Mr Speaker, permit me to digress for a moment. Today is a special day in the life of the Secretary to Parliament. Today is Mr Victor’s birthday.

Hear, hear!

It is surely no more than fitting for me to extend a few words of congratulation to Mr Victor on behalf of hon members of this House. Mr Victor joined the Parliamentary staff in 1946 and, after an innings of almost 40 years, is still sprightly and energetic and has an incisive mind. This attests to a meaningful inner life. We as members of this House want to say thank you very much to our Secretary for his accessibility, his courteous propriety and friendliness towards each and every hon member. We wish him and his family every happiness for the future.

Hear, hear!

On the basis of a remark made by the hon member for Wynberg about the budgetary allocation to the SA Defence Force I should like to express a few ideas. I quote from his speech of yesterday (Hansard, 2 April):

In the present Estimates an amount of R3 755 million is quite rightly being allocated for the Defence Vote. This is 15,02% of the total State budget. In 1981 a total amount of R3 063 million was budgeted for defence. If we were to have adopted these amounts to the inflation rate prevailing from 1981 to the present day, at the same time wanting to keep abreast in the development of our Defence Force capabilities, this year’s figure would have had to be R4 420 million.

There are other interesting figures I should also like to quote here. When we express the amount being budgeted for the Defence Force as a percentage of State expenditure, we find that in 1977 it was 18,2% of the total State budget; in 1981 it was 16,8% and this year it is 15,1%. In real terms there appears to be a decrease in the allocation of money to the Defence Force.

If we look at these figures for a few other countries, as expressed in official sources, the situation is as follows, and again I shall be expressing the relevant budgetary figure as a percentage of the State expenditure of each individual country. For the Republic of South Africa this year’s figure, as I have said, is 15,02%. The latest available figure for the Israeli Defence Force is that for the end of 1982. In this particular case the figure was 40,7%. The figure for South Korea is 35%. For the USA it is 29,2%, for West Germany 27,9%, for Switzerland 21,4% and for France 17,5%. We must also remember, of course, that Switzerland is not a country at war. Switzerland lives in peace. Yet the figure in the case of Switzerland is 21,4%. The USA is not engaged in any war worth mentioning, though that country does play a leading role in Nato activities. The Republic of South Africa, which is engaged in direct warfare, nevertheless has a figure that amounts to 15,02%, as against the 29,2% in the case of the USA. I want to put it to the hon membe for Wynberg that these comparative figures indicate that the budgetary amount allocated to the Defence Force is not in any way the tremendous amount that has been mentioned.

The hon member for Wynberg spoke of peace. I want to point out to him that peace can be short-lived. We accept the bona fides of our neighbouring states in our negotiations and discussions on the question of peace. This does not, however, include Russian expansionist motives. This is not included in the objectives or bona fides of our neighbouring states.

If this climate of peace that we now have were to result in a possible change to the priorities of the SA Defence Force such that direct conflict could be excluded, there would nevertheless still be one particular responsibility that the Defence Force would have to shoulder in regard to the inhabitants of this sub-continent. What I am referring to is the fact that the Defence Force must give attention to preparedness. This includes, of course, the development and procurement of refined armaments.

We must remember that over the past decade the SA Defence Force has been engaged in a full-scale war it has had to conduct with peacetime defence allocations. If we wanted to replace our fighter aircraft with aircraft similar to those used by the Warsaw Pact countries it would cost us astronomical amounts. It is conservatively calculated that if we were to obtain 20 such fighter aircraft, it would cost us R2 billion. I therefore want to ask the hon member for Wynberg where, in these Estimates embodying the Defence Force allocation, provision can be made for procuring such aircraft.

We all know, since it has been announced in the Press, that the Defence Force Shackletons are now being taken out of service. These aircraft date back to the Second World War. Why must we remove these aircraft from service? The reason is simply that there are no longer any parts available for these ancient and reliable old stalwarts.

Like the National Party.

They are just as good and reliable as the National Party. What the hon member says is true. [Interjections.] They cannot, however, keep going the way the National Party can, because the National Party has constant renewal inherent in its growth, whereas the aircraft do not. [Interjections.]

The South African Defence Force is one of the few Defence Forces still making use of Dakota aircraft. They are reliable old giants doing magnificent work for us, but they will also have to be replaced. For this preparedness we must know that we have the necessary funds available. We therefore get an insight into what the price of peace would be if the RSA and its neighbouring states were to remain a target area.

Let me come to the last passage I want to quote from the hon member for Wynberg’s speech. I am actually complimenting the hon member by quoting so many times from his speech. He said the following, amongst other things:

The Government is prepared to help its neighbouring states in any time of need, and the large-scale disaster in Swaziland did, after all, expressly prove this.

Over and above our Defence Force, which is one of the cornerstones of our peace and security, and the expertise and delicate handling of matters by our diplomats, there is another factor that forms an indissoluble part of our state of peace, and that is the agriculturists’ ability to produce food. Full granaries continue to prove a guarantee in our country. Let me tell the hon member that we must advocate trying, with our limited funds, to keep our farmers on the land so that they can produce food for us. The hon member was a member of our group at Nkomati. Did he hear the people of Mozambique singing in their pavilion? Those people were singing because they know that our country, with its Government and its farmers, is available to provide them with food and relieve the famine.

Whilst I am referring to this, let me ask the hon the Minister of Finance whether it is not possible to freeze Bonus Bond prizes and make those prizes available as assistance to farmers. We know there are quite a few million rand in unclaimed prizes. Possibly we could employ that money, making it available in the form of interest-free loans to our farmers. Even if we only helped 10 farmers, we would at least be employing it productively.

I want to tell the hon member for Wynberg that we are interested in the development of our neighbouring states, but we also have our own national states here in our midst that we have to look after. Our own agriculturists are in strained circumstances at the moment, and we must try to look after them. [Interjections.]

The Government keeps a watchful eye on our funds, and I am asking the hon member to join in our plea for funds to be kept available, specifically if we have peace, so as to maintain our Defence Force’s preparedness.

Let me conclude with the following idea. The hon member for Yeoville tried to give the hon the Minister of Finance some advice about how the State should curtail its expenditure. The first aspect he pointed to was the following:

That hon member would do well to take note of the costs involved in removals during the past years. I can tell them that the amount involved is not actually worth mentioning. It would not have influenced the Estimates in any way, because there would virtually have been no saying if there had been no removals. From 1975 to 1982 a figure of R37,7 million—in round figures—was spent, whilst in 1983-84 R2,5 million was spent on removals and the development of the places to which people were removed. If that is expressed as a percentage of the national Budget, we arrive at a figure of 0,012%. What factor could that possibly be, expressed as a savings coefficient on the overall Budget? We do not thereby want to say that the Government is going to stop working on this task. To the degree to which the consolidation of our national states approaches finality, we shall continue working at this great and meaningful task being carried out by the Government.

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon member for Standerton. I wish I had the time in this debate to reply to some of the points which he raised. However, I have the same problem with my time budget which the hon members opposite have with the Budget. One requests 30 minutes and hopes for at least 25 minutes, but one is lucky to be given 20 minutes. The big problem is that the Whips show no mercy. Perhaps the lesson to be learnt from this is that we should send the Whips to the Treasury.

†Before I get on to the actual subject of my speech, I should like to react to the news of the bomb blast in Durban today. The first remark that I should like to make is that we read about it with a sense of shock and that we should like to express our concern and our sympathy to the families of those who have been killed. We also hope that those who have been injured will have a speedy recovery. We on these benches deplore this sort of violence because it is something which is harmful to all South Africans, none of us will benefit from creating a cycle of violence in South Africa. We deplore such violence. What I find particularly abhorrent about what happened in Durban today is the indiscriminate way in which people who perpetrate such acts of violence choose their targets because the innocent, those who are totally uninvolved in what is happening in South Africa can suddenly find themselves the subject of a terrorist attack such as this.

I should now like to come to the Budget. I believe this Budget condemns middle-class South Africans to a declining standard of living. I say this not because of the increase in GST earlier this year or because of the increased price that we are going to pay for beer or cigarettes—I have very little sympathy with smokers—but what I am talking about is the impact that inflation is going to have on individual rates, sometimes referred to as fiscal drag. My colleagues, and I think also all other members, will agree that this is a subject which is often very dry. So, to make it as interesting as possible I want to quote some examples and I will use figures which might be of interest to hon members of this House, those who are not Cabinet Ministers. I base my example on a taxable income of R24 000 per annum. That more or less is what the taxable income of a member of Parliament is after his pension and medical aid and insurance contributions have been deducted from his income. If you were a married man with two children, the tax you would have to pay would be R4 590 per annum. That represents a general tax rate of 19%. Let us now assume that your income goes up by 10%. That is equal to what the hon the Minister of Finance said was the inflation rate of South Africa in February. In real spending terms your salary has not increased at all. It is merely keeping pace with inflation. In any event your taxable income will then be R26 730, and I am assuming that you are entitled to the R300 abatement for insurance premiums and medical expenditure. On this income your tax will be R5 522. This represents an average of tax of 21%, even though in real spending terms your income has not increased at all. If this process continues for a period of eight years, then your normal tax rate will increase from 19% to 34%—an increase of 77%—while your income in real spending terms has not gone up at all. It has merely been keeping pace with inflation. So it follows that if you pay more of your income out in tax the standard of living is going to decline. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon member for Pinelands tells me that his standard of living has declined and that he shall have to talk to the Whips about it.

But let us go back to the man with a taxable income of R24 000. If this process continues for eight years, then his real standard of living will in fact decline by 18%. Because of the impact of inflation on the tax rate, his real standard of living is reduced by 2% per annum. This is what has been happening to the individual and this is what is normally referred to as “fiscal drag”.

But let us look at what is happening in the economy as a whole. Between 1979 and 1983 the consumer price index increased by 76%. I have taken all my figures from the Statistical/Economic Review which accompanied the Budget. This is an excellent document indeed, and the people who drew it up should be complimented. As I was saying, the consumer price index went up by 76%. Consequently one would have thought the amount of tax collected would have kept pace with inflation. Indeed, if one looks at the figures of the tax year 1979-80 and the tax for 1983-84 the total revenue collected by the State increased by 91%. During that period the amount of income tax collected from individuals increased by 196% and the amount of GST collected by 208%. Over the same period company tax increased by 76%. I can only conclude that over this period it was deliberate fiscal policy of the Government that the individual taxpayer should shoulder a greater and greater share of the burden of financing Government operations. This is strengthened if one looks at the 1984-85 Budget. The amount of tax to be collected from individuals is estimated at R7 265 million, an increase of R1 515 million, or an increase of 26%. This follows on an increase of 34% last year. We must remember that that additional amount of tax is going to be collected mainly from existing taxpayers. We are not expecting a significant increase in the number of people who pay tax. It must be remembered that 10% of those who pay individual tax, pay more than half of all the tax collected from individuals. 52% of those who pay tax account for only 5,38% of the total tax collected from individuals. In the case of GST, it is budgeted to increased by 30% this year. It is interesting to contrast this with what is happening to companies, because here we are budgeting for a decline of R325 million in company tax. What has been happening, can be summed up in some key figures. Between 1979-80 and 1984-85 the amount of tax collected from companies will have increased by 53%. Between 1978-79 and 1982-83, the last year for which we have statistics, company profits more than doubled. Over this period the amount of tax collected from individuals will have risen by 274% and the amount of tax collected by way of GST will have increased by 301%. The remuneration of all employees, however, in rand terms has increased by only 102% between 1979 and 1983. I repeat that when one looks at these statistics one can only conclude that it is the deliberate policy of this Government that more and more of the burden should be put on the backs of individuals. It is a heavy burden to bear. If you take individual tax and GST, it accounted for 31,3% of the total revenue raised by the State during 1978-79. In 1983-84 this has gone up to 47,2%. If one looks at the revenue estimates for this year, one sees that individual tax and GST will account for 57,8% of all income collected for the tax year 1984-85. If you contrast the amount of tax collected from companies over this period, as a percentage, you see that it has declined from 18% to 15,2%. What is the danger of something like this? In South Africa few people have the skills necessary to keep this economy going. If we actually overtax them—we are not talking here of marginal rates, but about fiscal drag—we begin to kill the initiative of those people. It diverts efforts from productive pursuits to unproductive pursuits. Instead of working harder, people look for capital gain by either share or property transactions. It is well-known that a tax structure can kill personal initiative to such an extent that the whole economy suffers. In South Africa we must remember that our ratio of skilled manpower to unskilled manpower is very high indeed, namely about 40:1. We need to motivate these skilled people, because if we do not, the whole economy is going to suffer. Yet these are the people who are being affected worst of all by the impact of inflation on tax. The hon the Minister of Finance, in reply to a question of the hon member for Yeoville, gave some interesting figures. 32 000 taxpayers in South Africa, namely 1,6%, account for 22% of all the tax collected from individuals. An additional 174 000 taxpayers, 8,4% of all taxpayers, account for the next 30% of all tax collected. In other words, 10% of all taxpayers account for something like 52% of the tax collected from individuals. If we kill the initiative of these people, we begin to strangle the economy for all South Africans. If one looks at our economy, one sees that over the last 10 years the real GDP has grown at 2,6% per annum. This took place during a period when the price of one of our most important commodities, namely gold, reached unprecedented heights. Our population was increasing by between 2% and 3%. In real terms we were as individuals not producing more. If one looks at the figures, the GDP in 1974 in respect of individuals was R1 042 per person. In 1984 it was R1 012. In other words, after a period of 10 years the individual was producing less than what he was producing at the start. This disturbing trend is accelerating. In 1982 the GDP declined by 3,4% per individual and in 1983 by 5,2%.

We can ask ourselves why our economy has not performed better. We can blame it on external factors, like the gold price, but perhaps we should ask ourselves if we have not relied too much on this country’s natural resources and too little on its human resources. Instead of having our economic future determined by the vagaries of a single commodity, namely gold, perhaps we should try and determine our own economic future.

We must ask ourselves whether our tax structure is encouraging individual initiative or whether it is stifling it. We know that personal savings have dropped to an all-time low. In 1983 it was 3% compared with 11,3% in 1980. We also know that consumer credit has increased dramatically. From this one would tend to say that consumers have gone on a spending binge. However, is it true? In 1983 private consumption expenditure only increased in real terms by 0,9%. Most of that increase came from items such as food, beverages and tobacco. Food was no doubt an important part. Expenditure on furniture, household appliances and personal transport equipment was down. This does not look like a massive spending spree. What was happening instead was that individuals were drawing upon their savings and using credit not to increase their standard of living but to maintain it.

The outlook for individuals is now fairly bleak. There is high inflation, a low level of saving, a lot of credit which have to be paid back and yet they are called upon to pay an additional 26% in personal tax and an additional 30% in GST. I believe this has a detrimental effect on the whole South African economy.

Let us look at the manufacturing sector. Its output in 1981 was in excess of R8 000 million but by 1983 it had declined to roughly R7 500 million in real terms. Investment decreased from R2 310 million in 1981 to R1 549 million in 1983. One must remember that this was in spite of very generous investment allowances. There is a figure in this Statistical Review of the tax foregone because of the initial allowances. The amount was R882 million. One wonders if the manufacturing sector would not have been better served if steps had been taken to lessen the impact of fiscal drag on individuals.

In my speech during the Part Appropriation debate I referred to the abuse of the initial investment allowances. I am pleased that these abuses have been stopped and I support the hon the Minister on that.

Let us now look at the effective rate of company tax. I know that company tax has increased in nominal terms, but what has happened to the effective rate? In 1982-83 manufacturing companies paid an average of 20,4% in tax and commerce paid 29,7%. This is an interesting figure. The marginal tax rate applicable to an individual with a taxable income of R11 000 is the same as the average rate of tax for manufacturing companies. The marginal tax rate applicable to an individual with a taxable income of R16 000 is the same as the average rate of tax for a commercial operation. We have witnessed in recent years a massive erosion of our tax base and the result has been that fewer and fewer taxpayers end up paying more and more. I hope that the taxation of fringe benefits will eliminate some of the more blatant abuses. However, the hon the Minister of Finance must actually be careful because maybe the taxation of fringe benefits has to be very carefully watched. If some of the figures in the relevant report are not adjusted, this report could have the effect not of stopping the abuse of fringe benefits but of encouraging it. This is particularly true in regard to the question of housing. One must ask whether a rate of 8% is a fair rate in today’s conditions. On a bond of R40 000 that is still worth R3 700 to the individual free of tax. That is the difference between what one would pay a building society and what one pays at 8%. With a marginal tax rate of 50%, one has to earn R7 400 merely to be brought back to that level.

I have said in the House that I cannot understand the logic or think it fair that two people who receive the same sort of remuneration should be taxed differently just because of the way in which they get it. Likewise I am against a system which favours certain people as far as tax is concerned merely on the strength of who employs them. That discriminates against the self-employed and particularly against small business men—and we are spending millions of rand trying to get small businesses off the ground. If we want to encourage home-ownership, let us introduce something like the insurance and medical abatements. Let all claim a certain amount up to, say, a maximum of R2 000 or R3 000. Then all will in fact benefit.

Now that this Budget has been introduced, I hope that the Government will start working on the tax structure for the Budget for 1985-86. I should like to see us move to a system in which less and less escapes the tax net. I wonder if the time has not come for a body similar to the Franzsen Commission to be appointed. That I think sat in the early 1970s and highlighted for many South Africans the problems involved with tax. It was a very valuable report indeed. I should like to suggest that we have reached the stage where something similar should be considered.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Edenvale made a speech in which he quoted at some length from this purple document, the Statistical/Economic Survey, which is made available for the information of all hon members. I think that the hon member made very good use of the statistical data it contains. However, the main point he made was that due to “fiscal drag”, people were now classified in higher income groups and were paying far more as a result. That is quite correct. This is not a fact that we want to conceal. It is there for all to see. That being the case, does the hon member want to argue that salaries and incomes should not be increased because a man is going to move from one bracket to the next and will therefore have to pay more? [Interjections.] If it is the hon member’s standpoint that salaries and wages should not be increased because people will find themselves in a higher bracket, I think that he is thereby destroying his own argument, because usually he is the spokesman on that side of the House for pensioners, whether they be social, military or civil pensioners. Why is the hon member asking for increases? I find it quite strange that he as the official chief spokesman did not say a word about the fact that increases were indeed granted in this budget to the various classes of pensioners. That passed him by entirely. He made a great fuss about the increase in Government expenditure and the increase in taxes, but said nothing about the concessions announced in the budget. I find it strange that the hon member, who usually makes a positive contribution—this is something one appreciates—did not also single out the good points in the Budget, which also constituted one of the main reasons why increased taxes had to be announced.

Yesterday, on behalf of that side of the House, the hon member for Yeoville moved an amendment in terms of which they declined to pass the budger, inter alia, because we had failed to introduce measures in order to deal with the serious poverty and unemployment problems threatening the country. I also wish to mention point 9 of their amendment in terms of which they ask that the Government undertake immediately to remove from all legislation those provisions which discriminate on the grounds of colour and race. We wish to discuss the finances of South Africa. That is quite right, but I think that hon members on that side of the House ought also to spell out to us how unemployment and poverty in South Africa could be countered in terms of their policy. They must also spell out to us what forms of differentiation—they call it discrimination—are to be eliminated in South Africa. According to them this would entail greater economic prosperity for us. At present, according to statisticians, there are approximately half a million unemployed people in South Africa, the majority of whom are Black people. If we were to do away with all forms of influx control in South Africa and were to have no criteria whereby to apply it, but instead let everyone into the area, how could we reduce the present unemployment figure of about half a million on the basis of the policy of those hon members?

Secondly, we should like to know from them what contribution they are going to make to better economic development and better ethnic relations if all forms of differentiation in South Africa were to be removed? They must spell that out to us in this debate. We cannot permit Government policy always to be scrutinised while an opportunity is never presented for the policy of the official Opposition—the alternative Government according to them—to be spelt out. The voters of South Africa are entitled to know that. A few by-elections are to take place in South Africa in due course. The official Opposition ought to spell out their policy for us.

Hon members of the CP ought to do the same. They, too, moved an amendment. I am going to deal with it. The hon member for Sunnyside moved an amendment according to which we have supposedly lost control of the national economy by failing to curb unproductive Government expenditure and as a result of the Government’s inadequate export promotion policy. They also made a big fuss, of course, about the situation of the farmers in South Africa. [Interjections.] Those are the few things that that party singled out. However, they are not yet the official Opposition; indeed, I do not believe they will even get that far. I am now dealing with the hon members of the official Opposition and if time permits I shall deal with hon members of the CP as well.

The approach of the NP is very clear and we believe that it must be spelt out in South Africa. In the first place, all the population groups in South Africa are economically interdependent upon one another. Therefore what is in the interests of the Whites as far as economic development is concerned is also in the interests of the other groups in South Africa. We believe in balanced economic development and we pursue a decentralization policy. We believe in deconcentration and we endeavour not to simply overdevelop one area. We want to see to it that South Africa as a whole is developed. It is also very clear—the majority of newspapers and periodicals attest to this—that the standard of living of the Black people is constantly increasing. Therefore they, too, are reaping the benefits of the economic development of South Africa. The wage gap that used to exist between the income of White and Black people with the same qualifications doing the same work, is narrowing.

It is also the approach of this side of the House that economic development must take place in the Black national states. On one occasion the hon member for Houghton said: “Decentralization is a failure.” If that is true, does the official Opposition believe that we should continue with over-concentration of economic development in certain areas of South Africa? Or must we pursue a balanced development which will be to the benefit of all the other areas in South Africa as well? It is to questions of that nature that we seek replies.

The hon member for Edenvale utilized the statistical data in the statistical survey for 1984-85 very effectively and I, too, want to make use of them. However, I think it is important to ask whether this budget creates new circumstances or whether circumstances have perhaps created the budget before us at present. The consequences of this budget could indeed have an effect on the economy of South Africa. They could lead to individuals and companies having less money to spend internally. We know, too, that this will delay the upswing in the economy still further, but on the other hand the increased revenue flowing into the Treasury will in turn be spent. Therefore what is drawn from the economy is given back to it somewhere else, and that is one advantage of the Treasury, viz that it takes but gives back. The Treasury never permits money to lie dormant or unutilized. The State does not have to invest money for tomorrow; it invests today to earn more tomorrow. In my opinion, therefore, a delay in the upswing will not be such a serious matter. The incorrect impression is being created that the Treasury is a dragon with an insatiable appetite which always wants to swallow everything up. In this budget provision is being made for increased salaries to public servants. Better social and civil pensions, better military pensions, increased expenditure on defence and agriculture, and on education, is surely not money lost to the economy of this country. It all helps to keep the wheels rolling. It can also promote consumer expenditure in South Africa. It will also have a beneficial effect on both commerce and the manufacturing sector. These sectors—the hon member for Edenvale made mention of this—are indeed experiencing a drop in activity. The manufacturing sector, too, has unutilized capacity. Therefore the private sector is not being smothered by this Budget either.

The contribution of the private sector to the gross domestic product amounted to 73,5% in 1983, as against 74,4% in 1982. Thus this is only a very minor decrease. Moreover, this decrease has very little to do with taxes that have been imposed.

The reduced level of economic activity was of course responsible for it. On the other hand, the public sector contributed 26,5% in 1982, whereas the equivalent amount in 1982 was 25,6%. The public corporations were also responsible for this. Therefore this indicates that “what we lose on the swings, we will gain on the roundabouts”. Employees in South Africa received 13,9% more for their work than they did in 1982. Personal savings—I want to say something about that as well—dropped, in relation to personal available income, from 11,3% in 1982 to 3% in 1983. That is not good enough. We are not saving enough. Savings are of course necessary for new development in South Africa. On the other hand, however, there has also been a drop in expenditure on durable and semi-durable goods. This, too, was mentioned by the hon member for Edenvale. Therefore my conclusion, in contrast to that drawn by the hon member for Edenvale, is that when people spend less on durable and semi-durable goods, it reveals a trend for the consumer to keep his furniture and his motorcar for longer. However, the hon member for Edenvale says that his conclusion is that people are having to use their savings to make ends meet.

Therefore personal expenditure is being characterized by more judicious spending, and thus extravagance is not really a factor that we need concern ourselves with at this stage. It is therefore a good sign that the consumer in South Africa is showing more judgment and thrift as far as durable and semi-durable goods are concerned.

Another interesting figure in this regard is the following. As far as food and similar consumer articles are concerned there is an increase in expenditure in this field. Therefore the consumer is not suffering. Nor is the health of people suffering. However, when it comes to durable and semi-durable goods the consumer of South Africa is becoming increasingly selective and judicious in his expenditure. There is only one person in South Africa who seems to sustain his productivity by sleeping and that is the hon member for Soutpansberg. [Interjections.]

Therefore my conclusion is that this Budget, which does make provision for additional expenditure in the new year, will not have a detrimental effect on the economy of South Africa. I believe that this Budget does not create unemployment and that its inflationary influence ought to be minimal. In my opinion the citizens of this country have over a period of two years already adapted themselves to profound recessionary conditions in the world economy. This is not the first time we have been faced with these circumstances. The Budget speeches of the past few years make mention of the recessionary conditions prevailing in the countries of our trading partners. For that reason our exports have dropped and as a result we are earning less. Accordingly there is a change in our gross national product. For two years our gross domestic product has either been stagnant or shown a downward trend. In 1983, mining, agriculture and the manufacturing sector all showed a drop in their percentage contribution to the gross domestic product. These are the realities we are faced with. It is against this background that the Budget should be seen. In times of world recession, we, who are so dependent on imports and exports, cannot escape the economic downswings. We have already experienced a significant economic upswing both abroad and at home and if there had been a modest rather than a drastic drop in the gold price, and if we had not had the large-scale expenditure entailed by the extensive drought, then the hon the Minister of Finance would have had a problem with surplus money today. Therefore this Budget does not create a number of circumstances; it is circumstances that created the Budget.

†Mr Speaker, the Government has not mismanaged the economy and neither do I believe that the Budget is an example of mismanagement. Circumstances have forced the hon the Minister to produce this particular Budget. He is not responsible for a sluggish world economy which is not very keen to import but exceptionally keen to export. Unemployment in leading Western countries has not been significantly reduced, and the hon the Minister of Finance is not responsible for that situation. What the hon the Minister of Finance has done with this Budget is to allocate funds to those areas and spheres that have been hardest hit. To my mind, his priorities have been well chosen. Everyone, whether he be John Citizen or a fat cat, will have to make a contribution.

The obvious objective of this Budget is to reduce the effects of the drought in order to keep the efficient farmer and his labour on the land.

*That is not all, however; it is also the aim to keep South Africa in general on a sound footing so that in the long term everyone will be able to derive the benefit when there is an economic upswing in the rest of the world and South Africa, too, will certainly share in the prosperity.

Mr Speaker, I just want to make three observations on the speech made by the hon member for De Kuilen. The first is that he was a plucky fighter for the farmers when he was still a member of the United Party. It seems to me that since he joined the NP, that party has had a very bad influence on him, for now that the CP is putting in a plea for the farmers of South Africa who are experiencing the worst disaster of this century, the hon member claims that we are merely kicking up a fuss. [Interjections.]

In the second place the hon member for De Kuilen made a remark about my colleague the hon member for Soutpansberg. I find it a pity that such acrimonious remarks should be made, particularly if one’s facts are wrong, because the hon member, it seems to me, is dozing off. Did he not know that the hon member for Soutpansberg is no longer the record holder? The hon Chief Whip of the NP is now the undisputed champion. [Interjections.]

In the third place the hon member for De Kuilen succeeded today in intensifying an impression which has arisen in this debate, which is that there is more amiss with the economy of South Africa than is generally realized.

The hon the Minister of Finance has an exceptional talent for making a bad case appear better than it really is. Yesterday the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance and the hon member for Yeoville exchanged a few ideas. The hon the Deputy Minister then said:

I deduce from this that the hon the Deputy Minister agrees that one should not raise loans to finance current expenses. That is the only deduction one can make, and the idea is a sound one. In South Africa it has traditionally been the case in the past that a portion of the capital works was financed from current revenue. That is a sound practice. I read this sentence in the latest quarterly bulletin of the Reserve Bank—it appeared last week:

The Government was therefore unable to save enough to finance its capital works, but what it had to borrow to be able to finance such capital works was more than they cost. Consequently it also had to borrow to cover current expenditure, because the saving had turned negative. [Interjections.] Funds which are applied for capital works, are regarded as a saving. This is not what I say, but the Reserve Bank says in its quarterly report that the annual saving of general government turned negative for the first time in the post-war period. Money was therefore borrowed with which to finance current expenditure. That is why I say that the hon the Minister has the ability to make a bad case seem better than it really is. But his deputy does not realize that South Africa is already borrowing money to finance current expenditure. South Africa, in his own words, is already approaching the position of countries such as Mexico …

He did not say that.

He said that if a country borrowed to finance its current expenditure, that country was approaching the position of a country such as Mexico. But I say that this Government has set South Africa on a course on which it is not only approaching the position of a country such as Mexico, it has placed South Africa on a course on which, economically, it is approaching the position of an African state. I wonder whether the Prime Minister realizes how correct he was when he said at Nkomati that South Africa was becoming an African state.

Sir, what was also apparent from this Debate was that the individual in South Africa, particularly the White person, is becoming empoverished. Against that fact the stories told by the hon member for De Kuilen could achieve nothing. In his Budget speech the hon the Minister said that the gross domestic product had declined by 3% last year and by 1,2% the previous year. But economists say that between 1981 and the present the gross domestic product has declined by 8,4%. Over that period of three years the population has grown by 2,6%, 7,8% over the three years. On the other hand the gross domestic product has declined by 8,4%. In other words, the individual is 16% worse off than in 1981. [Interjections.] If the total income of the country decreases and the population increases, how can the individual be better off? If that hon member’s salary decreases, but his wife has another child, is he as an individual better of or worse off? I say that the individual is 16,1% worse off, on average. The Whites are even worse off, however, because in the process of the narrowing of the wage gap the salaries of coloured people have increased more rapidly than those of the Whites.

With what amount as a basis?

I shall tell you. Between 1970 and 1983 the real income of Black employees outside the agricultural sector rose by 80%. On the other hand those of Whites rose by only 10%. [Interjections.] I am talking about real income. This indicates that the standard of living of the Whites has dropped more rapidly. Prof Sampie Terreblanche gave the Government the advice that incomes should be redistributed. I maintain that that process has already gone a long way in South Africa. The reason why the standard of living of the Whites has dropped it that the narrowing of the wage gap is not linked to a corresponding increase in productivity. I want to make it very clear that my party is in favour of the narrowing of the wage gap as long as it is linked to increased productivity, for if one does not do that, one achieves nothing for the person for whom one wants to do something. If increased income does not go hand-in-hand with greater responsibility and with the ability to utilize the increment which the person has received to better effect and to convert it into prosperity, one achieves absolutely nothing. I say that the way in which the Government has narrowed the wage gap has not produced any appreciable results. During the past decade productivity has risen by less than 1%. What is more, the employment of Black people has remained constant between 1976 and 1983. The result is that unemployment has increased. It has increased because there has been a greater degree of mechanization. The result of all these things is that not only has the productivity of labour declined, but more important than this: the productivity of capital has also declined. If the yield per net capital supply in 1970, as the base year, was 100, it had declined to 72 in 1983. Capital, therefore, has also become unproductive.

Jan van Zyl is far better than you are with this kind of thing.

The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs is also becoming unproductive. It is time he began to look after the interests of his people in the SATS. As a result of the redistribution of income, the officials working for him are among the worst victims. The salaried man is the person who has to bear the brunt of the redistribution of income. The farmer, who was drawing on his capital even during the good years, is now down and out from the disaster which has struck him. The assistance announced by the Government is extremely disappointing. Only 10% of the farmers living in the disaster areas are able to receive some modicum of relief, while 90% of them, those whose assets and liabilities are virtually on a par, do not have a glimmer of hope in terms of the measures announced. These people, as well as the small entrepreneurs, are the people who bore the brunt of the redistribution of income. It crippled the economy. The saving of the public have declined, while the saving of the State has turned negative. This has caused a lack of money for investment. It has happened because money was used unproductively to eliminate the wage gap. There was no money for investment. Production capacity has declined, with the result that there are no exports, or that exports are few. Imports are increasing and exports declining, and that has caused the interest rates to rise. This has compelled the hon the Minister to raise an ever-increasing number of short-term loans. He is replacing long-term loans with short-term loans, which means that South Africa’s credit standing is deteriorating.

There is another important reason for the economic situation in which South Africa has found itself, namely the fact that economic growth cannot take place if there is political instability. During the past few years the Government has created political instability in South Africa. The new Constitution Act is one of the main causes, and the Government is still creating political instability. After all, we know that when a Cabinet Committee was appointed to inquire into the position of Coloureds and the President’s Council was already functioning, the newspapers supporting the Government systematically began to prepare the public for the new constitution in spite of the fact that Government spokesmen repeatedly and consistently gave the assurance that the Whites world not surrender their control over their own affairs. That assurance was given and the hon the Minister was still giving it only last year. In the meantime, however, the process continued. When the Government saw that the voters had been softened up by the newspapers, television and the other media, they produced the new constitution. Today it is a reality, in spite of the assurances that were given. I now want to make the statement that the process which the Government went through with regard to the Coloureds and the Indians it is now going through with regard to the Blacks. While Government speakers are still saying that this new dispensation is not for the Black people and that Black people will be accommodated in such a way that it will not affect us, the softening-up process is already being carried out by the Government’s newspapers.

I hope you are right!

The hon member’s hope will not be in vain, because the Government will not disappoint him. They will do exactly what they did with the Coloureds and the Indians. In this connection I should like to refer to what Dr Willem de Klerk wrote in the NP’s newspaper, Rapport. He said there were three reactions among people in general. He said that the present Black political situation was untenable and that there were three reactions to it among people in general. As far as reaction number one was concerned, one could more or less say that he meant the CP reaction. According to him reaction number two was, and I quote:

He also referred to a third reaction. This was the same as the second, only a little slower. There are, in other words, people who say that the process should be a little slower. He said that the answer lay somewhere between the two, that something in between was better. He called it “a warmgemaakte evolusie of revolusie van politieke beleid oor Swartmense”. He also mentioned the following important matters:

This is typical of this Government. They want to introduce a federation, but they do not want to tell the people it is a federation. What Wimpie de Klerk says now, the Government does in two years’ time. [Interjections.] The writer says that the system should be introduced under another name. I want to suggest today that this is precisely what is going to happen. The Government will introduce a federation under another name and think that we will be stupid enough to accept it.

Certain articles appeared in some of their newspapers. In Die Vaderland eight articles, inter alia, appeared under the name of At Viljoen. I want to refer to one only to sketch the situation to hon members. The report read, inter alia, as follows:

The columnist himself then writes:

This is a softening-up process which the newspapers are carrying out.

This person also wrote an article on the way National Party politicians were thinking. A photograph of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning accompanied this report. It was not a bad photograph, but the hon the Minister should really deduct 5% when he looks at the photograph. [Interjections.] He looks almost as good as he does on the photograph. The headline under which the report appeared stated that the homeland ties policy was a myth that had to die, and I am quoting from the report:

The report continued:

This is typical of what we heard in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians. It has been said that they are not a people and do not wish to be a people. We must therefore be amalgamated with them and then we are all one people. They do not want to govern themselves and now they are becoming part of our Government. It is now being said that because the Black people also reject this policy, they, too, must be brought into White politics.

The report continued:

Surely that is true. The report continued:

There are many other myths as well. However, I know that there are people in that party who firmly believe that homeland ties are the answer to the Black political problem. Does the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs agree with this columnist that homeland ties are a myth?

Yes, they are.

The hon the Minister has changed. [Interjections.] In his party there are people who maintain that the homeland ties policy is the answer. They are members of his party, here in this House of Assembly. The homelands ties policy …

Give me the name of just one hon member.

The hon member for Innesdal is one hon member who no longer believes in the homeland ties policy, and what the hon the Minister of National Education said in France in 1978 is on record. Hon members should go and read it.

The columnist also said the following in respect of Black people:

Does the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs agree with that? Ought Black police, education and health to be on the first tier, and should joint decisions on these matters be taken in one Cabinet? The hon the Minister has nothing to say now, and is not so eager to reply as he was earlier. This columnist says it is National Party politicians who think along these lines. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister. Is he one of these? [Interjections.] I know of some who think along those lines.

Who are they?

I am going to give hon members their names in a moment. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs what he thinks. I know about others who think along different lines. The hon the Minister does not want to say anything now.

The writer went further and said that the idea that Black states should become independent was played out. He said that there was no longer any merit in it and that we should now strive for a federation. Willem de Klerk also said this. I want to know from the hon the Minister: Does he agree?

No.

He has just said that he does not agree.

Willem de Klerk does not prescribe my policy to me.

I knew the hon the Minister was going to say that. I want to tell him that the hon member for Innesdal says that the Black people should be brought into this dispensation according to a method which is now being investigated. The hon member’s colleague from Randburg wrote in Rapport some time ago that once the Coloureds and the Indians have been brought in, the question was no longer whether the Blacks should be brought in, but how they should be brought into the dispensation.

The hon the Minister of National Education was interviewed in France. I am quoting from a newspaper report:

The reply to that was:

That hon Minister said: “It will be a land that will be more Black than White”. Does the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs agree with that? The hon the Minister of National Education also said: “The Whites will have to follow because they have no choice”. The big difference now is that the Whites do have a choice. With the advent of the Conservative Party they do have a choice now. They need no longer follow the National Party and the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs now has to decide whether he still wishes to pursue those policies or whether he wants to make a better choice.

We, as members of the Conservative Party, believe that we shall restore political stability in South Africa and also bring about the necessary confidence in the economy. We believe that the politics of South Africa should be dealt with by way of the division of land, the division of political power, and emancipation and the acquisition of sovereignty by way of partition. [Interjections.] We know that this is going to create confidence. Secondly, we believe that the wage gap should be narrowed, but linked to productivity and not merely for its own sake. It can be done. The National Productivity Institute ought to be stimulated.

Furthermore, we believe that while, in the economic sphere, the only instrument which the hon the Minister apparently uses to control inflation is to increase the interest rates, that is not enough. That is not the only procedure one can adopt. There should also be stricter control over the way in which the available capital is used. Hire-purchase and similar matters should be more strictly controlled. In addition, we believe that there should be cut-backs on unproductive Government spending. Swiss bankers have a saying: Investment capital flows to the right. This has been shown to be true all over the world. After Mr Reagan came into office, the capital inflow began, and after Mrs Thatcher came into power, the capital inflow began, but in France there was an outflow of capital after Mr Mitterrand came into power.

I want to say that it is not only the voters who now have a choice.

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

I wanted to resume my seat, but go ahead and ask your question. [Interjections.]

The hon member received a salary increase. Is he going to be more productive now or not? [Interjections.]

I am constantly pushing up my productivity. The hon member will see to what extent during the coming by-elections. [Interjections.] Sir, it is not only the voters who have a choice. In future, when the Conservative Party is governing, the capital will once again have the choice of flowing to the right in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I think it is a long time since the House has been treated to such a lot of hit-and-run rubbish as we have just had to listen to. [Interjections.] On the part of the CP there is a very clear pattern as regards the way in which they operate politically. It again became very clearly evident from the speech of the hon member for Lichtenburg. It was a typical hit-and-run speech in which, quite plainly and simply, wild utterances and accusations were made, without any substances and without any clear alternative being presented. That is the kind of speech with which they trot around the country trying to hoodwink the White voters of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon member says the new constitution is responsible for political instability in South Africa. He then contends that we are taking the Black people along the same path as that along which we have taken the Coloureds and the Indians in order to accommodate them politically. That is also typical of the kind of speech they make outside the House. For years the hon member for Lichtenburg was a member of the NP, and he knows as well as I do—I do not need to tell him this—that the political rights of Black people in this country have undergone revolutionary changes under the NP Government. Four Black states have gained their independence, and the rest of them all function on a self-governing basis. [Interjections.] The Government has come forward with a new dispensation, not one which was hatched overnight, but one which has come a long way and in which those hon members played a greater part that I did. We have come along with a new constitution, and now he renounces it. [Interjections.] What is more, the White voters of South Africa approved that constitution by a two-thirds majority, and it is now being implemented.

There were, however, also very clear views on the part of the Government. The Government made it very clear that there was going to be no fourth chamber for Black people in this dispensation. [Interjections.] We have never turned tail when any problems were involved, and that is why I have developed a great respect for the NP. The NP acknowledges the fundamental problem involving urban Black people in South Africa. That is why the Government has again done the right thing by constituting a Cabinet Committee to investigate mechanisms in terms of which urban Black people can give effect to their political rights. The Government, however, has also laid down very clear guidelines, making it clear that, as far as its own independent states are concerned, the Government is working towards a confederation of states in Southern Africa. In the guidelines we stated very clearly that we were working towards the idea of a constellation of states in Southern Africa. The successes already achieved speak volumes. [Interjections.] This afternoon the hon member for Lichtenburg comes along with the wildest accusations and the biggest lot of untruths imaginable—where he gets them from, heaven alone knows—presenting them as truths to the world at large. [Interjections.] The strategy that these people adopt is a hit-and-run strategy.

You have now said that four times.

That is exactly what those hon members do. Wild accusations are made, statements are made and allegations are flung around, but when they are called to account… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Turffontein is now getting too much uncalled-for assistance.

When those hon members are called to account, they draw in their heads like the proverbial tortoise. I think they conduct themselves politically like real street-fighters. They lie in wait for their opponent behind a bush and throw sand in his eyes before he can do anything, and then they run to the next corner and wait again for another chance to hit him below the belt. [Interjections.] That is the way those hon members conduct themselves politically.

You do not know what a street-fighter is. [Interjections.]

This afternoon I want to present the House with a few examples. If those hon members prefer to conduct their politics in that fashion, we can also do so. I am not afraid of dirty politics. Let the hon member for Jeppe come up against me in Rosettenville and I will show him what dirty politics is. [Interjections.]

I challenge you to appear with me on a public platform. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, allow me to give two examples of what I truly regard as hit-and-run politics.

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

I am sorry, Sir, but I do not answer questions from that hon member.

The hon member for Lichtenburg chided us this afternoon for having doubted their bona fides in lodging a plea for agriculture in this debate. I shall tell him why we doubt their bona fides. This afternoon he again stated that the assistance announced by the hon the Minister was extremely disappointing.

The hon member for Soutpansberg also flung around statements here in a typical hit-and-run fashion. After his return to this House he made a speech on 21 February in which he said the following, amongst other things …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Brits say that the hon member for Soutpansberg lied in that speech he made here in the House?

Order! The hon member for Turffontein may continue.

The hon member for Soutpansberg said the following (Hansard, col 1344):

And that is so.

The hon member repeats it. He went on to say:

That is the statement the hon member made. His allegation is that the drought aid was unrealistic, unsympathetic and impracticable, but then he adds: “But one can devise a plan with regard to the assistance if one has the interests of the agriculture of South Africa at heart”.

In the Part Appropriation the hon the Minister of Finance, giving chapter and verse, spelled out the amount granted in Soutpansberg in the form of assistance. The hon member for Soutpansberg would do well to go and read it. During the Third Reading Stage of that Bill the hon the Minister invited the hon member for Soutpansberg to comment on it, to come and tell us what was so unsympathetic, so wrong about that assistance. That hon member, however, is never in the House. This afternoon, however, he turns up here. From where? How many times, since he was elected, has he taken his place in this House? [Interjections.]

What does that have to do with you?

It has a great deal to do with me, because it affects the voters of Soutpansberg. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister said the following:

And that constituency was Soutpansberg. [Interjections.] The hon member must not make a noise now. During the Third Reading Stage of the Part Appropriation Bill he had an opportunity to make a speech, and I challenge him to come along and tell this House, on the basis of the available figures, what was unsympathetic and what was unrealistic. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sunnyside moved an amendment in which he contended that this Government had no understanding of agriculture. Those are typically irresponsible hit-and-run stories without any substance. What about the aid just announced by the hon the Minister of Agriculture? Is that also unsympathetic aid? I want to know from the hon member for Barberton whether it is also unsympathetic aid? [Interjections.]

We shall be getting round to that.

The hon member says we shall be getting round to that. [Interjections.] Is it also impractical aid?

We shall be getting round to that, too.

Oh, no, Mr Speaker, I am asking the hon member for Barberton whether this is unsympathetic and impractical aid. All he says, however, is that we shall be getting round to that.

I shall be getting round to that.

Oh, the hon member will be getting round to that? Very well, then; we shall be waiting. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Agriculture is given a standing ovation by the farmers of South Africa wherever and whenever he makes these announcements. That happens because the people are grateful to the Government for the assistance being granted to them. [Interjections.] The CP, however, goes on with its mischief-making.

Now, however, I want to come to the holier-than-thou Andries. Here in the House and in public the hon member for Waterberg also conducts his own kind of hit-and-run politics. That is the man with the frock-coat politics, the man who, so they say, speaks so well. [Interjections.] The hon the leader of the CP is not, of course, here now, but his hon followers are free to go and convey to him what I am now saying here. The hon member for Waterberg will also have an opportunity, in this debate, to reply to us about this. We are waiting patiently. We shall be waiting patiently for the hon member for Waterberg to come and tell us what his intention was with his Ellis Park speech on 10 October of last year. [Interjections.] We are waiting patiently, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.] During the debate on the Part Appropriation the hon member for Randburg and I tried to provoke the hon the leader of the CP into telling us what he meant by that speech of his. The hon member for Waterberg, however, then said he would be replying to our speeches. He said: “I shall be replying to your speeches here in the House.” That is, of course, typical of the answers we always hear from him. He never, however, gets round to replying to the allegations of hon members on this side of the House. We are still anxiously waiting. I do want to remind hon members of this House that the hon the leader of the CP delivered his speech at a Kruger Day celebration in Johannesburg. The theme of his speech was: “The disunity of the people”. The occasion was Kruger Day 1983; a day Afrikaners traditionally celebrate. The audience consisted chiefly of Afrikaners. The time was right in the midst of the referendum struggle. When he was speaking there, the hon leader of the CP surely had the Afrikaner people in mind. He did not, after all, have the people of colour in mind as being part of the people. Or did he perhaps? [Interjections.] Or did he perhaps have other language groups in South Africa in mind as part of the people? The hon member for Langlaagte need not look so surprised. I am also addressing this question to him. [Interjections.] Unless the hon the leader of the CP can prove the contrary, in regard to what I am now saying, or can offer a convincing explanation, we must necessarily conclude that the hon the leader of the CP was casting a reflection on that portion of the Afrikaner people who cast a yes vote in the referendum. [Interjections.]

The hon the leader of the CP went on to say that he had been quoted correctly. He also said that he had made his statement deliberately. I see the hon the leader of the CP is now back in his seat. We are waiting for him to tell us what he meant by the statement he made about it not being possible to achieve unity in a people when one section accepts the sovereignty of Christ, whilst the other section rejects it. I am asking the hon member for Waterberg to respond to this. In this debate he still has an opportunity to do so. He has, moreover, promised us a reply to this. I therefore ask him to stand up and explain to us what he meant. [Interjections.]

Since we are busy with hit-and-run politics, let me point out that I relish that kind of politics when I am dealing with people of this nature. Let us take a brief look at the Patriot scandal. [Interjections.] Yes, let us take a brief look at the Patriot scandal. [Interjections.] In this connection let me quote from the Citizen. [Interjections.] The Citizen has the following report under the heading “Conservative Party paper liquidated—owes R762 400”. I quote:

[Interjections.] Mr Speaker, just listen to the reaction from the hon member for Barberton.

[Inaudible.]

Here he creates the … [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon member for Turffontein please just resume his seat for a moment? I am now giving the hon member for Langlaagte an opportunity to speak, and if he does not want to make a speech now, I forbid him to make any further remarks in this debate this afternoon. The hon member for Turffontein may continue.

Mr Speaker, what is the hon member for Barberton’s reaction to this? He says it is less money than Hennie van der Walt owes. [Interjections.] That is the kind of politics those people are party to, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.] Those are the kinds of people whom I say pull the wool over other people’s eyes. They pull the wool over one’s eyes. They are not prepared to conduct a proper debate in the House. [Interjections.] Let us look at this Patriot scandal. The newspaper states:

Just like that, Sir! Here we have R¾ million in unpaid debts and Andries with the lily-white hands, the hon member for Waterberg, washes his hands of it. He does not care about this newspaper. Let it incur the debt. It is a newspaper that supports his party and he does not have the courage of his convictions to share responsibility with those people.

What does our friend, Connie Mulder, have to say? He says: “Die Patriot is not dead yet, not by a long shot”. Today I want to ask hon members of the CP who it is that Die Patriot owes that amount of money to. Is it the shareholders, the small businessmen who helped them with the printing? The CP washes its hands of it. What does their leader say? He is, after all, an honest man. He is, after all, an honest erstwhile minister of religion whom we now have in the South African political arena. Here we have an amount of R¾ million and he washes his hands of it!

You are a “smeerlap” (blackguard).

Sir, the hon member for Barberton is calling me a “smeerlap”. May he do so?

Order! Would the hon member for Barberton repeat what he said?

Mr Speaker, I said the hon member was a “smeerlap”, and I withdraw it.

That is the hon member, Sir, who has just referred to an ex-colleague of ours in this House of Assembly and dragged him into the scandalous question of a newspaper placed in liquidation. [Interjections.] It is scandalous! What, however, about the thousands of small lapel badges in the shape of a tortoise an enthusiastic CP supporter had made? Who must shoulder that burden of debt? The man who must shoulder it is a small businessman who accepted the bona fide of a CP supporter and placed an order that left him in debt to the tune of R114 000. They play so recklessly with people’s emotions that irresponsible conduct is the result.

What do we read in The Citizen of 8 March 1984? We read the following:

[Interjections.] A supporter of those hon members’ party who attended a congress became so enthusiastic that he thought the party should be given a push, placed this order, and now that he is in trouble, those hon members simply leave him in the lurch. [Interjections.]

What is the reply given by the Secretary-in-Chief of the CP? He says:

[Interjections.] That is the answer of the Secretary-in-Chief of that party. Then it is said:

Owing to a supporter of that party letting his enthusiasm gain the upper hand, a small businessman has been burdened with debt to the tune of R114 000, but the CP washes its hands of it.

Now I come to the hon member for Langlaagte. In his speech yesterday he said that the fat cats saw the Government’s philosophy as a chance to sink their teeth in. Perhaps the Eagle’s Nest fat cat can be of some help. Let me ask the hon member for Langlaagte, the man who no longer has a leg of lamb in his house—he merely sees it on television—the self-appointed champion of the poor in South Africa, what amount of the South African taxpayer’s money he is busy negotiating in regard to a piece of land south of Johannesburg. [Interjections.] That is a matter of public record. Let me ask the hon member whether it is R5 million or perhaps R5,5 million.

Did you not hear the Speaker’s ruling?

The hon member for Langlaagte speaks of “soft loans”.

Mr Speaker, may I reply to the hon member?

Sir, I am sorry that I have to enter into a debate with the hon member in this fashion, but I did not know that you would take such steps against him.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte may make use of a later occasion to reply to the hon member for Turffontein. I stand by my ruling.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware of the fact that I am being expropriated by the State?

Sir, I am quite aware of that. I did not say …

And it is sub judice.

It is not sub judice. The court case is over. I want to make it very clear: If the case had been sub judice, I would not have raised it. The court has given a final judgment. Leave to appeal has been granted, but the hon member has not yet appealed.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Turffontein knows that leave to appeal has been granted and knows, too, that there is then a period within which one can apply for the appeal to proceed, but he does not know that it is sub judice. Sir, I request you to rule that he should not go into this aspect any further, because it is sub judice.

Order! Does the hon member for Turffontein intend to exploit this point any further?

I am, Sir.

Order! I think the hon member should rather leave it at that.

Sir, I shall settle with the hon member for Langlaagte at a later stage, because he is the one who asked yesterday why the R1 500 million in interest free loans to the Black national states was being channelled through the Department of Foreign Affairs, adding that those were nothing more than “soft loans”. I want to make a general statement. If land is purchased by the State, or if loans are granted to neighbouring states by the State, that money comes from the same State coffers, from the same taxpayers. Before the hon member for Langlaagte acts as champion of the poor here in future, he must count his words, because at a later stage I am going to settle with him.

Look at the fright you have given him.

The hon member says I got a fright, but I am merely obeying your ruling, Sir. I am not afraid of him.

I said look at the fright you have given the hon member for Langlaagte with your little threats.

The hon member for Langlaagte also made another point yesterday. He said the Government’s philosophy was responsible for the economic problems of South Africa. Let me now ask the CP whether it still adheres to the policy in regard to Black national states in South Africa. If they do, they must also accept that it is going to cost us money. Let us take this a little further. They are the people who always hold up Dr Verwoerd as an example, but they know as well as I do that Verwoerd’s standpoint, when he announced the homeland policy, was that no White capital would be used in the homelands. Hon members know as well as I do that over the years that policy has changed and that the Government decided that White capital could indeed be used within the borders of the homelands. When that policy was changed, those hon members were still members of the governing party. I now want to ask them whether they, if they were to come into power, would spend no money on the homelands whatsoever. Must those areas simply generate their own infrastructure? The hon member is free to stick his tongue out at me. It is not going to help him any, because I am going to settle with him.

The Government changed its standpoint and is now prepared to use White capital in the homelands. This is being done for a definite purpose, that purpose being specifically to relieve the tax burden on the White voters of South Africa. Hon members on that side of the House, however, are continually sowing suspicion. We are engaged in a by-election in Rosettenville, and what are the stories the hon members of the CP are spreading. They say the Government is going to do away with the Group Areas Act.

It is going to do so, after all.

It is said that this Government is going to do away with people’s own community life and is going to abolish own residential areas.

It is going to, after all.

They go further and say that the Government is going to abolish own schools for each community, and the hon member for Jeppe is now confirming that those are the kinds of stories members of his party are telling people in Rosettenville. It is a blatant untruth, and if the hon member for Jeppe is saying that in public, he is repeating a lie. That is the kind of politics with which hon members opposite occupy their time. We on this side of the House want to make it very clear—and place it on record—that each group’s own community life in South Africa is based on own schools and own residential areas. The hon the Prime Minister is on record as having said that as far as the NP was concerned, that was a non-negotiable item.

Another story doing the rounds is that the Government is simply doing everything for the Black man. We are supposedly doing too much for the Black man. Is that what the CP is telling members of the public? Could the hon member for Jeppe give me an answer?

I have given you enough answers.

The hon member is now backing off.

Order! The hon member for Jeppe has made enough interjections today.

I should like to present the House with a statement made by the hon the Leader of the CP in April 1981. He was reacting to the statement that the NP was doing too much for the Blacks. He then asked: “Why must the Whites be depicted as people who want to pocket everything and do not want to give others a place in the sun?” That was the standpoint of the hon leader of the CP, and I am asking him whether he still stands by that statement. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, fortunately I do not have to get involved in this personal and bitter fratricidal strife that is taking place here. So I shall get on with my speech. I want to refer briefly to two matters.

†The first is the bomb blast today in my constituency, the sixth such blast to have taken place in the Durban Point constituency over the last year or 18 months. It is clearly and obviously an attempt by the ANC to show that they have not been neutralized by the Accord of Nkomati. I believe that the perpetrators will and must be hunted and flushed out like the barbaric murderers they are, murderers of innocent women and children without regard to the consequences of their acts or what they do to the lives of other families. Despite our revulsion at this kind of act, we must not be diverted or provoked into departing from the road of peace on which South Africa has embarked. It so happens that in the speech which I am about to make, I will deal specifically—it is actually the main thrust—with the struggle between moderate Black leaders in South Africa and radicals. This event in Durban has simply underlined and strengthened the argument which I want to present.

But before I discuss that I want to refer to two other matters very briefly. The first is that I do not intend dealing in detail with the Appropriation for defence in this debate. I shall do so under the Vote itself. It is necessary to point out, however, that some of the hasty commentators who responded immediately when the Budget was announced, were misled by the complete change in the format in which the defence budget is presented by the exclusion of internal charges from the different programme totals. I will not deal with it today because I do not have the time.

The other point which I want to make is that one cannot switch off defence expenditure like a tap. It is ridiculous to suggest that because we signed the accord of Nkomati within a month we suddenly need not spend more money on defence. It is a long forward-planning process with extended deliveries. I am therefore glad that the hon member for Wynberg has back-tracked on what he said last Wednesday in regard to defence spending and his reference to it being ironic that after signing peace treaties, we are now increasing our expenditure.

The other matter with which I want to deal is the increase in pensions. I was shocked by the words of the hon member for Edenvale when he, on behalf of the official Opposition, welcomed the increase to social pensioners. It is an increase of 9,2% against an inflation index of more than 10%. Speakers on the Government side said that 1% GST should be excluded but they know that by the time the pension increase is paid out which will be in October, these pensioners will already have been paying the extra 1% GST for all those months. The other factor which is forgotten, is that the index is meaningless for pensioners. It is a reality that pensioners have a completely different basket from that of the average family man.

I want to refer to the hon the Minister’s own figures. There are three basic requirements which a pensioner has. First is housing and the hon the Minister’s own figures show the increase in the cost of housing index from 1982 to 1983 to 16,9%. Another essential is food. In that respect the increase is also above the index. There the figure is 11,8%. Then, most of these people want to travel or have to travel either to hospital for medical treatment or to see their families etc. In that regard the figure is 13,9%. In respect of every one of the three essentials of a pensioner the figure is above the index average.

Looking at the realities of what is in fact happening, I just want to give two examples. Firstly, I want to refer to a block of flats in my constituency. Although the rentals there are controlled by the Government, in just over two years they increased by 58,8% or over 24% per annum. In respect of another building the rentals increased from R65 by 12% in 1980 and again by 12% in 1981—that is in round figures. In January 1982 they increased by 30% to R107 and in January 1983 they increased by 35% to R145. They have gone up from R65 in December 1979 to R145 in January 1983. In respect of leasehold properties Durban is busy revising their ground rentals. In respect of Carlton Towers they have gone up by 439,5% over a period of 10 years. That is an average of 43,9% per annum. In respect of another building the current municipal valuation is R125 000. At the fixed rental rate of 6%, this should be R7 500 per annum, but it is now actually going up to R31 000 based on “market” value. Then they talk of the increase in pensions of 9,2% being welcome! I challenge the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare to tell us when they ever went to talk to pensioners and examined their personal budgets. The hon the Minister of Finance is an academic theorist who works on averages and percentages, but he lacks the necessary humanity when dealing with pensioners. During elections he publishes pamphlets saying he cares for them, but I believe that this is a disgrace and that the least the hon the Minister of Finance should do should be to give the once-only bonus of R36 as a monthly addition and to relate it proportionately to the other groups, because although the percentage increase in respect of the other groups is higher, the gap between pensioners has in fact increased.

What will be the cost of that?

That is for the Government to work out. I am talking about the realities of the problems people have in trying to survive.

I want to turn to what I believe to be the most important political issue facing South Africa, the missing element crucial to the process of reform. We have a new constitution and I believe it will work. It can work if the Government has the will to make it work. That is, however, only one of the three constitutional legs in South Africa. The second is the question of confederation. I am not going to deal with that now, but I want to say to the hon the Minister that the Government will have to accept our concept of a confederation. As regards the third leg, there is still a complete vacuum.

That relates to the non-homeland Blacks in South Africa. A year ago a Cabinet Committee was appointed which held a preliminary meeting to draw up guidelines, etc. Then the hon the Prime Minister invited homeland leaders and others to a luncheon at the beginning of this session. That is all we know about it. It is time South Africa was told what is happening and what progress has been made. At the root of the Government’s problem lies the fact that in regard to Blacks it is still enslaved by outmoded concepts. At one stage I really hoped that a new approach towards Blacks was emerging as it has emerged towards Coloureds and Indians, but my hope was premature because the Government seems unable to break out of its old straitjacket. Some of the Government members are, however, taking off their blinkers and trying to grapple with the reality that there is a new element of plurality that has developed in South Africa, namely the specific element of the non-homeland Blacks in the plural society of South Africa. The Government is still blinded by the belief that that new element does not exist, that they in fact are all members of some homeland, that they are not a new element and therefore do not have to be catered for. It is hopelessly out of touch because it does not seem to understand the problem itself, let alone have a solution.

Khayelitsha is an example. The hon the Deputy Minister announced that it is intended to remove all Blacks in the Peninsula from their established homes. He said it was going to be voluntary, of course. All that is going to be done is to stop development, stop new schools, stop anything being done to make life better for them. Life will be made so unpleasant for these people that they will move voluntarily out of their existing homes where they are settled. In that I see shades of one Blaar Coetzee, who said no high schools would be provided in urban townships and that life would be made so unpleasant that by, I think, 1976 or 1978, the flow to the cities would be reversed back to the homelands. I want to say to the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development that he should repudiate his hon Deputy Minister because he is destroying credibility in the goodwill of the Government to create a new deal for the non-homeland Blacks.

The Government must realize that the primary issue is not one of Black/White relations but of the struggle between responsible, moderate Black leaders and radical Blacks. The vast majority want to live in peace and friendship with Whites. They do not demand majority rule or revolution. They are not that stupid. They know that they would suffer. However, they do expect, and are entitled to, certain elementary basic rights such as security of family life, ownership of the home they live in, equality of economic opportunity, participation in decision-making that affects them, self-respect and human dignity. These are the essentials. Make that possible, and the Government will be on the way to helping the right side in this struggle.

There is only one solution and that is our policy of pluralism, but I am not elaborating on that. It is time that some stark realities were faced. In the struggle between Black moderates and radicals the tragedy is that the Government so often plays into the hands of the radicals. It knows Verwoerdian ideology has failed, but it is trying to re-present it in drag. Throughout South Africa moderate Blacks are working for their people, seeking a stable programme for peaceful coexistence. What I fear is a new force arising in South Africa to try to undermine and destroy those moderates. I believe that the radicals are looking more and more to the UDF to become the internal wing of the ANC in South Africa. They are looking for a legitimate front organization for the ANC. They cannot publicly foster or support a banned organization and they need a legal movement which they can manipulate. The UDF has not given cause to be banned. I want to warn the sincere liberals, the do-gooders and the genuine trade unionists in the UDF to study very carefully what is happening in that organization. They must take care that they do not become the tools of other forces, especially of the ANC, seeking a totally different objective to their own. These are forces with faceless, invisible leadership; bodies with members but with no heads, with no leaders, and they use people with credibility to do their dirty work for them. We have a stark choice and I want to put it to this House and to South Africa: Either we create structures for meaningful political expression where Blacks can participate legally in acceptable forms of government or they will exercise their politics outside the system as part of the underground of subversion and revolution.

We as a party reject domination either by majorities or by minorities. The only alternative is a system which will accommodate groups in plural structures providing the security of self-determination plus the opportunity and the stability of joint responsibility. One without the other is useless. The Government will have to learn that for Blacks too there must be joint responsibility and the PFP will have to learn that only the recognition of group identity as a base can bring harmony. The fact is that only this Government has the authority and power to do this, and do it now, not after frustration has turned into despair and violence, not after law and order requires counterforce to protect it. Only this Government can give the moderate leaders the political weapons to prove to an impatient Black people that reason achieves results. This is what that hon Minister is not doing; he is not giving them the weapons. We cannot blunder on from incident to incident. The Government is not giving the moderates those weapons but is infact undoing much of the good of its own efforts such as the provision of housing, education and better jobs.

In conclusion I want to say that the NRP has practical ideas to contribute to this problem in the days ahead. We have practical, positive proposals such as we had to contribute to the new constitution, but the Government will have to take a major leap forward to be able to accept some of the things that have to be done and also to accept the thinking and the philosophy of this party. However, in the end the Government will have to accept these things if the momentum of successful reform is to continue. This party is committed to continue making a positive contribution to that course of reform by doing our duty as we are doing it now and as we will continue to do it, and that is to point out the things that are wrong and what can be done to put them right.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Durban Point expressed concern for the aged, for pensioners and for the vulnerable and fragile people in our community. We share all the sentiments he expressed but he seems to have very little grasp of the background against which this Budget was formulated. I will, however, come back to the hon member in the course of my speech this afternoon.

In regard to his comments on the urban Black people, I think the hon member must be fair. We are in fact dealing with a very difficult problem and a very complex situation as far as non-homeland Blacks are concerned. However, the hon the Prime Minister after his apex discussions in November last year and after holding further important discussions earlier this year, has set up machinery to enable various study and work groups to go into this whole question of urban Black people. He also knows that six additional Black commissioners have been appointed from this Parliament, and that they are also paying attention to the special problems experienced by urban Black people. Prejudging the situation and saying that we must now leap into a dispensation offered by the NRP is I believe simplistic in the extreme. With respect, the hon member seems to be playing politics with a very difficult and complex problem. I believe the time will come when the NRP will be able to make a further contribution to the constitutional debate. They have indeed thus far made a contribution to that debate. What we will not do, however, is move in the direction of the type of federation the NRP offers South Africa.

Confederation.

Confederation and federation are not interchangeable terms. They are two completely different concepts. The fact is that the NP stands for confederation. There is a whole movement towards confederation, a movement that has already made considerable progress. As hon members should know there are, I believe, at least 19 … [Interjections.] Well, “constellation” is an additional term. That applies to countries that do not form part of the historic geographical area of South Africa. Fact of the matter is that we have a situation in which, I believe 19 functional committees are already operating on an interstate level among the TBVC countries, on a whole plethora of matters, including agriculture, security and many other matters. They are working well. Some of them are well structured, and that holds out the kernel of a possible international subcontinental secretariat at some future stage. [Interjections.] We cannot move, however, by taking random leaps into the dark. We have to move forward step by step, testing the ground to make sure it is firm before moving ahead.

In all fairness, Mr Speaker, people who allege that there has been no real reform in South Africa need not believe me or other hon members on this side of the House. They can read for example what was said in the Sunday Times of 25 March this year. In a report in that newspaper a Mr Pottinger, a man who can hardly be called a supporter of the South African Government, had the following to say, and I quote:

He then goes on as follows:

The fact is—and the hon member for Durban Point knows it—he and his party have made a valuable contribution in the Select Committee on the Constitution. He also knows that genuine reform is taking place in this country. The fact of the matter is that if one looks at the background against which this Budget had to be drafted a few very important factors emerge. Some hon members would say one cannot blame difficulties on the gold price or on the drought because these are just incidental and unimportant factors. These are, however, the things we should talk about. One cannot blame our economic difficulties on the international recession hon members say. That is utter nonsense. The fact is, however, that this is the background against which this country must function. If one does not want to measure the impact of the drought on conditions in South Africa, I believe it is essential that we should look at the impact of that same drought on other countries in our region. I happen to have here in my possession an article from The Star of 19 March this year. I believe all hon members have seen it. It was given to me by one of the representatives of the Agriculture Study Group. We hear from the World Bank in London that four countries in Africa are facing collapse. We learn that eight countries in Africa are completely unable to pay for their food imports, and that 20 million people are facing starvation. We also know that in some of our neighbouring countries, for example in Mozambique, up to 100 000 people have already died of starvation. We learn that there is a breakdown in security in Mozambique, in Ethiopia and in Chad. We also know that in our neighbouring countries uncontrolled bush fires are raging and that petrol is often unobtainable. Infant mortality in some of our neighbouring countries has risen by 9% in two years. We see that there has also been a break down in electricity supply in some of our neighbouring countries. So one can go on. That has been the impact of the same drought that we have had to combat and endure in our own region. When we consider the way in which we have been able to cope with it and compare it with the impact of the drought in the thirties that was not nearly as severe we realize that the economy of our country is being superbly managed.

We can also refer to the question of the gold price. Hon members pooh-pooh the question of the poor gold price and say that it cannot be blamed. They say we cannot blame conditions on the fact that the gold price has fallen. However, the fact of the matter is that when we compare the fluctuation in the gold price with the fluctuation in the oil price, we find that the price of oil has dropped less to oil producers than has the price of gold to us. When we consider the impact of the falling oil price on formerly booming economies, countries that were at reliant on oil as we are on gold, we find that the situation has been absolutely catastrophic. However, here under almost the same ciscumstances, what sacrifices are we being asked to make? The hon member for Yeoville told us that we had to sacrifice or else we would be heading for disaster. The sacrifice that we are being asked to make in South Africa under these circumstances amounts to an extra cent on a bottle of beer.

There has been no increase in personal tax rates. The question of fiscal drag has been mentioned. Who is affected by fiscal drag? Fiscal drag only affects the relatively higher income groups in our country. If hon members opposite say that nobody must be called upon to make sacrifices in the circumstances in which we are living then I say that is utter nonsense. We have not cut back on any social services. We have not cut back on hospital services or on essential services to the needy. The show goes on. Only the people who are relatively wealthy are being called upon to make a sacrifice in that they will have to pay more tax on their additional income than was the case previously. The hon member for Edenvale quoted us a figure in this respect but I should like to give a better example. A young man walked into an office the other day where I was and, during the course of conversation, I asked him what he earned. He was a young public servant. He told me he earned R16 000. He told me that he was married and when I asked him what his increase had been; he said that his notch increase plus the 12% overall increase would bring his salary to roughly R20 000. Then we worked out what his tax would be. On his previous income at the old rate his tax was R2 500 while on his increased income at the higher tax rate and with fiscal drag he will pay R3 740 in tax. His take-home pay has therefore increased from R13 500 to R16 260. This means that while his salary increased by 25% his take-home pay increased by 20%. Is that the sort of sacrifice that South Africans are not prepared to make under the circumstances in which we find ourselves today?

People say that we must not compare our country with countries like Mexico and Brazil and the Middle East countries. I do not know with which countries we must compare ourselves. The kind of countries with which we are asked to compare ourselves to are countries with which we are not comparable. However, among the Second World countries, we compare far better with the First World countries than any other Second World country. When we compare ourselves with Second World Countries, what do we find?

Let us take the question of inflation. In 1978 inflation in this country was 10,2%. It went on to peak at roughly 15% and it is now roughly 10%. Let us see what happened during the same period in comparable countries. In 1978 Mexico was a boom country. Money was pouring into it and everybody said that that was the place to visit. At that stage their inflation rate was 17,5%. Do you know what it is now, Sir? It is over 100%. If one looks at Israel, one finds that it had an inflation rate of 50% in 1978, but now it is over 300%. Let us take Argentina. In 1978 its inflation rate was 174%, but now it is 343%. One can look at any figures one cares to look at. I have all kinds of figures. [Interjections.] I hear that I must look at Australia. Let us look at Australia. The fact of the matter is that hon members have said that nobody has confidence in the hon the Minister because he is running the economy badly, he is unable to control inflation and he is unable to control the expenditure of the State departments. If he was such a bad manager and if indeed this country was so badly managed and if the Budget reflected that bad management, surely that would then be reflected in the creditworthiness of our country? What is the reality?

Let me look at Australia. As a matter of fact, I can also look at Sweden and Norway. If one looks at the magazine International Investor, one finds that it ranks and categorizes the creditworthiness of countries on a scale 1 to 100. I am now quoting figures of November last year. South Africa stood at 57,3 points on that scale. That was the highest in Africa. Let us compare it to other countries in Africa. Kenya had 28 points and Zimbabwe, 20. Let us move on and compare ourselves first to South America where the average was 24,9 points. The average for Eastern Europe countries was 35,9. Let us look at the Business Environment Risk Index rating of March last year. In the Beri rating they do not only make assumptions on a country’s credit rating but they also make projections for five years hence. We find that on a scale of 1 to 100 we stand at 62. We compare well with Canada, in fact, we are two points higher than Canada. We are ahead of Malaysia which is supposed to have such a miracle economy. Hon members are always telling us what a wonderful place Singapore is. We are ahead of Australia which stands at 58 points. We are ahead of France, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway and Denmark; developed First World countries.

The fact of the matter is that hon members must have some grasp of what is going on in our country. The hon member for Lichtenburg said that we were spending money like it is going out of fashion and that we are borrowing money to spend on current expenditure. That, of course, is nonsense.

Oh, I see. That is nonsense.

The hon member should look at the Budget because should he look at the Budget, he would find that that after we have paid back foreign loans which have matured, the real borrowing element is only R167 million. The fact of the matter is that that attack of the Opposition is woolly.

The hon member for Yeoville—we wish him well and we admire his sense of duty that he came here in the first place—said that the managed float was something bad; it was good for the gold mines but it fueled inflation and it created all kinds of distortions in the economy. Almost in the same breath the hon member told us that we were doing nothing to create employment in South Africa. What would have happened had there not been a managed float? What would have happened had we allowed the marginal gold mines to go to the wall? What would have happened had we allowed some of the marginal gold mines to go to the wall and what would have been the situation? What would have happened then to unemployment about which he talked? Which of our neighbouring countries would have taken back the hundreds of thousands of people who would have streamed back to their countries? We have a responsibility also to the regional economy.

They accused the hon the Minister and said that he had no control at all over what was going on. They say that he spends money like it is going out of fashion; the Budget means nothing. Fact of the matter is that we know that the hon the Minister cut back the requests from the State departments by R5 billion. He also said that they will have to report back every month. Is that not discipline? Is that not a mechanism by which this Minister will be able to regulate expenditure and monitor the situation in our country? I have never heard such nonsense as that which I had listen to from hon members on that side of the House.

I want to return to just one other point, and that concerns the drought. The drought does not only cost South Africa money in terms of a lower level of economic activity. All kinds of other things happen because of it. One is that we have to help the farmers by keeping them on the land. This is a wonderful effort and the Government has to be congratulated for what it does. The other problem is that the whole economy of the platteland suffers because farmers are suffering economically. Then we also have the problem of a loss of foreign earnings in respect of food that we would have exported. This has an adverse effect on our balance of payments. To make things worse, we have to import food and have to expend valuable foreign exchange to import food which otherwise we would have produced ourselves. When one takes all the circumstances into account, namely that we are at a different period in our history, that we are suffering from the worst drought in a hundred years, that we are in the middle of an international recession, that the world has become unpredictable, and one compares the performance of this country with that of comparable countries, one finds that our country’s performance has been nothing short of miraculous. For that a great deal of credit must go to this hon Minister who has steered the financial ship of State on a steady course. We want to thank him for that. The unbridled attacks upon his person are uncalled-for and not worthy of hon members of this House.

Mr Speaker, allow me at the outset to side with the hon member for Durban Point by expressing the CP’s condemnation of the reprehensible act of sabotage and terrorism committed in Durban. No-one can condone something like this.

The hon member for Maitland spent the greater part of his speech quarrelling with the hon member for Durban Point. However, they quarrelled like an engaged couple would. It was not really that serious. What has become of the statement by the hon the Deputy Minister of Community Development that a considerable degree of consensus had been reached between those two parties? I can see no sign of it now.

I want to deal with the hon member for Turffontein. I think it is absolutely deplorable and reprehensible that he dragged the personal affairs of hon members on this side of the House across the floor of the House. The personal attacks he made on hon members on this side of the House were reprehensible and I cannot imagine that hon members want to use the political style adopted by the hon member as the accepted style of the Government side. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member for Turffontein whether he accepts the challenge issued by the hon member for Jeppe to appear with him on a platform in Rosettenville. [Interjections.] The hon member is apparently not willing to do so, and I would advise him, if he is sensible, not to do so. In the course of his speech he stated categorically that there would not also be a Black chamber in Parliament. I wonder who he thinks should believe him.

In a report published in Rapport on 10 October 1978 under the headline “P W vat Piet oor ’n driekamer-Parlement” this was categorically denied and he was hauled over the coals for daring to mention a tricameral Parliament. But what are we getting in September? A tricameral Parliament! As little as we could believe this assurance, so little can we believe a denial that there is going to be a fourth chamber or something similar. I shall motivate my standpoint.

Before doing that, I want to say that the Government has been asked repeatedly by this side of the House how the new dispensation is going to work in practice. What will the cost of the new dispensation be, for example? After the hon member for Langlaagte had referred to this again yesterday I took another look at the Budget and I could not find an item anywhere specifying the cost of the new dispensation. After all we are dealing here with the Budget for 1984-85, during which time the new dispensation is to be implemented. It is against this background that one notes that the taxpayer in this country—the ordinary man in the street—has to pay 56% of the total tax paid as against the 24,8% paid by companies. Four years ago the figure was a mere 27,2%. There has therefore been a rise in tax paid by the man in the street of R8 590 000, whereas company tax—as the hon member for Langlaagte pointed out—has dropped by R781 million during the same period. Because this is the case, the taxpayer in this country has a right to know what the cost of the new dispensation will be. He also has a right to know at this stage where the members of the other two Houses are going to live and where their offices are going to be. The only reply we have had from the Government thus far is that no final decisions have been taken on this yet. I should like to know from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning where this accommodation is going to be, because September is just around the corner. I also want to know from the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs how he is going to plan to provide parking at our airports for 130 additional Parliamentarians, because there is already a shortage of accommodation.

According to the constitution and according to statements by the Government, all Parliamentarians must have equal status, rights and privileges. What is the position as regards dining-room facilities? Is it envisaged that all members will have to be accommodated in the present dining room facilities, or will there be additional facilities? Will the additional facilities and the present facilities be totally integrated for these population groups? I foresee one problem in this connection. How are certain members of the House of Delegates going to be provided with food which has to be Halaal? There will have to be a separate dining-room.

This afternoon I want to refer the hon the Minister of Manpower to questions he asked a few years ago. In 1972 he argued differently on this matter. I want to quote from Hansard of 11 April 1972, col 4636:

This is the United Party he is referring to here. He went on to say (col 4637):

Then the hon member for Turffontein, who at that stage was a member of the United Party, replied: “Yes”. Then that hon member, who is now a Minister, said:

Who does the cap fit now? Who is that party now? The present hon Minister then went on to say (Col 4638):

Then he went on to say (col 4639):

He went on to say (col 4639):

Now there are going to be by-elections in Potgietersrus and Rosettenville. Does the Government want to reply to us now, or are they also too afraid to reply? The hon the Minister went on to say (col 4640):

I cannot say that members of the Government are political cowards because that is unparliamentary, but I maintain that they are over-careful when they have to reply to this kind of question. The present Minister went on to say (col 4641):

Now I want to ask the same question. This is the question we are asking here. However, the Government is not replying to it—Then the present hon Minister went on to say (col 4642):

Can you believe, Sir, that a Minister on that side could be so conservative? [Interjections.] Now I want the hon members opposite to go to Potgietersrus and Rosettenville and admit that the NP has changed radically. Here is the proof, after all. [Interjections.] Because the taxpayer is going to be the one to pay, he has the right to know what burdens he is going to have to bear. The farmers who have received totally inadequate drought aid have to know this. The pensioners have to know this.

Here I want to join the hon member for Sunnyside in bringing a specific matter to the attention of the hon the Minister of Finance. There is the category of civil pensioners from before 1973, when general salary increases were introduced, who are lagging very far behind now. Pensioners who retired between 1973 and June 1981 received an additional increase of 10%, but that other category of pensioners, who are already lagging far behind, received a meagre increase of 10%. This means that there are civil pensioners who devoted their lives to working for the State, who today receive civil pensions of between R300 and R550 a month. I want to ask: How can we expect anyone to live decently on such a pension under the prevailing circumstances?

The next matter regarding which the Government must tell us honestly what it intends to do is the constitutional development of Blacks outside the national states. The Government, again through the hon member for Turffontein, denied categorically that there would be a fourth chamber. Let us, however, consider the history of this matter. In 1979 the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development made a speech in Palm Springs in which he was reported in South Africa to have said that apartheid was dead. In the no-confidence debate in 1983 he stated in this connection that the Government also wanted to involve Black people in the present constitutional dispensation, and that Black people were now permanently in White South Africa. This line is drawn through from the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development to the hon member for Innesdal, who said recently during the Second Reading of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill that it was not a question of whether the Blacks had to be accommodated politically, but merely a question of how this should be done. [Interjections.] The hon member is indicating his agreement with this. But then they should tell us how this is going to be done. How long has that Cabinet Committee been sitting on this matter now? Before the by-elections in Rosettenville and Potgietersrus they should tell us how this is going to be done. [Interjections.]

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

No, unfortunately I do not have enough time. The accommodating of urban Blacks in the new dispensation runs like a golden thread through the speeches of the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the hon member for Innesdal. Do hon members opposite agree with that, or are they really as frustrated and politically impotent as an academic indicated in a scientific investigation in Die Vaderland, when he said that the greatest frustration for 94 of the MPs opposite lies in their impotence when it comes to decision-making on matters of national importance. [Interjections.] Those hon members have become totally impotent politically. They will become aware of that in Rosettenville and Potgietersrus.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pietersburg reacted in an over-sensitive manner because a speaker on our side attacked them earlier. He is accusing him of launching personal attacks. Where could one find a better example of a personal attack than the one the hon member for Brakpan made daily on the previous hon Minister of Manpower? The hon member for Langlaagte also thrives on personal attacks. However, they have been hit now. The sanctimonious image of themselves they want to present to the people has been damaged by their actions in the outside world and by the non-payment of their debts. [Interjections.] That is the image they wanted to project to the outside world. Now they are crying about it.

They ask who gave the NP the right to adopt different standpoints from those of 40 years ago. The people gave us that right, of course. Have those hon members forgotten about the recent referendum in which two-thirds of the population supported us? For this very reason the NP is not impotent. It is a vibrant party that has existed for 70 years. [Interjections.]

Hon members opposite are asking what we are going to do about people of colour. The best example of the success the NP has achieved recently can be found in the President’s Council. Those hon members must go and see how the kind of questions they ask are answered in the President’s Council and how Coloureds and Asians take unanimous decisions with Whites in the interests of South Africa. No questions were asked about who eats with whom or who sits with whom. We in South Africa have reached a stage where we must refrain from stirring up the Whites against other races, something the hon members of the CP are doing every day. It is almost as though they want to intimate that a White person who speaks to a person of colour will contract leprosy. We cannot continue practising this kind of politics in South Africa. There has been talk of separate dining-rooms, but hon members of the CP may well go and ask any of the members of colour in the President’s Council whether they have been discriminated against in any way as far as that is concerned.

It is our policy and intention to do away with discrimination. However, those hon members are now trying to intimate that our children will have to go to school with children of colour in Acacia Park and that we will have to live there with them. This is diametrically opposed to direct pronouncements that have been made in that regard. Surely there is no question of mixed schools and residential areas. The hon member for Brakpan said that the NP was advocating integration in the schools, but hon members on this side pointed out to him that this is an untruth. As far as the NP is concerned, we have had direct pronouncements concerning schools and residential areas in South Africa.

Hon members of the CP thrive on the past. The hon member for Pietersburg, for example, quoted from Hansard of 40 years ago and pointed to pronouncements made by the NP at that time. Those pronouncements can no longer apply today, however. If the question is asked whether the NP has changed its standpoint in the 70 years of its existence, the reply is: “Yes, of course, it has changed its standpoint.” The NP has moved with the times and that is why it still exists today. [Interjections.] The question was also asked whether the NP has adapted its policy over the years. If we had not adapted our policy over the years, the NP would no longer exist today. Another question was whether we are going to accommodate the Black people in our political dispensation in the future. Of course we are going to find a method by means of which we can give these people an opportunity to have a say in their own affairs. Any White person in South Africa who believes that we can deprive the Coloured, the Indian and the Black man of a say in his own affairs in the future is living in a dream world.

This year we are celebrating the seventieth anniversary of the NP and this is possible only because the NP is a vital, growing party that adapts to circumstances. Throughout my life I have never known any party other than the NP, and I am proud to be a member of that party. [Interjections.] All 125 hon members sitting on this side of the House are proud of being able to be a member of the NP. We were not in the ranks of the subverted and traitors who undermined the NP over the years. [Interjections.] On occasion hon members of the CP have even referred to the chief leader of the NP as the JR of South Africa.

The NP has maintained a proud record over the past 70 years. The party was established as a result of a need that existed amongst the Afrikaners. After the Anglo-Boer War the Afrikaner was in sackcloth and ashes, and the NP came into being in 1914 to take care of the poor White question amongst the Afrikaners. I need not go into that any further, but the NP undoubtedly maintained a proud record as regards that work of upliftment. The first chief leader of the NP had no selfish motives. Gen Hertzog said: South Africa first! This country is going to be occupied permanently by the Whites as well. It is our country, as well as that of the other peoples, and we are proud of it. The NP has never been malicious in its attitude towards people of colour and other people who are inhabitants of Southern Africa. Of course, the same cannot be said of the attitude of the CP towards people of colour. The reason why those hon members are sitting in the CP today is because of the very fact that they adhere to an absolutely racist standpoint. That is also the very reason why they are no longer members of the NP today. [Interjections.] In 1948 the accusation was levelled at the NP that its taking over the government would lead to discrimination against, and injustice to, the English-speaking people in this country. The opposite is true, however. Leaders of the NP, for example, Gen Hertzog, Dr Malan and Dr Verwoerd extended the hand of friendship to the English-speaking people in this country over the years. They made it clear to the English-speaking people that they did not deny them anything. They also invited the English-speaking people to enter the future of South Africa with them. For that very reason we are privileged to be able to welcome English-speakers on this side of the House.

The first person to welcome English-speakers to the NP was Dr Verwoerd. He cordially invited English-speaking people to join the NP. When the NP came to power in 1948 it was generally alleged that we would oppress the Black people. The opposite is true in this case as well. Dr Verwoerd was the first White leader in South Africa to extend the hand of friendship to the Black people and tell them that we as Whites want to speak to them because we recognize them as people who also have rights here in Southern Africa. I can also well recall the time when Mr John Vorster welcomed the present President of Malawi, Mr Hastings Banda, and his wife to South Africa. That was in 1971. One of the photographs that were taken at the meeting between Mr Vorster and President Banda was used by certain people to show the voters of South Africa that the chief leader of the NP was sitting and eating at the same table with Blacks. [Interjections.] However, the NP took the initiative … [Interjections.]

With regard to the Black people in South Africa the NP pursued an ethnic policy that was not aimed at oppression or the denial of their rights, but, in fact, at the extension of their rights. I should therefore like to state that no party in South Africa has ever done so much to uplift the Black people and to improve their circumstances as the NP. The image of the NP in the outside world is being harmed in many respects, in particular by Opposition newspapers and by hon members of the Opposition themselves by the pronouncements they make. They create an image of the NP in the outside world of this party supposedly being the oppressor of people of colour and that the NP supposedly denies other races in this country their rights. It is even alleged that we in the NP hate other races. However, the opposite is in fact true.

Then there is another section of the population that presents a distorted picture of the NP to the outside world. They are the CP with their pronouncements. [Interjections.] It was the chief leader of the NP who succeeded in 1961 in getting South Africa to become a republic. We can therefore not deny that the NP took the lead in the process in which a pride in their own language was cultivated in the people of South Africa. It was also the NP that provided South Africa with its own flag and its own national anthem. The NP was also responsible for industrial development in South Africa, as well as for the establishment of a strong and formidable Defence Force. In addition, the NP established the stability through which a climate was created for proper business undertakings to conduct business in this country. Thus the NP has built up this country on an unprecedented scale over a number of years. The NP also brought about a change in the attitudes of people, which contributed to the establishment of better and healthier relations between people in this country. This is a process that is still continuing. The NP does not tell the people in South Africa what they would like to hear. The NP tells the people what they have to hear. It is in the interests of us all that a sound attitude between the different peoples in this country be maintained so that we need not regard one another with mistrust and hatred.

The NP and its chief leaders have also made South Africa one of the strongest countries in Africa, particularly in the military field. Of course, this was not done with a view to waging war. South Africa has never taken territory away from a single country, nor has it ever attacked another country. However, we prepared ourselves for war so that we could speak about peace, as we are doing at present. The HNP said that it wanted nothing to do with the signing of the Nkomati Accord. They said that they do not speak about peace; they want to fight. The people with whom we concluded peace are their enemies. According to the HNP, if a person is not an Afrikaner, he is the enemy of the Afrikaner. Hon members of the CP, who have now taken over the policy of the HNP, concede half-heartedly that Nkomati has borne fruit. However, Jaap Marais attacked them by saying that they should not have been there. The CP people say: We were there, but we did not enjoy it. We were hot, but we did not eat. [Interjections.] Their leader, the hon member for Waterberg, said that he simply walked out because he did not feel important enough. We are not afraid to say that we are seeking peace with people in Southern Africa. There is not one of us who does not want peace in South Africa. Nor is there any one of us who does not want to put an end to terrorism in Southern Africa. The credit for the initiatives taken by the hon chief leader of the NP in this regard goes to the NP.

All the people in Southern Africa must realize that the White man in South Africa is here to stay, and that he has rights that he will never forego. However, this does not mean—as is the standpoint of the CP—that we want to deny other people their rights. We have realized that the Black peoples are a reality in South Africa and that we cannot wish them away or get rid of them. We must find a method whereby we can live with them in peace. We must grant them rights and we must deal with them in a dignified way. They must also have a say in some way. That is the NP’s recipe for peace. The economic prosperity this holds out for South Africa is incalculable. The initiative the NP is taking at present can be to the benefit of everyone in South Africa. We can negotiate with all the peoples in South Africa in a spirit of co-operation and friendship and with mutual esteem and respect. This is the recipe for prosperity and for the improvement of the circumstances of all the people of Southern Africa. That is the policy of the NP. We shall have to improve attitudes among Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, for we have to speak to one another. We must also be able to understand the other person’s standpoint. All people will have to obtain the rights the Whites have claimed solely for themselves in the past.

We are particularly proud of the present hon chief leader of the NP for the initiatives he has taken in this regard. Despite what the hon members of the CP tell our hon chief leader, he will go down in history as one of the leaders of stature which Africa has produced. His standpoint is completely unselfish as regards all the inhabitants of South Africa. He makes it clear to everyone that he is not there to negotiate for only one group. He does so for all the inhabitants of South Africa, as well as for all the inhabitants of Southern Africa. If we are thriving and the states around us are regressing, we cannot live in peace.

We do not only have an upper stratum of talent from the ranks of leaders, we have many people of whom we are proud. We are proud of our Cabinet for the contribution they are making, as well as of every hon member and every worker of the NP. In this the seventieth year of the NP we can pay tribute to South Africa’s leaders throughout this entire period. They are world-class people. When Mr Vorster had talks with Mr Mondale in Switzerland the people came back and told us that the outstanding characteristic of those talks was the fact that there was no comparison between those two leaders as far as leadership was concerned. The South African leader stood out like a giant.

We are proud of the fact that we in South Africa produced a man like Paul Kruger. We are proud that since the Union of South Africa came into being we in South Africa have had men who were leaders as Prime Ministers. The NP was built on the principle of religious faith, justice and love for one’s fatherland. Since the NP has been in power, the Prime Ministers have taken steps that were necessary for the benefit of the country.

However, we also had people in the NP who undermined the party and were not loyal to it. I am thinking of people like Dr Hertzog, Mr Jaap Marais, the hon the leader of the CP, and the good example we have in the hon member for Rissik with regard to these underground activities. [Interjections.] There have always been schemers, but they have never been able to steer the NP from its course. We have had strong pillars.

Today I want to pay tribute to one such person, and that is the Vice State President, Mr Alwyn Schlebusch, who is now going to retire from politics. He is a person who says: “I will do anything for my country.” He has served this country of ours in practically every field. He has proved himself to be a strong and well-loved person in South Africa.

There are two things he has done in South Africa that I want to single out. I think the most important thing he has done to give direction to South Africa and our political dispensation was that by his actions he prevented a man like Dr Connie Mulder from becoming the Prime Minister of South Africa. If Dr Mulder had become Prime Minister it would have beeen fatal for South Africa. I thank and praise Mr Schlebusch for this.

The second thing I want to praise him for is that he has made a success of the President’s Council. If it were not for his leadership the President’s Council could never have been a success, and this would have had very disadvantageous consequences for us.

We Whites need not be afraid about the direction in which we are going as regards policy. Our future is assured with leaders of that calibre. The Whites must move out from behind these leaders. They must not hide under the tortoise-shell in desperate fear and mistrust of the future. The mutual trust of South Africa and Southern Africa can only bring prosperity. We are grateful that we are moving away from the abyss of destruction. We owe our gratitude to the present leader of the NP for that. We must enter the future with confidence under the leadership of men of that calibre. Let us go on, inspired by the sound and healthy spirit of leadership as displayed by the present chief leader and Mr Schlebusch.

Mr Speaker, I am sure the hon member for Vryheid will understand if I do not intervene in the private fight he is having with the CP; I have other matters to discuss.

The first thing that I want to say to the hon the Minister of Finance is that having searched very hard, I finally came across two possible pieces of good news in the Budget. The first—I am sure he can guess it—is that the Standing Commission on Taxation is having another look at the whole question of the separate taxation of working married women. The hon the Minister knows that this is a hardy annual as far as I am concerned. I think I first brought it up when Mr Tom Naude was the Minister of Finance, and that was a very long time ago. We on this side have all tried very hard to get a change in the taxation system because we are of the opinion that the fiscus will not lose nearly as much as the hon the Minister seems to think it will lose, if separate taxation is introduced. I readily admit that the reduction of the marginal rate has been a great help but with inflation that has been already eroded. Today people reach the level of R40 000 per annum much sooner than they would have done 10 years ago. I hope the hon the Minister will indeed give this matter a very serious second thought because I am convinced that there are large numbers of well trained skilled women who would enter the labour market and whose productivity would be of great use to South Africa which is so short of skilled labour.

I want to remind the hon Minister, if I can get his attention and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will leave him alone …

I am helping you.

Well, just keep quiet. The hon the Minister of Finance must also realize that there is a psychological effect on women who do not like to be lumped together with their husbands as one tax entity. They would like to have a separate tax identity.

The other gleam of hope in regard to a question which has been raised over and over again on this side, namely GST on foodstuffs. This is a very important matter and we are firmly of the opinion that GST should not be imposed on essential foodstuffs like bread, milk, mealie-meal, sugar etc. If necessary, let the rate go up on non-essentials and luxuries but do not keep it on essential foodstuffs because the lower income groups have to spend a large proportion of their income on food and this is affecting them very seriously. In the United Kingdom foodstuffs have a zero rating as far as VAT is concerned, and so I might add, has children’s clothing. I hope the hon the Minister will think about these things.

I want to come now to the subject I intend to deal with, and I make no excuse for raising it a second time. I do so because it seems very difficult to impress on this Government, this insensitive Government, the effect their statements and actions have on our standing overseas. The second reason why I raise this matter again is because it is of particular relevance at this moment, in that this week the House/Senate Conference of the United States Congress is scheduled to discuss the Solarz/Berman/Gray amendments to the Export Administration Act. Although I mentioned this in the no confidence debate, may I remind hon members that those amendments have already been passed by the House of Representatives. This happened in November last year. What they provide for is to impose strictures on further commercial bank loans to South Africa and a ban on the sale of Kruger Rands and other South African coins in the United States. They make adherence to the Sullivan Code of Fair Employment compulsory and reimpose control on all so-called “sensitive” exports from the United States, like computers, to South Africa, a control imposed by the Carter regime and removed by the Reagan regime. Finally, the Gray amendment prohibits all further commercial loans to South Africa. These are all very damaging amendments and they are right now being discussed in the House/Senate Conference and, if passed, will have a very serious effect on South Africa.

If hon members want to help the passage of these Bills and other punitive measures like the IMF Bill which has also already been passed, they will go ahead and continue to make the statements that have been made recently, and will make life even more difficult for American firms doing business in or with South Africa. Ministers should go right ahead announcing further plans for removals. That will be a great help overseas to the people in the anti-apartheid Africa lobby in Washington which is pressing for the imposition of these strictures. We must have more statements such as the one made by the Deputy Minister of Co-operation about the Government’s firm intention to move all the people of Nyanga, Langa and Guguletu to Khayelitsha. We know that is the Government’s intention. We know it is the intention to move those people and all the people from the greater Western Cape for that matter. Approximately 200 000 people will be involved. Do hon Ministers, Deputy Ministers and members think they can make statements like that without repercussions overseas? I was in America when the Magopa removal took place and there were glaring headlines in the Washington Post and the New York Times. I know it is not the hon the Deputy Minister’s policy per se. He merely announces Government policy, but surely one should have enough sense to know that nothing is worse for South Africa than these forced removals. We should forget about them and call for a freeze on all removals and not only the Langa, Guguletu and Nyanga removals. The 51 families in Lansdowne have become a focal point of Government policy and heaven only knows why. Other people at Driefontein and Matoepiesta are due to be removed. In Natal thousands of people are scheduled to be removed. If the Government were to announce a permanent freeze on all removals, it would do more good for South Africa than even a rise in the price of gold, let me tell the hon the Minister of Finance that.

The hon member for Standerton made the point earlier this afternoon that removals only cost a fraction of the total Budget. I am not talking about that.

Harry was talking about that.

Never mind what Harry was talking about. [Interjections.] I am now referring to what the hon member said and that is the important thing. The hon member for Yeoville said that there are other costs to removals than just actual monetary costs. I am sure he will agree with me that there is the cost in human misery. He said that it was damaging to our image overseas, and that is what I am talking about. Does the hon member realize—apart from the bureaucracy involved and the unproductive work of having people shifted around from places where they have lived for decades, where they have had title deed since before 1913 and where their ancestral graves are—that it is not only these pressure groups in Congress which will inhibit further investment in South Africa and thereby retard our economic growth rate, which heaven knows is pathetic enough as it is, but new investment will also be stopped by the hassle factor. I wonder if the hon member for Standerton has ever heard of the hassle factor. When people think of investing money, they not only examine the profitability of investing money in South Africa or whether or not it is a good, safe and secure investment for a bank to give South Africa a loan, they worry about the hassle factor at their annual general meetings. The hon the Minister of Finance knows what I am referring to. Church and other groups come along and cause such a hassle that it is just not worth it. The profitability is measured against the hassle factor and the unfavourable publicity at home. The effect on the Black constituency at home, and so any idea of investment is dropped. That is why there is so little new investment coming to South Africa from America, the United Kingdom and other countries. It is not just a question of divesting oneself of existing investments because that is much more difficult to do. It is a question of what we are losing in future investment. Nobody can work out that amount. However, I am prepared to bet that it is very considerable indeed.

On university campuses this is of course now the popular move. The university trustees—there are billions of dollars involved—must disinvest in companies which are doing business in or with South Africa or withdraw accounts from banks which make loans to South Africa. These trustees have to face up to the campus agitation which, believe me, is very well organized. Many major universities in the United States with billions of dollars of trust funds at their disposal have already disinvested. Universities that come to mind immediately are Columbia, which has millions to invest, Yale University and Berkley. All these universities and others such as Harvard are fighting a losing battle against agitation on the campuses to withdraw from engagement in companies on banks involved with South Africa.

I would think hon members ought to think about these things and the difficulties that are involved when removal schemes make the headlines overseas, when deaths in detention are headlines overseas and, in fact, when any measure is applied which exemplifies lack of due process. Americans put great store by due process, as indeed they should, and as we in these benches do too. I cannot imagine what a wonderful effect it would have in America if this Government could say: “From now on we are going to return to due process; no more detentions without trial and no more bannings and restrictions on individuals; tomorrow we are going to lift the restrictions on, say, Beyers Naudé, Winnie Mandela and the other 9 people who are banned”. It is absurd that this country should labour under this slur of being a police state because it goes in for the banning of people and for detention without trial. We should be able to order our affairs without doing any of those things.

I want to point out that it is not only Congress or the universities I mentioned that have introduced these damaging measures against South Africa but also state legislatures. Already four state legislatures have passed measures calling for the divestment of pension funds from all companies engaged in business in South Africa. Those state legislatures are Michigan, Connecticut, Washington DC and Massachusetts.

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

Yes, but the hon member must be very quick. He must not make a speech.

Will the hon member concede that this situation had arisen because of the activities of her party overseas? [Interjections.]

Absolutely not. On the contrary, I can tell the hon member that I have spoken on campus after campus against disinvestment in the teeth of much opposition. Only last week an article of mine against divestment appeared in the Washington Post. So! [Interjections.]

Keep it up, Helen.

What has the hon member for Boksburg, the hon member for Innesdal or any hon member on the Government side done? They have the power—we do not have the power because we are the Opposition—to stop removals forthwith, to freeze removals, to stop detaining people without trial, to reintroduce due process in this country. The power to do those things lies with the hon members opposite and it is their actions, and not our objections to those actions, which cause the damage to South Africa overseas. We cannot do anything in secret anymore. The eyes of the world are upon us. Television cameras are trained, upon us. If the Government thinks it can get away with its sneaky little actions, it can forget about it. They are known all over the world not the next day but on the same day on which they occur.

I want to tell hon members that, if they think that, for instance, the Nkomati Accord or the constitutional changes which have been introduced and which will bring the two minority groups into a parliamentary structure are going to suffice, they are bluffing or deceiving themselves. The American State Department made it quite clear straight after the referendum that “that will not suffice”. If that is the case with the Reagan Government, can you imagine, Sir, what it will be if there is a Mondale or Hart Government in the US at the end of this year? If the hon members imagine that those changes are enough, as I say, they are deceiving themselves. I want to quote a statement made by the US Secretary of State, George Shultz, only last week when he reiterated the standpoint of his Government in a speech he made in Washington to senior executives of US firms doing business in South Africa. He said the ability of the United States to sustain a productive relationship with South Africa was limited as long as political and economic power remained overwhelmingly in the hands of Whites, and meaningful political participation was denied the majority on the basis of race. He also said that the South African system was completely contrary to American values and that it nurtured violence and instability. How we see that even in the incident that happened today! He also said:

That speech was made post-constitutional change and post-Nkomati Accord. It was made last week. We on this side have long preached exactly that policy. We believe that policies which extend rights to all our citizens are right for South Africa. We do not preach them because of overseas opinion. We believe they are right for South Africa and we know that that is the only way to peace in Southern Africa. We know that for sure. Unless and until South Africa’s internal policies are brought into line with the criteria that guide the Western democracies of the world, we will never be re-accepted and we will not gain our respectability internatinally.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Houghton has exhorted us on this side of the House to be more responsible in our comments, but what does she do? She simply says, quite blatantly: “No further removals.” [Interjections.] She says: “Stop further removals.” I have no objection if the hon member comes out against removals, but she does so without qualification. It is no more than fair to expect her to judge each removal on merit and to act responsibly with regard to it. If she exhorts this side of the House to be more responsible, she must be more responsible herself.

I want to endorse the remarks made by the hon member in thanking the hon the Minister of Finance for the fact that the question of the taxation of married women has been referred to the Standing Committee on Taxation. This has been a rather emotional matter, and it is important that proper attention is now being given to it and that finality will be reached in this connection. However, there is one aspect that I wish to highlight. I believe that this problem will to a large extent be solved if the PAYE system is improved. Many of the problems which exist in practice in this connection are due to the fact that not enough tax is deducted from the husband’s and wife’s salaries in the course of the year. The fact that the husband may also earn a large salary is not sufficiently taken into consideration, and at the end of the tax year, a large additional amount has to be paid. This causes friction. If this can be solved, a great deal of the controversy surrounding this matter will be removed.

The general criticism levelled at the Budget, especially by the PFP, is that it is lacking in objectives and that it is vague and unimaginative. I want to refer in particular to what the hon member for Walmer said yesterday. He said: “It is a totally unimaginative Budget.” Then he simply proceeded to voice every possible complaint about the Budget that one might have found in a book of complaints. Among other things, he said that the Government was overspending, that it was not creating enough jobs, that it did not have an industrial strategy and that all planning was done on an ad hoc basis. Then he made the following blatant statement:

No credit whatsoever is given to this side of the House. No attention is given to the fact that we find ourselves in an extremely difficult situation as a result of droughts, floods, the lower gold price and the international recession.

If the Government is so unimaginative, so inept and so lacking in direction, surely it must show somewhere. Surely there is an objective criterion for evaluating the Government’s conduct and its economic policy, namely the confidence of the population. If the population of South Africa does not have any confidence in the Government, there will not be any consumer spending or investment, and there will be uncertainty about the economic future of the country. However, what is the position? In spite of the recession, consumer spending is still relatively high, especially with regard to semi-durable goods, such as furniture, dwellings and so on. Share prices and property prices are fairly high, in spite of the high interest rates. These are signs that the population has confidence in the economy of the country, in the hon the Minister of Finance and in his management of the economy. If they did not have confidence in the economy, they would certainly not have been prepared to make investments. Our problem is actually that this confidence is perhaps too great and that as a result, there is too much spending and not enough saving. Allegations of mismanagement are simply untrue and are contradicted by the confidence which the man in the street and the businessman have in the Government.

It has also been argued that Government expenditure is too high. A classic example of this are the arguments which the hon member for Yeoville advanced. One moment he asks for increased spending on social services to support the constitutional development, and the next moment he complains that expenditure is too high. Then he asks what is being done to stimulate the creation of jobs. In other words, he asks for increased expenditure. He also complains about inflation and the creation of money, and in the very next sentence, he complains about the fact that we have lost a billion rand as a result of the relaxation of exchange control. Only the hon member for Yeoville and other hon members of his party are able to advance such arguments and to believe that they do not contradict one another.

The fact is that we are going through the deepest recession since the Second World War; it is deeper then the recession of 1975-77, and surely the State must help to get us out of it. If there had been a major cutback in State expenditure, it would have worsened the recession. Is that what those hon members want? I should like to quote what the latest business letter of Barclays Bank says about this aspect. On page 9 we read:

Our economy is controlled by an extremely able Minister of Finance, and an obvious proof of his ability lies in the fact that the country and the general public have confidence in him and in the economy.

I should like to refer to another matter which is not related to the economy. I asked that the hon member for Waterberg should be present. Unfortunately he is not, so I request that my remarks should be conveyed to him.

On 27 October last year, a young Black man, Tembiza Ngcobo, was arrested in Pietermaritzburg while in possession of a GT 50 mine, at a time when the hon the Prime Minister was addressing a public meeting. This Black man was arrested between the town hall and the hotel at which the hon the Prime Minister was to have attended a social function after the meeting. He was arrested at 21h15, during question time at the meeting in the town hall. He was arrested approximately 20 metres from the entrance to the hotel and approximately 130 metres from the town hall. The mine, which was fully activated, was found in his possession. All that remained for him to do was to install a small battery. He had the battery in his pocket. As soon as he had installed the battery, the mine would have exploded within 15 minutes.

As a person who was present there, and who knows what the circumstances were, I can only say that it was an act of Providence that prevented a disaster from taking place there that evening. Tembiza Ngcobo had been trained by the ANC in Swaziland in the handling of explosives. Before that incident, he had already committed seven other acts of sabotage. On each of those seven previous occasions, a bomb had exploded, inter alia at the College Road Supreme Court building in Pietermaritzburg, at the offices of the Drakensberg Administration Board, and at certain Escom pylons. He had also been in frequent contact with the people in Swaziland who gave him his instructions, and had received remuneration for every successful sabotage attack he had launched. This was a trained saboteur who had already been responsible for successful sabotage attacks. He was arrested while in possession of an activated mine, within about 100 metres from the Pietermaritzburg town hall, in which 2 000 people had gathered to listen to a speech by the hon the Prime Minister. There cannot be any doubt about what his intentions were that evening. If the Police had not kept such an extremely sharp look-out that evening, the evening could have ended in disaster. This Black man had first tried to place the bomb at the back of the town hall. However, when he got there, there were too many policemen around. He then went down a back street to the front of the town hall, until he was very close to the hotel, which was also extremely heavily guarded by the Police. If an observant policeman had not noticed that this Black man was very nervous, and had not arrested him, a very serious disaster could have taken place that evening. I want to emphasize once again that only by the tremendous watchfulness, vigilance and planning of the Police that evening was a major disaster averted.

What does the hon member for Waterberg have to say about this incident? On 16 November last year, he said the following at a meeting in Germiston, and I quote:

The explosives expert who testified during the trial of Ngcobo said that he had conducted tests with similar bombs in the past and had found that shrapnel from that particular bomb could have caused death and destruction over a distance of 180 metres. However, the hon member for Waterberg referred to that bomb as a “bommetjie”. The hon member talked about all kinds of gimmicks, and went on to tell the story of a missionary who was instructing a candidate for confirmation in the mission field. He said:

Then the hon member for Waterberg said:

Now I just want to ask: Who is making political capital out of a dangerous situation? The question is simply what the hon member for Waterberg meant by these remarks. It is very difficult under ordinary circumstances to find out what the hon member for Waterberg meant. The fact remains that according to this report, he spoke about strategems used in a referendum campaign and he said that it was extremely strange. He also connected it with this story. [Interjections.]

One thing is as plain as a pikestaff as far as this speech is concerned, and that is, to put it very mildly, that the hon member for Waterberg questions the facts connected with the events in Pietermaritzburg that evening. He questions them. He casts doubt on the credibility of the Government, and the suggestion is very clear, namely that the Government has used this matter for its own political gain. [Interjections.] I do not want to complain about this, because the Government is used to that type of insinuation. The Government can take that kind of insinuation. What is much worse, however, is that by making these insinuations, the hon member for Waterberg has placed in doubt the integrity of the SA Police and the Security Police who dealt with the matter, those people whose vigilance and presence averted a disaster. The impartiality of those persons is now being questioned. [Interjections.] They are indeed being accused by implication of having been Government lackeys and of having carried out an elaborate ruse when they removed hundreds of persons from the hotels when the bombs was found there. The implication is that this was simply a stratagem by means of which they helped with the referendum campaign. Some of those policemen and the security people have approached me to express their dissatisfaction with the remarks made by the hon member for Waterberg. They asked me what they should think when an important political leader questioned their impartiality and their integrity. They objected most strongly to this. [Interjections.] I have not seen any repudiation of these remarks. I have not seen any apologies. I have not seen any qualification of these remarks, in spite of the fact that Ncgobo was convicted in the Supreme Court and sentenced to 100 years’ imprisonment, of which 20 years will be effective.

These are serious times. This morning there was another bomb attack in Durban during which three persons died. I want to appeal to the Leader of the CP not to destroy the morale of our policemen and security men by this kind of idle political talk. Our country simply cannot afford it.

Mr Speaker, the hon member Mr Schutte devoted the last part of his speech to the incident which had taken place on 27 October and to which my hon leader had referred. We are obviously grateful for the fact that no disaster took place on that specific date. We want to place this on record very clearly, very firmly and unconditionally.

One must bear in mind that during the whole process which preceded the referendum, the NP and the proponents of a yes vote used gimmicks and propaganda which every right-thinking person would be ashamed of. [Interjections.] Let me refer to only a few incidents. On the Sunday night before the referendum, the hon the Minister of Law and Order made great play of the fact that the ANC was asking the White voters of South Africa to vote “no” on 2 November. [Interjections.] Now one should examine the Public Safety Act, which was amended last year. Consult that Act to see what the obligations of the subject of the State are with regard to the conveying of messages or reports from a banned organization. This is something which is prohibited, but the hon the Minister of Law and Order told the whole world about it. It was a message which had originated in Lusaka, ie that the ANC has asking the Whites to vote “no”. If the hon the Minister of Law and Order had not made that allegation, no voter in South Africa would have known that the ANC had sent out such a message, because that message was conveyed only by the ANC. I want to put this question to the hon the Minister of Law and Order: If the ANC had asked the Whites of South Africa to vote “yes”, would he also have conveyed that message to the people of South Africa? These are the gimmicks, the kind of things that happened at the time of the referendum.

One could also think of what happened to the hon the Leader of the CP about a year ago. Someone reported to the SABC that our leader had been shot. The hon the Minister who is sitting over there said at the time that it was a CP supporter who had spread that rumour. Let us examine that gimmick used by the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] Then I want to refer to the hon member for Turffontein. It is curious that the NP always uses members who have defected from other parties to do the dirtiest of their dirty work in this House. [Interjections.] That hon member reminded me of the poem by Ingrid Jonker, called “korreltjie sand”:

I am not going to say any more about the hon member for Turffontein, because his conduct is disgusting.

The hon member Mr Schutte also referred to the Budget. He said that expenditure was still at a high level. He also criticized the Opposition for having said that the expenditure was too high. I hope the hon member has taken cognizance of what the editor of Volkshandel, the publication of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, wrote the other day in the March edition of that magazine. I assume that he has also read it. In this article, the editor refers specifically to expenditure, as follows:

I assume that the AHI supports that party—

With regard to State expenditure he says:

This is what the editor of Volkshandel says. These two aspects are the very ones that the hon member Mr Schutte tried to defend. On those two points the AHI has attacked the Government.

Scientists teach us that people have three basic aspirations, to have an identity of their own, constant stimulation and security. Reading about these three elements again, I came to realize the enormous extent to which the Government had moved away from the observance of these requirements. The new dispensation negates all three these basic elements. What does the Government say about the aspiration to have an identity of one’s own? How can there be any question of an identity of our own when we are in the process of becoming one nation, relatively speaking, with the Coloureds and the Indians? We may disappear into the quicksand of this nation-forming process while serving behind closed doors on mixed Standing Committees in the year to come. According to the present thinking of the governing party, when one seeks to preserve one’s own identity, one is a racist. Then one is absolutizing colour. According to the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs, there are three separate Houses of Parliament because the government regards the three population groups as people who would like to form their own communities and live in their own areas. That is why there are separate houses in Parliament. There is no reference to colour, for to differentiate on the basis of race and colour is unacceptable. However the hon the Minister does not create separate Houses for the English, the Portuguese and the Greeks. All these groups also have a separate community life which they would like to preserve. That kind of argument is very woolly, in the words of Big Brother Willem. These are woolly arguments and they do not testify to political honesty. According to Hansard, col 3379 of 20 March 1984, the hon the Minister is prepared to sit around one table with the Coloureds and Indians, but not in the same House. This, he tells us, is not racism. You can sit around the same table, but not in the same House. This is not racism. He does not create a separate House for the Ndebele or the South Sotho, and that is not racist. When one creates a separate state for them, that is not racist either. It only becomes racist when one creates a separate state for the Coloureds and the Indians. Then it becomes racist. This is not the case when one creates separate Houses for them. One is allowed to do that, but then it must not be done on the basis of race or colour. It must be done on the basis of seeking to preserve a separate community life. Let us be honest. If this is so, the hon the Minister must admit that the PFP is right about freedom of association. Then they must accept the policy of the PFP and allow the people freedom of association and do away with the population register, as the hon member for Innesdal in fact wants to do. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism says that the decentralization policy was introduced for economic reasons. We accept that the reasons included economic considerations, but woe betide you if you say that it was introduced for ideological reasons. He says that it is not being done for ideological reasons at all. He tries to get away from that. It appears to be unacceptable to talk about ideology when it comes to decentralization.

The CP is in favour of a separate White identity and we advocate a separate identity for the various Black peoples, the Indiansand the Coloureds. In the second place, we want to refer to the absence of the constant stimulation of people, the surging and expression of their national character, the generation of their enthusiasm. Apart from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, no one feels enthusiastic about the new dispensation. We heard last Wednesday that there would be four Budgets next year. However, we do not know what those Budgets will look like. No Government speaker has replied on that. No where in the Budget is any provision made for revenue and expenditure for the new dispensation. It is not to be bound under the “Parliament”, “Constitutional Development and Planning” or “Internal Affairs” Votes. [Interjections.] The new dispensation will be in force for six months of this year, but in spite of that, it is not even referred to in the Budget speech.

At the time of the American War of Liberation, there was a slogan which said “no taxation without representation”. We now have taxation and representation under the new dispensation, but we do not know how the Budget will be drafted and how the money will be spent. There will be only one Big Brother who will be in charge and he will take the decisions.

I also want to refer to the lack of security. This is the sphere in which the Government is most vulnerable. Our people do not have a sense of security. The Group Areas Act is disappearing. Central business districts are being opened up and people are worried about the possibility that Coloureds and Indians may be allowed, to live in the central business districts. The Separate Amenities Act is being pushed into the background. Section 16 of the Immorality Act is about to disappear, and so is the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act.

I also want to refer to the way in which the White worker is being disregarded. The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs ignored an invitation from the Mine-worker’s Union to address their annual congress. This is a White trade union, after all, so what is it worth? When Harry Oppenheimer invites him, he is quick to accept.

If the hon the Minister of Manpower wants to give muscle to the Labour Relations Act, he will be capitulating to the PFP.

I am not arguing with the hon member for Langlaagte, who said that the hon the Minister of Finance was a good Minister. However, I want to ask the hon the Prime Minister, when he appoints his next Minister of Finance, to appoint a person who represents a constituency. Then that hon Minister will be able to see month after month how the voters are seeking security and how their savings are being eroded. There are voters who get pension increases of 9,5%, while the inflation rate is 10%. There is the voter who queues up to pay a fine because he exceeded his parking time by a few minutes. There is the voter who struggles to breathe because he is suffering from pneumoconiosis. There is the voter who sees the municipal valuation of his house being increased again and again, while not getting any better services than he did five or ten years ago. The hon the Minister lacks one precious attribute. He lacks the common touch. When I was a young student in 1943, I heard a previous Prime Minister, Dr Malan, say in the Pretoria town hall that the National Party was the poor man’s party. Sir, it is no longer the poor man’s party today. It is the party of the Carlton Conference and the Good Hope Conference today. I also went to Nkomati. If an election had been held at Nkomati on that day, the PFP would have won. My own Prime Minister did not even use his mother tongue at Nkomati. The National Party has moved away from the things that are previous to the Whites in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I want to say to the hon member for Brakpan this afternoon that I very seriously considered not reacting to what he said in this House this afternoon. His personal attacks on members on this side of the House are absolutely scandalous. I want to say to him that to attack any person in this House in his absence, and to attack Willem de Klerk in his absence in the way he did, is counter-productive. I want him to take cognizance of that. His conduct in this House this afternoon was at an entirely personal level and I find that absolutely shameful.

The hon member is concerned about the new dispensation. I want to say to him that the attitude that our people are going to adopt to the future of South Africa will be decisive in bringing about peace and security in this country. However, the attitude displayed by the hon members of the CP in this House bodes ill. The hon member for Brakpan, who has been in this House for many years, referred to the Immorality Act, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Group Areas Act. Surely he knows that there are select committees that are investigating these matters at the moment. He ought to know that, in any event. I shall leave the hon member at that.

I requested the hon member for Langlaagte to be present during my speech, and I now wish to take him to task. I want to refer to the speech he made in this House yesterday. In that speech he referred to a newspaper report. I, too, have that report in my possession. It appeared in Ekstra Rapport. Referring to that report the hon member said (Hansard, 2 April):

I should like to deal with that hon member this afternoon. As we also saw in the conduct of the hon member for Brakpan this afternoon, those hon members rebel whenever people of colour are at issue. The hon member for Langlaagte, as a member of this House, knows that on 3 March last year the hon the Minister of Community Development issued a statement with regard to the housing strategy. It stated that the Government had in the past repeatedly stated clearly that it placed a high premium on home ownership and that its aid schemes with regard to the provision of housing were aimed at promoting home ownership. It was also mentioned that community leaders of the various population groups, such as organized local authorities for Whites, the management committees for Coloureds and Indians, community councils and members of Black communities had in the past made strong representations to the effect that dwelling units should be sold and made available. I should at least have expected a representative of a constituency to take cognizance of a statement made by an hon Minister in this House. In his statement the hon the Minister had the following to say in regard to the way in which the sales campaign would be tackled:

The hon member for Langlaagte need only have taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the hon the Minister’s Press statement. I regard him, too, as a community leader. If he is honest with the people in his constituency as regards the provision of housing, then what has he done in this regard? The request of the hon the Minister has been implemented and a circular sent to all local authorities in which they have been requested to identify houses in their respective areas that may be offered for sale. However, what has the hon member for Langlaagte done in this connection? Did he at all condescend to go and ascertain from his own local authority in Johannesburg what was being done for those people to whom he referred?

I do not wish to bore hon members with the details of the sale of these houses. The hon member ought to be acquainted with them himself. However, he asks why the report only appeared in Rapport Ekstra and why these houses were only available to Coloureds and not to his people as well. I am extremely sorry that the hon member for Langlaagte has been silenced this afternoon. In his speech he said that one should not underestimate a businessman. I do not know whether he has heard of Die Volkshandel. A fullpage advertisement appeared in that publication entitled “Die huiseienaars glimlag”. In the advertisement employers were requested inter alia to afford their employees the opportunity to obtain their own houses. I should like to quote one paragraph of the advertisement:

Die minste wat u kan doen is om al die inligting oor die skema bymekaar te maak en dit aan werknemers beskikbaar te stel sodat hulle duidelikheid en insig kan verkry oor die aangeleenthede en voordele wat tot hulle beskikking is.

Surely those are the hon member’s people. Why did he not play his part as well?

I also wish to refer the hon member for Langlaagte to an advertisement that appeared in the Financial Mail of 13 January. He would do well to take cognizance of that as well. [Interjections.] The hon member pleads that those houses be made available to his people as well, but he will never find anything to prove to me that reference is made to any particular group, be it the White, Coloureds, Indians or Black people.

I should like to refer to a few examples of houses being sold in Port Elizabeth. Up to the present, 325 dwelling houses have been sold. The prices paid for those houses were inter alia R6 007, R4 736, R5 173 and R6 430. At Petrusville houses were sold to Whites for R3 877. I think that if an hon member wants to raise this matter in this House he ought really to take cognizance of the true state of affairs. However, the hon member for Langlaagte makes a public pronouncement which is devoid of all truth. He tries to create the impression among the public that the Government is not seeing to housing for Whites. The hon member ought to know that the hon the Minister of Community Development announced at a housing congress last year that the Government was going to spend R200 million on White housing in South Africa over the next two years. The CP must get away from the habit of constantly attacking the NP and seeking to give the impression that we do not look after the interests of the White man in South Africa. They can very safely leave the interests of the White man in the hands of the NP, because we look after the Whites of South Africa. [Interjections.]

This afternoon I wish to convey my gratitude to the hon the Minister of Finance for what he has done in the interests of the elderly people of this country. It is with great appreciation that one takes congnizance of what, according to statistics, has been done for our lesser privileged people.

In the time at my disposal I should like to discuss the granting of credit to our people because I think that this is a matter which undoubtedly requires our attention. Buy-aid associations offer assistance with the best intentions, but this accustoms the consumer to living on future earnings. For example, when a man qualifies for a certain amount in order to obtain housing, he is not concerned about his actual need, but about the amount he is able to acquire in order to qualify for the maximum housing subsidy.

I wish to refer briefly to credit cards. In just one year goods and services to the value of R32 000 million are paid for by means of credit cards. I was most disturbed to read in a report in The Star of 16 January 1984 that fewer than 50% of the people who spent R32 000 million by way of credit cards paid their accounts in full at the end of each month. Our people must learn financial planning. I learned on enquiry from nine local authorities that over a period of two years, three of them had written off approximately R116 898 because people did not comply with their financial obligations. This state of affairs contributes towards higher tariffs. In 1980 the banks advanced R5,4 million to private borrowers; in 1981 the figure was R7,6 billion; in 1982, R12 billion and in 1983, R17 billion. At the beginning of April we took cognizance of further increased tariffs and increased prices or articles, and we must appeal to the public to begin to live within their financial means.

Another aspect I want to refer to is that those people who maintain too high a standard of living have an influence on the demographic trends in South Africa. In the period 1904 to 1980 the average increase in population was 2,28% per annum. For the various population groups it was as follows: Asians, 2,54%; Blacks, 2,37%; Coloureds, 2,36% and Whites, 1,86%.