Kustner of the Department of National Health and Population Development and Health Services has highlighted the problem of health care. He has drawn attention to the very noticeable disparity between the undisputed excellence of the hospital-centred health care offered in this country and the basic, yet essentially community-oriented, primary health care service. I obviously appreciate that health care is not the responsibility of this hon Minister, but I wish to highlight this as an example where it would be dangerous to privatise functions which it is essential that the State carry out.

I would like to quote some examples. Over the past five years three out of every thousand White infants died annually, compared to between 94 and 124 per thousand Blacks. Secondly, according to a study carried out at the University of the Witwatersrand, the per capita expenditure on health care varied from R115 for Blacks, R249 for so-called Coloureds and R451 for Whites. There are 4,8 hospital beds available per thousand Whites and 2,5 hospital beds per thousand Blacks.

Despite these appalling statistics, privatisation in health care has created 40 400 private hospital beds as opposed to the 81 300 for all races in all public hospitals throughout the country. The fees charged for private hospital beds exclude many medical aid scheme members and yet entire hospital wards have been closed because of a lack of staff and equipment.

Privatisation cannot survive without profit and, clearly, privatisation of health care is failing to address the public health crisis in which 13 to 15 million South Africans live in conditions of appalling poverty. As I said earlier, I realise that health care is not the responsibility of this hon Minister but he is responsible for privatisation and he must be made aware of this situation in which the Government is failing to meet its basic responsibilities.

The Government can privatise by all means, but not at the cost of minimum acceptable standards of living for all.

Mr Chairman, as I am going to talk about the commission, I do not intend to react directly to the speech made by the hon member for Pinelands, but many of the points raised here today have been covered fully by the White Paper. I appreciate that hon members would like to underline it, but should hon members refer to the White Paper they will see that these points have been fully covered by the said White Paper.

*I should like to associate myself with the good wishes and thanks expressed to Dr Johan de Beer and Dr Rassie du Plessis, and I also wish to convey my party’s and my congratulations to Dr Piet van der Merwe on his well-earned appointment.

Recent events have placed the Commission for Administration before stringent challenges, especially in the performance of its important function of Government organisation and public personnel administration. In terms of the policy of a personnel standstill, strict control was essential. Merit and efficiency were tested constantly, and a great deal of progress was made with regard to training. The unfavourable economic climate compelled the Government not to make general salary adjustments in 1988, however. Only occupational specific improvements could be made where critical problems and shortages were being experienced. After in-depth consultation with staff associations, a distinctive system of collective bargaining, which is before us in the form of legislation at present, was worked out. I do not want to pre-empt this, but it will be debated shortly.

Accusations of corruption in the broad national administration reached such a level of hysteria that Mr Justice Harms warned in a speech, and I quote:

He also warned against stories that upon investigation appeared to be mere gossip. Once an investigation has been completed, however, the damage has been done and the perceptions have been established. He pointed out that for corruption to emerge in the Public Service, there must be more corrupt businessmen. I quote—

The Official Opposition criticised the judge through the hon member for Bethal for wanting to present this matter in a certain perspective. The hon member said the judge was interfering in politics, and that this was a political matter.

With reference to the speech made by the hon member for Losberg, I say we should rather debate the question as to whether existing measures and control measures are sufficient and effective in preventing unethical conduct, and if such conduct has taken place, in exposing it. Instead people complain that there are too many control measures and that this entails unnecessary red tape.

The most important measures are the Public Service Act, the Exchequer and Audit Act, the Advocate-General, the regulations and directives of the State Tender Board, the investigations by the Commission for Administration itself, the Public Service Staff Code, the Public Service Regulations, financial regulations and guides, the Tender Board regulations, and departmental regulations.

There are also many elements that ensure clean administration, for example the Auditor-General, the Advocate-General, accounting officers, the Commission for Administration itself in this connection, and the joint advisory council. Parliament itself also plays a very important part. Hon members have the right to avail themselves of written questions, oral questions, interpellations, budget debates, joint committees, finance and public accounts. Instead of playing a political game in cases in which unethical conduct has taken place, hon members can enter into debate with us on any further control measures they desire and on how these should be implemented.

Then we shall find that the measures are excellent. In fact, it is the implementation of these measures that has led to the exposure of the irregularities that have taken place. They are tried and tested measures, and they work. One can say with certainty that any irregularity will be exposed in a relatively short period and that action will follow.

When one looks at the number of transactions and the millions of rand controlled by officials, and when one weighs up the single cases of proven corruption—and this is not condoned at all—against the total of all actions, we have every reason to be grateful to and to acknowledge the officials for their integrity and loyal dedication. This compels us rather to pay tribute to them and to tell them not to pay any attention to unjust criticism and suspicion-mongering.

In order to place the loyalty and integrity of our officials beyond any doubt, however, I want to request that the Commission for Co-operation and the staff organisations consider drawing up an ethical code of conduct. This should be signed upon accepting a position. It will enable officials to reconfirm their loyalty to the country they serve, it will verbalise the highest moral and ethical principles they maintain, as well as their undertaking to render service to any person or group without discriminating, their undertaking to reveal any infringement of the code by anyone, and confirmation that they see their public service as a public responsibility. One could add other aspects to the list as well. I think this would be accepted and welcomed in all quarters.

During the time I have left I want to refer briefly to function evaluation. It is often said that function evaluation will not work, because no official will voluntarily evaluate himself out of a job. Function evaluation is the programme that was tackled under the leadership of the Commission for Administration itself to rationalise Government services and make them more effective.

The programme requires that every department and administration reflect keenly on its function with regard to the implementation of certain approaches and techniques. The investigation is the responsibility of the department itself, and the Commission for Administration serves as a consultant, provides training and monitors the progress of things. The latter function is the most important one. The function’s right of existence is tested, possibilities of privatisation are identified, the cut-back of activities is considered and better procedures for doing the work are sought. Excellent results have been obtained.

I want to confine myself to one case of which I have some knowledge, viz that of the Chief Directorate: Works of the Transvaal Provincial Administration, where it was possible to reduce posts by up to 64%. This entails a saving of many millions of rand. The success of this is thanks to the guidelines in the White Paper which ensure the fair treatment of affected personnel. These guidelines were strictly adhered to and promoted in order to ensure the co-operation of the officials. That co-operation was once again obtained by means of consultation. Without that it would not have been possible.

Consequently our officials believe that in the process of privatisation, their interests will be taken care of. They also believe that the guidelines that have been worked out in consultation with them—time does not permit me to deal with those guidelines—will protect their interests properly. For that reason we have the cooperation of our officials in this programme of rationalisation and function evaluation. I think that this will hold many benefits and exciting consequences for us in future. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, may I at the outset also associate myself with the good wishes extended to the retiring departmental heads and to Dr Van der Merwe on his promotion. We welcome him to that department.

Looking at the hon the Minister and bearing his function in mind, he brings to mind an undertaker presiding over the demise of something that was once great. The hon the Minister’s Government is in the process of taking away the White fatherland and the hon the Minister has been chosen to dismantle the assets of the White nation. The NP was once a proud political party which was a party of the people, for the people, that boasted of its achievements in the formation of Eskom, Iscor, Sasol and communication and transport systems—these achievements were considered mileposts in the creation of a new nation. It is a shame that these assets that were the pride and joy of that new nation are now to be auctioned off, so to speak, to pay the debts accumulated by the NP Government over the past ten years during the power-sharing era, which we trust will come to an end on 7 September 1989.

That is wishful thinking!

Well, we will see. I hope the DP will look after that hon member in the South Coast constituency. [Interjections.]

It would appear that many hon members on the NP side are already leaving the sinking ship. We are informed, almost on a daily basis, of people leaving. According to my information even the leader of the NP in Natal is reluctant to return to Parliament. It would be interesting to see how many of the present hon members on that side will still have the courage to face the CP at the forthcoming election. [Interjections.]

It is no wonder, because while we talk about privatisation as one aspect of government, there are many questions surrounding privatisation. The most important one is: Why privatise when our State and parastatal institutions destined for privatisation have shown us that, given half a chance, they can make a good contribution to the Treasury in spite of the handicaps they have to endure? These handicaps result from the need for cross-subsidisation of services, something which has to happen because the State—this is something the Nats have forgotten—have an obligation to provide certain non-profitable but nonetheless essential services. Can hon members for one moment see a privately-run transport service serving non-profitable border areas we so dearly need to preserve and maintain even for security reasons?

Bullet express!

I think that hon member is going to get a bullet at the ballot on 7 September!

Hon members on the Government side wax eloquent about their appreciation of the efforts of State officials at all levels. We regularly hear this in this House. At election time they cajole them into voting Nat with all kinds of perks that these officials should in any event have received long before they receive them. Why insult them now by suggesting that privatisation will improve on what they are doing?

The hon the Minister mentioned Eskom. I must say that when one looks at the results produced by Eskom, one can only wonder what is the trick behind the privatisation of Eskom. They are doing so well. They have increased their profit— a tax-free profit at this stage, which could be taxable; there must be a way of doing it—of R816 million; they have pushed up their reserve fund to R8,1 billion; there is a 15,8% increase in revenue and a 16,2% increase in operating surplus. What is the reason for privatising Eskom? Surely Eskom is doing well enough without privatisation.

However, it would appear that the Nats want Eskom to be a double tax generator—in line, of course, with their policy of milking the consumer as hard as possible. In order to pay the double tax required, tariffs will have to be increased, especially in view of the fact that profits and dividends are essential.

As regards who is subsidising the low tariffs, I would like to say that I believe that regardless of what happens, it is the taxpayer who is going to face the bill. Can hon members see big business, having control of Eskom, maintaining its low tariffs for the benefit of the taxpayer? I certainly cannot, and I therefore cannot agree that the taxpayer or the consumer will benefit.

For confirmation of this let me quote from a couple of reports I have here, which I should like to use to highlight the consequences of privatisation. The hon members on the NP side are always wont to quote the British experiment and Thatcherism as the answer. The following is the headline of an article in Utility News Briefs: “Britain pays more for electricity despite world energy price fall”. I quote from the article:

We then go on to British Telecom, and the headline is: “Privatised British Telecom has become by far and away the most expensive national telephone system in Europe and America for local calls”. Now that it is privatised, they charge the equivalent of 40 cents per local call, and then reduce trunk calls and bring their 3-minute transatlantic call cost down to the equivalent of R8,50, which even in South African terms is expensive, so it would not be a reduction. Who really benefits from overseas calls? It is big business and foreign nationals; it is certainly not the taxpayers who have to pay the bill.

We will remember what happened with the privatisation of Sasol; seven months afterwards we had a mammoth increase in the price of petrol—a 40% increase. That increase did not have the effect of bringing the NP Government to a fall, so the NP Government has now carried on using petrol as a useful source of taxation. We now sit with the price of petrol at R1,12 per litre.

To get back to Eskom, I want to quote from a Leadership corporate profile dated October 1986 headed “A Source of Power”. The following very interesting statement, which supports my contention that Eskom belongs to the nation, is made:

Mr John Maree, the chairman of the Electricity Council says:

I think it is very satisfactory that we maintain that.

Mr Chairman, I have taken the liberty to illustrate what an NP government means when it says something and what it actually does. To illustrate the difference I will give the definition of reform. Reform sounds nice but it actually means integration with White domination. Political reform means powersharing with Nat domination. Orderly urbanisation actually means mushrooming squatter camps, crime and squalor. Deregulation actually means moving backwards into the Third World and privatisation is a sell-out of White assets to pay the unacceptable cost of Nat bungling.

When one looks at the national debt, the real reason for NP privatisation becomes too obvious. White voters who are responsible for more than 90% of income tax would do well to remember that they are automatically responsible for a share of the national debt. This debt based on an amount of R66 billion—and if we also allocate it on a 90% basis—now makes each four member White family responsible for R50 000 worth of national debt.

It is significant to note that in direct contradiction to the euphoria that prevailed in the House from the NP side when they first promoted privatisation, many of their members are now also expressing their doubts, and with good reason.

We say that to sell one’s assets to pay one’s debts and expenses is fatal. It is a retrogressive step and is indicative of a bankrupt concern—in this case the NP Government.

Mr Chairman, I would at the outset like to express on behalf of the DP our sincere best wishes for a peaceful, calm and pleasant retirement to Dr De Beer and to Dr Du Plessis. I have had dealings with them over a number of years—both when I was in Parliament and before—and I have always found them men of the highest integrity, always willing to act for the benefit of South Africa as a whole.

On behalf of the DP I would also like to extend our best wishes to Dr Van der Merwe, the new chairman of the commission. We welcome him and I am sure that his previous links with the Department of Manpower will stand him in good stead. Finally in this regard, I would like to extend my thanks to Mr Robson for the communications we have had together. I hope he will extend from the DP to all his staff and to the whole public service the best wishes of, I think, all parliamentarians for the work that has been done by the public service this year.

I obviously cannot let an opportunity go by to respond to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. Regarding his attack on the NP itself, I leave that to the NP members to respond to. However, I find it intriguing that a CP which is announcing that they are going to fight 18 of the 20 seats in Natal, leaves South Coast to be fought by the DP and not by the CP. Do they have no hope there? [Interjections.]

Secondly I would like to take up the matter of privatisation. It intrigues me when one looks at the CP of South Africa to compare it to the Conservative Party of Great Britain. If there is any comparison to be made—and the NP will no doubt make use of it in its publications—it is to compare what the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis is saying to what the Labour Party in Britain is saying—in fact to what the Militant Tendency in the Labour Party is saying about Thatcherism and privatisation. One can compare the CP of South Africa to the Labour Party of Britain and the language is the same.

Let us take one of the nonsense aspects he has already cited—the privatisation of telephones. He says it costs 40 cents in South African terms for a local call. However, what the hon member does not do is to compare the cost of living in Britain where a daily newspaper—the Daily Telegraph—costs 32 pence which is actually the equivalent of R1,30 in South African terms.

The telephone calls in Britain are cheaper, proportionally, than they are here. I intend to proceed …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

Mr Chairman, I will not be taking questions.

I would like to address the subject of the Commission for Administration together with the Vote: Conditions of Service. It is very difficult to separate them on this occasion and I will in fact be considering them together.

The DP believes in a small, well-managed and well-paid public service. We believe that there should be a clear distinction between what can be called the “professions” found in the present service, such as teachers, nurses and social workers, and that section of the public service which is purely administrative.

I intend to pursue this, but at the moment I would like to make reference to the recently tabled Public Service Amendment Bill. It is not my object, obviously, to discuss it today. We will have plenty of opportunity to do that, both in the joint committee and in Parliament itself. However, it will lead to some interesting debates concerning the very nature of the public service.

I do not believe that the recognised staff associations, the umbrella bodies, which are listed in the memorandum found at the back of this Bill, adequately represent or even purport adequately to represent the detailed, sectional interests of groupings within the public service. We have in the public service particular interest groups. I deliberately exclude teachers. They will be handled by different legislation anyway. However, the rest of the public service is lumped together for the purposes of this negotiating instrument. I do not believe—and I have already had phonecalls on this subject—that, for example, the interests and claims of nurses can be lumped together with that of clerks or other persons in State departments.

I believe that we actually have to extend the concept of recognition. Here I am in a particular dilemma, because the Commission for Administration’s report, citing the representations from the Public Service Joint Advisory Council, contains the following statement from the council, and I quote—

Now I come to the important phrase—

Elsewhere in the report the commission makes the point that there have been strikes. I merely want to reflect, for example, on the strikes that we have had in the public service in Natal last year, affecting the provincial administration and the own affairs department of education. There were strikes on behalf of the National Union of Educational and Health Workers, not—as I am prepared to guarantee—an association recognised by the hon the Minister. Here I have a problem. They have representation. There are unionised workers in the public service. They are excluded from this Bill and they are deliberately and quite clearly excluded from using the instrument of the strike. This we will pursue in the debate at greater length.

However, even in terms of staff associations, I must repeat that I do not believe for example that conservators—people who are working in a particular field—are satisfied with the negotiating mechanism provided on a body from which they as a group could be excluded. There need not be, in fact, a conservator negotiator.

The DP has noted the growth in numbers of persons whose remuneration comes from Treasury. It has increased by 13 746 or 1,4%, whilst those within the purely central departments and administrations increased by 12 324 or 1,7%. These figures do represent a distinct drop on the percentage increase during previous years, but they do not reflect a turning back of the tide. The question that arises from the remark I made about the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis earlier is this: Would Margaret Thatcher be satisfied with these figures? Is that the bottom line?

Should we, for example, be emulating what the British are doing? The hon the Minister will no doubt be forthcoming with the argument that we are a developing country, and that is absolutely valid. Secondly, he will come up with the argument that there is a backlog in certain areas, Black education for example. This is valid and I do not gainsay it. However, we have to know what the bottom line is. South Africa has to know what the bottom line is. When do we start reducing …

What percentage is involved in development?

That is correct. That is the question we are looking at in terms of separating the groups. That is what I asked for earlier. When do we start reducing the costs? The Commission has indicated in its very good synopsis that the 1987 figure for total exchequer personnel expenditure in 1987 was in the region of R20 000 million from the budget. I do not know what it is for 1988, and the 1989 figure is obviously not available. We know that the salary and pension figure rose to R15 800 million last year. This is a 6,9% increase, and is a much larger figure than the growth in employment, but below the inflation rate. We want to know when and where the payments will cease.

Do you want to stop development?

The hon member for South Coast can interject as much as he likes.

I am asking you a question.

I am going to respond to the hon the Minister, and not to him. Is it totally unrealistic to expect this hon Minister to isolate those sectors where growth is to be expected and where we would want growth—that is what we have indicated, for example Black education— from those sectors where all of us want a positive reduction in employment and expenditure to be achieved in the coming financial year? We believe the hon the Minister has to publicly identify the sectors where in fact there has to be a decrease of employment. Let the South African public know that they are going to have to stop relying on the State to do everything, and let the Cabinet decide that they cannot just keep adding to State functions and functionaries. We have to cut back on that. I will continue with this a little later.

Mr Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the previous speaker with regard to our senior officials who have retired and also to Dr Piet van der Merwe on his appointment.

*I also want to use this opportunity to congratulate Mr Johannes Petrus Lotz of our parliamentary catering service on his official retirement after 42 years of service in the South African Transport Services. He started on 13 February 1947 and ended his service on 30 April. We want to thank him sincerely for this very outstanding period of service and for the courtesy which he has shown at all times. We wish him and his spouse a prosperous future. Fortunately he will still be here until the end of this session.

†In the short time available to me I would like to deal briefly with the nature and purpose of privatisation, the methods of achieving it and the benefits that will flow from its successful implementation. Many of the State controlled activities which may represent future subjects of privatisation in South Africa became the responsibility of the State because of the massive amount of capital originally required to introduce them. They were essential activities with capital requirements far beyond the means of the private sector at that time. Examples are the transport system, Iscor, Eskom and so on. All these provided services in the national interest. The problem is that they grew as South Africa grew and over the years a mass of regulations grew up side by side with these undertakings. These red-tape tentacles extended to almost every economic activity. Unnecessarily high standards governing building and factory performance arose—standards too high for our Third World component in this country to reach. These regulations had the effect of actually throttling enterprise and limiting the informal business sector.

It became clear to the Government that this situation could not continue. The high cost of defence and security, coupled with the net outflow of capital out of the country due to the disinvestment campaign in the mid-1980’s has added to the difficulties.

The vision was now clear. State expenditure had to be curbed and Government would have to endeavour to shift the heavy burden of social demands borne by the State to the private sector. The answer was and is privatisation, coupled with deregulation.

Given the special circumstances prevailing in South Africa, with its semi-developed status, how can successful privatisation best be achieved? The White Paper sets out the four basic methods of privatisation. What is important, is that we ensure the beneficial advantages of privatising public sector activities and we avoid the pitfalls of fears concerning job security or disruption of productivity during this process.

Today we also have the economic giants in the financial field waiting in the wings, ready to snap up lucrative aspects of the public sector. This would lead to private monopolies or worse—it would deprive the man in the street or the affected employees from acquiring a fair and equitable share of the issued shareholding. The Government is therefore determined to ensure that the most meticulous preparations will be made to secure the interests of employees and to afford them every opportunity to acquire a financial interest in the privatised organisation in which they find themselves. The Government stresses the participatory approach in which representatives of the public and private sectors must be consulted. It is very important that every privatisation project must and will be treated on its own merits and in its own time-scale.

Mr Fred Macaskill, executive director of the privatisation centre—an associate of the Free Market Foundation—has pointed out that privatisation without deregulation will simply mean State monopolies replaced by private monopolies, operating in an environment of inhibiting and restrictive conditions. On the other hand, he maintains that to deregulate without privatising would lead to private companies competing freely with the State-owned organisations, forcing them either to perform efficiently or to fail.

While this is laudable, there are some inherent dangers. The answer is once again to combine and synchronise privatisation and deregulation to the benefit of the whole South African economy. Deregulation is vital to the process of freeing our economy. Every time we deregulate a particular facet of the economy, we liberate the forces of a free market system. We encourage competition. We release the potential of the private entrepreneur. We create a climate for informal job creation. We attack unemployment. We establish opportunities for individuals making up our Third World component to use their ingenuity to better themselves. With this comes a higher standard of living and better social conditions. These lead to better human understanding and better race relations, a sense of pride and dignity.

The bureaucratic red tape which previously strangled the economic enterprise of fellow Black and Brown South Africans, must go. Privatisation and deregulation have an immensely important role to play in South Africa. They need not necessarily be confined to the public sector at central Government level. Privatisation started in Britain at third tier level. Our local authorities in South Africa must take a serious look at privatising sections of their operations. I think of parks and gardens, abattoirs, street cleaning and waste disposal.

Privatisation brings enhanced productivity and flexibility of the industries concerned, with benefits to both staff and customers. The essential ingredient is the participation of employees in share discount schemes and of the general public by allocation procedures. If sufficient people acquire their own stake in production, distribution and exchange—that is, if we become a nation of shareholders as the hon member for Yeoville has said on one occasion— the free market system is guaranteed and socialism is dead. The future of South Africa will then be secure, and to this cause the Government is committed.

Mr Chairman, no doubt the public service authorities have the same problems as Whips. On a Friday everyone is making it a long weekend. At least we have some public servants who are working. They are the ones hon members see here.

On a positive note, the Commission has identified the more representative utilisation of all population groups in the public service as requiring special attention. Special training and the attention of a project team is directed at this. However, I do not believe that political pressure from the hon the Minister and from the Cabinet is being exerted to achieve this as quickly as possible.

We can, for example, look at the bursary scheme. For the 1988-89 financial year 1 768 bursaries were awarded at a cost of R4,3 million. Of this amount 78% went to Whites, 10% to Blacks, 7% to so-called Coloureds and 5% to Indians. The previous year 27% went to Whites, 28% to Indians, 19% to Coloureds and, once again, 10% to Blacks. I see that it is being proposed in the memorandum for this year that the bursaries be decreased by R2,3 million “to accomplish savings”.

This is not the means by which to improve the public service to more adequately represent the population. I believe that the general affairs departments under the present administration, while they exist, need to launch a positive recruitment campaign when posts become vacant to ensure that the needed personnel, selected on merit, adequately and satisfactorily reflect the composition of the South African population. Whilst on that subject, I wish to enquire whether the commission and state departments are carrying out recruiting drives on Black campuses and at schools. If not, this needs to be corrected.

In this area I want to point out in the commission’s report that when 579 bursary-holders— 15% of the total—renege on their contracts before serving out their time in the public service, one has a real recruitment problem.

Whilst I am raising a number of related minor matters, I would also like to raise the question of differing bursary contract conditions that apply to, for example, professionals such as doctors and teachers. When a teacher who has taken out a bursary goes into the Army, that service pays off the bursary, but the same does not apply for a doctor. I find this totally unbelievable.

I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would respond to a number of particular matters that I wish to mention. I commence with the long service awards. It is totally beyond my comprehension why this matter was proceeded with when the hon the Minister of National Education says he does not have funds for a ten year plan and when there is not enough money for increases in social pensions.

Tissot watches at R750 each are being given away for long service and accumulated long leave is being commuted after this Government resolutely refused to do so for years. I should know, because teachers have tried to achieve it for years. I still have the correspondence from the commission, pointing out that the moment one starts commuting long leave to money, the reason for granting long leave, which is to be restorative, falls away. Then one might as well cut long leave. That is the argument that was used in the past but suddenly it no longer applies. The hon the Minister is not on good grounds with regard to these long service awards and he needs to give a reasonable answer.

There are a number of other matters that I would like to refer to briefly. The housing subsidy scheme is due to be replaced by a housing ownership allowance scheme. It was due to be implemented on 1 April and we would like the hon the Minister to give particulars as to what is happening in this regard and when it is likely to be introduced.

The salary position of educators is a favourite bugbear of mine. It has been suggested—I have heard this—that an increase may well be paid to this group in the June-July period. The figure of 4% is floating around. Is this correct? Will the hon the Minister please react to this?

From the report of the Commission I see that in 1988 an increase in allowances was given to three different groupings of personnel who were connected with, and I quote, “certain political office-bearers”. I would just like to know from the Commission’s and the hon the Minister’s side in connection with what these allowances were.

I would like to make the point that whilst the Administration under this hon Minister is looking at the question of women in the management echelon I believe that the entire question of unequal salaries in the year 1989-90 and as we are moving into the 90s is totally unacceptable. We have to get rid of the inequality of payment between men and women in the first level of the teaching profession—it simply cannot continue.

I would like to end off with a plea to the hon the Minister. One of the reasons for the strike last year in Natal among the labouring group that falls under this hon Minister’s responsibility was the very poor wages that they receive. The reason—and I have taken this up previously with the Commission—is the long stretch of post levels. This means that if one moves the bottom one, everybody else has to shift up.

We have to address the question of living wages. The State has to pay wages that are not only market-related but that are seen by the international community as being above the poverty datum line and as being acceptable. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I must say it is always interesting to follow the hon member for Pinetown. No matter which hon Minister he addresses, he addresses him on the problems in education. I think I should thank him on behalf of the people involved in education. I do hope that one day he will ask the educators themselves why we cannot pay those of whom we have the greatest shortage more, rather than paying a blanket increase every time.

I will ask them!

That will be a good thing.

I would like to repeat what my hon colleague who spoke before me said and wish Mr Lotz a long and a happy retirement. He was here for so long that he had become part of the tradition into which we who were new in Parliament fell. I would like to thank him for everything he has done for us. I would also like to wish Mr Piet van der Merwe a very happy career here. I wish those who are now leaving our service a very happy retirement—I do not know if it will be a retirement—and thank them for what they have done for us too.

I think it is apt today— the day after Mrs Margaret Thatcher celebrated her tenth year in Parliament as leader of the UK—to go back to her general and basic principles of privatisation. She is the one, I think, who made it popular years ago. Let us go back to her basic principles and see what they mean to us in this country. Not only has Mrs Margaret Thatcher stood against anybody who wanted to sanction us, but I think she has shown us the way to beat the ANC in the economic field.

According to its printed policy the ANC is a protagonist of African national socialism. That boils down to the same as Hitler’s government. It means big government. If anybody here opposes our kind of privatisation or financial system and says that he wants to belong to the ANC then he has a very great block in his path because the ANC’s economic plan is socialism. It is big government and not smaller government. It is a welfare state.

With the example that we have of African nationalist socialism in Africa from Algeria down to Mozambique we would feel extremely sad for our own country if were ever to be ruled economically by the ANC. Any thinking voter must look for a Labour-National-Solidarity economic core for the future of this country. An ANC socialism would be disastrous.

Our present problem is that if we are to afford the schooling, housing and welfare of our large developing population we all know that we must divest ourselves of the expensive running and unnecessary services which are often at the taxpayer’s expense, recover the capital spent on these services and create something that will give us a tax income in the future. Is that impossible? No. Mrs Margaret Thatcher has paved the way for us. She dismantled the British Labour Party’s inefficient socialist machine and dragged her country out of poverty and humiliation back to prosperity.

Russia’s system and most of the socialist systems that the ANC wants to ape, do not work. That is what perestroika is all about. Our Government dragged up our third-world economy by its own shoestrings to become an industrial society. Our Cabinet has now decided that some of these industries would be better off if they operated in a normal free market. As we have had the way shown to us by Mrs Thatcher we will go through the same exercises.

A critical element according to Finance Week in the process in the UK was a prior period of commercialisation to ready the corporation for outright privatisation.

It is interesting to see that such a process has already taken place at Eskom and Iscor. At Eskom pay increases are no longer automatic. Fifty-two strategic business units, each with its own management structure, are being formed, and the staff has been reduced from 66 000 to 57 000. It is producing more electricity with fewer power stations, and its rising costs beat the inflation rate.

Everybody knows about the privatisation process at Iscor, but this, too, goes back to a commercialisation process, as was followed by Mrs Thatcher’s officials. When Iscor adopted a system of management by objectives, and formed 1 500 quality circles after the style of Japanese management, the giant loss-making company turned its fortunes round, and I think that if its books were now to be examined in the same way as other commercial companies, it would have made a R560 million profit last year and not the R230 million that it gave in its own books.

The interesting thing about Iscor’s profit is that its employees now have a profit-sharing system, which is an integral part of Thatcherism. The Sunday Star writes that a major part of Prime Minister Thatcher’s programme was to increase the number of private shareholders in the companies. Nowadays there are 10 million shareholders in Britain in former Labour Party companies, which is 20% of the population. This is something important that we have got to get right here. We have got to get our public really aware of what privatisation is about; I do not think they really know at this point. This is something we really can learn from the British exercise. It is well known that State employees claim that those who work in private enterprise are better paid, so there is no obstacle to privatisation there, but the State employee has security of tenure, and the transition employees must be contractually guaranteed that employment, or they must have the choice of staying in the employ of the State in some other department.

Against the efforts of the powerful trade unions, Mrs Thatcher gained the confidence of the workers, gave them security and sold them shares in the newly-released industries, thus improving business and creating new work opportunities. Of her first twelve privatised companies, 72% of the employees took up shares; nowadays I think that every time she privatises a company, it is over 80%. The reassuring part of the privatisation process is that the civil service as such in England does not employ fewer people, and that the privatised companies have mostly needed more people now than they did in the bad old socialist days. It is interesting to watch the pre-privatisation process in our own transport services, which would now, in Thatch-erist terms, be entering the commercial stage. If the Ministry succeeds in its efforts here, it would perhaps pay us to look at our own farming system, which is already in a kind of commercialisation stage, with the many boards and co-ops in charge of the different kinds of farming.

Last year there was no real increase in the contribution by farming to the GDP of the country, and the State had to press the taxpayer for money to pay for the various losses made by the various boards and banks. Perhaps a rationalisation or privatisation of the many systems would lead to cheaper overheads and then, perhaps, to cheaper inputs into the system. It could achieve the broad aims of privatisation in achieving a lightening of Government’s load and create a possible source of tax income. Subsidies and single-channel marketing, and farming with uneconomic crops, could be abolished by the free market system, and efficient farmers would make a lot more money.

A notable effort at privatisation this year has been the hon the Minister of Finance’s decision to free financial investors from forced investment in prescribed Government institutions. This revolutionary step is understood by the man in the street. He understands that the capital market is being freed, and there is a very good chance that the interest rates will be a reflection of the real state of the economy in the future, and not the manipulated rates that suit the political aims of the party in power. That, of course, is also a measure of Maggie Thatcher’s political courage and that of our own Government. The government that controls industry, farming and the capital markets is in a very advantageous political situation. The government at the mercy of free-market forces has got to be as strong as the NP is.

The difficult political decisions that Mrs Thatcher took were to sell off the previously nationalised companies such as Leyland to foreign investors, for instance British Leyland to the American General Motors, and Austin-Rover to Ford. Here she experienced a revolt in her own Conservative Party ranks, and she was forced to back off from the original deals. We will have to be very wary of losing any of our major companies to any investors from foreign lands that have governments hostile to our country.

Britain’s Cabinet was unashamedly determined to use the income from the sales of its nationalised industries to pay for the State’s running expenses, and in this way to reduce taxes. There was none of the argument there that the Labour Party money went into the buying of the industries, and the Conservative Party could now enjoy the benefits.

A parallel could easily be drawn between the council houses that the Conservative Party sold to the occupants—tens of thousands of those houses had traditionally been hired by central and local authorities to the workers—and the houses that have now been handed over to our workers. I sincerely hope that the results are the same and that they now favour the capitalist system.

We hope that we achieve our goals with privatisation. However, I would like to read one thing that tickled me when I saw it in a newspaper. Andre du Toit wrote in a Transvaal newspaper that Kaiser Franz Josef of Austria ruled from 1830 to 1860, had 3 million civil servants who belonged to 18 different language groups and issued laws in 23 different languages. He worked on the principle that if everybody was employed by the State, nationality problems would disappear because nobody would want the State to be upset. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the CP would like to thank Mr Lotz, the chief caterer of Parliament, who is going to retire later this year, most sincerely for the 42 years of service he has rendered here. We also want to thank him for his friendliness and wish him a happy retirement.

We hear that the Government has made approximately a billion rand available to hand out before the election in order to try to win a few votes for the NP. I want to ask the hon the Minister to request his colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, to see to it that some of this money which is being handed out is given to teaching staff at schools and colleges.

The resignations from education really assumed crisis proportions last year, to the detriment of quality education in the country. On 15 September of last year the FTC issued the following statement inter alia:

The organised teaching profession reached this conclusion after a scientific investigation into the state of resignations from the White teaching staff of the country. This investigation was done very thoroughly. Results were not unfounded. Questionnaires were sent to 3 137 educational institutions in the CS sector and more than 72% were received back.

Alarming data emerged from the investigation, inter alia that 55% of those persons who left education between January and August of last year, did so because of salaries and conditions of service. Among those persons who gave a clear indication at that stage that they were going to resign, 83% advanced the same reasons. Many of them also resigned before the end of last year.

School principals indicated in that investigation that it was becoming increasingly difficult to find replacements and that, even in cases where they were found, the percentage of posts filled unsatisfactorily was showing a rising trend.

This morning I want to ask the Government not to consider it politicking if the CP asks for better conditions of service for teaching staff. This is a serious matter which affects the future of our entire country.

If the FTC alleges after a thorough investigation that it is attempting the impossible to try to repair the damage suffered by education as a result of resignations, and they also prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the most important reasons for those resignations were poor salaries and conditions of service, only an extremely irresponsible government would not give serious attention to this.

The provision of quality education is a strategic matter and a prerequisite for the development of the country. In the economic sphere maximum development cannot take place either if quality education is not provided.

At the moment we are concerned with priorities in State spending. The FTC states, and I agree with this, that they have problems with the Government’s priorities in State spending. This afternoon I want to ask the hon the Minister whether one can really take it amiss of them if they argue in this way. Can one take it amiss of them for arguing in this way, if there are insufficient funds available to keep manpower in education, while the Government is spending millions of rands to try to sell its policy to the voters, spent almost R12 million on Mr Louis Nel’s peace song and used almost R5 million to propagate last year’s municipal elections?

Can we take it amiss of the teaching profession for arguing in this way if it is said that there is no money available to improve their conditions of service, while in Letlabile—to take but one example—serviced sites are being sold to Black people for between R52 and R70 and those same teachers, as part of the body of taxpayers, must pay for those sites out of their own pockets?

Can we take it amiss of them for arguing in this way if they read in the Press that in the present economic climate 12 000 watches have been purchased, at R750 each, to be handed out as presents, although they were not budgeted for?

Mr Chairman, I want to conclude by putting a question to the hon the Minister. What is to become of the staff at the teachers’ colleges which are being closed down in the Cape? I received a letter from a lecturer at the Oudts-hoorn Teachers’ College. He and his colleagues are very worried about what the position of the staff at that college is going to be after the college has closed down. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brits spoke mainly on education. I want to assure him that the NP gives the highest priority to education and that the CP’s promises to the nation will prove to be totally empty.

Wait until we take over and then you will see!

Many of the steps recently taken on the path to socio-economic reform are as a direct result of the deregulation programme which commenced in 1958 when the first official document entitled Strategy for small business development and deregulation was published by the President’s Council. The process of identifying and removing discriminatory laws has, however, been under way for more than a decade. The pace has certainly quickened in recent years, particularly in relation to legislation affecting economic activity. This is in accordance with the Government’s economic policy.

Privatisation, the second leg in the reform initiative, is not a novelty in South Africa as many public sector activities have been transferred to the private sector from time to time—for instance catering, hospital laundries and so forth. It is also regrettable, though, that these have sometimes been deprivatised to the detriment of private enterprise.

Changing circumstances in the South African economy have led to a re-examination of the position. I believe we live in exciting times with the proposed privatisation of many activities previously undertaken by the public sector. It is not simply because Maggie Thatcher’s government succeeded in its privatisation initiative—I may add, after many trials and tribulations—that South Africa has committed itself to this policy. Privatisation is regarded as one of the pillars to bring about economic change. It is part of an economic package necessary to correct certain imbalances which have developed in our economy over a period of time, and the hon the Minister referred to these this morning. The package includes measures to impose stringent financial discipline to reduce the increase in State expenditure and to encourage domestic saving.

When Mrs Thatcher came to power in the spring of 1979, she persuaded Sir Derek Rayner—then managing director of Marks and Spencer— within a week to act as her adviser in improving the efficiency of the civil service. Mrs Thatcher’s vision was to make the British government more like Marks and Spencer, which is reckoned to be Britain’s most efficiently managed company.

However, no-one expected miracles. It took more than four years before real progress was shown. They trimmed the British civil service into a lean, efficient, customer-orientated operation—the fond image of Sir Derek’s High Street stores.

I am sure that if led by our lean and efficient hon Minister, and using the expertise in the public and private sector in South Africa—we include here Wim de Villiers and Tony Norton—we will achieve results just as quickly. Our package also encompasses the more effective determination of priorities, essential tax reform and a programme of privatisation and deregulation.

A very important part of this programme is that wherever possible, State business enterprise and public corporations should be run on a profit and loss basis with the target of giving a return on capital invested.

The unhappy trend in recent years of declining net fixed investment in the private sector—only 36% in the period 1970 to 1985—and declining efficiency of capital employment in the economy, resulted in a reduction of the relative tax base of the economy, since most of the public sector enterprises made no contribution to tax. The hon the State President last year mentioned specifically that Eskom, Iscor, Foskor, the SATS and Post and Telecommunication Services had to be investigated with a view to their possible listing on the Stock Exchange. Some of these enterprises already operate on a commercial basis and are taxable. It is however essential that wherever possible we continue to broaden our tax base.

There is a fear amongst consumers that privatisation and consequent tax liability will increase tariffs, but it is a fact that if cheap tariffs were applicable, the burden was being borne by a relatively small tax-paying community. A userbased tax seems to be far more equitable, but this application will have to be introduced with care, particularly as it concerns our underprivileged people.

I wish to deal specifically with deregulation in commuter transport. Minibuses have become the backbone of the Black commuter system. Not long ago it was estimated that 120 000 operators would have been amongst the ranks of the unemployed. Their activity has had a marked impact on the development of our economy, affecting the car industry and the sale of petrol, tyres and spare parts, but approximately two-thirds of these minibus operators are said to be unlicensed and belong to the growing informal sector.

While informal development is essential, it does and has given rise to some serious problems in the commuter transport industry. For example, the Johannesburg municipal bus service has lost a substantial portion of its passengers in the past two years. The undertaking, which a few years ago was budgeted to break even, will cost the Johannesburg ratepayers in excess of R19 million this year.

The Pietermaritzburg municipality last year disposed of its entire bus service, the general city service and the service to its Black dormitory towns for a nominal amount to the KwaZulu Transport Company, which already operated on certain routes in the area and as a private company made profits and was taxable. The cost to the city ratepayers before disposal exceeded R6 million per annum, after already receiving substantial subsidies from the Department of Transport Affairs. The contribution to the KwaZulu Transport Company for running the general service over the next five years will exceed R2 million per annum, but it seems that KwaZulu Transport has bitten off more than it can chew.

The number of passengers lost to the Black taxis continues to escalate and these minibuses now carry close to 40% of the daily commuters, equal to 30 000 passenger trips per day. The KwaZulu Transport busdrivers are unionised and the union is controlled by Cosatu. Intimidation of bus travellers has increased dramatically in recent weeks, including the almost daily stoning of buses. Last week two buses were burnt out. Physical assaults on passengers, including stabbings, are the order of the day. All this points to a very organised, Mafia-style operation, designed to get the people out of the buses and into the minibus-taxis. It is even rumoured that certain bus transport drivers are involved in a Mafia-organisation. The upshot is that the service operated by KwaZulu Transport is in jeopardy with substantial losses being sustained. If this service were to close down, the already chaotic traffic conditions in Pietermaritzburg and other cities would become a nightmare, with nearly 1 000 additional taxis in Pietermaritzburg being required to provide a service to the existing commuters. Something drastic must be done to enforce law and order and to ensure that the two types of service complement one another.

The cost to the taxpayer of subsidising the bus transport industry is enormous, but on the other side of the coin the loss in taxation revenue earned by the informal minibus operators is growing daily. Taxation must be imposed by either enforcing and policing licensing, or tolling roads along bus routes. Whatever is decided must be on the basis of full negotiation with the licensed taxi operator association, but speedy action is essential.

Deregulation is a desirable and essential process, but preservation of civilised norms and law and order is paramount. My best wishes go to the hon the Minister and his department in the challenge which lies ahead and which is so vital in the shaping of our economic future.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I would like to go on record as saying that, at a time when speaking opportunities are very limited for the majority of hon members in the House, it is very regrettable indeed that so many hon members in this debate have not availed themselves of the opportunity to speak. Whether this shows a complete lack of interest in what the public service does, or whether it indicates that they have no expertise in the matter, I do not know. I do know that the Whips of the parties involved should take action and do something about this.

I want to draw attention in the time at my disposal to a particular matter which I believe requires urgent attention by the Commission for Administration and that is the situation with regard to nature conservation officers in the provincial administration. In line with the Government’s policy of devolution, in 1987 the functions of the sea fisheries inspectorate and forestry conservation were devolved to the provincial administrations. Subsequently these operations were allocated to nature conservation departments in the various provinces. Evidently the intention was to rationalise the functions of these sections with the original provincial nature conservation components because there is considerable similarity between them. That was in 1987. Now, two years later, there appears to have been absolutely no progress with this rationalisation process. In the meantime, I am told, there is a growing climate of uncertainty, of disillusionment, of dissatisfaction and low morale building up amongst nature conservation officers, sea fisheries officers and foresters because of poor service conditions.

I think it is important to understand that the sort of people who decide to take up these sorts of occupations usually must have a great sense of dedication to the cause of conservation. It always has been a lowly paid occupation, but nevertheless people have felt so strongly about the protection of our environment that they have been prepared to dedicate themselves and their lives to that protection. Generally they are people of very high quality who have been prepared to accept a career which offers very little in terms of material benefits. Most of them, I would say, have the ability and capacity to earn much more in other occupations. There are strong indications at the present time that many officers in these groups are contemplating resignation, because they are no longer prepared to put up with totally inadequate pay and there are already a number of vacancies, noticeably in the lower ranks. There comes a limit when people are paid so little that they cannot exist and are not able to keep their families adequately.

I feel very strongly that this situation requires urgent action on the part of the Commission. Once before, in 1979-80, a similar situation existed where nature conservators’ salaries and working conditions were so inadequate that a general exodus of personnel took place. As much as 40% of the total complement left in some provinces. When salaries were subsequently upgraded, I am told that it took nearly eight years to employ and train persons to eliminate the backlog. When one loses trained personnel and has to replace them it is a costly operation. If we are going to lose many people in these groups the cost to the State of replacement and training is going to be enormous. A very serious situation exists which must be given priority.

I have one additional worry in this regard. In the section of the Commission’s annual report which concerns the personnel standstill, it talks about rationalisation which involves the abolition of vacant posts that have not been filled for some time. There is no way that posts which are vacant or are going to become vacant in these groups can possibly be abolished. This will be devastating for nature conservation in South Africa. If we lose people at present occupying posts on a large scale this also will be devastating for nature conservation in South Africa.

The main causes of dissatisfaction have to do firstly with the fact that salary levels of even the best paid situations are not even moderately market-related. The commission’s report writes about moderate market relation as being one of their aims and objects. Salaries are not even moderately market-related and this causes considerable frustration.

Secondly, the lack of parity between the occupations of, for example, sea fisheries officers, nature conservators and foresters, does not make sense. As an example, a person with only matric as a qualification can earn a starting salary of R11 931 per annum as a sea fisheries officer. Now, a nature conservator on the other hand, who has matric plus a two-year diploma and a year’s experience, is paid R12 429 per annum— only R498 more per annum than the sea fisheries officer. This is just not equitable. It is grossly inequitable and must be rectified.

Principal officers of these three components have similar responsibilities, but they do not have similar salaries. When they are working together in the same administration, this is inevitably a cause of dissatisfaction. I must tell the hon the Minister that staff dissatisfaction is growing, because the rationalisation and reorganisation process has been delayed. Uncertainty results and we are going to lose people whom we cannot afford to lose.

It appears to me that the Commission for Administration regards nature conservation as a relatively unimportant Government function and therefore sorting out problems in these departments has a very low priority. I would like to know when they are going to do something about it. Has a personnel administration standard been formulated, for example, with regard to these various similar functions? Has a work study process been set into train, because this is a process which takes quite some time. I would urge that it is going to be necessary to make what are described in the annual report as “occupationally specific adjustments” very soon if a major disruption of the departments concerned is to be averted.

I must say that I find it quite disgraceful that married officers with qualifications and several years of service have a take-home pay in the region of R800 per month. Sometimes these married officers have children, too. How can staff be expected to stay if this is the way in which they are treated? I do believe that there is room for special consideration.

So-called rationalisation of environmental conservation in South Africa has so fragmented the whole conservation effort that I have serious doubts whether conservation has any possibility of really operating successfully in preserving and protecting our environment. I would like to hear from the hon the Minister on this subject. I shall be watching progress in this particular matter. I have warned of what is going on, and if priority is not given to this matter, South Africa will understand that the environment is considered unimportant by this Government. Our party will want to know in a year’s time what transpires, how many staff they have lost and whether or not action has been taken on a matter that I think should enjoy considerable priority.

I now want to come back to the whole question of privatisation. We must not lose sight of what we hope to achieve. I want to deal with an absolutely vital component of the privatisation process and this has been mentioned by quite a number of previous speakers. The Government, of course, has been accused of merely selling off its assets. I think somebody talked about selling off the family silver to get itself out of the financial mess we are in at the present time. If it actually means more to them than this and if they are to give real meaning to the economic philosophies embodied in the principles of true privatisation, one of the most important components—and I stress it again, together with other speakers—must be that of competition. I would agree with previous speakers that we should be privatising in the best interest of South Africa and the South African consumer. We should be trying to get away from monopolistic Government control of various sections of our economy.

What we must get away from is the replacement of a Government monopoly by a private enterprise monopoly because we could well be out of the frying pan and into the fire. In my opinion it is common cause that one of the many evils that bedevil the South African economy is that too many monopolies are allowed to exist. Although the Competition Board is doing better work in some areas, we still have far too many monopolies in this country that are not in the best interests of the man in the street, the South African consumer or the taxpayer.

We have to be very careful that in privatising various activities we do not create additional monopolies that will result in further exploitation of the consumer. I want to give an example which, I believe, is outside this particular hon Minister’s problems. I am not aware that he has had much to do with the privatisation process in the SATS.

What has happened there so far is that a corporation has been created that is still owned by the Government. The monopoly of, for example, airways still exists and there is no competition. Effectively, all that has happened is that the monopolistic operation has been removed from the close scrutiny of Parliament which existed in the past and has been replaced by the same monopoly, the difference being that eventually it will hopefully end up being controlled by private enterprise. It will, however, still be a monopoly and that is just not good enough.

Introducing a competitive system is what is really needed. The reason why free enterprise is usually more efficient than State ownership is not only the profit motive which inspires people to greater effort and efficiency, but also the need to be efficient so as to face up to competition from others and still make a profit.

The White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation deals with this matter extensively and very competently, but we have not seen action yet and I would like to hear from the hon the Minister exactly how this is working out and whether he is experiencing problems in this respect. I would like to know whether he is finding difficulty specifically with regard to services being provided to various departments and whether he is able to put competitive enterprises into operation when replacing services now being carried out by the departments. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to link up with what the previous hon member said when he talked about the possibility of creating monopolies when we privatised. There is now a cry of “Privatisation? Yes!—Monopolies? No!”.

The question that arises is how one can avoid possible monopolistic conditions in the implementation of a policy of privatisation. On that basis of this I should like to refer to the contracts that were entered into between the Department of Transport and two private companies for the operation of certain toll roads. In the future we shall have to ensure that those contracts are entered into in such a manner that when privatisation takes place, the public has the assurance that the agreement between the Government on the one hand and the private sector on the other was concluded on such a basis that there was no possibility of the public being manipulated.

I am afraid that in this particular move towards privatisation, namely the privatisation of toll roads, the public does not have enough knowledge, and not enough information has been conveyed, for example about how many private companies came into consideration for this particular privatisation, how the toll fees were negotiated and how the conditions of the contract were determined. This is why I say that there should be a frank approach.

It is essential that even when the negotiations are taking place and the contract is being negotiated, other interested parties—I am talking of organised bodies such as industry, the Chamber of Commerce and the Afrikaanse Sakekamer— should be allowed to know on what basis the negotiations have taken place, how the calculations were made and why certain conditions apply, so that the matter of entering into a contract is not veiled in secrecy.

This would also create much more confidence in the whole process of privatisation and make it much more viable and acceptable in the eyes of the public, since the public is now sceptical about such contracts regarding them as indicature of a monopoly designed to manipulate them.

I should also like to say something about toll roads because this very directly affects my constituency. Privatisation and the idea that the consumer must pay—the term is the user-pay principle or user-charge—are of course two concepts that are very much in line with the introduction of toll roads. With the establishment of toll roads the truth is that the existing legislation states very clearly that there must be an alternative road. The nature, scope, character and quality of that detour, existing or alternative road is not, however, very well-defined, and this gives rise to uncertainties, to issues being debated and to dissatisfaction.

What has also given rise to misconceptions that toll fees cannot be imposed on existing roads. I understand that when a decision had to be taken as to whether the N3 road should be made a toll road or not, it was found that it could not become a privatised toll road unless the entire road, which included a part of an existing road, become a toll road. Consequently the financial concept included toll-gates on existing roads. This makes the whole concept of privatisation unpopular with the public, because they view tolls on existing roads as privatisation which costs them more.

I therefore think it is regrettable that we started the process of privatisation with toll roads, which led to this unhappy situation. I am, however, grateful that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has now declared that toll fees will only be imposed to meet the expenditure for the maintenance of a toll road. In practice this will mean that the toll fee at a toll-gate such as the Mooi Plaza near Estcourt can be considerably decreased because that money is now only being levied for the maintenance of the existing road and no longer has to be high enough to make provision for the accumulation of capital to build roads elsewhere on the N3 route.

I am also grateful that the hon the Minister recognised—and said as such—that toll roads such as the one at Mooi Plaza detrimentally affected communities in the immediate vicinity and that special provision must be made to bring relief to those communities.

I therefore expect that when, at a later stage, the hon the Minister concludes the final agreements with Tolcon, the company dealing with the N3, the people in my constituency can expect decreases in the tariffs at two levels. In the first place there will be a general decrease at Mooi Plaza, since the toll fees can be lower because they are only going to be levied for maintenance purposes. However, we also expect a special decrease or rebate for the people in the immediate vicinity, ie the voters in the Klip River constituency, which would eliminate the prejudicial situation that currently exists. I am very grateful for this.

A large amount of the dissatisfaction about the toll-gates in the Natal Midlands arose because the toll fees collected at the toll-gate at Mariann-hill were so low. Because that tariff was so low people are now saying that the imposition of a State toll fee is much better than the imposition of a privatised toll fee. However, the reality of the situation is that the toll that was imposed at Mariannhill was only in respect of a loan that was requested, and the loan was only about 25% of the total capital investment. The toll fee at Mariannhill can therefore in no way be compared with that imposed on the total investment costs.

The truth is therefore that the information which the public is given about the various toll fees and all the privatisation that has taken place, teaches us one good lesson, namely that prior to the event there must be a very open-hearted exchange of information about how the contract was concluded, what events took place and how the tariffs were determined. People must also realise that privatisation does not bring immediate benefits. It might initially impose an even greater burden, because on one hand, there is not yet a decrease in the income tax rate, while the private company or individual who comes forward must be paid for his services. This is of benefit in the longer term, people should also be informed and the situation should be explained to them. [Time expired.]

Order! There are still a few minutes available, but I think that this is a suitable time to suspend proceedings until 14h15.

Mr Chairman, privatisation is a laudable concept only if properly carried to its logical conclusions. By selling certain Government-controlled undertakings to private companies, the Exchequer will receive large sums of cash in its coffers. It is important that this money be used to finance projects of a capital nature with proper infrastructure, which in turn, I believe, will create far more jobs for the needy in our unemployed sector. Under no circumstances should the sale of Government undertakings be such that the taxpayer has to be the loser, nor should the proceeds from the privatisation exercise be used to finance current expenses. I say this because we know that in the last Budget more than 60% of the deficit before borrowing was used to finance current expenses. That is not good business practice.

It is a fact that the private sector is far more vigorous in its endeavours to maximise production and profitability, because of its profit motive. The private sector also has a better system in view of its return-on-capital criterion, which is non-existent in the public sector.

I want to express my congratulations to the hon the Minister and his department for the introduction of the new Bill on licensing laws which will allow the informal sector easier access to the economy of our country. It is a fact that the informal sector is the gateway to our goals of success and a stable society. It is also known that the informal sector is where jobs are created at the lowest cost per job.

We have no problem in approving the hon the Minister’s Budget Vote.

Mr Chairman, in five minutes one cannot say much, so one has to go reasonably fast. I also propose to speak about privatisation and to follow the hon member who has just dealt with the matter.

I would like to stress that there are certain activities which clearly are not suitable for privatisation and others which are, and that the social requirements of our society have to be taken into account. I proceed on the basis that there will be privatisation of certain activities and that they will be the right ones.

The first point that I want to make is that obviously any activity which is privatised should be—to use the phraseology which we can borrow from the United Kingdom—commercialised before it is privatised. In the case of Iscor, which is the first of these to operate, I think that does apply. I think Iscor has been commercialised. I do not believe it is being done in respect of all the others and that needs to be borne in mind.

The second point, particularly bearing in mind the announcement by the hon the Minister of Finance in another Committee of this House this morning, is that the timing of the Iscor issue will be vital in regard to its success. I would like to stress that it is absolutely vital that the first privatisation issue has to be a success. We cannot just take a chance on possible failure.

The third matter that I would like to deal with is the question of looking after the staff and their rights in respect of shares, and the share schemes that will be proposed for them. I believe it is vital that every single person employed by Iscor, or by any other of the activities to be privatised, should receive preference in regard to shares. In addition to that, I believe that the small man, the ordinary investor in South Africa, the ordinary individual, should be given an opportunity of acquiring shares. In this regard I believe that a number of things should be considered which have been tried elsewhere.

The first thing is that there are problems with regard to partly-paid shares and their quotation. However, I think we have to overcome those. I believe that we should have partly-paid shares, certainly so as to encourage the small shareholder. Secondly, there should be a loyalty incentive to get the small shareholder to hold his shares. In the United Kingdom—for example in the case of British Airways—if one held one’s shares for four years one in fact received a bonus of 400 shares. Similar examples can be given in respect of other companies and I would like to see that done.

The other factor is that one hopes that in the case of many of these enterprises, they will eventually be completely privately owned. However, the issue then arises who will exercise control. Again the example from the UK in regard to the limitation on the percentage anyone can hold should be borne in mind. The experience in regard to the Kuwaiti investment office’s activities in regard to British Petroleum should, I think, be borne in mind and the question of a so-called golden share should be considered by us.

Another fact is the question of the implications for the financial rand if we are in fact to have overseas investors in these enterprises. One hopes that there will be overseas interest in these, but we have to bear in mind that one has to convince people in this field.

I would also like to make the point that there has been a procedure that I am aware of whereby one has been invited to perform certain services for industries to be privatised. I think that is a good thing. I think it should be extended. Not only bankers and stockbrokers should be asked to tender, but professional people should be asked, be they accountants or attorneys. They should also be allowed to make presentations.

I dealt with that.

The hon the Minister dealt with it. I am very happy to hear that and I apologise because I was in another committee.

The last point that I want to make, and I am sure the hon the Minister will do that, entails the whole education process with regard to this, which is absolutely vital for the small man. He knows shares go up and shares go down. He must know that he can become the owner of a means of production. He must know that it is part of the answer to socialism. The education process in privatisation is as vital as anything else the hon the Minister does in that regard.

Mr Chairman, I did not intend to refer to the CP. In fact I wanted to speak specifically to the DP.

†I understand that while I was absent from the Chamber earlier this morning the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis had something to say about my leader and his constituency. I can tell the hon member that I had an interview with my leader earlier this week and I can assure him that he is fighting fit and that he has every intention of contesting the Port Natal constituency. We know he will demolish any opposition, including the CP. [Interjections.] I can assure him that the hon the Minister of Home Affairs has no intention of fleeing the province, as the CP leader in Natal did. The previous candidate of the CP is nowhere to be seen in the province of Natal any longer.

*I want to speak specifically to the hon members of the DP, and I want to tell the hon member for Pinetown that I am very pleased that he restricted himself today to the statement that they were in favour of a small, well-paid and wellmanaged Public Service. If it is the plan of the hon member’s party to raise this issue in the coming election campaign, we will not argue with him. We have already seen enough of the DP to know that there is in fact no difference at all between them and the former PFP. It is exactly the same party, which is going to attempt to rummage around in all the sewers of the country to see what gossip they can come up with. I wonder whether the hon member for Pinetown can remember that in 1987 they published a pamphlet on the so-called gravy train. One now sees that the same stories of the old PFP are simply coming to the fore again. The hon member also had something to say about the presentation of watches to public servants who had served for 30 years or longer, and to the fact that they could take a maximum period of two weeks’ service in cash.

The principle of gifts, and more specifically of watches which are given to people who have served for many years, is nothing new in the private sector. It is a generally acknowledged principle. It is also an acknowledged principle that a number of days of leave can be taken in cash. This is nothing new in the private sector. The hon member and his party, however, have already started lobbying against those people to which any state ought to be the most grateful, people who have dedicated an entire generation of their lives to serve it. We are speaking about people who have rendered 30 years of service. That hon member and his party consider it a good idea to judge these people and to insult them.

We ridicule you!

They are suggesting that these people will make a political choice on the grounds of a gift such as a watch. That is exactly what that hon member and his party are trying to suggest.

That is actually what the CP suggested!

That hon member’s attitude shows that that party, despite all its noble efforts of adopting a new name and forming a new party, is still simply the old Prog party with the old Prog party ways.

I now want to venture a prediction with regard to this pamphlet on the gravy train. However, first of all I want to refresh the hon member’s memory a little. In 1987, that hon member’s former party said that R1 out of every R6 which was spent by the Government, went towards pay and perks. Let us take a look at the public sector, which these Prog elements in the DP hate so much.

Surely, the hon member for Pinetown knows that according to the latest 1987 figures, there are 29 million people in this country. Surely, he knows that approximately 10,5 million of these people are economically active members of the community. That 37% of the population which is economically active, can be divided into three main sectors. The largest sector is employed by the agricultural sector. The second largest sector is employed in trade and industry and the third largest sector is employed in the public sector.

The entire public sector therefore provides employment opportunities to 1,679 million people, that is to say, 16,1% of the population. If one subtracts the SATS, the postal services, local authorities and agricultural control boards from that, one is left with a total of 9% of the population. A total of 9% of the population are therefore treasury personnel. That is the so-called Public Service of which he spoke. That figure of 9% represents one out of every 14,1 members of the population. If one looks at the situation nine years ago in 1980, it was one out of every 15,2 members of the population. That marginal growth was merely caused by the incorporation of the Railway Police in the SAP and the incorporation of the personnel of the administration boards in the provinces. This immediately refutes the information which appeared in this pamphlet in 1987, namely that the Public Service had grown by 20% since the Government was taken over by the hon the State President. That is simply not true! It is an absolutely ridiculous statement!

If one then decreases the Public Service by those people who are employed in the self-governing territories and by those who are employed in the so-called corporations, in the parastatals, approximately 740 000 people remain in the Public Service. If that hon member and his party say that the Public Service must be made smaller, we want to ask him to be more specific. He must then tell us what part of the Public Service he wants to reduce in size. Let us take a look. Those 740 000 public servants can be divided into five large categories.

The first group is that of the educators. There are approximately 172 000 of them. They therefore form 23,5% of the Public Service. The hon member is looking in that pamphlet in vain; he will not find that there.

It is there!

Does the PFP want to reduce the number of educators in the country? The hon member for Pinetown is one of them. He is one of the people who is continually telling us that Black education is inferior to other education, and that there are too few teachers in this country. Does he want us to reduce that category of the Public Service? [Interjections.]

The second category of the Public Service is that of nurses. There are 73 665 of them, and they form 10,1% of all public servants. We are told by that hon member and his party that our hospitals are overcrowded and understaffed. Does he want the number of nurses to be reduced?

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, my time has, so to say, expired.

The third of these five groups is that of security services, which consists of 141 000 members. They form more than 20% of the total. I know that the hon member’s followers in the extra-parliamentary organisations are once again going to talk about a police state before this election. We know that his allies outside Parliament would be only too glad to see the numbers of the security services reduced, but I challenge that hon member to tell the voters in the coming election that we should have fewer policemen, wardens in our prisons and soldiers.

We have to have more and we said it all along!

You are soft on security!

Order!

I challenge him to go and say that and to see what the voters do to him.

The fourth large group is that of the 169 000 labourers in the Public Service. Those people are manual labourers who receive a meagre wage, and I take it for granted that that hon member does not want the Government to contribute to unemployment in this country by retrenching its labourers or reducing their numbers.

Why did you reduce the numbers then?

A meagre 173 000 administrative public servants remain who can be divided into 510 posts. That figure represents 10% of the total personnel in the public sector, and less than 2% of the total economically active section of our population. That is not even one out of every 50 people. To now tell the country that we have a top heavy Public Service, is simply ridiculous.

Unfortunately I do not have time to speak about the question of the remuneration of public servants, because that is also something which is closely linked to this whole gravy-train approach. Fortunately the Commission for Administration issued a statement in the Press today— the hon member must have seen it—which refutes those allegations just as effectively. Any allegation that we have a Public Service which is too large and too clumsy, is simply ridiculous.

If the hon member is going to be as fair and calm in the coming election as he was here this morning, we will not argue with him, but we know what to expect. We know what to expect from the Prog elements in that party. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the present modus operandi of Parliament according to which three joint committees are sitting simultaneously, and the eagerness of the Government to dissolve Parliament by the end of May, has brought about the situation in which I, as the chief spokesman for the CP, have only five minutes at my disposal to speak about the conditions of service of treasury personnel, and in particular of public servants. I can therefore do no more than to make a few cursory remarks.

The real remuneration level of public service and treasury personnel is inextricably linked to the question of how healthy or unhealthy the economy of the country is. In this way a Government can ostensibly pay its officials a good competitive salary, but if the inflation rate is high and the interest rate policy is unstable, this can result in public servants being worse off financially despite almost annual increases. That is exactly what is happening in South Africa at the moment.

As a result of continued pressure from the CP, the public servants received an increase of 15% on 1 January 1989. [Interjections.] However, the question arises as to whether or not they are really in a better position in real terms a few months after this salary increase. The answer to this is a clear “no” and the reason for this is the price shocks of the past few months and the series of increases in the interest rates.

No country can afford this vicious circle of salary adjustments and the constant increase in the cost of living, as we are experiencing it at present in South Africa. In the long term this necessarily leads to poverty and financial chaos which can only result in a depression.

For that reason I want to request the Government and the hon the Minister, and I would like to emphasise this in my speech, to appoint a commission or to have a commission appointed, as a matter of urgency, to make recommendations with regard to how the growing inflation situation in South Africa can be curtailed. I would like to ask the hon the Minister to use his influence in the Cabinet so that an urgent commission of inquiry can be appointed in South Africa to make recommendations on how the inflation situation can be curtailed.

There are enough commissions already!

Secondly, I want to refer to the desperate financial position of university personnel which will necessarily have serious consequences for the quality of university instruction and highly skilled university research which is as necessary to any developed country such as South Africa as daily bread.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, I said that I had only five minutes.

In a report which a university made available to me, one finds that if the situation as it is at the moment regarding universities, continues, we will arrive at a situation in which South Africa’s universities will be no better than those of a Third World state.

Over and above this, the weak exchange rate of the rand makes a joke of bursaries for overseas study and research. Even the full salary of a personnel member together with foreign bursaries is not sufficient to cover his expenditure for overseas study and research. The Government will have to make an exchange rate adjustment for overseas bursaries—and I request the hon the Minister to make a recommendation in this regard—equal to the exchange rate adjustment which is payable in the case of salaries of diplomatic personnel.

I want to make a final remark about the presentation of R95 million in the form of Swiss watches to 12 000 public servants with long-term service of 30 years. [Interjections.] It is the CP’s standpoint that the labourer is worthy of his wage, and we do not have problems with the idea that people who have served for 30 years should be rewarded for that. However, we say, and this is the point which we make, that it is simply too coincidental that this announcement of the gift to public servants should coincide with the announcement of the general election on 6 September 1989. [Interjections.]

But they have already served 30 years!

With regard to the hon member’s interjection, I want to say that the issue is not one of 30 years of service. The issue is that of the announcement having been done before the election. We suspect, and according to evidence it appears that this is going to be a gift-election and that the NP wishes to gain people’s favour in this way. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to follow on the hon member for Losberg. However, I am not going to elaborate on what he dealt with here.

Over the past three or four years I usually found it very funny when the hon the Ministers had to scurry between the various Houses to be there on time. Unfortunately we find ourselves in the same position at the moment, and I really want to apologise if I am about to raise matters that have already been mentioned earlier.

With regard to the whole question of the Public Service I want to agree with certain hon members insofar as I believe that what these people are paid is really not commensurate with their abilities. I believe it is only those who are really loyal and still display the utmost patriotism, who are prepared to remain in the Public Service. Many of these knowledgeable people could definitely earn higher salaries in the private sector.

Our major objection is the fact that the Public Service—and here I exclude all educators, nurses and people in the security services—is not a mirror image of South African society. It is too lily-White for our liking.

However, I am going to concentrate on the economic aspect of this Vote and say a few brief words about deregulation and privatisation.

On 5 February of last year the hon the State President headed a new economic era for South Africa. Our political and economic problems and challenges centre around the question of how the lawful and rapidly increasing demands of the numerically strong Black segment of South Africa’s population can be satisfied with the limited means at the disposal of a semi-developed economy from which an appropriate socio-economic and politico-economic system must be designed.

I want to believe that the implementation of the hon the State President’s new approach will improve the productivity and prosperity of the inhabitants of the country. This would lead to a higher growth rate and a higher standard of living, and would make the South African economy a sounder and stronger one.

The primary motive behind the Government’s urbanisation policy is, in my opinion, to be found in the enormous unemployment problem. Estimates of the extent of unemployment in South Africa range between 1½ and 2½ million people. And there is without doubt a clear causal connection between unemployment and poverty on the one hand and, on the other, the political unrest, social alienation and political hostility towards the status quo which is to be found among Black South Africans. Consequently I believe that a concerted utilisation of the dynamics of urban development certainly has a role to play in defusing the situation.

Part of the answer lies in deregulation, which certain groups in South Africa have already begun to oppose. In Die Burger of 5 May last year there was the following report under the banner heading “Deregulering lok kritiek uit”:

I believe that control measures which are an unnecessary obstacle to entrepreneurship, initiative and creative business activities must be lifted. We must get rid of our deep-rooted obsession with the maintenance of First World standards. South Africa is certainly not a First World country, but rather a developing country with a well developed modern component. Experience has for too long been impeded, and private initiative smothered. To my way of thinking private initiative is the source of power for development. We can no longer allow freedom, initiative and basic human rights to be restricted in any way.

Deregulation is vital in South Africa, from the first tier of government down to the local level. At the moment we are being suffocated by regulations. I want to tell those who object to deregulation that henceforth we shall have to talk more frequently about appropriate standards and will have to adapt and implement our building, security and labour regulations accordingly.

The essence of deregulation is that both the authorities and the public at large come to realise that a wider variety of economic agents will have to be allowed to do business. In short, more room must be made for what is today known as the informal sector. I therefore found it gratifying to read in the annual report of the Competition Board that the Cabinet had adopted certain resolutions in respect of deregulation. I should like to quote the following from page 12 of the report.

I am now referring to the Competition Board—

In my opinion the privatisation initiative offers us new opportunities. However, it is also an extremely sensitive matter, particularly among our less affluent communities. I am one who believes, however, that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. We in no way agree with the view that the Government is selling the family silver.

I should like to believe that revenue which the State will obtain by means of privatisation, will greatly contribute towards reducing Government expenditure and combating tax increases. After all, it is a proven fact that any business which is privately owned, and which is specifically motivated by profit, is definitely run more effectively, imaginatively and productively. Above all I believe that the State will—I believe will have to—utilise the funds that have been obtained by means of privatisation to eliminate the backlogs in underdeveloped communities.

It would therefore be appreciated if the hon the Minister would tell us, if he has not done so already, how much progress has been made with the privatisation policy. I did take note of this in the annual report of the Commission for Administration. A colleague of mine also told me earlier that the hon the Minister had expanded on the privatisation of Eskom.

In the annual report of the Competition Board I also noted that the investigation relating to concentration in the financial sector has been completed and that the report was submitted to the hon the Minister in November last year. To the best of my knowledge the contents of the report have not been published. I do not know if it has already been tabled. However, I am of the opinion that the Competition Board has such wide-ranging powers at present that it is possible to abuse these powers. These powers were obtained on the assumption that the Competition Board could not function properly without them. I should like to argue this point.

I also want to mention that fragmentation of competition in South Africa will do the country more harm than the existence of large groups, provided of course that effective action is taken against the formation of undesirable cartels and collusion. Competition between a few large companies in the small South African market is usually more effective than between a large number of small companies.

I do want to mention that an excessive fragmentation of the financial markets could easily lead to financial institutions, and consequently the entire financial system in our country, becoming vulnerable. We honestly believe that both the small and the large have a place in the future of South Africa.

In a recent study the World Bank came to the conclusion that economic growth in Third World countries, based only on small business undertakings, is doomed to failure. South Africa needs large groups in order to provide small businessmen with a climate of progress.

Mr Chairman, privatisation can to a certain extent solve the sanctions/disinvestment problem. We have seen a litany of extraordinary benefits that could flow from a purposeful policy of privatisation and the application of free-market principles to finding political solutions. Privatisation proffers solutions to aspects of sanctions and disinvestment. Last year there was a list published of companies subjected to United States sanctions and disinvestment provisions. This was a surprisingly long list, but specifically anti-government. All the businesses were government-owned, controlled or exclusively franchised. Sanctions and disinvestment, at least for the present, are aimed specifically at the Government rather than at South Africa. Privatisation and deregulation are obviously the solution. Presumably, if a listed State corporation, control board, or whatever, is privatised, it will be delisted. If the minting of Kruger Rands and other gold coins were privatised, they should be delisted.

*Not only can privatisation limit sanctions, it can also open up avenues of investment. In this way we could also arrive at an understanding with Western countries so that foreign investments in South Africa can raise the living standard of people of colour in order to help to eliminate discrimination.

When it comes to sanctions the private sector is better and more effectively organised, and is not bound by certain laws and institutional restrictions. The greatest challenge of privatisation is certainly how we are going to involve the Black people of South Africa as share-holders.

There are many Black organisations and entrepreneurs who come forward to take over some of these companies that withdraw from South Africa. With the privatisation process these people or groups will have to be given the opportunity to compete on an equal level.

Deregulation is imperative, because economic growth is restricted by a whole lot of legislation. The small business sector in particular is affected, and it restricts the provision of employment. We need a legal system that is simple and understandable, and legislation that is feasible so that the public has respect for it because it is fair.

What is alarming is that three or four laws control the same situation in certain cases. With this welter of legislation we create more offend-ers. Every year when new legislation is placed on the Statute Book, we create more statutory criminals.

There are a number of factors that inhibit deregulation, for example the public sector who are afraid that they have served their purpose and will lose their jobs. In this case local authorities play an important role since certain local authorities are building up a hierarchy and are stifling the small business sector in particular by misusing present legislation.

Health and security serve as norms in an application, but are these norms not being wrested from their context and their purpose exceeded? An example of this is a friend of mine against whom the charge was made that the toilets at his tyre retreading business did not comply with the standards. He was ordered to install an additional door in the passage leading to the toilets where there was already a door. He refused.

After various appearances in court and after the case was postponed, he was finally found not guilty. The legal fees amounted to almost R4 000, plus the man-hours which were lost in this process.

In the same way, for example, there are butcheries the walls of which have to be tiled. By plastering the walls, health standards can be maintained. The health department of the Port Elizabeth municipality is undoubtedly such an example. Municipal inspectors visit the milking parlours on a regular basis. As a farmer I have often wondered whether the taxpayer of Port Elizabeth knows how his tax money is being wasted.

It is clear that we in South Africa have created a bureaucracy which is sabotaging deregulation because they are afraid to lose their protection and they do not see their way clear to competing with the private sector. Secondly it is a fact that there is an element in the private sector which is impeding deregulation. The Government is usually blamed for over-regulation, but legislation is usually introduced on the insistence of the business sector.

Everyone in the private sector wants us to deregulate, as long as it does not affect them personally. They support deregulation as long as it does not occur in their neighbour’s backyard. They are the people whose principles stretch only as far as their pockets.

We cannot run away from the realities. Every two years more than 300 000 workers enter the labour market and our challenge is to provide these people with employment. The only way in which we can do so is to get our economy into gear. We shall have to adopt certain measures, namely the abolition of all discriminatory measures, the privatisation of State corporations and certain State departments which render a service, and dynamic deregulation on all levels of government.

Mr Chairman, I have a problem with the hon member for Losberg and with the speech he made here today. He made the statement that the salaries of public servants should be increased. In the next sentence he asked for the inflation rate to be brought down. I do not know how he reconciles those two statements.

Mr Chairman, we have come to the end of this debate and I should like to thank all hon members for their contributions. The discussion today was burdened by the fact that three committees sat at the same time, and perhaps even more by the fact that it was a long weekend with fine weather, which entailed that at times our numbers here were rather sparse. The arguments were not always all that substantial either, but I nevertheless want to thank hon members for good contributions and an interesting Vote discussion.

The hon member for Losberg, the main speaker of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, asked a few questions which I should like to deal with. In the first place he enquired about posts that had supposedly been advertised abroad. I want to tell him that posts are only advertised abroad when it is really not possible to find personnel in this country. Unfortunately I cannot give the hon member any information about these specific posts now. I shall obtain information and make it available to him.

The hon member said that in principle the CP had no objection to privatisation. I welcome that remark, but having made that statement of principle, he came forward with a large number of conditions. What I should like to ask the hon member is that we discuss the fundamental standpoint with one another on some occasion. Is it the fundamental standpoint of the hon member and his party that the role of the State in the economy should diminish? Is it the standpoint of the hon member and his party that we should give the private sector more opportunities and should make more production means available to them? Does the hon member and his party believe that private entrepreneurship should really be the dynamo in the economy? If we really proceed from the correct basic standpoint, many of the arguments on privatisation are also going to be settled in a different way.

The hon member began the debate by saying that the CP was not opposed to privatisation in principle. I welcome that. However he had scarcely turned his back—he was outside the Chamber for a while—when the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis stood up and opposed that very standpoint. I think the hon member, as main speaker of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, must give attention to this matter. The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis adopted a standpoint which was as socialistic as one could get. He sided with those who have expressed unqualified opposition to privatisation. I shall come back to the hon member, but I think it is necessary for the hon member for Losberg, as the CP’s main spokesman, to take the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis to task a little.

The hon member for Losberg spoke about the utilisation of the proceeds of privatisation and objected to these being used for the repayment of debts. I do not want to occupy the time of this House in dealing comprehensively with that matter this afternoon. I should like to refer the hon member to the Expanded Budget Speech of the hon the Minister of Finance. In that speech he will find the input made by my office and the privatisation unit, in co-operation with the Department of Finance, on this matter. For the sake of completeness I should just like to quote a few passages from that speech. The hon member will find the particulars in paragraph 5.3 of the Expanded Budget Speech. It is stated there, and I quote:

If it were not for major loans concluded over the years with State guarantees, these major State corporations would never have come into existence and would never have been able to expand and to render the service that has in fact been rendered over the years.

I quote further:

I agree with the hon member that it is not advisable to spend this income on current expenditure. It is also the standpoint of the State that it should not be spent on that.

While I am dealing with the hon member, I also want to deal with the few concluding remarks which he made about the watches. Obviously there is a misunderstanding about the extent of this item. The cost in connection with the watches will not exceed R1 million per annum. The R95 million to which the hon member referred—I accept that he got the figure out of a publication or a report on this matter—includes the possible amount which could be paid out if all public servants qualifying for this item availed themselves of the leave benefits in time.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

I shall reply to a question. I just want to dispose of this matter first. There is nothing strange about this leave being granted at an earlier stage. In fact, an official with more than 30 years service is already, in most cases, very close to his retirement age. It is merely a privilege or an opportunity to be able to take the leave he has already accumulated at an earlier stage. It is not an additional expense.

Furthermore I want to enlighten the hon member about this matter properly and correctly. The Commission for Administration approached the Cabinet on the question of the long-service awards as long ago as 1985, because the Premier’s Award for long service had been there for many years. But when the premiership fell away with the establishment of the tricameral Parliament, it was no longer possible to make that long-service award. At that stage the commission thought—also as a result of various requests made—that something more tangible should be given to an official after 30 years’ service or longer. The commission approached the Cabinet in 1985 with certain proposals about the possible award of something material, with a small cash value, such as a watch. The Cabinet then suggested that the commission should negotiate with the staff associations on this matter. It was discussed with the staff associations and further proposals were made to the Cabinet. The watches were even acquired in order to give the Cabinet an opportunity to form an opinion and they reached a final decision on this matter towards the middle of last year.

The fact of the matter, as the hon member for Umlazi indicated, is that it is a general custom in the private sector to give some form of recognition to a person that has rendered service to one’s organisation for 20 to 30 years or more. To do so in such a way is after all one way of giving recognition for service rendered over a long period.

As a result of the fact that no awards had been made for several years, the first quantity of watches will probably amount to approximately R5 million. The cost of a single watch is only R380. The State was able to bargain for a reasonably inexpensive price because the watches are being purchased on a large scale.

I want to tell the hon member for Pinetown that one cannot begrudge a person who has been in one’s employ for 30 years the recognition given to him after such a period by the receipt of such a watch.

The hon member for Losberg, and in particular his colleague, the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, are very quick to talk about bribery. The CP may perhaps think that officials can be bribed, but the NP does not think so—not with watches nor with salary increases. I shall leave it at that as far as the hon member for Losberg is concerned. I think I have reacted to most of the matters which the hon member raised.

I think the hon member Mr Lockey made a very penetrating contribution this morning in respect of privatisation. Although the hon member supported privatisation he advocated that regard should be had for the implications privatisation could have for the Third World sector in our economy. In particular the hon member made a plea for the lower income groups with reference to the possible privatisation of Eskom. This morning I indicated to the hon member and other hon members that no final decisions had been taken in regard to any of these undertakings. In fact, after all the investigations have been completed, a debate will first have to be conducted in a responsible way on the advantages or disadvantages. However the hon member expressed a valid concern, and consequently I should like to exchange a few thoughts with him in this regard.

The hon member Mr Lockey expressed his concern about the oppressive position in which many of our less privileged, handicapped or poor people find themselves, also in respect of housing. If one is merely arguing about the philosophy of this matter, I want to put this idea to the hon member. The problem in South Africa is in fact that the State is not financially able to meet the urgent needs in respect of developments and upliftment in so many spheres. Whether it is education, housing or health services, there are tremendous demands with which the authorities must try to comply. It is in fact for the sake of this oppressive pressure of demands that we have to do everything in our power to ensure that the economy performs well. A sound economy is a condition for any meaningful socio-economic upliftment programme. A sound economy is a pre-condition for any activity aimed at helping handicapped communities to develop further and faster. It is here that privatisation can play such an important part.

Instead of continually increasing the burden on the State expenditure side, thereby continually burdening the ox that has to pull the wagon through the drift, one should rather strengthen the ox. By that I mean that one should strengthen the economy by ensuring the efficient utilisation of scarce resources. I want to come back to the hon member’s argument. If it is true that there are specific groups which will be affected very directly if any increase in tariffs occurs—and I do not doubt it because one is thoroughly aware of this—it does not mean that we must throw the baby out with the bath-water. The fact is that there are also large groups that receive considerable subsidies.

In the case of electricity the consumers receive large subsidies. We are not certain what the extent of those subsidies is, but the taxpayer is responsible for these subsidies. The philosophy is simple. If one can alleviate the burden of the taxpayer in respect of these and many other subsidies, it would be possible for the State, in terms of its priorities, to make a better allocation in respect of the funds it has at its disposal.

I do not want to say that there are no persons or bodies, who are being subsidised in respect of electricity today, that should not receive it in future. We can say that roughly a third of South Africa’s electricity is consumed by the mines, a third by industries and the rest by bulk consumers who ultimately in turn supply the household consumer. Only approximately 10% of the electricity is therefore used for domestic consumption.

The only question I want to ask is whether, if it is necessary to subsidise the mines and industries, it is best to subsidise them by means of electricity. Would it not be better to determine precisely what electricity in South Africa cost, and then to determine, through the correct allocation of costs, where we wish to spend our subsidy? It may be that that subsidy must go to the less affluent people in our community, but then we are at least subsidising those who deserve it, and not those who do not deserve it.

The only argument I therefore tried to advance was that we should consider the enormous burdens borne by the taxpayer in respect of subsidies, and that we should establish whether we shall not be able, through the correct allocation of costs, to serve our financial priorities better in the end.

The hon member Mr Lockey also discussed the costs in connection with the supply of electricity, and I should like to make a single observation on this matter. It is very interesting to note that South Africa by comparison supplies some of the cheapest electricity in the world. I have here a survey made by Eskom, which measured in kilowatt-hours indicates that South Africa is far cheaper than a whole series of countries. This has been expressed as a unit per kilowatt-hour. Accordingly Germany will pay 21,41 cents, Britain 15,79 cents, Belgium 15,67 cents and the USA 13,49 cents per kilowatt-hour. The costs come down from 21,41 cents per kilowatt-hour to 6,99 cents per kilowatt-hour in South Africa. This indicates that electricity in South Africa is proportionately much cheaper than in any of these other countries.

One important reason for this is probably the large subsidy which is being provided by the taxpayer.

The hon member Mr Lockey also discussed the supply of electricity to poorer or handicapped communities. In this connection Eskom, in cooperation with local communities, is engaged in an investigation into the launching of schemes which could reduce the costs pertaining to the implementation and the administration of these schemes by up to 50%. The fact of the matter is that these schemes must in the end be profitable so that new capital resources can be tapped. The one or two pilot schemes on which Eskom is working at the moment could serve as a basis for possible subsequent expansion of this programme so that it could be made applicable to other communities.

†The hon member for Merebank referred to monopolies. I do not wish to debate the question of monopolies. I think we are all in agreement that we prefer competition to any monopolistic situation. It is, however, also true that a monopoly is not per se wrong. The question is whether a monopoly is abusing its power. The Competition Board has the means to deal with such abuses of power.

*I do not agree with the hon member Mr Douw that the Competition Board has too many powers. Unfortunately the hon member is not here now. The powers of the Competition Board are still subject to approval by the Minister. The Competition Board makes a recommendation on the steps to be taken, and the Minister can then authorise them by saying that they are valid and must be implemented.

†The hon member for South Coast referred to cleaning and catering services. I will come back to that. I agree with him that that is one field where there is a vast potential for privatisation. The Government has taken certain decisions in that regard which I will convey to the Committee a little later.

The hon member for Pinelands referred to the privatisation of health services. He then argued that if privatisation of health services should take place in a haphazard way it could cause great damage and distress to the lesser privileged. I think we all agree with that statement. Dr Wim de Villiers who is presently engaged in a study regarding the possible privatisation of health services will certainly consider all these aspects very carefully before he makes recommendations to the Government.

*I should like to thank the hon member for Nelspruit for the positive remarks he made about the officials. The accusations of corruption pertaining to a specific official or officials so easily cast a shadow over the whole of the Public Service. This is something which is definitely not correct. It is a fact that 99,9% of all officials are honourable people who do their duty. We must guard against the idea gaining ground that because there are individuals who commit offences, this is a symptomatic phenomenon throughout the entire Public Service. The contrary is true. The behaviour, loyalty and integrity of officials is quite beyond suspicion. The fact that there are a few rotten apples in the barrel does not mean that one must throw all the apples away.

The hon member spoke about a code of behaviour for officials. This is very important. Of course there are already a considerable number of measures regulating the behaviour of officials. As regards the Public Service, the measures and regulations occur in the Public Service Act, in Public Service regulations and in the Public Service Personnel Code.

However there are a few deficiencies which must be considered. Firstly the existing measures occur in a fragmented form and have been distributed in various prescriptive forms, namely statutory provisions, regulations and the personnel code. There is not a single document which can be identified and presented to officials in final form as the code of behaviour of public servants.

Secondly a substantial section of the existing measures are in reality phrased in a negative way. The official is told what he must not do. The way he should conduct himself is not presented to him. A code of behaviour should not merely prohibit specific behaviour, but should also try to formulate behaviour in a positive way.

Thirdly there are still various situations, frequently extremely thorny and sensitive, where officials find that the discharge of their obligations is not covered by any existing regulations. In such a situation the official has in fact to rely on his own discretion.

Although most officials will know instinctively how they ought to behave, there is nevertheless a broad cross-section of officials who need a set of guidelines to enable them to cope with such a situation in a practical way. For that reason the Commission for Administration is at present already giving attention to what the hon member requested. In this connection we are liaising with departmental heads, and eventually liaison with the staff associations will also take place, in order to get their co-operation and consent to the drawing up of such a code of conduct.

I want to emphasise once again that the introduction of a code of conduct should be seen as a positive development. It must not be interpreted as a reflection on the integrity of officials, implying that they need such a code. I want to emphasise once again that the RSA has officials with integrity who serve their country with dedication.

In the speech made by the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis I really found nothing to which I wanted to react. I have already pointed out that the hon member is opposed in principle to his own official spokesman in the CP.

[Inaudible.]

He talks like the Scargills of this world. He is totally opposed to privatisation.

Have you learnt something from the Progs?

I now want to ask the hon member, if he is so opposed to privatisation, whether he is going to dissuade the employees of Iscor from accepting the shares that are being offered to them.

We will discuss the matter later.

The hon member cannot discuss it later. With his statements this morning the hon member not only sided with the socialists, but also with the radical opponents of privatisation.

The national-socialists!

In South Africa he finds himself in the ranks and the company of the radical trade unions.

The UDF!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it in order for an hon member to say of another hon member that he is siding with national-socialists?

Order! The hon Minister may proceed.

Frequent mention is made of the size of the Public Service, the increase in staff numbers and of course the huge expenditure involved. This morning the hon member for Pinetown referred to this again.

†He said that the DP believes in a small, well-managed and well-paid Public Service. In that regard we fully agree with the hon member.

*Let me make it clear that the Government’s policy is that there should be a smaller, more effective, well-paid Public Service. It is also the Government’s policy to reduce the numbers, where possible.

I should like to inform hon members very briefly about the progress that has been made in this connection. The hon member for Pinetown, however, was the only hon member who also referred this morning to the very useful publication Skatkispersoneel 1989 which is published annually by the Commission for Administration and in which a miscellany of information in connection with public servants is reproduced. I would urge hon members to make use of that publication. It contains very interesting facts about the Public Service.

Do not quote it like Con did!

The hon member for Umlazi dealt very effectively with misconceptions about numbers in the Public Service, and all kinds of political juggling that is being done with these figures. I thank him for that.

†As a percentage of the total population, the public sector amounts to 5,6%. This calculation is based on the 1988 mid-year estimates of the Central Statistical Service, according to which there were 29 617 000 people in the RSA and 1 663 000 were employed in the public sector. That constitutes a percentage of 5,6%. As far as comparisons with other countries are concerned, the public sector of the RSA is among the smallest in relation to the population of the country. According to figures released by the IMF, the ratio of public sector personnel to the total population for certain developed countries for 1981 was, percentagewise, as follows: Australia, 10,97%; Denmark, 12,53%; Japan, 4,44%; Canada, 7,8%; New Zealand, 10,35%; United Kingdom, 13,21%; and the USA, 8,07%. Therefore South Africa’s 5,6% compares very favourably, particularly if it is borne in mind that South Africa is a developing country, as the hon member for Pinetown correctly said, and that a great need exists for protection services, education, health services and so forth.

Against this background, the Public Service of South Africa, which consists of the personnel employed by the various departments at central Government level and the provincial administrations, does not appear to be disproportionately large.

*There is also the perception that the Public Service is growing out of all proportion.

†As I said earlier, it is the resolve of the Government to reduce the size and shape of the public sector. Some services will have to be discontinued or scaled down—that is a fact. We cannot reduce the Public Service and continue to render all the services being provided at the moment. Other services or enterprises will have to be privatised or rendered on a more economic basis, for example by way of a user charge.

As a first step to address the growth in the public sector, the hon the State President approved measures aimed at reducing the growth in numbers in the Public Service. These measures, which we refer to as the Post Standstill Measures, have been largely successful in regard to those departments to which they have been applied. In a nutshell, these measures entail that all posts vacant for more than six months are abolished, and the creation of any further posts be preceded by the abolition of similarly or higher-graded posts. The hon member for Bryanston, who apologised for not being able to be present here this afternoon, was worried about the abolition of posts in the field of nature conservation, since he argued that there are not many qualified people in that field. I can assure hon members that the Commission for Administration is very sympathetic. A department can make representations and motivate why a particular post should not be abolished. The commission may then, given the arguments or the facts, review that sympathetically.

The standstill measures were not applicable to personnel of the protection services—police, army, prison services and so forth—neither to education or those employees of the Department of Justice engaged in the administration of justice. These measures applied to only 43% of the personnel corps of the Public Service. The results have nevertheless been very encouraging. Up to 31 January 1989, 6 263 posts were discarded in those departments inside the standstill net. That represents a reduction of 2,56% from 244 533 to 238 270.

However, it is more significant if one considers that the annual growth in those departments was approximately 3,5%. This has been arrested and there has been a further reduction of 3%—a net effect of approximately 6%.

The total effect of this reduction in the public sector has been offset by a necessary increase of 24 000 employees—that is 4,8%—in those departments outside the net. However, I must also state that quite a large percentage of the 24 000 were really manual labourers who were then incorporated into permanent positions.

We are, however, determined to continue along this route. The commission is engaged in various programmes with a view to establishing a streamlined and efficient Public Service. These programmes include measures such as rationalisation, productivity improvements, training of personnel, computerisation and so forth.

One of the programmes aimed at reducing the size of the Civil Service which is at present receiving great prominence, is the function evaluation programme. The objective of this programme is to critically analyse all functions which are currently being carried out by the various departments. These are searching investigations which necessitate that positive attitudes must be cultivated before success can be achieved.

The programme is currently in progress in 22 departments where 1 617 posts have up to date been identified for abolition, and the necessary steps have been taken to carry this out. In addition to this a further 19 905 posts have been identified for abolition in the near future. The total expenditure attached to these posts amounts to R203,1 million. Apart from the savings resulting from the abolition of posts, an additional income of R26,3 million will also be realised. Where possible and practical, innovative steps are also being taken to perform various other functions on a self-supported basis.

*The ideal therefore remains a smaller, more streamlined and more purposeful Public Service. This objective will also to a great extent be furthered by various privatisation projects. Various investigations into privatisation within the national economy are at present under way, and as many as 80 activities have in fact already been identified, which are at present being further investigated with a view to possible privatisation. The investigations are being carried out on a preferential basis because it is just not possible to tackle and complete all 80 at the same time.

Apart from the investigations to which I have referred— the 80 which are still receiving attention— the Cabinet has already decided on the privatisation of certain activities, two of which I should like to mention here.

Firstly it was decided that in so far as the building and maintenance of roads by provincial and central road authorities were concerned, an expenditure level of 75% had to be attained by the 1994-95 financial year. At present approximately 32 000 staff members are involved in these activities, and the phasing in of this resolution will result in a considerable reduction in the number of staff. The four provincial administrations, as well as the Department of Transport, began to implement this resolution on 1 April of this year. The progress that is being made will constantly be monitored.

Secondly, the Cabinet approved the privatisation, over a period of not less than three years, of all the catering, cleaning and horticultural services at present being rendered by the State. The same applies in respect of State nurseries.

The privatisation of these services will be the largest single privatisation project to date in the Public Service. At present 38 000 employees are involved in these services. I want to assure all workers that their interests will be looked after thoroughly.

The change will take place over a period of three years, so that employees need not be dismissed. Natural personnel turn-over and other steps will ensure that the privatisation takes place without great disruption.

The Small Business Development Corporation is also going to play an important part in the implementation of these plans. Talks are already being held with this corporation. This privatisation decision is an important opportunity for the development of small business enterprises. A specific member asked this afternoon whether it was not possible for employees to establish businesses by means of these privatisation activities and then carry on those activities for their own account. This is a good example of how employees can establish a business themselves and ultimately render these services to the State. It is foreseen that many of the employees who are involved in these functions at present will in due course be employed by the private sector. However it will also afford employees an opportunity to begin their own businesses. The interests of all employees will be looked after on an on-going basis and in a responsible way.

Finally I must just add to this that it will not be possible to privatise the services in high security areas. In those spheres the State will possibly have to continue to render the services itself. Besides all the other programmes that are geared to establishing a smaller, more effective and highly functional Public Service, privatisation is probably the most important instrument for achieving that goal. As further progress is made with this process, it will also become apparent what dramatic changes privatisation is going to bring about in this sphere.

†Mr Chairman, I dealt with the hon member for Pinetown regarding a small, well-managed and well-paid service. I will discuss with him the merits of the Bill to which he referred when it is debated in Parliament.

He raised a number of questions concerning bursaries. The reduction in the amount is simply due to the fact that less funds were available this year and the allocation to bursaries had to be reduced. Our bursaries are open to all. They are not offered on a racial basis and I must also refer the hon member to bursaries awarded by the Houses of Representatives and Delegates, which give preference to members of their population groups.

I think I dealt with the long service awards.

What about bursary conditions for overseas study?

Mr Chairman, the hon member asked for an adjustment in the bursaries. This is a matter which falls under the Minister of National Education. It is not a matter on which the Commission for Administration can give finality. The hon member for Losberg will simply have to address a request to the hon the Minister and negotiate for it with the hon the Minister of Finance.

†The hon member enquired about the conditions of service. This is not for political office-bearers, but for their staff, their private secretaries …

No, no, it is in the report.

It does not concern the politicians; it concerns their staff, the private secretaries, typists and other staff of Ministers and other political office-bearers. If the hon member wants more information, I will furnish him with it.

Certainly the low-paid people are a great concern of the Government. We have dealt with them over the years. I can quote interesting statistics to the hon member of how we have improved their conditions, but it certainly remains a problem area and we are giving attention to that on a priority basis. It is a very large group and it is difficult to solve that problem.

And very sensitive.

Yes, and very sensitive. The hon member can rest assured that we are aware of it. We are equally concerned about it and we are trying to find ways and means to alleviate the problem. The other questions the hon member must put to the hon the Minister of National Education.

Conditions of service!

“Conditions of Service” is the Vote, the conduit through which the funds flow to the various departments. However, the salaries of teachers is a matter on which the Minister of National Education approaches the Minister of Finance and he then bargains for funds which will be dispersed according to the advice he gets from his advisory committees.

*I adopt the standpoint that it is not my responsibility to negotiate on behalf of the teachers. It is not my responsibility! The bodies advising the Minister of National Education, namely Cos and Nacos, advise him on the allocation of funds and the need for funds, and in consultation with those bodies he negotiates with the hon the Minister of Finance. The Commission for Administration will be able to give advice on the allocation of funds. However, it is not the responsibility of the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation to negotiate the salaries of that professional group. That is why I do not want to express the opinion on the merits of the speech made by the hon member for Brits. It is a speech which he should make during the discussion of the Vote of the Minister of National Education, and not during the Vote of the Minister for Administration and Privatisation. [Interjections.] I want to urge hon members to attend a committee discussion debate of the Vote of the Minister of National Education. The hon member will then discover that these matters are being discussed there because they fall under that Minister. The Commission for Administration does not negotiate with the Minister of Finance for funds for the improvement of teachers’ salaries and then make an allocation.

Order! No, too many hon members are participating in this debate now. The Minister is making his reply.

The hon member for King William’s Town elaborated on the numerous advantages to be gained from privatisation and deregulation. I thank him for his valuable contribution.

The hon member for Germiston emphasised that socialism and Marxism cannot work. He referred to the ANC, and to how such an approach will destroy the economy. It is true that socialism and Marxism have compiled an unenviable record of failures right across the world. In Africa, South America and many other parts of the world on an unprecedented scale, the folly of interfering with or resisting market forces is being recognized today. It is more generally appreciated and accepted that free enterprise works and that it is the only genuine and consistent locomotive of economic growth and wealth creation. That is what we are trying to achieve through privatisation. We are trying to create more scope for private initiative and to allow an opportunity for the engine, the real engine of economic growth—private enterprise—to work properly in South Africa.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South made an important contribution. He made a well-conceived speech in which he explained the policy of privatisation and the fact that it really consists of a packet of measures. He raised problems being experienced in Pietermaritzburg with bus and taxi transport. The hon the Minister of Transport is responsible for the implementation of the Government’s policies in that field. I would like to advise the hon member to raise this problem with the hon the Minister of Transport.

I have referred in passing to the hon member for Bryanston. I think his hon colleague can pass the comment on to him. He is concerned about the nature conservation officers. Their remuneration is also a matter with which the Commission is dealing at the moment. I can assure the hon member that we are aware of their problem. It is high on our priority list. We are in the process of battling for additional funds. If we succeed this year, this particular group, along with a few others, could well be amongst those whose position will be alleviated.

*I think the hon member for Klip River raised an important point. He emphasised that the process of privatisation should be transparent so that everyone could understand what it was all about and how it was being done. This is important. It is also our intention to provide the public in due course with all information about every single project. Consequently it is also necessary to conduct an on-going campaign in order to keep the public informed.

The hon member also spoke about toll roads. As you know, this is a specific responsibility which rests with the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. He and his department are responsible for the policy on toll roads.

†The hon member for Southern Natal made the point that the proceeds of privatisation must not be used on current expenditure. I agree with the hon member. He also welcomed the new licensing Bill which I equally welcome. The Bill has been published for response and I want to invite all hon members who would like to make a contribution to make use of this opportunity.

I find no fault with what the hon member for Yeoville has said. I think I am in full agreement. I can assure the hon member that all the points which he has requested us to consider, are already receiving attention.

*Quite a number of hon members, including the hon member Mr Douw, spoke about deregulation. Allow me to make only one observation about the speech made by the hon member Mr Douw. He referred to the personnel in the Public Service and said that there were still far too many Whites in the Public Service. The fact of the matter is that only 36% of the Treasury personnel are White. If one leaves out the national states …

[Inaudible.]

That is including national states!

I am talking about management!

Well, they are making good progress in the management field. I am sure that it will not be too long before we will also see a Director-General for those particular population groups.

And a Minister, hopefully!

We have a Minister, Sir.

*Mr Chairman, if I may have an opportunity I should like to convey to hon members something about deregulation. Just like privatisation, deregulation is considered to be an important support of economic progress. It is of course easier to talk about deregulation than to implement it. It is a difficult matter to realise. I think it was the hon member for Albany who pointed out that a great deal of established interests, ignorance and prejudices existed. Particularly on local level there is frequently a reluctance to make the necessary adjustments.

Despite these problems we are making progress with the work of practical persuasion at grassroots level in order to give momentum to the policy of deregulation. The progress we are making is too slow to suit me, but I am of the opinion that the instruction the Government has now given the Competition Board to co-ordinate the entire matter of deregulation and to take the initiative will contribute a great deal to expediting the process further.

Some of the results that have already been achieved are appreciable. Hon members will recall that the first proclamation was published in terms of the temporary lifting of Restrictions on Economic Activities Act on 26 February 1988. That provision was applicable to the well-known Kew area in Johannesburg, a specific area in which certain laws and regulations were lifted so that it could be made easier for the entrepreneurs there, who for the most part were from the informal sector, to continue their activities.

It is a pleasure for me to be able to announce that three further similar proclamations were published in the Gazette today, pertaining to a further 38 sites. Of these sites 18 are in the Transvaal, two in the OFS, nine in Natal and ten in the Cape Province. Most of these sites are controlled by the SBDC, but there are also those of the Black entrepreneur in Mamelodi. The net result of these four proclamations is that more than 1 000 new business undertakings are being established. More than 5 000 job opportunities are involved. Various laws and restrictive practices within the professional structure have already been adapted, and some of these laws are at present being re-scrutinised.

A considerable number of laws and regulations specifically regulating and limiting the business activities of Black people have already been abolished or are at present in an advanced stage of revue. Draft legislation on businesses has been published, in terms of which all legislation on trade licences and business hours will be rationalised, consolidated and greatly simplified. Several hon members also referred to this. As soon as all the comments have been processed, a decision will be taken on further steps in this connection.

However, there is one aspect of this published draft legislation on which I should like to comment. The impression is erroneously being created, by people who evidently do not understand the legislation, that the object of the legislation is to authorise all Sunday trading. It is not the objective of the legislation to bring about any change in respect of trading on Sundays. The legislation does not deal with that. It deals with the way in which Sunday trading should be controlled. The legislation deals with the jurisprudential basis on which Sunday trading is controlled.

The present position in respect of Sunday trading is that the Administrator is empowered to regulate Sunday trading in terms of existing laws and ordinances. Within the four provinces there is a host of laws and ordinances relating to trading activities on Sundays. Some of this legislation goes back as far as 1883. Many of these laws are not only archaic and obsolete, but also create a confusing statutory dispensation among the four provinces.

I do not have much time left in which to deal with this in detail, but I want to inform the Committee briefly that eight of these laws are applicable in the Cape of Good Hope. The first is Ordinance No 1 of 1883. The second is Act No 19 of 1895. In addition there are eight others.

In Natal there are 16 of these laws. The first one, dating from 1878, is the Law to Provide for the Better Observance of the Lord’s Day, commonly called Sunday. There are 16 other measures of this nature. The legislation of the Orange Free State goes back to Ordinance No 21 of 1902. The Free Staters have a whole pile, namely 24 of these measures. [Interjections.] In addition there is Act No 8 of 1917, namely the Dag des Heren Wet (Natal) Wijzigingswet, 1917.

An investigation of the situation indicated that this complex and confusing dispensation in respect of Sunday trading also creates major legal uncertainties. It is probable that it will no longer be possible to enforce many of these laws and regulations in a court. That is why the rationalisation and certification of this system is essential.

As far as Sunday trading is concerned, the legislation proposes nothing more than the rationalisation and simplification of the present system so that the Administrators can continue to exercise the power which they now exercise by way of ordinance as well. The legislation therefore seeks to repeal the archaic and obsolete legislation and ordinances on trading on Sundays and to replace them with powers by means of which the Administrators can regulate these responsibilities by way of ordinances. The legislation proposes no change in the present arrangements, but merely seeks to modernise the powers of the Administrators in jurisprudential terms so that they can be more effective.

In fact the legislation confirms the Government’s fundamental standpoint against general trading on Sundays by inserting a new provision by means of which the Minister of Economic Affairs and and Technology is empowered to determine with what commodities trading may be carried on on Sundays and religious holidays.

I trust that this short, clear exposition will now set the minds of those people who are already collecting signatures at ease. As I explained, this legislation envisages no amendment. The Bill has been published for comment, and since there was a great deal of interest, we have extended the period for comment. It is now possible to comment on the legislation until 30 June of the present year.

This piece of legislation will probably be the greatest single deregulation project that has been tackled so far. The comment that has been received up to now is very positive. I am convinced that Parliament will discuss and agree to this legislation with great unanimity during the 1990 Parliamentary session.

Then we will have another government!

Unfortunately some hon members live in a fool’s paradise, but by 6 September they ought to have been rudely awoken out of that dream world. [Interjections.]

I have dealt with most of the hon members, including the hon nominated member Mr Jannie Douw. I also referred to the hon member for Albany and thanked him. Many deregulation measures are situated on the local level, and I believe that organised trade can play a very important part in taking deregulation on the local level further. It must not simply be left to individuals to frequently wage a hopeless struggle against local authorities. We need every ally to help us give greater momentum to this process.

I have come to the end of the debate. I should like to thank all hon members for their contributions. In particular I want to express my thanks to the officials who have supported me, the Commission for Administration and its Director-General, Mr Robson, and all the members, the privatisation unit under Mr Pieter van Huyssteen, the chairman of the Competition Board, Dr Brooks, and also Dr Maree of Eskom.

The functions of this Ministry are wide-spread, nevertheless there is an important connection between all the activities. Administration and privatisation must be closely associated in directing the activities of the State in such a way that we are best able to utilise our scarce resources. This includes manpower capital. I have no doubt that privatisation, deregulation and an effective Public Service can contribute greatly to revitalising the South African economy, causing it to function well and enabling us to achieve all the important objectives that we have for South Africa.

I thank all hon members for this debate and trust that next year we will not again have to conduct a debate on the Friday of a long weekend.