House of Assembly: Vol112 - MONDAY 20 FEBRUARY 1984

MONDAY, 20 FEBRUARY 1984 Prayers—14h15. OATH

Mr T Langley, introduced by Mr J H Hoon and Mr H D K van der Merwe, made and subscribed the oath and took his seat.


Mr Speaker, the taking of the oath by the hon member for Soutpansberg marks the final paragraph of a somewhat unfortunate chapter in our political history. For the CP it brought short-lived happiness. [Interjections.] For the NP it brought short-lived disappointment. To the objective observer, however, Soutpansberg was an illustration, in May as well as in February, of a low watermark in the politics of South Africa. [Interjections.]

On the one hand—on a man-to-man basis—we congratulate the hon member for Soutpansberg and his family. However, I should also like to sympathize with him today, since he has to build the resumption of his political career on foundations of false propaganda concerning the Government’s policy and goals; on the foundation of the support of a former arch-enemy like Mr Jaap Marais; on the foundation of character assassination, since they kicked a man who was already down; on the foundation of the exploitation of a natural disaster. These foundations for the resumption of his political career must trouble him at night. [Interjections.] However, I do have a word of comfort for him. He need not concern himself. It will not be necessary for him to lie awake at night bury him where he belongs—in the annals of the history of South African politics. [Interjections.]

In lighter vein, Mr Speaker, I want to point out that we on this side of the House wanted to lay bets with one another as to where the hon member for Soutpansberg was from Thursday until today. However, we were so unanimous in our guesses that no-one else wanted to lay a bet. I shall leave it to the imagination of hon members to speculate on why the hon member for Soutpansberg stayed away for so long. [Interjections.]

In the course of this debate we listened on Thursday to the hon member for Rissik. In a motion that has a bearing on this, we listened on Friday to the hon member for Waterberg. At the same time we heard in the media about the extra-parliamentary activities of the CP and its henchmen at the home of Prof Carel Boshoff. The sum total of this, the picture which comes into focus as a result of all this—from the participation in debates of hon members of the CP last week and from their participation in their extra-parliamentary activities—is one of a specific strategy of the CP for the road ahead. [Interjections.] They are adopting what is known in strategic terms as a pincer strategy.

The one leg of that strategy is their effort to create an image of the NP as a party that is on a slippery path. They link the NP to concepts such as those of abdication, capitulation, multiracialism and mixing. [Interjections.] Let us just look at the most important headlines in the December and January issues of Die Patriot: “Nuwe bedeling neem vorm aan—Mayfair word Indiërgebied”; “Wat is mnr Botha se plan met Suid-Afrika?”; “Mnr P W Botha se nuwe Suid-Afrika sal mettertyd onvermydelik ’n tweede Rhodesië word”; “Die waarheid omtrent die nuwe bedeling—skeiding gaan verdwyn”; “Die nuwe bedeling is mos Prog-beleid”; “Is Halley se komeet ’n teken van die Blankes se einde?”; “Astronomer predicts a scandal bigger than the Info scandal”; “PW en Van Zyl Slabbert is bobaas-vryers”. [Interjections.] What is the common denominator in this approach? It is the image they are trying to project of the NP as a party that has become integrationist; as if the NP were deliberately leaving the Whites in the lurch.

The other side of this pincer campaign is to project the CP as the bearers of the culture and religious heritage of the Afrikaner. They harp incessantly and unashamedly on Afrikaner emotion. The speech by the hon member for Waterberg on 10 October and the one in which he made his now notorious 666 statement is sufficient evidence of that—the subtle association of all fellow Afrikaners who do not fall in behind that hon member as being an instrument in the hand of the anti-Christ. In the meantime they proceed at full steam organizing take-overs by CP-minded people of existing Afrikaner cultural organizations, school committees and all other imaginable organizations. Because they are not being entirely successful in this regard, there is now in addition a new, clearly politically-inspired, so-called cultural organization. What is this really about?


May I please ask a question?


No, I only answer intelligent questions. What, in fact, is it all about? It is not really a matter of a cultural need. As far as this entire matter is concerned no-one has ever asked in what respect there is a deficiency in the whole structure of Afrikaans cultural organizations. Nowhere—neither in the FAK, the Rapportryers nor any other cultural movement has a motion been accepted stating: “A need has been identified in this regard. We need another cultural organization.” An opposing organization is being established for which no proven need exists in Afrikaans cultural life, for purely party-political purposes.

In fact, we had the true answer from Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche when he did not want to smile when arriving at Prof Boshoff’s house. His explanation was: “I am not smiling because who smiles at a funeral? This cultural organization is the funeral of the NP.”

This supposed pincer strategy is as transparent as clear glass. Therefore I wish to take the opportunity to state briefly once again the NP’s basic points of departure in order to destroy totally the false image put forward by this party and to say once again what we stand for and what motivates us to do what we are doing.

The NP as a White party stands unashamedly for Whites interests and for the maintenance of White vested interests. The NP was born out of the liberation struggle of the Afrikaner and it grew to be the bearer of the liberation struggle of the entire White community. The NP is dedicated to the preservation and maintenance of that freedom and it states unashamedly: That is the basis of my existence as a party.

I recognize that the CP has the same goals and shares those goals with us. Not one of us has the exclusive right to say that this is the foundation stone of our existence. The point of dispute between the NP and the CP is not what those hon members seek to maintain. It is not whether White rights are to be maintained in this country, but how White rights are to be effectively maintained in this country. In this regard the NP states just as clearly as it states that it stands for White interests, that White interests cannot be maintained at the expense of the rights and opportunities of other peoples and groups in South Africa. White security cannot be built on domination of others, whether direct or subtle. [Interjections.] I know that the hon member for Waterberg states that he agrees with me on this. In this regard I wish to quote from the hon member’s speech on Friday. He said:

I wish to state clearly today that the CP is opposed to any idea of White domination of any other people in South Africa.

Now it is necessary to listen carefully to what he said after that:

It is our firm standpoint that as far as possible, identifiable peoples who pursue self-determination should be afforded the opportunity to achieve and practise the highest degree and form of political self-determination.

It sounds almost as if he wants to become a Nationalist again. [Interjections.]

We do not have much fault to find with the words of the hon member, but when we really analyse his statement it occurs to us to wonder whether he really means what he says. Let us test it on the basis of two questions. Let us, to begin with, consider the White political dispensation in South Africa.

There is not a single hon member in those benches who will argue with me when I say that the Afrikaner people is a people in the fullest sense of the word, a people with its own striving for freedom, that runs throughout its history like a golden thread. That is why the Afrikaner meets the condition set by the hon member for Waterberg. It is an identifiable people with its own striving for self-determination.

I ask the hon member whether the Afrikaner people has full self-determination in South Africa in accordance with the hon member’s definition of self-determination. No, he did not deal with that because that is just where his argument falls flat. The Afrikaner does not have self-determination even though he does constitute a people. The Afrikaner shares political power in South Africa on a fully integrated basis with all English-speaking people, whether they are of Anglo-Saxon or any other lineage. Since 1910 there has been full power-sharing by the Afrikaner people with other Whites in South Africa, because the circumstances and the realities of 1910 showed that it was impossible to give the Afrikaner people full self-determination within their own state on an independent and sovereign basis.


And what about the Coloureds?


Let us deal with the Coloureds. The hon member referred to the Coloureds in an interjection. He said “an identifiable people”; are the Coloureds an identifiable people? No, they are not. According to no scientific definition are Coloureds identifiable people. I want to put a second question to the hon member concerning the Coloureds: According to his own test that he applied, do the Coloureds have their own striving for self-determination? The answer is: No, all evidence is entirely to the contrary. [Interjections.] The hon member himself said that he had encountered one Coloured who was considering looking at his plan.


Why then are you giving them a separate House?


Nevertheless, despite the fact that the Coloureds are not an identifiable people and do not have a striving of their own, the CP advocates for the Coloureds their own sovereign ethnic state. [Interjections.] Surely that amounts to one thing only and that is denial of reality. [Interjections.]


Order! If the hon member for Bryanston wants to try to be helpful, he should in future rather do so quietly without being heard so that order can be maintained. The hon the Minister may proceed.


To judge by the hon member’s colour, if he opens his mouth again somebody is going to post a letter. [Interjections.]

The CP’s Coloured policy is nothing but a denial of reality. It is an offer for the sake of the theoretical conscience, an offer that is essentially dishonest. As far as the NP is concerned the introduction of the new dispensation and the new constitution we passed last year is an act of will. The new dispensation was designed on a basis of negotiation and consultation. It was designed to deal with realities of South Africa.

I want to go back to the test applied by the hon member for Waterberg in his speech on Friday. He said: “Die KP staan daarop dat vir sover dit moontlik is …” I want to remind him that when he signed the programme of action of the NP in 1981 and made his speech before the Transvaal congress, it was he himself who said that an independent homeland for the Coloureds was not possible. [Interjections.]

I wish to state that if the theoretical ideal of full-fledged self-determination of peoples within their own territory is not practicable then we are called upon to find a different way to give political rights to those who cannot reach political maturity in that way and to ensure their political development. In no way is our new constitution the consequence of pressure. It does not represent a spirit of capitulation or of abdication. On the contrary, it is the result of years of study, a process in which those hon members also took part. To us it represents the acceptance of the challenge of ordering in a meaningful way the special circumstances that prevail here in South Africa, ensuring the maintenance of established White rights and at the same time initiating a process for the extension of Coloured and Indian rights. Therefore it is not the result of pressure but the result of the initiative of the NP. To the hon member for Waterberg I wish to say that there is no duality in this; merely realism. Enshrined in the new constitution are adequate guarantees for the Whites on the one hand and adequate guarentees for the Coloureds and the Indians on the other.

The CP’s unworkable and—to the people for whom it was designed—unacceptable independence plan—I refer here to the Coloureds and the Indians—therein lies capitulation and abdication in the true sense of the word. By accepting a policy which one knows in one’s heart of hearts will not work, one is abdicating, one is depriving oneself of the ability to retain the initiative, and by accepting such a policy one is wittingly creating a situation of growing alienation and frustration and, ultimately, confrontation. The hon member of the CP capitulated in the face of pressure from the HNP, the AWB, the S E D Browns, the Eugene Terre’Blanches and people of that ilk. They have capitulated to the great political temptation that all politicians are faced with and they have sacrificed their responsible leadership for the sake of supposed popularity in the short term. But fortunately the referendum showed that our electorate prefers positive leadership to short-term forcefulness.

The NP wants to give the assurance once again that in spite of Soutpansberg it will proceed consistently to carry out the mandate it was given in the referendum. There is in this a message for the PFP as well. The Government will not allow itself to be misled into a mininterpretation of the outcome of the referendum. Prog policy and Prog standpoints were shatteringly rejected in the referendum. Faithful to its principles of self-determination, of an own community life and the maintenance of group rights, the NP will proceed unhesitatingly along the road of reform. Differentiation, and anything that is necessary to maintain an own community life, will continue to form a fundamental part of our programme. The repeal of all hurtful discrimination is still our stated goal that we shall strive with enthusiasm to achieve. At the same time we shall guard against the continued survival of the Whites being threatened by domination by any other group in this country. We shall also ensure that the political liberation of everyone in South Africa remains the highest priority and that we shall find formulas which will make it possible, on the one hand, to give every people and group security and the knowledge that they can maintain themselves as a people and a group, and can continue to be themselves and, on the other hand, we shall boldly proceed to build the essential structures without which this country has no future. They will be structures that will make orderly co-operation among people and groups possible, structures within which the matters of common concern that we share with one another in this country can be dealt with in a spirit of co-operation among the peoples and groups in South Africa.

As regards the dragging into politics of Afrikaner sentiment and the faith and cultural striving of the Afrikaner, I should like to issue a very clear word of warning, with which I shall conclude my speech. Whoever seeks to politicize culture or the church, is trifling with some of the most precious cultural treasures of the Afrikaner. It is the standpoint of the NP that we can fight one another in the political arena, but that we owe it to our forefathers and to our descendants not to wage that struggle with one another in the fields of faith and culture. Hard work has been done in the course of many decades to achieve a fundamental unity in Afrikaner ranks as regards major cultural issues. Please note, I am not talking about uniformity or an artificial unity, but of the fundamental unity achieved in the national life (“volkslewe”) of the Afrikaner. It has been achieved not in his political life but in his national life. It would be a crime, and history will call to account anyone who trifles with this precious possession of the Afrikaner people, whatever political party he may belong to today.

What we in South Africa need is to instil certainty in the hearts and minds of every people and every group that there is a place for it here, that there is a future for it here, that there is opportunity for it here and that there is hope for it here. If we could succeed in doing that, the, and only then would a need grow, and the ability develop, in the hearts and minds of a reasonable majority of every group of people in South Africa, to say: I can co-operate with others, outside my group ties, in our common interest. I can adopt a broader view of the wonderful opportunities that South and Southern Africa affords all its people. Based on group security we on this side of the House will develop our inter-group co-operation in South Africa and, while committed to principle, will travel the road of reform to the end.


Mr Speaker, as I listened to the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs there was one thing that struck me. He said it was the intention of the NP to remove hurtful discrimination. I want to go back to that comment, because when I was listening to the hon the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs there were two things that struck me in his reply to the speech of the hon member for Houghton. The first was that it is still the policy of the Government to move people to satisfy the designs of grand apartheid. People will continue to be moved in South Africa.


Whether they like it or not.


Yes, whether they like it or not, and this is as hurtful to people as anything else.

The second point that struck me while listening to the hon the Deputy Minister is that what seemed to concern him was not so much that people were being moved, but that people were complaining about it. I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister because there have been rumours circulating about this, if it is true that the authorities have withdrawn the permits for TV crews and Press photographers to enter Black areas in the Cape Peninsula. These rumours are circulating, and they should be confirmed or denied as soon as possible.

I would now like to have the attention of the hon the Minister of Finance. One has the feeling, like last year, that quite often in the financial debate it seems to be that the battle of the Berge is being continued, with nothing having changed. Like Dallas it is with us and, like Dallas, it seems to be deteriorating in quality.

I want to come back to the question of the Part Appropriation. We have already had a tax increase this year, with GST rising from 6% to 7%, and it has been suggested that there might be other tax increases in the offing. Before we raise this or that tax, it is important for us to actually see what is happening to the tax structure in South Africa. If one looks at the tax structure, there are three distinguishing features.

The first is that individuals are having to bear a greater and greater burden of the total tax structure. At the beginning of this decade, the year 1980-81, individual tax amounted to 15,2% of the total tax collected, including customs and excise. The estimates for 1983-84 indicates an increase to 27%. I have no reason to believe that that budget will not be met. This is not the only burden which individuals have, because there is also GST. It is paid for mainly by individuals—not entirely, but I imagine about 90% of it comes from individuals. In 1980-81, 13,5% of total tax came from GST and for 1983-84 the estimate is 20,1%, and with the increase in GST this might rise further. At the beginning of 1980-81, 28,7% of the total income tax revenue came from individuals. By 1983-84 this is budgeted to increase to approximately 47%. It is interesting to note that while the amount collected in tax from individuals has risen by 153% and the amount collected from GST has risen by 139% in four years, inflation has been nowhere near as high as this. It is also interesting to see what has been happening to companies. While individuals have been paying more tax, the proportion coming from companies has stayed relatively static. This is the first feature of what has been happening to our tax structure.

The second is that there has been a massive erosion of our tax base. If I was to ask hon members what the company rate of tax is, most of them would answer 46,2%. However, that is a myth, because companies are not paying tax at a rate of 46,2%. The latest detailed figures which I have are for 1981-82 from the statistical bulletin. Manufacturing companies paid a tax rate of 24,8% and commercial companies a rate of 30%.

What is significant is that companies have actually been very successful in reducing the amount of tax they pay. In the tax year 1977-78 manufacturing companies paid 27% of their income in tax. By 1981-82 this had declined to 24,8%. Commercial companies were even more successful because they reduced their tax rate from 39,4% to 30%. Sir, you and I would be very happy indeed if, as our incomes went up, we were in fact paying less tax. Some companies have actually been able to reduce their tax even more successfully. There was a recent article in the Business Times pointing out that one of South Africa’s most profitable companies in fact has an effective tax rate of less than 1%. While pensioners are paying 7% GST on basic foodstuffs, one of South Africa’s most profitable companies was in fact paying less than 1% tax on its profits. [Interjections.]

I ask hon members whether this is the sort of tax structure we want. I ask myself whether it is not time for us to have a whole new look at our tax structure and particularly at the question of allowances. I think that the original intention with allowances was a good one. After all, all of us are agreed that one should encourage exports, that one should encourage training and that one should encourage investment. There is, however, a fundamental problem with using the tax system in order to promote specific objectives. Although the original intention is nearly always a good one, it tends to lead to abuse. These incentives introduce distortions into the economic system, and, as I say they are nearly always open to abuse.

One sees this particularly with regard to the pricing system. People want a free market system, but if the free market establishes a price they do not like, they rush in to ask that that price be changed, and a market system without a pricing mechanism is about as useful as a motorcar without an engine.

Let us look at the question of housing. All of us agree that housing is a good thing. However, if one has a look at what is actually happening in South Africa, one sees that about 60% of all houses in South Africa are subsidized in some way. Let us take the man who has a bond of R40 000. For the benefit of the Press, let me make it very clear that MPs do not get assistance with their housing bonds. We seem to hear about what MPs do get, but we often do not hear about what they do not get.

A person with a building society bond of R40 000 would pay R594 per month. If he had a subsidized housing bond at 4½%, which is a fairly common figure, he would pay R252. He would therefore enjoy a tax-free perk of R342 per month.


Do the Press enjoy subsidies?


I do not know. Such a subsidy is very nice for those who get it, but what about those who cannot get it? They find themselves in a situation where they are priced out of the housing market because houses are being bought by those who receive tax-free housing subsidies or cheap bonds. Cheap bonds lead to expensive houses.

Clearly this situation is unfair. Why should the Government just favour some house-owners? If one wants to encourage house-owners, one can in fact favour all house-owners by allowing them to write off a portion of their bond interest against their taxable income. One can set a limit at about R40 000 so that it does not particularly favour those people who have very big bonds.

The third point about our tax system is that it encourages consumption. This is bad because in South Africa we need to combat inflation. Our tax structure actually encourages people to go in for flashy motorcars or luxurious entertainment. While pensioners are battling to eat let alone eat well, others are receiving massive tax-free entertainment allowances which are often in excess of the total annual pension received by a social old-age pensioner. Is it surprising that there are so many luxurious cars in South Africa? If one is assessed between R720 and R1 200, which seems to be fairly common, and one pays tax on that at the top marginal rate of 50%, one’s fully maintained car costs one approximately R600 per year, because that is what the tax would be on R1 200. There is a need to introduce equity into the system. I hope that we will not continue to pussyfoot with fringe benefits tax. People are entitled to know whether their perks are going to be taxed or not. They are also entitled to know how their perks will be valued; and the sooner this is done the better. I hope that the Government will not procrastinate on this issue. If something is not done to bring order to the system of fringe benefits, then we are going to see a massive increase in fringe benefits and a continuing erosion of the tax base.

We must also remember that fringe benefits encourage wasteful consumptive expenditure from an economic point of view because entertainment expenditure and flashy motor cars are not economically productive, nor does it help savings. It is therefore not surprising that personal saving as a percentage of personal disposable income has declined from 12% in 1972 to 4,6% in 1982. In absolute terms we saved less in 1982 than in 1977. I think the time has come for us to have another look at the question of allowances. If we want to encourage specific activities let us rather do it via subsidies. Income tax is a complicated subject. That is accepted by all. The Department of Internal Revenue is in fact, I understand, understaffed and overworked. Why do we actually ask them to be specialists in exporting, building and training? Rather let companies go to a board of specialists where they can actually ask for the subsidy. Then we will know exactly what it is costing us and we can evaluate whether the money is being well spent or not.

Our present system of allowances and tax-free fringe benefits has led to a massive erosion of our tax base. I have listened to the Government arguing why basic foodstuffs should be subject to GST, so that we do not erode the tax system. And yet we have a tax system whereby a pensioner can pay 7% on food purchases, but one of South Africa’s most profitable companies pays less than 1% tax on its profits. While the aged struggle to live many receive tax-free entertainment allowances in excess of social old-age pensions. The problem with all these allowances and tax-free fringe benefits is that somebody has to pay for them. The problem in South Africa is that in many cases those who can afford to pay are not while those who cannot afford to pay, are. For the man in the street the tax burden is becoming increasingly heavy. He is battling to save. We have created a climate in which tax evasion will eventually be seen as a duty to one’s family rather than as a crime against the State. I have no objection to people living well, but I do not believe that they should be subsidized by the taxpayers of South Africa. Something must be done in this Budget. If not, then I should like to suggest a quotation to the hon the Minister of Finance which he might use as a theme for the Budget. It comes from the Gospel according to St Mathew, chapter 25, verse 29. I quote:

Unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Edenvale will forgive me if I do not reply to all the matters he raised this afternoon. The fact of the matter is that what he gave us was a plethora of platitudes that we hear in every Budget debate. I want to respond to just one or two of the comments he made.

Firstly, he says we are overtaxed, and as an example he quoted the recent increase in GST. That does not bear analysis. If we were to look at sales tax rates in other countries, something which the hon member was eluding, then we will see that in Australia all household goods are subject to 7,5% sales tax. I accept the fact that clothes and food are excluded, but on the other hand they have a sales tax of 20% on office supplies, electrical appliances, motorcars, etc. Take, as another example, a country like Sweden. There the sales tax rate is 24,6%; Denmark’s is 22%; Norway has a 20% blanket sales tax; in Italy it varies from 8% to 24%, while in France it is 6% on foodstuffs and moves up to 33% on luxury commodities at the other end of the scale. In Portugal the sales tax is 17% and, if we want to come closer home, in Zimbabwe the sales tax on basic foodstuffs is 18% and 23% on luxury goods. To compare the position in this respect in South Africa with that in other countries without looking at the entire tax base and the cost of living is not realistic.

It reminds me of what the hon member for Yeoville said when he commenced this debate. He spoke about the hon the Minister’s department losing control of the economy because they were budgeting so badly and that every year the hon the Minister presents a budget on Government expenditure, but at the end of the year we find that we have spent more than what we budgeted for. He also gave several examples of how Government expenditure was in excess of what had been budgeted for. He laid it at the door of the hon the Minister and said that that was proof of how badly he was running the country’s financial affairs.

However, if we look at the performance of the Government, and if we relate the State expenditure as a percentage of the gross domestic product, we will see that in 1976-77 it was 25,9%; in 1977-78, 25,2%; in 1978-79, 23,9%; in 1979-80, 22,4% and in 1980-81, 21,3%. Over five years Government expenditure decreased steadily as a percentage of the gross domestic product. Then we had the economic recession and Government expenditure edged gradually up to 22,5% in 1981-82and 23,5% in 1982-83. One can therefore see very clearly that the Treasury and the hon the Minister have a very strong and disciplined hold on Government expenditure. Furthermore, it is clearly the intention of the Government that that expenditure, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, should be reduced.

However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof. We know that foreign investment in our country over the past few years has increased considerably, and I will mention a few facts in this regard later in my speech.

The hon member for Edenvale was full of moral indignation about people being moved in our country, but I would suggest that he and other hon members on that side should reserve the same understanding for their own country that they so often display towards other countries. In Nigeria, for instance, 2 million people were summarily ejected from that country. In a so-called civilized country like Switzerland hundreds of thousands of Italians have had to go home during the past few years of recession.


They were Swiss nationals.


They were not Swiss nationals; they were Italian nationals. Switzerland would not grant them Swiss citizenship.

South Africa is in fact a miracle country and we can be justly proud of its achievements also during the past year. It is easy to budget and easy to govern when one has the benefit of a rising gold price, of increasing agricultural production, and when it is not necessary for the country to resort to massive expenditure on defence. The very opposite, however, becomes true when we look at the situation in which our country finds itself at the moment. We have to contend indeed with a low gold price, with the worst drought in more than a century, with a critical shortage of water and with low agricultural production. On top of that we have just been hit again by severe floods in certain parts of our country. What is amazing is not so much the difficulties in which we find ourselves but the superb way in which this hon Minister and the Government have managed to cope with this very difficult situation. The reason why I say this is because it is in such glaring contrast with trends elsewhere in Africa and in many parts of the world when we compare the situation in South Africa with that pertaining in other comparable countries throughout the world.

In one of a series of articles published in Time magazine on the woes of Africa, the article that magazine carried on 16 January this year said that South Africa was the only country in Africa that was moving against the litany of woe previously described. According to that article South Africa was the only exception to the general rule of woe. If we compare South Africa with other comparable Second World countries such as Mexico, Nigeria and Brazil—to name only a few—we see that some of those countries have had to have their foreign loans rescheduled owing to their failure to meet their repayment obligations. We must remember that those countries experience the same economic climate that we do. We, on the other hand, have met all our commitments, without any exception at all.

A well-known economist Eliott Janeway, writing about the current world situation, states as follows, and I quote:

The situation is spinning out of control and poses a clear-cut present danger for the entire financial system, comparable to the one preceding the 1929 depression.

Furthermore, the chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, talking about fiscal and political risks, says “these are currently without precedent in the post-war world”. When we look at the enormous mountain of international debt, it appears that this amounts to $700 000 million at the moment, which means $150 in respect of every man, woman and child alive on this planet today. This represents an increase of 850% over the figure of 10 years ago. In the midst of all this South Africa is still functioning smoothly, is coping with a very difficult situation, is doing so without hand-outs, and still in such a manner that foreign investors are not only queueing up to invest in our country but are receiving exceptional returns on their investments.

The USA Department of Commerce survey states that over the last five years the average earnings yielded in respect of investments in South Africa in mining and manufacturing was 25% and 18,4% respectively, compared with 13,6% and 12,6% respectively elsewhere in the world.

On the question of inflation, all I can say is that we are definitely in the process of solving the problem. I attended a dinner party the other evening where I spoke to a lady who had just returned from Argentina. She gave one of the quests a note worth several million pesos. She told him that that was a present for him. He was very delighted with that enormous sum of money. Ten years ago that same note would have bought a farm of considerable size on the Pampas. On the day that lady handed the guest that note he would have found it difficult to buy a loaf of bread in Argentina using that same note. That is what the situation is like elsewhere in the world. We have indeed coped very well. We are beating inflation. If we look at the cost of living index over the past 12 months it appears that the index in consumer prices dropped from 13,9% in December 1982 to 12,4% in June 1983, and again to 11% in December 1983. We are indeed making progress. We are making progress from a situation of stability. We are indeed adding to the stability of the region. Our search for peace in the region is exemplary. We hear exciting sounds from many of the world’s capitals in regard to disengagement. There are the disengagement talks in Lusaka and the current round of talks with Mozambique, and these talks stand like a rainbow of hope over the whole of the north-eastern part of our country. We live in a world where almost without exception in our country we have seen the process of rising democratization taking place. Over the past 12 months great steps have been taken to include large populations of our country in the democratic process. The referendum result that has been debated in this House so many times stands as a great milestone along the path of the democratic evolution of our country. We have continued not only to help ourselves but our neighbours as well. When we look at the payments being made to the Customs Union pool we see that we are contributing very directly to the welfare of our neighbours in this subcontinent as well.

I should like now to address a few remarks to the hon members of the CP. I see that the hon member for Soutpansberg has taken his seat in the House. I want to offer him my personal congratulations on his victory at Soutpansberg. I want to make this one remark with reference to the CP. They will have to understand one thing in particular and that is that they are not the centre of the political universe. They are not the axis around which everything else revolves. If hon gentlemen opposite wish to try to stop the evolutionary advance of political structures and systems in our country, they will so dam up legitimate aspirations in our country that ultimately we will all be inundated by revolution. [Interjections.] If they say “no” to the legitimate aspirations of people in the subcontinent they will be saying “yes” to conflict in the subcontinent. The hon members of the CP say that they are democratic. They are always talking about their great belief in freedom. I respect them for it and I accept their bona fides in this regard. However, if in the few years that lie ahead during which time the Government will have to play its strongest role we do not find solutions by means of negotiation and agreement, democratic solutions, then all of us in this House will be condemned to totalitarian gloom whether that totalitarian gloom is ruled by Whites or by Blacks. The fact of the matter is that South Africa has reached a point in her history and a moment of decision which it cannot escape. There are urgent solutions that have to be found and those solutions will have to be found by means of consensus, by discussion and by agreement. Hon members of the CP cannot lose their sense of responsibility in the face of history.

I wish to say only this to them. I know the history of South Africa as well as any of them and I want to tell them that there can be no heroics in the struggle that they wish to wage in this country. The struggle that they want to wage is a struggle from which nobody will emerge the winner. The CP is cast in the classic archetypal, intractable, pre-revolutionary, self-adulating sectional mould.


May I ask a question, please?


No, I do not want to answer questions.

†We shall have to get away from many of the old notions. Although the hon member for Rissik did not agree with him, the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the caricature of apartheid was dead. I agree with the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, for the sake of clarity, I want to say that what is also dead is the politics of the melting pot and the multiracial euphoria that some people seek for South Africa. Solutions need to be found in our country, but they must be based upon the relaxation of adversary postures and the use of violence. There is a need to accept the bona fides and the sincerity of all the participants in the new debate that disclaim violence. That includes acceptations of the sincerity of the Government to seek equitable solutions in group-orientated strategies and structures whilst maintaining law and order and seeking human dignity for all in this country. Rome was not built in a day, but many of the old words and the old terms, the totem stances and the Pavlovian politics of reaction will have to go so that we can clear the air for a new debate and for an adequate definition of our problems of this time. We shall have to find real solutions.

Following on Pinetown I should like to say only this to the hon members of the NRP. One thing is true of Pinetown and that is that there were many more voters registered on this occasion than there were on the last occasion, yet far fewer voters in fact voted. For the PFP there is no comfort in the result in that their majority was substantially slashed, but nevertheless they won and for that we congratulate them. Fact of the matter is that they attracted fewer votes and their majority was severely reduced.

The NRP did not do well. It had a strong candidate. It had the initiative following upon the referendum. They were all bright eyed and bushy tailed, understandably. Their organization hopefully was still functioning form their post referendum organization, but yet they too did not do well, and they failed. The hon member for Durban Point said that they did not win but they also did not lose. I do not agree with him.


That is not what I said. I said we failed to win the seat from the PFP.


I accept that. I do not want to argue with the hon member for Durban Point—he is a man who has always pulled his weight in this House and that is no mean effort.


Speak the truth.


I shall speak the truth because the moment of truth has arrived for the NRP. Politics is about making choices. Politics is taking sides, and those hon members on that side of the House have inescapably and inevitably been put into the position where they will have to make those choices, and the time is now. Those hon members will not be able to escape the question for much longer. The moment of truth has arrived for the NRP. It gives me no pleasure to say this. They are men good and true, they are men who mean it well with our country, but the fact of the matter is that they cannot continue to obfuscate the political climate of South Africa, and they will have to make choices. In my view there is no definable political ground for them and in my view they do not have sufficient concentrated support in a sufficient number of seats to remain a force in South African politics.

I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister and I want to tell him that we think that he has, as always, conducted the affairs of our country brilliantly over the past time and we wish him well for the budget ahead.


Mr Speaker, Soutpansberg, the constituency where voters still believe in their own identity and self-determination and their own sovereignty and are prepared to prove it fearlessly; Soutpansberg, whose mountains, bushveld and low-veld are celebrated by writers and poets; Soutpansberg, that went to the polls three times within the space of just over nine months with, on the one hand, a political party as powerful, relatively speaking, as a party can hope to be, supported by financial resources as powerful as these are allowed to be, and on the other hand, a young CP, with money out of its own pocket, with inexperienced workers; Soutpansberg, Sir, which it is now my privilege to represent here, Soutpansberg, which today has visitors in the public gallery from the far North of this country, as no other constituency I know of has ever had before.

Sir, I should like to place on record that when an hon member is elected to this House, it is his right to take his place here. But today it is my privilege to take my place here on behalf of Soutpansberg, inter alia because on 2 November I voted in the same place where a Thomas Langley voted for the first time in 1919 and where my maternal and paternal grandparents afterwards voted, and both my parents voted.

Before I come to the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs, I just want to say that the drought crisis in Soutpansberg has reached the emergency phase. Urgent steps are taken when a typhoon causes damage. A protracted drought can, however, cause damage, the end results of which can be worse than the damage which a typhoon causes, because the typhoon brought water while Soutpansberg in the Northern Transvaal is crying out for water. Since I accept that there will be a subsequent opportunity for urgent discussion of this matter, I want to tell you that an emergency plan and emergency aid to all sectors of agriculture is a matter which ought to be accorded priority in this country grandiose constitutional development plans, inter alia.

I want to thank the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs for congratulating me on my return to this House. I accept it in the same spirit in which it was offered. For my party the 10th of May was a point high up on the slopes; the 15th February was a further advance for us on our way to the top.

In the speech which the hon the Minister made on Thursday evening when the House adjourned, he said that he was going to expose the “politics of fear”, the “politics of hatred” and the “gossipmongering politics” of the CP today. I am still waiting for the hon the Minister to do so. He came here and said that the foundations of my party during the recent election, and I assume that he was also insinuating in the previous election, were misrepresentation, the HNP, kicking a man when he was down, and a natural disaster. I challenge the hon the Minister in this House to disclose a single example of a misrepresentation by the CP during the recent by-election campaign. The hon the Minister can get to his feet now and ask a question, but I want to ask him whether we cannot discuss it on a subsequent occasion. My time now is very limited.


Sir, I want to ask the hon member whether, to mention only one example, he is aware that his party is proclaiming that as soon as the new dispensation is introduced, children of the various population groups will attend schools on a mixed basis.


I know nothing about that. What I do know, is that prior to the referendum and during the previous by-election it was, inter alia, proclaimed far and wide to the voters of Soutpansberg that they need not be worried about the things that were being used to scare them, since these were all covered under “own affairs”. They were told that their own affairs had been specified in the constitution. I shall tell the hon the Minister what I did say to the voters of Soutpansberg. I told them that we should see what own affairs were as they were specified at the back in the schedule to the Constitution Act. No 2 under “own affairs” reads, for example, that all levels of education are own affairs. I then showed the voters of Soutpansberg an Administrator’s notification of the Transvaal, dated 26 October 1983. This notification amended the regulations of the Randburg municipality, the regulations pertaining to all kinds of things, including White nursery schools. How were the Randburg regulations altered? By omitting the word “Whites” from the title and by omitting the word “Whites”, wherever it occurred in section 1 of that regulation. I now want to ask the hon the Minister whether a nursery school represents a level of education or whether it does not represent a level of education. Did we tell the people that they would attend school on an integrated basis or not?

I do not want to stray from my subject. What did the hon the Minister’s colleagues do in Mayfair just before the referendum? I am now referring to the hon the Minister of Law and Order and the hon the Minister of Community Development. After this party had for two years been pointing out the encroachment of Indians into the White group area of Mayfair and the Government had not listened, the hon the Minister quite suddenly, probably after a signal was received that Mayfair was going to vote “No” if something was not done about the Indians in Mayfair, appeared on the scene and loudly proclaimed that the Indians must get out. Is that true or not? Television teams were also there, and the Press reported the matter in black banner headlines. I told the people of Soutpansberg, and wherever I addressed referendum meetings throughout the country, that this was a fraudulent ploy on the part of the NP. Was I right or was I wrong? What happened after the referendum? The Indians are to stay in Mayfair. Whether it is only in a part of Mayfair or not, they are to stay there. What is the result of this? I told this to the voters of Soutpansberg as well. Under the National Party Government, Whites are no longer guaranteed their group area in South Africa.

Another foundation which the hon the Minister spoke about was the HNP. I just want to tell the hon the Minister one thing, namely that the HNP withdrew from Soutpansberg of its own accord, without any prior discussion of the matter with any member of the CP. I will concede that the withdrawal of the HNP perhaps contributed to the CP majority being somewhat bigger.

The hon the Minister touched on another point which I think requires a reply. The point was that we had kicked a man when he was down. I infer that when he said that he was referring to the former MP for Soutpansberg. Immediately after the previous Minister of Manpower announced that he was resigning as Minister, I was approached by the Press and my reaction was that it had been a human tragedy and that I felt sorry for the people involved. Nowhere, but nowhere, Sir, can that hon Minister, the leader of the National Party in the Transvaal, show me where I trampled on that man. What I did do, and I am not ashamed of it, was to say that the hon the Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa, without being asked, had promised South Africa a clean administration in his inaugural speech as Prime Minister on 28 September 1978. I asked what had become of his undertaking of a clean administration in South Africa. I told the people that under his administration, under this National Party Government, South Africa had grown accustomed to shocks, scandals and injuries. It had become the trade mark of the National Party.


What do you say about Connie Mulder?


I think that the things that are happening in that administration today are far worse than one could have dreamed of under the administration of Dr Connie Mulder.

The hon the Minister of Internal Affairs worked with the file of my predecessor in Soutpansberg when he succeeded him as Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. The hon the Minister therefore knew what was contained in his colleague’s file, and I believe that the chief leader of the National Party, the hon the Prime Minister, also knew. However, they allowed that Minister to plunge the country into a by-elections.


And then you lost.


Yes, I lost, stayed on and now I have won.

That by-elections cost South Africa millions of rands in manpower and time. However, they allowed him to do so. I know that hon Minister feared that ex-colleague of his like the very devil because he always felt him breathing down his neck. However, he allowed it to happen. They then travelled to Soutpansberg and supported that colleague of theirs with their tongues in their cheeks.

I come now to the natural disaster. I am not exploiting natural disasters, because a natural disaster is a natural disaster. I did not exploit it, but what I did say, and I stand by this, is that the drought aid that was offered in Soutpansberg was unrealistic, unsympathetic and impractical, and I repeat it here. This is apparent from how much of that drought aid has already been taken up. But we can discuss that at a subsequent opportunity.

The hon the Prime Minister said in Tzaneen that no one was to blame for the drought. But one can devise a plan with regard to the assistance which one renders in the drought if one has interests of agriculture of South Africa at heart, which that party no longer has. [Interjections.]

I see in the Press that the leader of the National Party in the Transvaal had to find reasons for his party’s defeat in Soutpansberg. I now want to tell hon members what those reasons really were. I want to refer to the figures. In 1981 the National Party had a majority of 3 644 in Soutpansberg. The effect of the result of last year’s by-election and that of the recent election is quite enough. However, one should really go back to the 1981 election and see what happened there, because the National Party statisticians will have to draw their graphs and so on, and draw their conclusions on the basis of those figures. [Interjections.] What is the effect? The effect is that the majority of the NP in 1981, added to the majority of the CP last Wednesday, gives one a total of 4 141. That is what the NP has to indicate on its graph charts, because that is the way it is.

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the NP in the Transvaal that I feel sympathy for him. He has probably been on the carpet already, and his chief agent was probably there too. By the way, I want to tell him that he may as well get rid of the hon member for Benoni, because his information campaign there with his story of “creating confidence” was an absolute flop. But this is just in passing.

The hon the Minister said:

Dit was deurlopend duidelik dat die kumulatiewe effek van die ongelukkige omstandighede wat aanleiding gegee het tot mnr Fanie Botha se bedanking, die ontsettende droogte en verkiesingstamheid sy tol in Soutpansberg geëis het.

I do not want to say much today about his first reason, but I think the NP should at some time or other clear up this matter among themselves and decide whether they condone those actions, the primary actions, which he mentioned, or whether they reject them. If they reject them, they should do what is necessary and honourable for an administration to do.

I come now to his second point, the terrible drought. I have already spoken about the terrible drought. However, I just want to tell him that it is not only dry for the Nationalists in that constituency, it is dry for the Conservatives as well. Eighty to ninety per cent of the Conservative farmers and the farming community probably voted Conservative. They, more than any other sector of that community, were burdened not only by the drought, but also by hail and washaways. When a young farmer whose crop has been destroyed turns up at the party office the next day and says, “I no longer have any work to do on the farm: I am here on a fulltime basis now”, it is wonderful. That is the way a party worker should be, and that was the way it was.

Then the hon the Minister spoke about election lethargy. We have fought three elections in Soutpansberg: A by-election in May, the referendum and then another by-election. All that I can infer from the hon the Minister’s statement is that he admitted that his party was no longer fit. [Interjections.] My people demonstrated that, although they tired themselves out in the struggle, they were ready for the next round when it came, like a fit athlete. I am not a braggart; I am not a person who brags before the time about what I am going to do and then does the opposite, as the hon the Minister did today, but I want to tell him that he can come along in two years’ time, or seven, or whenever we are going to have the next election: Soutpansberg will be ready. [Interjections.]


And Stellenbosch, and Carletonville and Malmesbury.


To tell the truth, I want to put it this way: There are still many “bergs” to come. There is still Piketberg. There is still Losberg. And then there are the “bergs” which cut right through constituencies, like the Magaliesberg range. Then, too, I think there is still Ysterberg in the Potgietersrus area, and I think Amajuba in the Standerton area. There are many other “berg” constituencies which can give resounding responses within the space of the next few years in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I am disappointed about one thing, and that is that what I observed from the outside was in fact the truth. It was that the hon the leader of the NP in the Transvaal was the leader of the NP in the Transvaal in name only. That man who helped so vigorously and prodigiously to split the National Party and Afrikanerdom from top to bottom, lent himself to serviceableness to the principle leader of the National Party of South Africa. I am disappointed, or rather my observation was correct that it will be recorded as having happened under his leadership that the powerful newspaper which made the NP what it was in the Transvaal, Die Transvaler—he knows by whom it was established and created—was under his leadership reduced by the Cape Liberal Press to “a small local newspaper”. That was why he had to rationalize in respect of today and in respect of last Wednesday, because the red carpet is not something which is only rolled out once on that side. He had to rationalize, and probably did so satisfactorily, but why did he not rather say what Hein Kruger said, as it was reported in the Pretoria News? I quote:

The National Party Parliamentary candidate, Mr Hein Kruger’s comment was short: “That’s the way the cookie crumbles”.

†What a true word, Mr Speaker, because the cookie is crumbling to the left and to the right and it started on the same day and the crumbling will continue

*I want to conclude. The hon the Prime Minister boasts of his tremendous conglomerate mandate of 2 November. I also have a mandate, from the voters of Soutpansberg, and that is to try to do everything possible to halt the National Party on the fatal course along which it is leading South Africa. [Interjections.] This I shall try to accomplish.


Mr Speaker, …


Old “Bloedsap”!


Sir, an hon member has just passed a remark about my United Party past, but I am not embarrassed or ashamed of my political past. Those hon members should know that. I want to tell the hon member who passed that remark that some of his friends sitting up there in the gallery were also staunch United Party supporters (bloedsappe) and I know they are now members of the CP. The hon member can now tell them how welcome they are in that party. [Interjections.]

As a born Soutpansberger I should like to convey my congratulations to another born Soutpansberger on his election as MP of that constituency. However, my congratulations stop there because I can only be at daggers drawn with him over the kind of politics he resorted to during the election campaign, particularly in respect of his remark that his voters want to retain their own identity. In the course of my speech I shall return to this question of own identity because I believe that those hon members cannot claim to have a sole say about that. The hon member who is so full of his own importance concerning Soutpansberg has presumably forgotten that he walked out of Waterkloof after 16 years because he did not have the courage of his convictions to fight another election there. [Interjections.]

The hon member juggled with figures here. Oh well, I suppose it is very enjoyable to win, and I do not want to deny the hon member that pleasure. However, a whole string of by-elections have been held in South Africa, inter alia, in Carletonville, Waterkloof, Middelburg, Malmesbury and Stellenbosch. The hon member would do well to look at the figures there, and then we can discuss matters again. However, the hon member returned to this House with his habitual acrimony, and I suppose we shall have to be saddled with it. Among other things, he challenged my hon leader to give one example of a misrepresentation with which he fought the election in Soutpansberg. I have here a publication—Soutpansberg KP—of January 1984, in which this headline appeared: “Randburg-skool vir alle rasse oopgestel. Wat sê u daarvan, Hein?” The article reads:

Die vraag wat op baie Soutpansbergers se lippe is, is wat mnr Hein Kruger, NP-kandidaat, se werklike standpunt is oor die oopstelling van ’n skool in Randburg. Mnr Leon Thom, die KP-LPR-kandidaat vra: “Kom nou, mnr Kruger, antwoord die kiesers. Moet Soutpansbergers se kinders later dieselfde pad loop? Keur u die Randburg-skok goed?”

Now I want to ask hon members of the CP where that school is. Remarks were also made about nursery schools which may be in the hands of private enterprise. [Interjections.] That is probably true, but the hon member for Brakpan who is grinning from ear to ear now, would do well to ask the hon member for Soutpansberg what happened in Waterkloof. The hon member for Soutpansberg represented Waterkloof in this House for 16 years. In those 16 years the policy of Black national states developed; diplomats from those states came to live in his former constituency, and their children attended White schools. The hon member never objected to that, and I challenge him to tell us whether he objects to it now that he is Jaap Marais’ bedfellow.

The hon member for Soutpansberg had something to say about the Indians in May-fair and the Group Areas Act. I want to point out at once that it is the hon member for Langlaagte who was peddling with the position in Mayfair here. However, this entire controversy is in fact concerned with the application of the Group Areas Act. Why do the hon members of the CP not tell the electorate that the Government is implementing the Group Areas Act and that if people have to be moved, this is being done in the interests of orderly change in the country? [Interjections.] The hon member for Brakpan and the hon member for Soutpansberg passed all kinds of remarks about the former leader of the House, Mr Fanie Botha, and I suppose they are entitled to ask where he is. The hon member for Soutpansberg said inter alia, that the NP had built up a new trade-mark in South Africa in connection with bad administration and poor administration. However, the hon member is a lawyer; has he never heard of the Advocate-General?


Mr Speaker, may I ask a question?


No, Sir. That hon member should keep his questions to himself; he may speak later if he wishes. Since they have so-called facts at their disposal in connection with Mr Fanie Botha, why do the hon members of the CP not lay a charge against him with the Advocate-General? The hon the Prime Minister has created a channel by means of which his administration and what he has to accept responsibility for in South Africa, can be investigated. This channel was created for the people of South Africa, but hon members of the CP gossip in Soutpansberg because they do not have the courage of their convictions to make use of this channel which has been created for them, in the interests of South Africa.

*Mr C UYS:

Why did you fire him?


That hon member probably fired his mad Aunt Tillie in the zoo!

The hon member for Soutpansberg said that the assistance which the Government had given to the farming community was inadequate.


Inadequate and impractical. [Interjections.]


But of course all assistance which one gives to anyone in an emergency is inadequate. Where is the money to come from however?


Where should the Government take it from?


Yes, where should the Government take it from? I want to make it clear that I also have interests in Soutpansberg. I can testify to the fact that those farmers are very grateful for what the Government has done for them, particularly for the assistance which the Government has given them in an effort to enable them to remain on their farms. However, the promises of the hon member for Soutpansberg are still going to catch up with him. He is going to have to meet all the promises of Land Bank loans which he made so liberally to people in Soutpansberg. [Interjections.] The hon member will still have to do this. The voters of Soutpansberg are still going to hold him to his promises. [Interjections.]

*Mr C UYS:

Now you are telling a flagrant untruth. [Interjections.]


Oh no! [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I have nothing further to say about the hon member for Soutpansberg. [Interjections.]

There is a new development in South Africa politics. A certain Professor Carl Boshoff maintains that the Afrikaner is undergoing an identity crisis. With this strategem he succeeded in making A P Treurnicht, Jaap Marais and Eugene Terre’Blanche his bedfellows. [Interjections.] In the future those hon gentlemen will have to accept responsibility for the statements of their bedfellows. [Interjections.] In order to unite the far right political schools of thought, Prof Carl Boshoff has appealed to the naked emotions of Afrikanerdom to serve the purposes of his organization. [Interjections.] His henchmen do not hesitate to trifle for political gain with those things which lie very close to the heart of every Afrikaner. Nor do they hesitate to trifle with the Christian religion of the Afrikaner. [Interjections.] Nor do those people hesitate to trifle with the principle of self-determination which is of importance to every Afrikaner and every White in this country. Hon members of the CP do not hesitate to give a totally distorted representation of the separateness aspect of separate development. In addition they are also trifling with the sensitive negotiation efforts in Southern Africa. In the statements they make they do not care whether they are prejudicing those efforts or possibly even jeopardizing them. Then of course they are also trifling with flagrant racism as regards the Black people outside the national states in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I should like to debate these aspects with the hon members of the CP, particularly since they are so full of their own importance. Of course I do not begrudge them that. They, in fact, won a by-election. While I am on the subject of an identity crisis, I should like to point out, however, that I feel the time has come for the CP and its bedfellows—the Jaap Marais’ and Eugene Terre’Blanches’—to reveal their identity to the electorate of South Africa. [Interjections.]

In the first place, I want to refer to the remark in connection with the Christian religion of the Afrikaner. According to the hon member for Rissik, the hon leader of the CP, the hon member for Waterberg, is a prominent theologian. However, when a prominent theologian trifles with terminology in connection with religion, he should in fact be extra careful about what he says and in what context he makes certain remarks.

At the so-called Kruger Day national festival…


Why do you say “so-called”?


Because that was how it was advertised. [Interjections.] However, that festival degenerated into a CP propaganda rally.


Just listen to how silly you are being now.


Not as silly as you. [Interjections] That is why I would not make the silly statements you make either. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I should like to quote certain things to the hon member for Waterberg. In his speech on that occasion he said the following, and I am quoting him:

Natuurlik sal jy nie daardie sinvolle eenheid verkry as ’n deel van die volk wil vermeng en ’n ander deel wil aparte vryheid handhaaf nie.

Did the hon member say that?


Of course.


He then went on to say:

Natuurlik sal jy nie die eenheid verkry as as ’n deel van die volk beginsels wil aanpas, tot sterwens toe wil aanpas, en ’n ander deel wil die lewe hervorm om in ooreenstemming met die beginsels te wees nie.

The hon member for Waterberg said that as well. Did the hon member say that?


I said it deliberately.


The hon member says he said it deliberately. Then the hon member went on to say, presumably as deliberately:

Natuurlik sal jy nie eenheid verkry as ’n deel van die volk die Koningskap van Christus erken en ’n ander deel daardie Koningskap verag en verwerp nie.

[Interjections.] Did the hon member say that?


It is absolutely true and I shall say it again.


The hon member says it is true. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, let us be quite clear about this. There is a major controversy in South Africa with regard to the terms “people” and “nation”. I am now asking the hon member for Waterberg: Which people was he referring to?


Is it relevant? [Interjections.]


The hon member was talking about the Afrikaner people.




I now want to ask the hon member: Am I a member of the Afrikaner people?


Are you?


It could be that you are one.


I am a member of the Afrikaner people.


Are you sure?


Of course, I am just as much of a staunch United Party supporter as you are. [Interjections.] The hon member for Waterberg kept on referring to a part of a people. The hon member referred to that part of the people which voted “yes” in the referendum. [Interjections.] The hon member says that is untrue. What did the hon member mean by those words. [Interjections.] I shall again read out to the hon member what he said. He said:

Natuurlik sal jy nie eenheid verkry as ’n deel van die volk die Koningskap van Christus erken en ’n ander deel daardie Koningskap verag en verwerp nie.

I want to repeat my question to the hon member: Which people was he referring to?


May I please ask a question?


No, the hon member can speak later. I want to repeat my question to the hon member: Which people was he referring to?


Any people. If there is such a division, one can never attain unity. [Interjections.]


The hon member is therefore confirming that he and I are members of the Afrikaner people, and because he voted “no” and I voted “yes”, I have repudiated the Kingship of Christ. [Interjections.] The hon member should go and read what he said again.

I want to take this point further. If the hon member referred to the Coloureds and Asians as part of the anti-Christ community in South Africa, I want to put a question to him: It is, after all, their policy that we should establish a Coloured homeland in South Africa. The hon member for Waterberg is such a prominent theologian and I am putting this question to him: If such a Coloured homeland were to be established and there were to be Christian Coloureds and Muslim Coloureds in that Coloured homeland and they shared power with each other—this is the people which the CP has now created—would the Christian Coloureds then be repudiating the Kingship of Christ because they were sharing power with the Muslim Coloureds? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Waterberg, the great theologian, also made another political remark. This is the man who is gossip-mongering about the Christianity of other people and how they are repudiating their Christianity. At Rustenburg the hon member said: All one hears nowadays is love, love and reconciliation. This is a Christian who says things like this. Everywhere he goes, all he hears is love, love and reconciliation. Now I want to ask the hon member: What is wrong with love and reconciliation?


The incompleteness of it.


The hon member says it is the incompleteness of my image, but let us go on to a second aspect, namely the principle of self-determination which we hear about as nauseam from hon members of the CP, and their absolutizing of a relative concept such as self-determination. How do the hon members provide absolute self-determination in South Africa for the Whites of this country? The hon member for Rissik should reply to this because he is the man who at every opportunity accuses those of us on this side of the House of wanting to jettison the right of self-determination of the White man in this country.

On 2 November 1983 two-thirds of the White voters in South Africa, 1,3 million Whites, voted in favour of a new constitutional dispensation. How will the CP undo that dispensation if the Coloureds and Asian leaders are unwilling to fall in with their homeland idea? A joint say in a single geographic territory has been a fixed principle in the NP since 1977, and the hon members should tell us whether that is not true.


That is not true.


Listen to what I am saying. Since 1977 the principle of a joint say over matters of common concern in a single geographic territory has been a principle of the NP.


You are talking nonsense.


They say I am talking nonsense. There is only one alternative for the CP: Oranje. They should withdraw from politics in South Africa and move to Oranje, wherever that may be.

*Mr C UYS:

Andre, you are not going to wish us away.


No, I do not want to wish the hon members away: I just want to debate matters with them so that they will reveal their identity to the White voters; and we shall do that from here in the Cape right up to Soutpansberg.

They are oversimplifying the idea of separate development by stressing separateness. I was in Soutpansberg myself. Sir, do you know what the CP supporters in Soutpansberg are saying? Forgive me for repeating these words, but these are the words one hears there: “This Government is doing everything just for the kaffirs; P W Botha is giving everything to the kaffirs”. I have witnesses to support what I am saying; this is the language of the man in the street in Soutpansberg, and that party thrives on it like parasites. For the sake of the audience here today, I want to ask the hon members to tell us whether the Government is doing too much for the “kaffirs”.


The Government is doing too little for the White man.


That is the kind of reply one gets from those hon members. [Interjections.] The hon members want separateness, but they do not want to pay the price of development.


Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member an easy question?


Sir, I do not want to reply to any questions.

Another thing I heard in Louis Trichardt was that the voters and the public said to me: Look at all the Black people in the streets.


You are making all this up.


No, these are the facts. It is a fact that there are many Black people in the streets.


We just do not want them in Parliament.


May they walk around the streets of Louis Trichardt then?

Now we do not get an answer, because this is their kind of politics.


The answer is “yes”.


But then the hon members must go and tell that to the voters in that town.


The voters of Soutpansberg were discussing the crowding out of Whites in their own areas.


Let us now consider these bedfellows. While sensitive negotiations are under way for peace in Southern Africa, the new bedfellow of the hon members, Jaap Marais, was reported in The Citizen of 11 February as having said the following:

Mr Jaap Marais, the HNP leader, drags in the South West African issue, claiming the by-election has acquired increased significance in the light of the latest discussions between the South African Government, the United States and the communist countries of Southern Africa.

I am now asking hon members: Do they approve of the discussion which is taking place at the moment in Southern Africa? They have to tell us this.


We are afraid that the White man will be sold out.


No one is talking about selling out anyone now. I am merely asking hon members whether they approve of the discussion. Their new bedfellow is the man who said we were collaborating with the communists here in Southern Africa.


What is the discussion?


The hon member for Soutpansberg should first go and read through the Hansard of the past few weeks to find out what his own people have said before he tries to make any remarks. I am quoting further:

The South African Government is under such pressure from abroad that it is prepared to hand over the Whites of South West Africa to Swapo in terms of United Nations Resolution 435.

Is that correct? Is it correct that we are handing over the Whites in South West Africa on a platter in terms of Resolution 435? [Interjections.]


Alan Hendrickse is your bedfellow.


The hon member says that we are Alan Hendrickse’s bedfellow. However, we do not belong to the same cultural organization as Hendrickse does. That hon member is the bedfellow of Jaap Marais and such people as Eugene Terre’Blanché.

The hon the Prime Minister issued an invitation just after the referendum. He said that we should join hands across party-political boundaries in the interests of South Africa. What was the reaction of the hon the leader of the CP? He said that he would not join hands with anyone who was dismantling the White Parliament and was in favour of power-sharing.


Hear, hear!


Together with Carl Boshoff.


Oh yes.


… and Jaap Marais …Now the hon the leader is no longer saying “yes”. Is he going to co-operate with Jaap Marais in the future?

*Mr C UYS:

Are you going to co-operate with the Progs in future?


Not at all. I want to ask the hon member if he also says “yes” to Eugene Terre’Blanche. I am asking him a simple question. After all, he is so fond of semantics. He should reveal his identity in the politics of this country to the people of South Africa. The entire campaign which he and his party conducted, with apparent success, was based on unabashed racism and the exploitation of the emotions of exclusively Afrikaner prejudices. The hon leader will have to begin to take responsibility for statements of that kind.

In conclusion I want to point out that there was much speculation and many innuendos about the identity of the NP. This is a party which, through its various leaders, has retained certain definite points of departure over the years. Genl Hertzog with his motto of “South Africa first” was in the forefront of the struggle to achieve a just dispensation for the Afrikaner people. Dr Malan laid the foundations for group identity as a point of departure for the granting of political rights. Although it was a Strijdom ideal to make South Africa a Republic, it was Dr Verwoerd who, in addition to establishing the Black states in Southern Africa, realized that ideal. The new constitutional dispensation in this country was initiated by none other than the late John Vorster and it is being realized by the present hon Prime Minister. In the process the NP has been denounced by left-wing elements in particular as the Gestapo and the suppressor of human rights. Because of apartheid slogans, South Africa has become the polecat of the world. However, evolution has its course and many NP standpoints of the past now make more sense to its critics. What is important is that in this evolutionary process, the Afrikaner has, without any doubt, retained his right of existence in the political, economic and social spheres in South Africa. Now a certain Carl Boshoff has come along and together with the hon member for Waterberg, Jaap Marais and Eugene Terre’Blanche he is telling us that the Afrikaners are going through an identity crisis. What identity crisis? Today the Afrikaner constitutes 60% of the White electorate. The Afrikaner has also proved himself the equal of any other group in South Africa in the economic and social spheres. The Afrikaner has his own schools, universities, cultural organizations and churches. The Afrikaner is entitled to live in areas which have been proclaimed for Whites. The Afrikaner has taken the lead in this country as far as the new political dispensation is concerned. However, we now have to listen to these people telling South Africa that the Afrikaner is going through an identity crisis. This slogan is blatant exploitation of Afrikaner emotion for party-political gain.


Mr Speaker, the hon member for Turffontein will understand if I do not react now to what he said in his speech, because he spoke about a by-election, while there are other matters that I wish to discuss this afternoon.


You want to talk about Pinetown.


Yes. That hon member can be sure that I will be talking about Pine-town.

However, before I refer to Pinetown, I would like to address myself to the hon the Minister of Finance. He presented this Part Appropriation Bill against a background of severe constraints on the South African economy. It will be a difficult time for the hon the Minister and for South Africa to balance the books and to do justice to all the worthy causes which will no doubt be knocking at the hon the Minister’s door, and probably have done so already.

We are all aware of the fact that the lower gold price, relative to the increased production costs, will cost South Africa very dearly, not only in revenue for the Government, but possibly also in receipts for the mines. That in turn will lead to a reduction in investments, new mines and employment opportunities. The backbone of South Africa’s economy is still its mining activities, and therefore the present situation gives very serious cause for concern. The rand-dollar exchange rate will probably lead to an increase in fuel price shortly unless there is a magic recovery in that particular situation. We only hope that if that fuel price increase is to come about in future, that the hon the Minister will constrain himself and exercise discipline as he has always preached to South Africans. The hon the Minister is aware of the fact that fuel prices fuel inflation.

Speaking of inflation, South Africa may under present circumstances rejoice in the fact that we have the relatively low inflation rate of 11%. However, we are paying a price for that low inflation, and that price is reduced production capacity utilization and higher unemployment. This is the dilemma of all capitalist societies. Whenever you go for lower inflation, you run the risk of social and economic repercussions which stem from higher unemployment.

The hon member for Edenvale made quite a good speech earlier on and I appreciate this research work. When he speaks about tax and the economy it is always a pleasure to listen to him. He highlighted the problem which South Africa is facing at the moment, a problem which the hon the Minister will have to bear in mind when he increases taxes in South Africa. That is that the difference between earnings and expenditure for the average family has shrunk dramatically while the average saving capability of the average individual is extremely low. The hon member mentioned a figure of 4,3% as the savings capacity. We believe that this has not only come about because of a rise in inflation and increased consumption of the private individual, but also relatively easy credit for the man in the street. It is very disturbing to see that corporate savings have taken over from private savings in South Africa during the past few years. The hon member also mentioned that it is corporate finance which is fuelling inflation in the price of houses today because ordinary members of the public are not even able to save the basic deposit for an ordinary house in South Africa. I believe that that is something to which the hon the Minister must pay close attention. The severe drought, and, of course, the floods in Natal are an extra drain on the fiscus, but these are unavoidable costs and we appreciate the fact that the Government has responded relatively quickly in applying suitable measures to bring about relief. The high unemployment rate is also extremely disturbing and we hope that the hon the Minister will apply his mind to the aspect of creating incentives through the main budget by allowing private industry the opportunity to increase its investment in production capacity in South Africa.

The hon the Minister obviously has to take a short-term view in order to balance the books. His strategy would of course be to maximize the available revenue in South Africa through means such as GST. However, the hon the Minister cannot only take a short-term view. He must also take a longer view of the economy. It is, of course, one of the dilemmas of a Minister of Finance in a capitalist, free enterprise system that he must decide whether in fact by participating in long-term planning he is not overstepping the reaches of a free enterprise system and the functions of government. Short-term measures for purposes of stabilization and long-term measures for the maximization of the assets of the nation are of course the factors which create a knife-edge balance for the hon the Minister. Should he in fact plan well in advance or should he assist private enterprise and bend it towards the path of the Government’s thinking, or should the Government only be there to catch in a catch net when things go wrong?

I should like to suggest to the hon the Minister that his philosophy and economic attitude towards South Africa, especially bearing in mind that he is appropriating R6,5 billion here today, should be of such a nature that it allows free enterprise to flourish to a greater extent in South Africa. I believe that that should become the hon the Minister’s first priority as regards fiscal policy in South Africa. The hon the Minister should make plans to reduce the permanent overheads of the bureaucracy in the form of expenditure on salaries by allowing natural turnover to reduce the number of people working for the Government and by handing over to private enterprise at an increasing rate functions which are currently performed by the Government but which could be performed by private enterprise. Then the hon the Minister will not be saddled with overheads on a permanent basis and with the under-utilization of that facility. I implore the hon the Minister to see what can be done to create a situation where he can reduce his overheads by way of the natural turnover and by eliminating a wastage of labour. In other words, if someone leaves a job, he should not fill that job but see what can be done to change the job structure. He should hand over as many functions as possible to the private sector. We believe that in this way, and only in this way, the Government will be able to reduce its demands on the revenues of South Africa.

That will also allow private enterprise and the individual to increase their savings and therefore to increase the available capital as risk capital for expanding private industry. It is well known, of course, that this party has consistently recommended to the hon the Minister that he should change the tax case from one of taxing income to one of predominantly taxing consumption. The hon the Minister already in part accepted that principle when he introduced GST. We believe that taxing private income stifles initiative because one is taxing the highly productive innovative sector of the company. If one predominantly taxes consumption, one not only gives the individual the choice of whether he wants to pay tax but one in fact stimulates savings, and therefore risk capital becomes available and, when risk capital becomes available, there is greater investment, and with increased investment there is increased turnover by companies, increased consumption and improved employment capacity. I should like to urge the hon the Minister to reconsider his philosophy of taxation and to change it from predominantly taxation on income to taxation on consumption.

I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister to do that because, if one does that, one allows the individual a maximal income capacity, maximal in terms of his own productivity, harder work and greater initiative. There are only two things one can do with money today: One can save it or one can spend it. If one spends it, the hon the Minister will benefit, and if one saves it, it will certainly contribute towards risk capital and a reduction in the excessively high interest rates which we have in South Africa. One of the problems with high interest rates is that it makes income easily available to individuals while it dissuades them from investing in high risk investments. The hon member for Edenvale will agree. A capitalist society thrives on members of the public making money out of capital gain, and that means taking risks.


What is happening at the interface?


I will tell the hon member in a minute.


What about the sweat equity?


Yes, sweat equity as well. I can see the hon members are coming right since having had contact with us in Pinetown.

As far as the fiscus is concerned, my hon colleague for Amanzimtoti put it in a nutshell when he said that the time has come for the Government to practise what it preaches and that it should also tighten its belt. Unless the Government is prepared to do so I regret inflation will increase, job opportunities will decrease, unemployment will increase and South Africa will find itself in a very difficult position.

Obviously hon members on my right physically and on my left politically have been waiting for this opportunity to hear something about the recent by-election which took place in Pinetown. I was one of the first to say to the new hon member for Pinetown that he was welcome here and that we were looking forward to him making a very considerable contribution. I first met him when he served on the Buthelezi Commission as secretary to the group which investigated educational problems. In that particular capacity where he was not acting politically I believe he did a very fine job. The Buthelezi Commission’s report on the educational needs of kwaZulu is a very good report. It is just a great pity that the PFP contaminated it with its political philosophies. But the hon member did a good job there.

Let me also say that we do not want to detract from the sweet fruits of victory for the PFP in Pinetown. Every party which fights these kinds of fights loves to savour them and they are obviously enjoying it. I can see the hon member for Parktown rolling those sweet fruits around on his tongue because it is not very often that they taste them. He is obviously enjoying it. At the same time let me say that they only managed to retain that seat by 880 votes. We noticed a very disturbing trend in Pinetown and this is something of which all citizens of South Africa should take note. That was that the real winner in that election was not the PFP but the misinformation and disinformation campaign of the Press. They were the real winners. This is a disturbing feature of South African politics.


You are always whining.


No, I am not whining. I said the PFP can have its victory and we are the first to say congratulations on winning the Pinetown by-election. At the same time, however, one must look at what is happening to democracy in South Africa. There was a campaign of disinformation. If that party constantly has to be propped up and patched up by the Press it is weakening its own ability to participate in democracy. Let me quote an example. Hon members must tell me whether they agree with this. My hon leader, the hon member for Durban Point, made a statement at a public meeting and said:

If the public of Pinetown knew what the policy of the PFP was then they would lose their deposit.

What did the Press publish? I want hon members to tell me whether they agree with this. The Press only published the part of the statement saying that the PFP will lose its deposit.


Did they correct it?


No. They did not correct it.


Did you correct it?


Yes, my hon leader corrected it. When the Press late last year asked me what the NRP was going to do in Pinetown I said that if we had a 60% to 65% poll then Frank Martin would have a majority of 1 000. What did the Press print? [Interjections.] I was asked the same question by the same member of the Press. They printed:

The leader of Natal, Ron Miller, says that Frank Martin will have a 1 000 majority.

There was no qualification of percentage poll. We are not crying about it. [Interjections.] Politics is a rough game and when the going gets tough the tough get going. All these stories about the NRP being written off and having run a lackadaisical and slack campaign I want to say is part of the disinformation campaign.


But it is true.


If it is true then it is an indictment of the PFP which is lauded by the Press as having run a sleek, efficient and magnificent campaign. If that is so, why did they only win by 90 votes on the day against this “very bad” organization and campaign of the NRP? Is the distance between their “slick” campaign and our “rotten” campaign only 90 votes? [Interjections.] The character assassination of Frank Martin by a Sunday newspaper in Natal will not go unnoticed by the public of South Africa. The real winners in that campaign was the disinformation campaign of the Press and not the PFP. [Interjections.]

I say to the hon member for Maitland and to his colleagues that the big question that is being asked today is whether there is a future for the NRP in South Africa.




If there is no future for the philosophy of this party in South Africa, then there will be no future for peace and stability in this country either. We may be the smallest party in the House. We may not have taken the Pinetown seat from the PFP, but there is one thing they cannot say about the NRP, and that is that we have run away from the realities of South African politics or that we have not had the courage to stand up and say, irrespective of our popularity, what South Africa requires. We have said that the first reconciliation that must take place in South Africa is between English- and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. The very first prerequisite for reconciliation and consensus must be by conciliation between the moderates.

I ask the hon member for Maitland: Who knows what lies ahead? I can tell him what does not lie ahead, and that is that this party will veer from its absolute dedication to its principles. [Interjections.] We will welcome any member from any party to vote for us in an election. I honestly challenge any hon member of the PFP to get up and say that he would not welcome votes from White registered voters in other parties. They will not say that, because what has happened in Pinetown is that they have now seen a safe seat, one with more than a 2 300 majority in 1981, reduced to a marginal seat, a seat which they won with only 880 votes. It is a hollow victory for them.

To my colleagues in the NP I want to say that there is one absolute certainty about this party, and that is that it will not deviate from its accepted principles. My colleagues here, seven of them strong, do not have to be in Parliament, but they are here because they are dedicated to a particular cause, and that cause we will espouse at every opportunity. I want to tell the hon members of the PFP that we beat the pants off them in their two strongholds in Westville. We beat the pants off them with that so-called lackadaisical machinery of the NRP.


Why did you lose then if you say you have won?


I will come to that in a moment. The hon member obviously has not understood what I said about certain elements in the Press. I said at that meeting at Westville that the members in the NRP, including myself, will walk hand in hand with the NP when it is in the interests of South Africa, and I will repeat it from every platform and at every opportunity, because when it is in the interests of South Africa, that is the criterion for us.


Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he is prepared to walk hand in hand with the PFP in the interests of South Africa?


Of course we are prepared to do that. When that hon member’s leader said that they were going to discontinue their boycott and that they were going to come and join in the new constitutional deliberations and structures, we welcomed it. There is no disgrace in that. [Interjections.] Of course we would welcome that party. In fact, we will take them by the hand and lead them up the steps to the President’s Council which we helped to create, and which they boycotted.

South African is at the crossroads of its history. We are not playing politics for fun in this country any more. It takes people of character to get up and say what they think and to fight for what they think is right. Unless one is able to do that, one must not get into politics. When Gatsha Buthelezi reacted recently and tried to put the boot into us, I said to him that that is one battle in the war that we lost, but we will continue to fight because the war is still ahead of us. The philosophy of this party has a magnificent contribution to make in the Republic of South Africa. It is based on consensus and on reconciliation in a plural society, which will not lead to group domination. We will continue to fight for that.

We will also continue to do what is right for South Africa. This party will not deviate from its course merely because the PFP held the Pinetown seat.


Mr Speaker, the hon member for Durban North touched on so many aspects with which we in fact agree that I do not think I shall elaborate any further on what he said. I want to come back to the hon member for Edenvale, who attacked the Government on two aspects.

In the first instance, he claimed that personal tax is becoming an increasingly smaller percentage of the total State revenue from taxation. However, I want to point out to the hon member that the amount contributed by the private sector in South Africa by way of company tax, for example, is much bigger than is the case in the USA, for example. The hon member also spoke about the tax evasion that is taking place. We must bear in mind, however, that there are people in every country who are continually specializing in tax evasion. This is a normal character trait in people. It is also very interesting to note that in one of the latest editions of Business Week it is stated that this is a tremendous problem. The headline of this particular article is: “IRS Shakes Big Stick at Tax Shelter Abusers”. This is therefore a problem which every Minister of Finance experiences.

Thus far the attacks on the hon the Minister of Finance and his fiscal policy could be summed up as being concentrated in particular on the regular deficits which occur each time the final results are published. Those deficits are usually considerably greater than was initially estimated. It is said that this increase in deficits could be ascribed to poor State administration and political budgets. Coincidentally, hon members who said this are the hon member for Yeoville, who is a well-known businessman, as well as the hon member for Sunnyside, who is an accountant.

Every organization or business whose financial statements correspond precisely with its budget at the end of the financial year can be grateful for a miracle. I believe that this really points to poor management, or even to cooking the books. Every businessman, every Minister of Finance, must adapt his budget according to changing circumstances. Indeed, they have no choice. In the case of South Africa, it often happens that the gold price fluctuates or that we have to cope with tremendous droughts. The hon member for Yeoville is not here at present. However, I should like to know from him what he thinks the gold price will be in six months’ time. Perhaps I should put this question to the hon member for Sunnyside. If they can give us a reply, surely the hon the Minister can budget correctly. It is easy for him to budget correctly if he knows what the gold price is going to be in six months’ time.

In then co-confidence debate the hon member for Yeoville said that the hon the Minister of Finance should have known precisely what would happen during the course of the financial year when he was drawing up his last budget. A budget aims at setting certain goals for our revenue and expenditure. There are deviations, however, and it is important that those deviations should be explained.

The most important thing, however, is that the Minister of Finance or the businessmen of a country must alter their strategy as those deviations occur, because they can no longer operate in the light of and on the strength of the same circumstances. He must have the initiative and the entrepreneurship to come up with a new strategy in order to achieve his goals.

A government budget—one does not always realize this—differs from the budget in the private sector. Firstly, a government budget is based on the needs of the community, and the revenue is sought afterwards. Unfortunately, nowadays any Minister of Finance has to deal with extensive demands which are almost impossible to meet. That is why we have the present reaction from President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher in respect of the tremendous pressure on governments to increase their spending and to give increasingly more attention to, and to spend increasingly more money on, social services. It is interesting to mention that in the recession we in South Africa are experiencing at present, there has been such a shift. The State must be aware of where it must get its revenue, since its real income has decreased. Its tax revenue from the private sector has decreased, since company profits have fallen. In times of recession one must follow a healthy fiscal policy by trying to cut certain expenditure even further.

The hon the Minister of Finance was severely criticized because he wants to keep the large amount spent on subsidies in check to a certain extent by allowing an increase in the price of bread. However, when one knows what one’s income is, one cannot allow one’s expenditure to get out of hand. Hon members of the opposition parties expressed a great deal of criticism concerning GST, as well as with regard to that subsidy on bread. However, very few of them came forward with any real suggestions regarding alternative sources of income. All the hon member for Yeoville said, was: Please do not increase personal tax. When it comes to expenditure, it is surprising how little we have heard from speakers sitting opposite. They did not tell us which expenditure the State must cut down on. Must it cut down on expenditure on education, for example? Must it cut down on defence expenditure? Must it give the farmers less assistance? They remain dead silent on that score. What surprises me is the fact that the hon member for Yeoville is a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. He has been a member for a long time and he could have told us what his recommendations are. The only matter he focused his attention on was the flat belonging to the poor Land Bank.

The hon member for Sunnyside got stuck on the new constitution and then we heard the latest economic news from the CP benches. An hon member on that side told us that the gold price is dropping after the referendum and that the referendum caused this. Another wise remark was that since we have become friends with America, the gold price is dropping. I wish more people from Soutpansberg were present to listen to these wise remarks from the CP benches.

As I have already mentioned, the hon the Minister of Finance was sharply criticized because the expected budget deficit was exceeded. However, we must consider this budget deficit as a percentage of our gross domestic product. In 1982-83 it was 2,2% and it is estimated that it will be 3,3% in 1983-84. As I have already mentioned, we are experiencing recessionary conditions. We are experiencing exceptional droughts and we have a problem regarding defence, in that we have to be prepared. Let us look at the position in other countries. If we take the six most important developed countries we find that, in general, financial deficits as a percentage of the gross domestic product have increased from 1,7% in 1979 to 4,1% in 1983. They have subsequently dropped to 3,8%, as was expected. Let us look at smaller countries. When we look at Australia, New Zealand and Belgium we find that the deficit there has increased from 1,8% in 1979 to 6,2% in 1983. Those countries do not have to deal with a rapidly fluctuating gold price. They have not experienced tremendous droughts. Nor do they have to cope with huge military expenditure. I think hon members owe the hon the Minister of Finance an apology for this kind of attack. In fact, we can congratulate the hon the Minister for being able to come forward with such successful fiscal management in South Africa under these circumstances.

It is so easy to finance this deficit with bank credit, but the hon the Minister has not done so. He made use of loans and government stock and he did so with so much success that we in South Africa cannot say as yet, as they do in the USA, that the State is crowding out the needs of the private sector with its large deficit, or, as they put it, “the Government crowded out the private sector”. This is not the case here, since there are still sufficient funds for the private sector.

Tremendous attacks have been launched on GST. I pointed to the increase in the deficit and said that the State must cut its expenditure and seek other funds. The hon member for Yeoville pleaded that personal income tax should not be increased. Nor do we want more bank credit. We must get the funds from somewhere, however. An important aspect we must bear in mind is that with State financing it is very difficult to follow a flexible policy, since for most of one’s variables one has to wait for the budget before one can alter them. GST is an exception, and that is why GST was the obvious instrument for the hon the Minister of Finance to use to meet certain of his additional needs.

There is another aspect. There is a general trend in the Western World today to make more extensive use of indirect taxation, and the reason for this is that due to high inflation the fiscal drag has increased tremendously during the past year. Therefore, if one continues to tax the individual even further, one finds that there is the danger that the economy will be harmed as a result of the effect on savings, and this is going to create certain additional economic inefficiencies. It is very interesting that the secret document of the PFP on their economic policy puts it so well:

Taxation should be applied in such a manner as to maintain incentives on the one hand and on the other to enable the State to function and to provide adequate social services.

One would be prejudicing savings in the economy with increasingly higher individual taxation.

In the case of members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development indirect taxation as a percentage of the gross domestic product increased from 10% in 1978 to 10,6% in 1983. The average tax as a percentage of the gross domestic product has increased from 28% in 1965 to 36,6% in 1980. In South Africa it was 10,4% in 1983 in the case of indirect taxation, and a rate of 22% in the case of general taxation. We can be proud of that, since we are not out of proportion. A well-known economist, Colin Clarke, said that if the latter rate is more than 25%, it is impossible to stop inflation. Our hon Minister of Finance keeps it at less than 25%.

The third advantage of GST is that it relieves the pressure on the higher income groups, who pay the largest share of tax. It surprises me that the hon the Leader of the Opposition has appealed to the Government not to make use of economic measures alone, which reinforces the idea that the burden of financial discipline and inflation is borne only by the poor. Statistics tell us that 7,3% of all taxpayers pay 49,8% of the total personal income tax. The hon member for Yeoville, on the other hand, said that we should not increase indirect taxation because we are dealing with large gaps in the income structures of the various races. In a report on Africa, the World Bank made a remark which does not only apply to countries in Africa, but to all developing countries. This bank says:

The answer to the revenue problem is to find forms of taxation that impose less of a burden on the motor sectors of the economy as well as to check expenditure by using fees and charges to a great degree. Sales taxes, for example, are very buoyant because their bases rest on rapidly expanding sectors of the economy. Properly designed sales taxes are much simpler than property and income taxes.

A final aspect I want to refer to, is that in Opposition circles in particular it is being pointed out that the poor man—indirectly it is being said that it is the Black man—is now going to struggle as a result of this percentage increase. However, we now have new legislation which is going to make the tax of Black people the same as that of the Whites. According to The Star the State is going to lose approximately R150 million as a result. Therefore I cannot believe that this 1% increase in indirect taxation is going to cost the Black people R150 million.

I am looking forward to the Opposition coming forward with many more details concerning which expenditure they would like to have cut when we come to the main budget. Then we can go to the people and say that on the one hand they are telling the people about the Government’s poor fiscal policy whilst, on the other hand, they are too afraid to say which expenditure they disagree with.


Mr Speaker, it is the words of a former hon Leader of the House, Mr Ben Schoeman, which give me the necessary encouragement to stand up here this afternoon and try to make a maiden speech. On occasion he wrote:

In die jare wat ek in die Volksraad sit, het baie nuwelinge hulle nooienstoesprake gehou. Ek het gevind dat die bekwaamheid van ’n lid en hoe hy gaan ontwikkel nooit op sy nooienstoespraak beoordeel moet word nie.

These words did indeed give me heart.

I regard it as a great privilege to be a nominated member for the Transvaal in this House, and I should like to express my thanks and appreciation for this opportunity. I also thank the hon members of the House and the officials who gave to me, as a newcomer, so generously of their advice, not the “advies” of which Langenhoven said “advies word so genoem omdat dit jou vies maak”, but in the sense of positive and constructive orientation. Let me also pay tribute to my predecessor, the former Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs, Mr Hennie van der Walt, who has left his mark, particularly with regard to the consolidation of national states.

Owing to my interest, but also as a result of the topicality of the subject, I have decided, on this occasion, to express a few thoughts on the youth, with special attention to the so-called uncommitted youth and how they spend their leisure time.

It has become a commonplace to pass judgment on the conduct of young people. Over the years, of course, the older generation has always found fault with the young people of their time. The times we are living in are no exception to this rule either. It is, after all, so easy, and sometimes so convenient, to generalize about the faux pas of an individual or a small group of young people and to ascribe these to the youth of our country or our people. We hear and read so little about the many positive and praiseworthy things in the lives of our young people, whilst anyone who is well-disposed towards our youth, who is interested in them and has succeeded in making contact with them, can attest to thousands of young men and women—in my opinion the majority of them—of whom our country can rightly be proud.

In saying this I do not mean, however, that there should be no cause for concern about today’s youth. On the contrary, the person who alleges that he is not concerned at all has, I think, lost contact with reality. What I want to emphasize, however, is that our youth do not have a ruin mentality, but that they do live in a world that has the potential of leaving behind a legacy of ruins. It is a world that definitely does not make it easy for them to find their feet without professional help. So certain trends in the lives of our young people do give cause for serious concern and cry out for attention and help.

One must remember that the young people of today live in an urbanized world. By 1980, 88,4% of the total White population in South Africa was living in cities, as were 77,6% of the Coloureds, 90,5% of the Indians and 38,3 of Black people. As far as the Transvaal is concerned this matter is of even more current interest if one takes into account that more than 40% of the total White population of the RSA live in the PWV area, in other words 1,8 million Whites live on 1% of the country’s surface area. Added to this, one must bear in mind that 17,6% or 799 560 of the total White population specifically fall into the 15 to 24 year age group, whilst the percentage for the other population groups is even higher.

The cities have indeed become the points where young people gather together and, as we know, urban life pre-eminently gives rise to the fragmentation of family unity, to anonymity, loneliness, mass-fixations, to a materialistic view of life and of the world and to permissiveness. These are all factors which do not make it easy for young people to find their feet and which can, in the socioeconomic, urban and cultural spheres, adversely effect their very being.

One must also bear in mind that the behaviour of those young people which gives cause for concern actually turns out to be, after an in-depth analysis, a reaction to specifically three trends in the world in which they find themselves. In the first place the conduct of your young people which causes us concern is a reaction to the relative nature of our values and norms. It is no longer, in a absolute sense, a question of parents or those in authority clearly stating what is right or what is wrong. There are shades of right and wrong, and within the spectrum of these gradations young people must work out their own boundaries, and this is what causes the reaction in them.

Secondly there is also, amongst the youth, a reaction to a lack of authority, even though they do not realize it, and even though they would never acknowledge it. In the modern family the patriarchal family system has made way for a situation of equal arbitration. Owing to the demands of the father’s profession and the community, he finds himself removed from the family sphere, and more often than not the mother must also adopt the authoritative role, which she frequently cannot really do owing to the fact that she is a woman. Hence the important conflict situation has disappeared, and it is specifically this conflict situation, within the security of the family, which teaches the child to handle conflict. If the child does not have an opportunity to handle this in the family context, he can normally not do it outside the family circle either, and then runs the risk of becoming a so-called problem child. Lack of an authority figure does, of course, also create identification problems. Authority, after all, creates a feeling of security in which identification can take place.

Thirdly, that conduct on the part of our youth which is a cause for concern is more often than not a reaction to present-day double moral standards. There is nothing to which a young person reacts more violently than when a specific pattern of behaviour is expected of him, whilst the behaviour of those who expect it of him is the very opposite.

All these aspects considered, it is essential that alongside the attention given by educational institutions, which do a great deal, attention should also be given—particularly professional attention—to the young people who, after leaving school, after having completed their professional training or after having done military service, enter the labour market. In this connection it is particularly the way in which young people spend their leisure time that must receive attention. Investigations have brought to light that the youth of today devote a far greater amount of time to passive, non-creative activities than to inventive or creative activities which are, in fact, the most significant in the development of personality. The percentage of young people involved in organized cultural and/or leisure activities is disturbingly low. It is specifically in this connection that I want to make three recommendations.

Firstly, I want to emphasize the necessity for giving young people a greater say, greater responsibility, particularly in decision-making processes. For me it has always been a great indictment that our adults too frequently will not allow our young people much greater involvement in the controlling bodies of youth organizations, for example, or in our community activities. One cannot, after all, learn to swim until one has been in the water.

Secondly, I want to emphasize that the problems of youth, and the problems involving their leisure time in particular, should be subjected to interdisciplinary research in a planned and organized fashion. It appears, from investigations amongst other things, that the youth organizations in our country have, in the judgment of our young people, to a certain extent lost their appeal. If anything positive is to be done in this connection, what we lack are scientific findings on which to base our actions.

Thirdly, I want to advocate that we follow the example of other countries and begin with the training—perhaps at a post-graduate level or a post-diploma level—of youth workers, cultural workers or formative workers—whatever we want to call them—to deal with the contemporary problems of our youth. I appreciate the great contribution that has already been furnished in this connection by cultural officers of the Cultural Affairs Branch of the Department of National Education, but we shall have to go further, for example subsidizing the salaries of trained youth workers in particular youth organizations.

I am aware that such development will require funds from the Exchequer and the taxpayer’s pocket. If we take a serious interest in our youth of today, however, and if we want to give substance to the words of G A Watermeyer about the youth:

Julie wat die land se toekoms klop, julle wat die trots van gister erf, julle is die drang wat daadkrag word.

We simply have to do it.


Mr Speaker, allow me to congratulate the hon member Dr Pieterse most sincerely on his maiden speech. All of us found it very interesting. It is clear to us that the hon member has a great deal of experience of the subject which he discussed. He made many positive suggestions today. We trust that he will find the years which lie ahead for him in this House to be very fruitful ones.

†I want to address myself to the R6 500 million that we are appropriating here today. However, before I do so, let me say that I cannot resist reacting to some of the points raised here this afternoon since our last speaker spoke. I must say we got the impression from the speech of the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs that he really overreacted to the Soutpanberg result. He did not treat the matter in the constructive way it should have been treated. He should have conceded graciously to the CP that it had won the seat, but he should also have emphasized that the NP still held an overall majority of some 72 seats in the House which any Government in the Western World would be only too happy and pleased to have to carry out its policies. We can only ask the hon the Minister and his party not to be deterred in any way when it comes to any plans for reform which they have for the country.


You need not worry.


As far as the NRP is concerned, I would have thought the hon member for Durban-North—he is not present in the House now—would have reacted more positively to the challenge of the hon member for Maitland to indicate where his party stood. He has not really told us what their future plans are. On the one hand he says we are enjoying the fruits of victory but on the other hand he is handing out a lot of sour grapes. He decries the majority of 880, but when he went around boasting that the NRP would win by some 2 000 votes he based his statement on the provincial council results. However, now that we have improved the majority from a modest 67 to 880 he is going back to the parliamentary results. With great respect, this is an egg-dance which we have seen here before. I think the hon member and his party must look carefully, as their hon leader has said and with circumspection at its affairs and into future to decide where it stands. Those members who stood with the NP could go there and those who stood with us could come to us. They will be very welcome.

I want to refer to enemy number one facing South Africa today, namely the question of inflation. Let me say straight away that the NRP and the CP each moved an amendment and in actual fact we have no quarrel with either.

Inflation has been described by business law as either an economic phenomenon which leads to a sustained rise in the general level of prices or else, more correctly, which causes a sustained depreciation in the value of money. They say that inflation softens the brain and hardens the heart. That is why it is so hard on the workers who are hit hardest by this. If we look at inflation in South Africa over the period 1970 to 1981 we find that as measured by the consumer price index the average inflation rate was 10,53% per annum. I believe the lowest recent figure is 10,97%, which is the lowest since 1976. It came down from 13,82%. However, at the same time the consumer price index rose from 271,4 to 273,2 during that period. At that rate the value of money is halved every six years and five months. In practical terms the rate of inflation means that the purchasing power of the rand in 1978 equals 29c in 1981. According to one forecast the purchasing power of the rand as at 1982 will be a mere 10c in 15 years’ time, in 1999. Hon members who are contemplating going on pension in 15 years time will therefore have to consider the fact that their pension money is going to be worth one tenth of what it is worth today. Those persons who retired on pension in 1970 found that the rand was only worth 50 cents in 1975, while those who retired in 1975 found that their rand was worth only 39 cents.

Obviously, the hon the Minister of Finance is concerned about inflation and that is why the conference of businessmen was called in November 1983. In fact, the hon the Prime Minister is on record as saying:

I appeal to businessmen to beat the cancerous inflation rate that is eating away at South Africa’s prosperity.

Many members of the Cabinet attended that conference but one would not think so when one sees the increase in administered prices and in tariffs that are controlled by Cabinet Ministers.

To begin with, overspending is a major cause of inflation, and the Government is on record as having overspent to the tune of R1 400 million. I understand that that amount includes approximately R500 million that was spent on drought relief, and for this we do not blame the Government at all. Apparently a further amount of R400 million has been spent on defence but this has not been verified although the hon the Minister of Defence has said that he will deal with it at a later stage. Then there is also an amount of R500 million in respect of additional loan funding.

In addition, tariffs have been consistently increased during the past three years in the Railway and Post Office Budgets. According to the Federated Chamber of Industries the Government is failing in respect of administered prices, particularly over the past seven years through control boards. Administered prices through control boards were higher than the rates of the cost price index, and examples of this are the price of maize, wheat, meat sold through the board, electricity, transport, petrol, coal, sugar and steel.

In September alone of last year the high mortgage bond rates led to an increase of 1,67% in the cost price index. Surely the time has come to curb high interest rate on loans granted by the building societies, and for the hon the Minister of Finance to use his powers in terms of section 42 to deal with the Association of Building Societies. How much longer can the cost of houses be pushed up? Because of the escalation of prices people cannot afford to buy houses today. Building costs alone rose by 564% during the past 20 years which is an average of 26% per year since 1961. During that period the price of paint increased by 183%, that of windows by 515% and of stock bricks by 689%. However, this must also be compared to the rise in the consumer price index of 270%. In other words, the increase in the price of these items is far above the rise in the consumer price index. Then one wonders why one cannot build a house at a reasonable price and why building costs are now approximately R400 per square metre. A further result of this is that the letting of property has now become a rich man’s prerogative.

Then, of course, one has to live, and to live one has to eat, and what has increased the most of all commodities is in fact food items such as meat, fish, milk products, coffee, tea and cold drinks.

It is all very well for the Government to call on the business sector to do its share but the Government has also to do its share by controlling the money supply, curbing its own expenditure and controlling the administered prices to which I have referred. During the past 10 years inflation has risen by 224% based on the cost price index or, in other words, what cost 30 cents in 1973 now costs R1. In September 1983, not so long ago, the money supply increased by 23% as a result of an increase of more than R1 000 million in bank overdrafts. This gives cause for alarm because it could trigger off another hike in the inflation rate. Consumer debts have risen to R14 billion in bank overdrafts and hire purchase agreements alone. Furthermore, hire purchase debts have increased fourfold in the past three years while individuals’ bank overdrafts now stand at R7 billion which is three times the amount at which it stood five years ago.

Let us take credit cards as an example. I have nothing against credit cards, Mr Speaker, but I believe this is something which should be carefully investigated. The major commercial banks of South Africa issued 100 000 credit cards in 1975 alone. Today there are more than 1,2 million credit card holders in South Africa, on whose credit cards R2 billion a year is being spent. It has been found, however, that only 50% of credit card holders pay the full amount owing on the due date, while the rest do not. The debts of the latter 50% are only being paid over a protracted period of five years, at high interest rates of course.

Another phenomenon which needs consideration is that of supermarkets. Supermarkets constitute one of the biggest temptations to the buying public. Shoppers merely walk up and down the aisles buying whatever they see without any prior intention to do so. They buy many articles merely because they are there on display.

Another serious defect in our economy is of course caused by the result of inflation on our balance of payments. South Africa cannot afford to trade with its overseas partners whose inflation rate is less than 33% of our own. While South Africa averages an inflation rate of 12,2%, that of the United Kingdom is 4,6%, while the inflation rate in France is 9,7%, in the USA 2,6%, in West Germany 3% and in Japan 0,5%. This means that we are facing a very real danger of pricing ourselves right out of the overseas market. If the USA and the United Kingdom can manage to curb inflation, why can we not do the same? In fact, the USA has not only managed to curb inflation but has also succeeded in maintaining a continued growth rate, while the United Kingdom managed to bring its inflation rate down from 20% to 4,5%.

The Government should look into the question of massive spending and the cost of multi-government structures, and should also give attention to the artificial restrictions on mobility of labour and on the cost of raw material supported by protective tariffs. I believe it was Dr Jan S Marais, a previous member of this House, who said inflation was a thief. He added that inflation meant continued demands for increase in salaries and wages, with a resulting higher staff turnover, diminished purchasing power for pensioners on fixed income, escalating costs of new projects and of new buildings, and also that imported goods could be sold here cheaper, which, in turn, meant a drop in our balance of payments. We do need a formula geared at a tighter control over money supply, and high interest rates should also be maintained because that is the best way of reducing the inflation rate.

The Government is predicting a drop in the inflation rate by the middle of this year but in the light of the recent increase in GST one is compelled to ask whether this can really be accomplished. Obviously we do need fiscal and monetary discipline, and the hon the Minister of Finance is well aware of this. He will, however, have difficulties in balancing his budget for the coming hear while trying simultaneously to curb the inflation rate. The pre-budget deficit for 1983-84 was substantially higher than the figure of R2 080 million, or 2,4% of the gross domestic product, that had originally been estimated.

According to The Argus of 28 November 1983, the hon the Minister of Finance, speaking on the question of inflation at a business conference in Pretoria, said the basic underlying cause of inflation had been overspending and the main element in our anti-inflationary programme remained fiscal and monetary discipline. He then went on to say that he believed steps should be taken to counteract the formation of monopolies and to promote competition. In this respect I should like to quote his exact words, as follows:

More steps will be taken to counteract monopolistic practices and to promote competition, to improve training and education and to avoid undue protection.

This we fully support. What, however, is taking place in respect of monopolies that are able to control prices without fear of competition, thus causing the inflation rate to spiral? What is the hon the Minister of Finance doing about this? Robert McGregor, in his well-known work Who Owns Whom?, talks about the Big Seven. This is the way in which he refers to Anglo American, Barlow Rand, Anglo-Vaal, Rembrandt, Old Mutual, Sanlam and Liberty Life. According to McGregor these companies control 80% of the listed companies on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. This, in turn, amounts to 80% of the total capitalization of R90 billion by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange—Anglo American and Barlow Rand alone control 73%.

In the retail sector SA Breweries absorbed OK Bazaars, Afcol, Amrel, Edcon and Scotts, whilst JCI, Anglo-Vaal and Liberty Life pooled their stakes and acquired 34% of SA Breweries, which went into Premier. Old Mutual is a major shareholder in De Beers and Anglo American and controls Nedbank and the SA Permanent Building Society. It also acquired a controlling interest in Bar-lows which in turn acquired Rennies. Who then exercises these economic powers? How much longer is this going to be allowed to continue and what is going to be done to curb it in our necessary fight against inflation? The hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism has to tell us what his criteria are, what his attitude in principle is in respect of this matter and what policy he is going to adopt in this regard. He must also tell us what has happened to the committee dealing with the interlocking of directorships. The private sector is very much in the hands of the Cabinet who are sitting in the driving seat. The Cabinet has to allocate money to the various provincial administrations and curb overspending. As far as provincial government is concerned, it operates according to a fixed formula which in turn controls local authorities and their spending. However, they too have experienced increasing difficulty in balancing their budgets because of a reduction in funds to provincial councils. This has affected local authorities detrimentally whose sources of revenue have never been resolved. In this regard one can examine the Borckenhagen Report, the Driessen Report, the Browne Report and the Croeser Report.

The increase in GST alone means a substantial amount to local government. It means an additional R1,1 million to Johannesburg alone and an additional R25 million to local authorities in South Africa. It also means an additional R8 million in respect of spending by provincial administrations. Therefore, this 1% increase in GST should be very carefully considered.

The last straw in respect of the inflationary spiral is the Government’s callous and iniquitous attitude in raising the bread price by 6 cents thereby striking the needy a blow between the eyes and swelling inflation even further. Moreover the subsidy was reduced by only R90 million. Bread is one of the commodities that should have been exempted entirely from GST. Therefore, this Government can only be accused once again of being fat cats and having forgotten that in 1948, in the days they were struggling, they came to power on the issue of white bread.


Mr Speaker, in his speech the hon member for Hillbrow was chiefly concerned about price increases and inflation. In the course of my speech I should like to come back to that. The hon member referred emotionally to the continual increase in costs, and we should like to share his concern in this connection. It would have been better, however, if in the House today he had come to light with answers for combating this problem of rising costs. The hon member did not, however, offer us any real solution here. I should like to refer to that again at a later stage in my speech. I also want to discuss the increase in the price of bread.

All hon members in this House, every man in the street, would probably have liked to avoid the required increase of 16% on last year’s Additional Appropriation. Everyone would have welcomed it if the increase had not been that great, or better yet, if no increase whatsoever had been announced. The political reality, however, is that the country has to be governed. The hon the Minister of Finance cannot sit with his hands folded and not take any action merely because there are counterproductive forces making it difficult to overcome our financial problems. The NP Has been governing for almost four decades now, and this has meant that by experience and expertise the country is being administered and governed with the greatest degree of effective control. The fact that the NP is governing the country, however, makes it its bounden duty to do, with judgment and determination, what is in the interests of our country as a whole. And this sometimes makes it necessary to take the less pleasant and less popular steps for the sake of a better future dispensation.

The NP will not, for the sake of short-term gain, be tempted to adopt a monetary or fiscal measure which would eventually, in the long-term, have a detrimental influence on the economy. That is why measures are sometimes adopted which are unpopular and which certainly make the man in the street a little hotter under the collar than usual. Throughout the years, however, the electorate has consistently trusted the NP to govern the country in a meaningful fashion, and that will also be the future trend.

The increase of 1% in the GST is a good example of this. No-one is happy that GST has been increased by 1%, but we all accept the fact because we have enough responsibility to realize that it is essential. The hon member for Yeoville fights about the increase in GST, particularly about the increase in GST on foodstuffs, but he would be honest enough to acknowledge that all the fighting is merely a matter of kicking up dust politically. He knows that if his dream were to come true, and he were placed in the position of stepping into the hon the Minister of Finance’s shoes—and heaven forbid that we should be exposed to that—he would have done the same thing; he would have no other choice but to tax all commodities on an equal basis.

He and his party know that organized commerce and industry foresee great problems if differentiated GST is ever introduced. He also knows that this would leave room for defaults in payment and could even allow gaps that could lead to evasion of GST, something which would increase the pressure for higher taxation.

In one’s approach to the Part Appropriation it is necessary to view it with a sense of realism and responsibility. The fact of the Opposition kicking up dust is merely aimed at doing some political scavenging. As yet they have not been able to offer any real financial and economic solutions.

There were unforeseen factors that had an inhibitory influence on our economy: The long drawn-out worldwide recession, which lasted longer than was foreseen, the decrease in the gold price, the increasing pressure on our military commitments, the drought and many others. These factors have taken their toll and are increasingly going to do so in the future. I read somewhere that the hon member for Sunnyside had said that the defence expenditure could not be foreseen, but in the same newspaper I read that the hon member for Yeoville had said that the hon the Minister of Finance was using defence expenditure as an excuse for the increase in expenditure. During the recent referendum they were bedfellows; how do they manage such contradictions in their thinking and in the pronouncements they make? They contradict each other even further. The hon member for Yeoville says he accepts that the drought could be a good reason for increased expenditure, but the hon member for Sunnyside says the Government should have foreseen the drought and budgeted accordingly. I should like to dwell on this briefly.

Drought, and particularly that of the past two years, is not something to make politics out of. Anyone who wants to use the drought for political gain, thus levelling criticism at the Government, deserves to be totally rejected by every member of the electorate and by every member of this House. I represent an urban constituency in which we are within walking distance of every conceivable consumer product and can therefore obtain our foodstuffs without any delay. This could easy give rise to a statement in equally poor taste to the one made by the hon member for Sunnyside, ie that the Government could have foreseen the drought. I want to make an appeal to the urban consumer today. He is the one who has the privilege of literally being able to get anything merely by reaching for his purse. I want to call upon the inhabitants of our cities and large towns to do nothing, however slight or insignificant it may be, to complicate the position of the farmer any further. What I am afraid of is that there are too many of us in the bright city lights wiping the sweat from our foreheads because it is so terribly hot and because the lawns around our houses are drying out and there is no water with which to fill the swimming-pool. We forget, however, about the people on the farms who must stand and watch their crops shrivel up and their livestock yearning for some water and for something to eat. We so easily forget that there are farmers who are getting ready to hand over the keys of their property to the bailiff. We do not think of them as the providers of food for our country. Today I want to call upon my voters in Gezina and in other urban constituencies not to swear and curse at the farmers when the prices of their products are increased. They must not curse the farmers off their farms. They are the people we are going to need the most in the future. Let us rather pray for them at this time instead of constantly complaining about the increase in food prices. Today Gezina, an urban constituency, humbly wants to express its gratitude to those out there on the farms for still being there to ease the lot of those of us in the cities. We pray that the All-Bountiful Father will answer our prayers in this regard and rush to their aid.

I briefly want to refer to the recent by-election in Soutpansberg where I had the privilege of assisting. The NP lost that seat and there was a shift of support away from the NP towards the CP. As far as the NP is concerned, that by-election is finished and done with and we are working towards the future. For the people of Soutpansberg who, for the first time, voted against the NP, I want to ask them to think again before it is too late. Today I should also like to pay tribute to the trusted NP supporters in Soutpansberg. They are fine people; they are tough people, the salt of the earth. They are people like Oom Nico who drove 260 km to report that the telephone line was out of order and that the next day, during the election, he would not be able to contact us. These people came to get the NP out of trouble. Soutpansberg is a temporary CP seat. In Soutpansberg there are people like Oom Nico and Oom Thys and others who worked right through the night, on two successive nights, fixing up the NP’s voting apparatus in Louis Trichardt. With people like John Genis in Messina, Emmie Welthagen at Letsetele and all the fine people of Tzaneen, in the next election Soutpansberg will again be National.

That is why it is a privilege for me, on this occasion today, to pay tribute to them and say thank you.


Mr Speaker, I want to refer to a particular matter, but before doing so I want to sketch the specific background against which I want to deal with it.

Multinationality in South Africa is a reality that no one who wishes to argue meaningfully about South Africa and its problems can get away from. It is part of South African reality that throughout history peoples that must live together have established themselves here. As a result of this multinationality certain distinctive group interests and minority rights developed which must be protected or else multinationality has no meaning. What is equally important is that amongst this diversity of peoples and communities there is a broadband of common interests. In the past the sphere of common interests has sometimes been identified one-sidedly by the Whites in the pursuance of their group objectives.

The new constitution is now creating an opportunity for Whites, Coloureds and Indians to put their heads together about common interests and objectives. The best interests of South Africa and all its people require us to unite as many peoples and groups as possible in the pursuit of common objectives and require the Whites, Coloureds and Indians to be given the opportunity of harmonizing conflicting group interests. When there is an understanding of one another’s unique problems, there will also be the will to protect and develop the unique endeavours of these groups. That is, in fact, the gist of the whole new dispensation, which firstly aims at having common interests upheld by everyone who puts the interests of South Africa first and, secondly, reconciling conflicting distinctive interests involving the respective groups. The new constitution creates an opportunity, by way of mutual consultation, for the Whites to cultivate and understanding of the group and social aspirations of the Coloureds and the Indians. On the other hand, however, it also creates an opportunity for the Coloureds and the Indians to understand why the Whites place such a high priority on distinctive group interests.

The new constitutional dispensation is not an instrument for the maintenance and promotion of selfish individual group interests at the cost of the justified aspirations of the other groups. It presents an opportunity and also creates structures within which common group interests can be satisfied in the interests of South Africa and all its inhabitants. In conclusion, I want to state that the new political organization does not exist in a vacuum. Cognizance will have to be taken of the fact that over the years, prior to the new constitution, specific regulating arrangements developed amongst people and groups, arrangements protecting the rights of minorities and endeavouring to eliminate friction at the personal level. The greatest challenge in the new dispensation lies in dealing with the regulating arrangements for the protection of the rights of minorities in such a way that other groups do not experience them as discriminatory or oppressive.

In the labour sphere there are indeed certain regulating arrangements, resulting from the Wiehahn report, to bring about order in that sphere. Likewise, there are certain regulating arrangements between Black local authorities and White authorities arising out of the Riekert report. There are also certain regulating arrangements which, owing to the particular nature of the circumstances in each province, are only applicable to that particular province. One such arrangement involves the 99-year leasehold system not being applicable to Black people in the Western Cape. This policy was confirmed, in a recent debate, by the hon the Deputy Minister, and I take the opportunity to state that I shall respect the policy. I am saying this against the background of certain statements I made in a recent debate.


Mr Speaker, I think it is important always to listen carefully to what the hon member for Bellville says. I think he is a very able member of this House. In this case he has very skilfully presented a matter which is not really problematical at all. However, it affects me very strongly when an individual is bullied. What is happening to this hon member is that he is being bullied by his party and a whole group of people. I regard it as disgraceful.




Sir, the hon member for Heilbron has shouted a few unpleasant remarks in this House like a child playing with tin pots. I just want to tell him that an eagle does not catch flies. I am not going to reply to him. [Interjections.]

An important point is that exactly the same thing that has happened to the hon member for Bellville has happened to us as well. When someone has an opinion on a controversial matter in South Africa, there cannot be any principle in South Africa or in Parliament which says that he is not allowed to express this opinion and has to be bullied into coming back to this House and making another statement contradicting the one he made before, just because some Deputy Minister or other has made a certain remark. The hon the Deputy Minister said: “You people in the Transvaal, in the Free State and in Natal—99 years is good enough for you, but not for us in the Cape; in the Cape Province we are going to reserve some areas as a White homeland.”


But Mayfair is not good enough for you. You do not live in your own constituency.


What the hon member says is quite true; I do not live in Mayfair. I have never fought for my own interests anywhere, but I have often fought for the interests of the people of Mayfair. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the hon member for Bellville. He serves on the Commission for Co-operation and Development and he probably has a good idea of what is going on in that commission. Now he has made the simple statement in this House that he believes that a certain group of urban Blacks cannot be temporary in the Cape area if a group in Bloemfontein or Johannesburg is not temporary, too. He says that logic has to be applied consistently. How is it possible to say in this House, in the times in which we live, that a Black man’s presence in Johannesburg or Bloemfontein is not temporary, but permanent, but that his presence in the Western Cape is temporary? What kind of discrimination is that?


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


No, I do not have time for that now. The hon member should rather sit down. He does not know what we are talking about, anyway. [Interjections.] The problem this afternoon is that under the leadership of certain Ministers and leaders, the Government has become a party of bullies which does not allow a member of this House to state views in this House which are based on investigations which he has conducted himself. As far as labour legislation is concerned, there should be another way of saying what a preference area is. If 143 000 Coloureds were to move to Johannesburg, would Johannesburg then be a Coloured or a Black preference area? Would the Government remove those people or allow them to live there permanently? [Interjections.] Do not talk nonsense by telling us that this is a labour arrangement. This resolution passed by the Cape NP shows contempt for the rights of all other South Africans and especially of our rights as land-owners in the Transvaal. I think this is disgraceful. I wonder where the hon the leader of the NP in the Transvaal and the other hon Transvaal Ministers are today. They do not have the courage to get up and fight for their Transvaal voters for a change. [Interjections.] If the Government wants a division on this matter, let us have it and let us cross swords with one another. Let us begin courageously. Is the Cabinet Committee which is investigating the position of the urban Blacks going to treat the Blacks of Cape Town differently from the Johannesburg Blacks? Is there a new dispensation which draws a distinction between urban Blacks in the Transvaal and in the Cape?




The hon the Deputy Minister does not have the ability to say the right thing at the right moment. He really must not get so agitated. It seems to me that Blacks moving to Oudtshoorn are being given the right of permanent residence there. But they must not move to the Western Cape.

Our country has only one constitution, and as far as I know, all citizens under the protection of the Government are entitled to the same treatment, under the same “title deed” for urban Blacks and with the same regional rights. Why can Blacks in Natal and the Free State receive 99-year leasehold rights? Why does this apply in the Transvaal as well, but not in the Cape Province? [Interjections.] Hon members say they do not want it. In other words, this bunch of Transvalers has become spineless. They do not have the courage to get up and to say that if it does not have to apply to the Cape Province, they will now allow it in the Transvaal either. What has happened to those hon members? Have they become frightened? Have they already surrendered? The hon the Minister of Internal Affairs said here today that Prof Boshoff and his henchmen had met to start a new cultural organization, but according to him, there is no room for another cultural organization. [Interjections.] What I find interesting is that the people who met there have suddenly become henchmen. After all, Sir, brothers do not talk to one another in that way. [Interjections.]


Order! The hon brothers must give the hon member an opportunity to make his speech now. The hon member may proceed.


Now the Transvaal leader, the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs, alleges that we told lies in Soutpansberg and that we told lies about Mayfair; he says we even alleged that there would eventually be mixed schools. However, there undoubtedly are Coloureds at the John Ware School, and the Government is not doing anything about it.


Whose fault is that?


It is the fault of this Government and the province for not taking action against it. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must not say that this is not the case, therefore, because it is happening in Mayfair, in the John Ware School.

I want to address the hon the Minister of Finance. He is actually my Minister; I like him. I do not know how he got involved with that bunch. He has to deal with the problem of structural loss systems in our entire economy, and one of these is Transport Affairs. Transport Services is structured in such a way that the more passengers it conveys, the greater its losses. Last year they received a subsidy of R680 million. Provision has to be made all the time for subsidies, and the large expenses which the Government has to incur are simply a result of the subsidies that have to be paid. Transport Services is performing very poorly indeed, so much so that only 40% of the services show a profit, and these are high-rated traffic. Transport has become an enormous problem, therefore, especially with regard to the commodity value of articles that are sold. In other words, transport is an input which is having an adverse effect on the price of commodities that are sold on the ordinary commercial market.


What do you suggest?


I suggest that hon members acquaint themselves with the problem and then get rid of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. Unfortunately, I do not have time to deal with all aspects relating to transport. In any event, the hon the Minister of Finance is faced with a problem in this connection.

This new dispensation is one which is creating political expectations. This is a fact, and we shall leave it at that. However, political expectations also lead to financial and economic demands. It is not always possible to meet those demands. This may cause the population to start behaving in a militant way, and it may lead to impatience on the part of those who took it upon themselves to introduce change, with the result that there is no consensus. [Interjections.]




Mr Speaker, the Government has received a mandate … [Interjections.]




Hon members opposite will just have to listen to me, Mr Speaker. They have received a mandate to introduce a mixed Government. [Interjections.] With their proposed tricameral system they have received a mandate for mixed government. The final objective, they now say, is an open end. A third of them say “It is an open end to the fat cats in Johannesburg”. [Interjections.] Other people refer to the new dispensation as an instrument for separate development. [Interjections.]




Now I just want to know from hon members on the Government side where they are headed. The Government will now have to incur a great deal of expenditure in order to satisfy people. In this respect I may refer, for example, to interest-free loans of R1 500 million to the Development Bank of Southern Africa. To the citizens of foreign countries the Government of South Africa is making interest-free loans available, but the farmer of South Africa, the one who has to produce in the interests of South Africa, receives nothing from the Government. The farmer of South Africa has to pay 11%, 12% or even 17% interest on loans, just to stay in production. [Interjections.] This is an enormous problem. This is what is happening, while the Government has made an amount of R1 500 million available to the Development Bank of Southern Africa free of interest; money which is meant for the citizens of other countries. [Interjections.]




Mr Speaker, surely it is not possible to establish a political dispensation in a country if the economy of that country cannot support it. For that reason, I believe, we should be very careful in what we do in this matter. The hon the Minister of Finance knows, after all, that we had a public debt of R29 billion last year. [Interjections.] That was our total public debt in December 1983. The total budget last year amounts to less that R18 billion. I believe that this is heartbreaking. I do not wish to point a finger at the hon the Minister of Finance. However, I want him to realize that there are a number of businessmen in the left-wing of the NP who are up to all kinds of tricks, men who supported the Government whole-heartedly during the referendum. However, those men need to be watched. They are businessmen who are playing an unholy game. I shall discuss this matter further during the debate on the main budget later this session. What these businessmen are doing is nothing less than pure exploitation, and then the blame is laid at the door of the Government. [Interjections.] I regret that I cannot discuss this matter any further at this stage, but I shall come back to it later. [Interjections.]


Mr Speaker, there is a saying: “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” When the hon member for Langlaagte, referring boastfully to himself, says that eagles do not catch flies … [Interjections.] … I can only say to him that one man’s eagle is another man’s vulture. [Interjections.] As far as we are concerned, vultures eat carrion. [Interjections.]




Mr Speaker, I do not know whether the hon member for Langlaagte really expects us on this side of the House to have to reply to such an incoherent speech as he has just made here a speech in which he was unable to distinguish between his “afhanklikhede” (dependences) and “afsonderlikhede” (separatenesses) and in the course of which he referred to “kon-sensiasie”—whatever that may be. [Interjections.]

The problem with speeches of that nature, and indeed, with all the speeches we have had from hon members of the CP this year, is that although some of them, for example those of the hon member for Soutpansberg earlier this afternoon, are not quite so incoherent, nevertheless, they make no contribution whatsoever to the sum total of human knowledge. Moreover, they have never yet made any contribution to the resolution of a single problem. [Interjections.] Of course, I understand why the hon member for Soutpansberg is absent again after a brief appearance here. He is celebrating his victory, of course. The hon the Minister of Internal Affairs and other hon members on this side of the House conveyed their personal congratulations to him on his victory and I wish to do so too.


First tell us the story about how you, too, wanted to leave weeks after we had already left.


That is not my story, my friend. [Interjections.]


The cock is crowing for you, brother. [Interjections.]


If I have the time, Mr Speaker, I shall try to indicate in the course of my speech …


You must make a statement.


… that there is one fact that this party cannot escape either and that is that in the long term …


Do you still want to walk out? [Interjections.]


… the truth overcomes the lie.


Order! I want to say to the hon member for Langlaagte that when he was speaking a moment ago, I tried to keep a tight rein on other hon members to afford him the opportunity to complete his speech. I call upon him to show the hon member for Benoni the same courtesy now.


I thank you for your protection, Sir.

*Mr C UYS:

Are you still angry with Jan?


Jan Poggenpoel?

*Mr C UYS:

No, Jan van Tonder. [Interjections.]


Mr Speaker, I hope that your ruling in respect of the hon member for Langlaagte also applies to other hon members of the CP. We have a limited time in which to make our speeches and I am barely able to say two words due to their ill-mannered conduct in this Council Chamber. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Internal Affairs conveyed his sympathy with the hon member for Soutpansberg as regards the distasteful foundation that his victory is a scribble to. I also wish to convey my sympathy to the voters of Soutpansberg, because they have elected an MP who represents a party that specializes in mud slinging and dragging people through the mud, as we heard here again this afternoon. I want to say to the hon members of the CP today that their one or two swallows that do not make a summer, can fly in any direction and they can build nests of mud in Soutpansberg and Waterberg with the mud of their distasteful behaviour, and their tortoises can creep through the mud of slander and character assassination, but when they awake in the winter of hard reality they will find that the tide of the history of South Africa has passed them by.

Speaking of tides and streams, in his political drama Julius Caesar, Shakespeare had the following to say:

There is a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the flood leads on to fortune.

†Mr Speaker, we all experienced that tide on 2 November 1983. Never before in the history of South Africa have so many people united behind one single ideal. The Government took this tide at the flood. Today in this House we had the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs who has just arrived back from Lisbon. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is today in Maputo after tripartite talks in Lusaka between South Africa, the United States and Angola. The American Under Secretary of State for African Affairs, Dr Chester Crocker, has just passed through our country for the second time in a month. The new peace initiative in South Africa has already taken its first tentative steps and this would not have been possible without the tide of referendum and the tide of Operation Askari which the Government also took at the flood. All of a sudden, for the first time in many years, there is a change of expectations in South Africa. There is a change from an expectation of intensifying conflict to an expectation of burgeoning peace. This is not only true of the external situation.

*This is also true of our internal situation. All the Coloured parties have reacted positively to the announcement that their general election is planned for 22 August. The Indian leaders, including those who initially advocated a referendum, have regarded this in the same way. For all practical purposes the putting into effect of the new constitution and its institutions in South Africa is a fait accompli, and who is going to avert it—Swallows, tortoises or vultures? I ask you, Sir! Now that we have come so far with this aspect, I want to say that in Black politics, too, we now have the time to concentrate on the remaining bottlenecks in that area of politics. Immediately after the referendum, elections were held in all the important Black metropolitan areas, and these areas now have full-fledged municipalities. The special Cabinet Committee is at present giving intensive attention to the further aspirations of Blacks outside the national states, as is the Select Committee on the Constitution, and virtually all the leaders of the independent and self-governing national states have been in Cape Town for discussions with the Government since the beginning of the present session.


Did that lead to …


Frank, do not make a pig of yourself.


In this regard, too, there has been a change in expectations.


Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Turffontein say that an hon member must not make a pig of himself?


Mr Speaker, he asked that, and I think it is a reasonable request.


Order! To whom did the hon member for Turffontein refer?


Mr Speaker, the hon member for Brakpan keeps interrupting the hon member for Benoni with all kinds of disgusting remarks, so I said that he should not make a pig of himself. Nevertheless, I withdraw that statement.


Mr Speaker, I hope that I shall be allowed some injury time as a result of this.

I say that internally, too, there is a change …


Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Did you rule that the statement of the hon member for Turffontein was parliamentary?


Order! The hon member for Turffontein has withdrawn his statement.


Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: The hon member for Queenstown made the same allegation.


It seems to me that there is quite a pig farm here.


Order! I note that the hon member for Queenstown is not in this House at present.


Sir, it was the hon member for King William’s Town.


Order! What remark did the hon member for King William’s Town make?


Sir, I think there is an error here. [Interjections.] I made no remarks; I just listened to the debate.


Order! If the hon member for Rissik raises a point of order he must make quite sure who the author was of the remark he objects to. He must not refer to two hon members when neither of them are involved. The hon member for Benoni may proceed.


Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member ought only to have admitted that he had made the remark; then we should not have had a problem. The hon member who made the remark was the hon member for East London North.


Order! The hon member for Benoni may proceed.


Internally, too, the expectation has changed from an expectation of increasing frustration into an expectation of hope and cheerful participation for everyone living in this country. I said that the hon members of the CP may in the short term, by means of their politics of slander and their other negative and distasteful tactics, achieve a few … [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I request your protection …


Order! The hon member for Langlaagte may not make any further remarks during the speech of the hon member for Benoni.


Mr Speaker, the hon the Deputy Speaker addressed that warning to the hon member on a previous occasion when you were not in the Chair.

I also want to test the truth of the CP propaganda. In his speech the hon member for Soutpansberg challenged us on this side of the House to point out one error to him. My hon colleague for Turffontein has already done so. I, too, have that publication before me and I can only say that there are scores of lies on every page, and there is evidence that they are lies, evidence that that hon party cannot refute. I want to give just one example. The title of one article is “eenvoudige politieke matesis” and their mathematics goes as follows: They ask who are going to work towards Black participation in this Parliament. They then do the following addition sums: All the Coloured MPs, all the Indian MPs, all the PFP MPs and all NRP MPs, totalling altogether 165, as against the 141 CP and NP MPs. They then refer to the majority of 24, as if all the people that they mentioned here can vote en bloc and then decide with a majority of 24 that Blacks can sit in this Parliament. That is the crudest form of deception. The hon leader of the CP who, according to the hon member for Rissik, is a prominent theologian—he even says that his Christianity is his strong point—was perhaps a little less crude when he moved a private member’s motion here last Friday, concerning the self-determination of Whites. However, he dealt no less recklessly with the truth. He presented all the old arguments about the failure of power-sharing in Lebanon, Cyprus and Northern Ireland. He would have been closer to the mark if he had related those models to the PFP model, something that I have done on occasion. Why were those forms of power-sharing, failures? For the simple reason that all the various ethnic groups sat together in a single Chamber while the only protection for minorities was a charter of rights that could be tom up in a flash, as Mr Mugabe and several others have already indicated to us. How can the hon member for Waterberg, with any degree of honesty, compare such a system with our tricameral system in which Whites can only vote against Whites, Coloureds only against Coloureds and Indians only against Indians?


And the President’s Council?


The President’s Council has no deciding powers.

There are other examples of dishonesty on the part of the CP. The hon member for Waterberg denied here that his notorious statements about the Christianity of those people who voted “yes” were in fact made about those people. He denied it while speaking to the hon member for Turffontein this afternoon. I want to say to the hon member for Waterberg that he is again guilty of violation of the truth. During the no-confidence debate he tried to excuse himself by saying that we were imputing to him things which he had not said. He said here that all he had said was that the people who had voted “yes” had been in a majority of two-thirds, or 66,6%, and then added by way of parenthesis “the three sixes”, and after that he said “and we obtained about a third. Before drawing all kinds of other inferences …” I want to ask the hon member—he is not present at the moment and we all know how he has been conspicuous by his absence recently—since when one calls two-thirds or 66,6% the three sixes, unless one wants to attach a specific connotation to it? I need not be a theologian, and Christianity need not be my strong point, nor need I even be an exegesis, to know that in John’s Revelations the three sixes are the sign of the beast that is associated with the Anti-Christ. That is how the hon member seeks to smear us here in the most ungodly and scandalous way. In conclusion I wish to say that no one should judge my Christianity, because I leave that to God.

What contributions does this irrelevant little party, the CP, make apart from slandering people, dragging them through the mud, lying and misleading the public in the short term by way of wrong impressions and misrepresentations? In the long term the truth catches up with the lie, and that goes for the hon member for Waterberg too.


Mr Speaker, it was ironic in the extreme to listen to the hon member for Benoni this afternoon. He complained and became hot and bothered and highly dramatic about what he claimed was misleading propaganda from the CP. That hon member was one of the pastmasters of the NP and at the forefront of the misleading propaganda directed at this party in the past. Hon members will therefore pardon us if we feel absolutely nothing for that hon member.

This debate offers the opportunity to discuss the financial management of the country and I propose to raise two economic issues this afternoon. Before I do so however, I would like to make one observation regarding the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs who said by way of an interjection this afternoon that we had no need to worry about the pace of reform and the determination of the NP to proceed on a path of reform. Seen in that light, it was very sad to hear the hon member for Bellville retracting what was a mildly reformist suggestion in his speech last week. The whip has obviously cracked and the NP is obviously exercising the greatest possible caution on the so-called road to reform.

A vital aspect of State financing which has not received the attention it deserves in this House and which has not been properly addressed by the NP in public, is the question of the financing of the Government’s new constitutional proposals. It is my contention that the cost implications are staggering. In plain language the new deal is going to cost us plenty and it is going to hit the pocket of the man in the street. The Government is ducking and diving on this question. The hon the Prime Minister said during the no-confidence debate on 31 January, and I quote from col 107 of Hansard: “We are working on the matter.” When we pressed him further in a question by the hon member for Walmer on 15 February, on the question of the cost of the new constitution, all he could say was:

… It is not possible at this stage to determine what the costs involved will be.

In any business undertaking in which the managing director were to announce to the board of directors that he had embarked on a massive expansion programme, and yet could not tell that board what the costs would be, would not continue to be managing director for very long. The point I wish to make, is that the cost of these new proposals, the additional overheads which the country will have to bear, will greatly exceed the cost of the Three Chamber Parliament that will come into being. The hon the Prime Minister tried to suggest that there was a positive leeway between the costs of our Parliament and the costs of Parliaments in other countries. However, that is not the point. The point is that the costs will far exceed the establishment of Chambers and the payment of MP’s. The truly alarming costs to the taxpayer will be the cost of establishing the separate bureaucracies that will have to serve these Chambers. I base this assertion on a comparison between provincial government and third tier government. One can, for example, compare what it costs to run the Cape Province. Its costs R1 500 million—in fact, a bit more than that. That is only one province. The “own affairs” chambers are going to have to administer more portfolios than the Provincial administrations. The provinces administer less than these “own affairs” chambers will be required to do. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the order of the costs attached to these new chambers will be similar to the costs of running the Provinces.

Furthermore, it has been made quite clear that in terms of the new constitutional proposals the third tier of Government will vastly increase in importance. One can then consider the cost of running a major municipality. One must bear in mind, too, the problem of establishing new Coloured municipalities in particular. That as been well aired. It has been accepted that they cannot be established because they will not be viable. In the light of this, one can assess the cost implications of the new deal in respect of the third tier of Government. Commissions have been appointed to investigate how we are going to finance the new third tier of Government. We hear talk, which I hope the hon the Minister will enlarge upon, that they are going to have to look for new sources of finance external to the proposed new third-tier municipalities, sources like a turn-over tax. The point is that new money will have to flow in from outside the proposed new municipalities to make them viable. In the end the hundreds of millions of rand which will be required will have to be raised from the tax-paying public.

This is an extremely alarming financial prospect. There is the practical example of South West Africa/Namibia where we see the result in financial terms of trying to run a government on an ethnic basis. That example should be ringing alarm bells for us in South Africa. The hon the Minister and, I hope, hon members of the NP know full well what was contained in the report of the Secretary of Finance for South West Africa of 16 May 1983. That report contained the startling assertion that by 1987 South West Africa would no longer be able to pay its officials out of current revenue. It contained the startling content that the debt burden will then exceed 100% of the annual income. Only one other State in the whole of Africa was in that category as of 1980, namely Mauritania.

The key point to note is that the Secretary of Finance identified the second tier ethnic authority as being the main cause of the awful—he used the word “haglike”—financial position of the territory. Now we in South Africa stand on the threshold of a similar ethnic form of government. The hon members can read the report. It is cause for great concern. The hon the Minister of Finance must come clean with the public in this regard.

It therefore seems to me to be a conservative prediction to assert that South Africa’s national overheads, the burden of the extra costs this country’s taxpayers are going to be called upon to bear as a direct result of implementing the new constitution, will rise very quickly by over R1 billion. That will only be a bench-mark in the rising costs that will have to be met to make the new constitution viable. I am not even including in this estimate the vast sums of capital which will be required to establish the new physical premises and facilities for the new chambers and bureaucratic complexes. All these costs will ultimately have to be paid for directly or indirectly by placing an additional tax burden on the man in the street. It seems to us that there is simply no end to this Government’s preparedness to employ the country’s financial treasure in the pursuit of the apartheid dream. There seems to be no end to what the Government is prepared to sacrifice on the altar of colour politics.

The second economic issue I should like to raise in the debate, an issue which to some extent is Linked with what I have been saying, is the issue of the privatization of State corporations, the issue of the Government’s selling off of equity in State-controlled corporations. In 1979 the Government took the first major step in this direction when it sold 70% of the controlling interest in Sasol to the public. That was a very popular move. The issue was hugely oversubscribed, by a factor of more than thirty times I believe, and the continuing popularity of Sasol with the investing public is demonstrated by the fact that Sasol had a rights issue last year which raised R750 million. That rights issue was also oversubscribed.

It is my belief, and it is an appeal which I wish to address to the hon the Minister this afternoon, that the time is now right for the privatization of more State corporations. I believe prime targets in this regard must be Escom, Iscor, SATS, Posts and Telecommunications and the IDC. There are a number of very good reasons why this policy direction should be adopted. Firstly, it is quite clear that South Africa faces a period of rapidly escalating demand for capital for a whole range of vital services. Quite apart from the wasteful demands that the new constitution is going to place on the financial resources of South Africa, there is a massive need for expenditure on new schools and housing for the less privileged sectors of our society. There is an ongoing massive requirement for military purposes, and obviously there are the voracious demands of various State departments and enterprises. At present all this money has to be raised from either higher taxes, higher tariffs, or by the raising of loans. These are all undesirable methods of financing. Some of them are inflationary, and particularly in view of the fact that South Africans are increasingly becoming one of the most taxed communities in the world.


Do you have the facts on that?


The hon the Minister knows of the figures mentioned by the hon member for Yeoville. We are one of the most taxed communities in the Western World, and avenues to turn this process around must be actively pursued. The hon the Minister may well come to the House with figures to try to rebut it, but if he should ask the man in the street what he feels about the rate of taxation and the escalating taxation which has come about over the last en to fifteen years, he will get the answer I am giving now.

The first major advantage of pursuing a policy of privatization is that it would draw the private sector into the process of raising capital for vital State purposes. It would spread the capital-raising burden. The present combined book asset value of the ventures I have mentioned is some R33,5 billion. If the Government were to sell off 49% of those assets at net value, which would obviously be the very minimum price that such assets could raise, this could realize R16,5 billion over a period of years. The actual proceeds of such a privatization process would however obviously greatly exceed the net book value of these enterprises.

The second major advantage is that the capital raised in this way would be equity capital which does not carry an interest burden. The interest burden of raising capital by loans in the present interest rate climate of South Africa is penal, and if an alternative avenue can be found it must be pursued.

Another major advantage of a policy of privatization at the present time would be that it would provide a vital new outlet for investment funds which are presently bottled up in the South African economy to an alarming degree. One of the reasons why South Africa has tended towards an overconcentration of economic power in recent years is simply because South Africa offers unduly limited opportunities for these investment funds. These funds cannot leave the country and are flowing in at a rate of, I believe, some R10 million per day. They do not have a home. It is a natural process that these funds in the hands of the major companies have been directed towards consuming more and more small companies. This overconcentration—the hon member for Hillbrow has mentioned some statistics—is not a healthy process in a free enterprise economy.

Apart from this steady drift towards over-concentration, this bottling up of investment funds has also had the effect of forcing stock exchange prices to artificial levels in my opinion. A major contributing factor must be the fact that too much investment money is chasing too few investment opportunities. I therefore believe that to follow a policy of privatization would help to relieve the upward pressure on the stock exchange, would divert the investment funds in productive and useful directions and would help to divert the predators from their rampage through the world of small businesses in recent years.

One hears two counterarguments in this regard. Firstly, one hears that State corporations are monopolies and that therefore one cannot place them in the hands of the private sector. Of course, there is some weight in that argument but it is easily met by limiting the sale of equity to 49% or by pyramiding control in these corporations in ways which are quite clear to the hon the Minister, and also by limiting the amount which any individual or bloc could control in such State enterprises. Therefore, the question of policy control in the final analysis can easily be arranged in the interests of the public.

The other argument one hears—and I submit that it is a fallacious argument—is that these enterprises are not profitable and therefore the investing public would not wish to invest in them. That argument has to a great extent been exploded by authoritative work that as been done in recent times, most notably by the Chamber of Commerce in Cape Town. It is maintained, inter alia, that State corporations are much more commercially successful than their bookkeeping methods have revealed to the public so far.


Mr Speaker, at this late stage I should like to focus the attention of hon members on a matter that was brought up here last week, viz the visit of Sir Attenborough to this country and the events surrounding his visit.

Firstly, I wish to refer to a few aspects of this story in passing. He arrived in Cape Town on about 1 February, and we saw the first report in the light of his visit in Beeld of 3 February. According to this report, Sir Richard made his hotel reservations in the name of Mr and Mrs Richard from England; in other words, under a false name. We also note that he was a guest at a meal, and that some of the other guests included the hon the Leader of the Opposition and two editors of English-language newspapers.

An interesting report appeared in the Sunday Times of 5 February, in which, amongst other things, it was mentioned that Sir Richard had travelled from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth and that there he had spoken to the widow of the late Mr Biko. Furthermore, he had also been in touch with Mr Peter Jones, a lawyer, who, according to the report:

… was detained with Biko at that time and who said that he was not prepared to comment, but he hinted that Sir Richard’s negotiations were a very sensitive issue.

As far as Mrs Biko is concerned, the report reads:

Mrs Biko said on Friday she had been contacted by somebody about the possibility of a movie on her late husband’s life. But she refused to disclose who the person was.

Subsequently, a report appeared in Beeld of 9 February to the affect that Sir Richard had arrived in Bloemfontein and that he had made certain statements, viz:

Hy het ontken dat hy in die land is om ’n rolprent oor die ontslape Swart bewussynsleier Steve Biko te maak. Op die vraag of hy na Suid-Afrika sal terug-keer en dit oorweeg om ’n rolprent te maak, het hy ontwykend geantwoord.

Then Sir Richard said something interesting:

South Africa fascinates me.

Another report written by John Battersby from London, who is not a local reporter, appeared in The Cape Times of 9 February. He writes:

Award-winning British film director, Sir Richard Attenborough, discussed plans for a film on Black consciousness leader Steve Biko before leaving for South Africa, sources close to Sir Richard have disclosed here.

The report goes on to say that approximately six weeks before Sir Richard came to South Africa, he had been in touch with Archbishop Trevor Huddleston and that he had discussed the possibility of a film on Steve Biko with him.

In accordance with Standing Order No 22, the House adjourned at 18h30.