as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on the Paarl Mountain Amendment Bill (Hybrid) [B 26—83], as follows:

W H DELPORT,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

4 April 1984.

Report to be considered.

Mr Speaker, because the possibility exists that nobody will oppose this, I move without notice:

That this House at its rising on Friday, 13 April, adjourn until Tuesday, 24 April.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, in my speech last night I expressed my concern at the way in which credit was being extended to our people. This afternoon I want to emphasize once again that I am very concerned about the financial position in which many people in our country find themselves. In Johannesburg 90 civil cases arising from debt offences were reported daily during December 1983 and in the first 11 months of 1983, 43 132 similar cases were registered in Durban. If one considers these figures, one realizes what proportions the problem is assuming. Today I therefore want to take this opportunity to make an appeal to every individual to live within his financial means, and also to our creditors to take the financial position of individuals into account when granting credit. A too high standard of living leads to many people finding themselves in a financial predicament during a period of recession. The Government cannot accept sole responsibility for inflation. I believe that every individual also has a major responsibility in this regard.

Last Saturday I was privileged to attend a meeting in my constituency at which between 500 and 600 farmers very gratefully and appreciatively took cognizance of the assistance the Government was offering to those who were experiencing problems. Today I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture and the Government most sincerely on behalf of those farmers, and while on the subject of the responsibility of the individual, I want to thank the hon the Minister of Finance and the Government most sincerely for their continued efforts to combat inflation. At the same time I want to appeal to every individual and also to businessmen to play their part in this period of recession.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Witbank rightly argues that the problem of inflation is the result of many factors, and that the public, businesses, industrialists and so on are to a certain extent jointly responsible for the high rate of inflation in South Africa. What the Government must fully realize, however, is that in effect, the primary responsibility to institute measures of control in order to counter inflation rests upon its shoulders. The hon the Minister of Finance is still the man in charge as far as inflation is concerned, and it is primarily his duty to see to it that inflation is duly combated. I am not going to react further to what the hon member for Witbank had to say. Politically speaking that hon member is standing with his back to an open grave and that is probably why he has so often made speeches in this House recently. He may not have the opportunity to do so for much longer.

†Mr Speaker, I have a very, very serious matter which I wish to raise today. I was hoping that the hon the Prime Minister could be present but unfortunately he has to attend to other matters and has informed me accordingly. [Interjections.]

It is nice of the hon the Prime Minister to keep you informed, is it not?

Very nice indeed of the hon the Prime Minister to do so because in the past he has failed dismally to keep me informed about a number of things. [Interjections.] What I want to raise now, however, is a very serious matter and I would like hon members of the Cabinet to convey what I am going to say to the hon the Prime Minister because it is directed at him.

At the time of his election the Prime Minister promised South Africa clean government. I do not think it was his intention to dump the whole lot in a tub of cold water OMO, I think it was his intention that it should be government beyond reproach and suspicion. This undertaking came in the wake of the Information scandal which had extensively and irreparably damaged the public’s faith in government. It was therefore a timeous and necessary undertaking and was aimed at restoring the bond of trust between the taxpaying public and their Government. A bond of trust is an extremely important aspect of successful democratic government. Indeed, it is not only an important aspect, it is vital requirement for successful democratic government. For democracy to survive and remain strong, it is vital that the public must be able to trust and have faith in their elected representatives. When this trust is broken through the misbehaviour of public representatives or members of the Cabinet, democracy itself is dangerously undermined.

Dishonesty, corruption and irregularities, when committed by people in positions of public trust, provide the enemies of democracy with useful arguments with which to attack the democratic system and to persuade its adherents, and in South Africa its potential adherents, that it is all part of the decadent West and that there are preferable alternatives to democracy. Mr Speaker, the lights have just gone out. Whenever one talks about the Prime Minister and his Cabinet the lights go out. The Prime Minister and his Government bear the direct and primary responsibility to ensure the good behaviour of their public representatives and members of the Cabinet. That this Prime Minister and his predecessor and this Cabinet and its predecessors have failed dismally in this responsibility, is very clear when one examines their record. The public in general, when they think of the sins of this Government, think of the sins of apartheid. It is true that 36 years of Nationalist rule has been characterized by human misery for millions of South Africans on a gigantic scale, misery caused by its policy of apartheid. But in addition to their inhumanity to man, this Government also has a record of incompetence, of corruption and of scandal. Remember the Agliotti scandal, the Marendaz scandal, the Faros scandal and the recent Information scandal. Even remember, if you wish, the Table Top scandal. Remember Deputy Minister Martins who was banished to New Orleans; Minister De Wet, who was sent to London; Minister Coetzee, who was tucked out of sight in Rome until he committed the indiscretion of admitting to fraudulent journalism in his early years; Minister Haak, who was summarily dismissed from the Cabinet; Minister Mulder, who was scapegoated for the sins of many others within the Cabinet; Minister Fanie Botha, the hunter, who was recently pensioned off, and Deputy Minister Van der Walt, whose resignation was recently accepted, entirely because of ill health we were told at the time. Cabinet members gave us the assurance across the floor of the House that it was entirely due to ill health when every one of them knew that that was not the truth.

That is not true.

Remember the hon the Minister of Finance signing away hundreds of thousands of rand unwittingly because at the time his hand was unwittingly covering the item concerned? Remember the Chief of the Defence Force complaining because his Minister was required to lie to Parliament in order to cover up the laundering of Info front funds via the Department of Defence. Remember also the senior Nationalist MP who sold bogus university degrees. Remember the senior naval officer who turned out to be a Russian spy. And so on. I say these things to say that this Government is a Government also of irregularities and of scandal and of corruption.

I believe that the most recent exposure of corrupt practices of a member of the Cabinet demands immediate and effective intervention by the Prime Minister in order to ensure that such incidents cease forthwith.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order; Is the hon member entitled to say that I signed away thousands of rand when in fact not a single cent was lost as a result of that transaction?The matter was fully examined by a commission of inquiry, and the Commission exonerated me absolutely, in every respect. Not a single cent was lost, because I put the matter right immediately and cancelled my signature. I take the strongest exception to what the hon member now says.

Order!

Although the remarks of the hon member for Bryanston are not unparliamentary as such, I do wish to point out to the hon member that the rules provide that no member shall use offensive or unbecoming language when referring to other hon members. I call upon the hon member to bear that in mind.

Sir, I shall not use offensive or unbecoming language. I shall only speak the truth.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I think the hon member said that this Government was “also a Government of corruption”.

Order! The hon member is not referring to a specific member of this House. He is referring to the Government as such. Accordingly I permit him to proceed.

But may he refer to the Government as a Government that is corrupt?

In the past it has been ruled that an hon member may do so. As such it is not unparliamentary.

Sir, the hon member specifically said: “The Cabinet is corrupt” …

No, I did not say that. I said the Government is …

Order! Did the hon member say that any hon member in this House was corrupt?

No, Sir, I certainly did not do so. I was referring to the Government in general.

†It would be mind-boggling if anybody in the Government should deny that they have been responsible for corruption in the past few years. I wish to refer to the shocking case …

Mr Speaker, I claim your indulgence. Talking within the framework that this is a Cabinet of corruption—he used those words—or a Government of corruption, he went on to refer to me and, speaking of the Information scandal, said I had signed away huge amounts of money. [Interjections.]

Order!

I say that that is a blatant untruth. The moment I realized I had been tricked—and that was put before the Commission of Inquiry … [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! The hon the Minister is entitled to state a point of order and state his case. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I accuse the hon member of telling a blatant untruth in this House. I am entitled to raise that … [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to say that I immediately cancelled that signature … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister is now going too far.

Sir, I am able to defend myself. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: When an accusation is made against a member and that member wishes to deny it, is that a point of order? I ask for your ruling, Sir. With great respect, Sir, the hon the Minister is making a speech. If he wishes to reply to the accusation … [Interjections.]

Order!

It is not a point of order to get up and deny something.

Order! I interrupted the hon the Minister and he has already resumed his seat. I wish to point out to the hon member for Bryanston that I will check the record. I will look into the matter and, if necessary, will at a later stage ask the hon member to withdraw any remark which is unparliamentary. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I want to refer to the shocking case of ex-Deputy Minister Van der Walt. How do the Prime Minister and the Government think the public responds when they read in the Press that a senior Nationalist Member of Parliament “plundered R1 million of clients’ trust money in the 14 years he was a Nationalist member of Parliament”? It was not just a single indiscretion, but a systematic and extended process of embezzlement of the hard-earned savings of members of the public whose unquestioned trust …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: According to newspaper reports this matter is sub judice.

No, Sir.

Order! The hon member for Bloemfontein East may proceed to motivate his point of order. Why does he say that the matter is sub judice?

Sir, this matter is sub judice. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is putting a point of order.

Sir, a provisional order against Mr Van der Walt has been issued and the return date is 3 May.

Order! If that is correct then the hon member for Bryanston may not continue to discuss the matter.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Could the hon member who submits that this matter is sub judice establish that it is in fact sub judice? As far as that Press report is concerned, there is nothing sub judice about that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Bloemfontein East contended that the former Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs had already been provisionally sequestrated by the Supreme Court and that the final judgment had been postponed until a return date in the future, ie 3 May 1984. Therefore, my ruling is that in that case it is sub judice and that it cannot, therefore, be further discussed here.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: The proceedings concerned are liquidation proceedings. There is a difference between a charge being brought against someone and liquidation proceedings. A liquidation proceeding is where a person’s financial position and the question of whether he can or cannot pay his creditors is at issue. The hon member for Bryanston is dealing with the question of the moral conduct of the ex-Deputy Minister. That is not sub judice. No charges have been brought against Mr Van der Walt at all. That is the distinction I should like you to draw, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sandton is now trying to draw these neat distinctions between civil matters … [Interjections.]

Order!

He is trying to draw a neat distinction between a criminal and a civil action.

That is not so.

Of course it is true. What the hon member for Sandton says as such is quite correct. However, that does not derogate from the fact that in a civil action, too, in which the point at issue is specifically the handling of funds—a decision which is still pending—this entails that the matter in question is sub judice—and that is the very point that the hon member for Bryanston wishes to discuss. The case in question does not concern the morality of the former Deputy Minister; it concerns the handling of money. The handling of money by the former Deputy Minister is what the whole action revolves around. Whether it be a civil or a criminal action makes no difference. It in no way derogates from the fact that a provisional order has been issued, the return date of which is 3 May. On that day a final decision will be taken. At this stage the person in question still has the fullest right and opportunity to refute the charge against him. Because this is so, the matter is sub judice. Therefore your ruling is correct, Mr Speaker, and the conduct of the hon member for Bryanston would be in conflict with the sub judice rule if he were to continue to discuss that subject. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon members to give another hon member who is putting a point of order, the opportunity to do so unhindered.

Mr Speaker, on a point or order: I want to point out that a matter pending before a civil court is not sub judice. That is well-known in parliamentary practice. In the case of criminal proceedings it is well-known in this House that such a matter is sub judice.

It is nothing but a cover-up.

Order! The hon member for Bryanston must please restrain himself.

Mr Speaker, I can speak with ample authority …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! The hon member for Hillbrow may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I can speak with ample authority in order to show that when a matter is pending before a civil court, it is not sub judice as far as Parliament is concerned.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I just wish to state clearly that I was referring to the provincial striking of Mr Van der Walt off the roll of attorneys. I contend that that is a matter which is sub judice.

May I ask whether the provisional striking off the roll of an attorney amounts to a criminal offence? Is that not merely a civil case?

Mr Speaker, a criminal case could well arise out of it.

Mr Speaker, the striking off the roll of an attorney is an action which is instituted by the law society in question. It is an action based on certain alleged irregular conduct on the part of the relevant member of that society. As far as this matter is concerned, this matter falls into precisely the same category as a criminal charge. Formally it is a civil action, but it has precisely the same effect as a criminal charge. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, if the charge of the relevant law society is found to be well-founded, then the name of the attorney in question is struck off the roll. Thus, what this amounts to is a punitive measure taken against him due to his irregular professional conduct.

Moreover, I do not believe that the technical legal issue of whether this falls within the meaning of the concept “sub judice” or not is what you, Mr Speaker, must now rule on. With all due respect to you, the fact of the matter is that you do not sit here in a judicial capacity.

Mr Speaker, you are sitting here to maintain order in this House. Therefore, when you rule that the discussion of a matter is sub judice for the purposes of the debate in question in this House, then it is sub judice. I believe that you are correct in ruling that this matter is sub judice.

Mr Speaker, I should like to refer you to Standing Order No 129 which reads as follows:

This Standing Order draws no distinction between a criminal and a civil court. According to the evidence of many hon members there is no doubt that there is in this instance an outstanding decision of a court of law in respect of the former Deputy Minister. We on this side will not be afraid te debate the whole issue at the appropriate time, but this rule was included in the Standing Order out of respect for our courts and their independence so that discussions could not take place here which could prejudice the courts in their decisions. Therefore we are not protecting anyone. It is merely a matter of this arrangement in terms of the Standing Orders with a view to preserving the high esteem in which our courts are held and at the same time preserving the unbiased right of our courts to give a decision without being influenced by this House.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Bryanston cast the worst possible reflection on the Chair that I have ever heard in this House. After you had given your ruling that he was not entitled to continue his speech and he had resumed his seat, and whilst another hon member was raising a point of order, the hon member for Bryanston shouted: “Cover-up,” In saying that, Sir, he could only have been reflecting upon the Chair. [Interjections.] He was reflecting upon you personally, Sir, because he shouted: “Cover-up” twice while another hon member was making a point of order. This was after you had given your ruling that he could not proceed with that particular matter.

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask you, Sir, whether it will be possible for you to reserve your ruling on this matter. I ask this because I feel that a ruling given without mature consideration of all the facts could lead to a situation where, in the future, this House could be bound not to raise any matter in regard to which a civil action was pending or in regard to which there was a question, not of guilt or innocence but merely a question of a financial relationship between parties. I think it would be unfortunate if, because of a particular incident, this House was bound by a ruling that would limit the scope of discussion in the future.

Order! Would the hon member please be so kind as to address me on Standing Order No 129, which states quite clearly that no member shall refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending.

Mr Speaker, the Standing Order quoted by the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs refers only to criminal proceedings. In this respect I should like to refer you, Sir, to page 47 of the Manual for Presiding Officers under the heading “Criminal Matters”. The paragraph reads as follows:

Not only must something be pending but a charge has actually to be made even in respect of a criminal matter. No such charge has been made and this is a question of civil proceedings in the Supreme Court in respect of an application by the Law Society to the Transvaal Provincial Division.

Mr Speaker, I had no intention of rising on this matter but feel that one must read further than the quotation that has just been made by the hon member for Hillbrow. I should like to refer you Sir, to page 48 of that same manual where, under the heading “Civil Matters” it is stated:

Mr Speaker, I think that the issue is what is before the court. What is not before the court is the nature of the behaviour of the former Deputy Minister. What is before the court is in fact whether he can meet his debts or not. In this respect a return date has been given and there is now an opportunity to determine whether in fact he can meet those debts. What is not before the court is the propriety or otherwise of the former Deputy Minister’s behaviour.

Mr Speaker, I am afraid what is before the court and what the hon member for Sea Point alleges, are exactly the same thing, and that is the question of whether or not there was a misappropriation of trust money. The hon member for Bryanston made an allegation to that effect and that is the very question on which the court has to pass judgment.

Mr Speaker, it is quite clear that in his argument the hon member for Hillbrow omitted to read to you a section of the relevant reference …

I was coming to that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

… and that was tantamount to misleading the Chair, particularly after you had put a question to the hon member for Sea Point and he had been unable to reply to it. The hon member for Hillbrow then rose to address you on the legal argument. I say that this has an effect on the position of confidence held by members vis-à-vis the Chair and the country as such.

You are the last person to be able to talk about that.

Order!

There is not the slightest doubt that there are legal procedures concerning which a judicial officer has to make a decision. This is clearly covered by the provisions of Standing Order No 129. When I say this it is not a matter of the approval or disapproval of the particular former member of the House of Assembly, but the House and its activities. The point I want to make is therefore that when hon members rise on a point of order and argue about the applicability of rules, they are not thereby concerned with the approval or disapproval of the conduct of any member.

Mr Speaker, with great respect, when we refer to criminal matters the principle is that there must be a charge which has been framed. There was no charge framed here and therefore we rule out criminal matters. As far as civil matters are concerned, let me read it again:

No case has been brought before the court and therefore the matter is not sub judice. “Sub judice” means it is under judicial decision, and at present there is nothing under judicial decision.

Order! May I ask the hon member why he did not in the first instance read that portion ?

Sir, because I noticed the paragraph on criminal matters to begin with …

And then the hon member resumed his seat.

Yes.

Because they are corrupt.

Order! The hon the Minister must withdraw that allegation.

Sir, they said that the Cabinet was corrupt.

Order! I have already said that I shall peruse the record. If the hon member referred to the Cabinet then I shall deal with him. However, the hon the Minister may not say that “They”—meaning the hon members—“are corrupt”. The hon member must withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it. But they kick a man when he is down, and that I really cannot take.

Order! I have now heard arguments from various members. I am still of the opinion that it is quite correct to rule that this is a matter involving a court as well as witnesses, and it is irrelevant whether it be civil or criminal. I therefore stand by my interpretation of Standing Order No 129 that no hon member may refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending. For purposes of the Standing Order this is a matter for a court of law. I therefore now rule that the hon member for Bryanston may not make further reference to this matter relating to Mr van der Walt. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, on a point or order …

Order! My ruling on this matter is now final.

Sir, with all due respect I just want to refer to it. The facts that the hon member for Bryanston mentioned are stated in the newspapers.

Order! I have given my ruling and the hon member may not discuss it further.

Sir, with the greatest respect I just wish to point out that we are creating a tremendous problem for ourselves if reference may be made in the Press to information which is quite acceptable as regards the standpoint of …

Order! My ruling is final. The hon member for Bryanston may proceed with his speech.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May I please draw you attention to the fact that you have not yet given a ruling on the point of order raised by the hon member Mr Aronson with regard to the interjection made by the hon member for Bryanston.

Yes, in the course of the argument it escaped me. Did the hon member for Bryanston intend any reflection on the Chair?

Sir, I cast no reflection on the Chair. The hon member Mr Aronson lied …

Order!

Sir, I withdraw it.

Order! I am not prepared under any circumstances to permit any hon member to trifle with the Chair. If that is what the hon member for Bryanston feels like doing then he can go and do so outside this House.

Sir, that was a blatant untruth, because I did not say that. I said that the members of the Government were busy covering up the story. That is what I said.

I accept the word of the hon member. He may now proceed with his speech.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Has the time of the hon member for Bryanston not expired?

The hon member for Bryanston may proceed.

A very intriguing and most alarming revelation is Mr Van der Walt’s claim that for many years he worked as a special agent for security. He says that his activities as a special agent for security were linked to the establishment of the Schlebusch Commission, which, he says, later became the President’s Council. This statement, coming from a man of Mr Van der Walt’s stature, raises some very important questions and the Government must answer these if its credibility is not to suffer further serious setbacks. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order! I am asking the hon member for Bryanston, for the last time, please to control himself, otherwise I shall be compelled to take steps against him.

Mr Speaker, during question time the hon member for Bryanston, in a humorous way, played on the name of the constituency of the hon the Minister of Defence—Modderfontein. However, I want to ask that hon member, having spoken for a few minutes, whether he feels good after the mud-bath he took. He came and fell about in the mud. In the 12 years I have been in this House I have never had to listen to such a poor speech as the one the hon member made, or tried to make, this afternoon. I have never had to listen to such an unpleasant speech and one so lacking in content as the one the hon member made. He was falling about in the mud. The speech he tried to make here this afternoon reveals the state of total bankruptcy in which his party finds itself. In times like these the hon member still sees his way clear to rise and make that kind of speech here. The hon the Leader of the Opposition must get his party’s house in order. I respect him, and I think he is bitterly disappointed at having a person like the hon member for Bryanston in his party. I want to appeal to the hon the Leader of the Opposition to get away from this kind of speech, which was a low point...

The Government is a low point.

Order! For the remainder of today’s debate the hon member for Bryanston is not permitted to make any further interjections whatsoever.

For the sake of South Africa, the hon the Leader of the Opposition must get his party away from this low point. It serves no purpose whatsoever. I want to point out to those hon members that as regards an Advocate-General it was the hon the Prime Minister who …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: You have forbidden the hon member for Bryanston to make any further interjections. May I point out to you that the hon Chief Whip of the Government and the Whip who sits behind him are making signs at the hon member across the floor which makes it extremely difficult for him not to react. I submit that they are treating your ruling with contempt in trying to tempt him to make an interjection.

Mr Speaker, may I point out, also on a point of order, that the hon member for Bryanston is forming words with his lips …

Order! I have asked the hon member for Bryanston to display the necessary self-control. Apparently he is able to do so by keeping his mouth quiet, whilst continuing to move his lips. However, I want to ask hon members on the Government side to display the necessary self-control as well, and not to provoke the hon member for Bryanston.

Mr Speaker, may I use my fingers?

Order! If I were to permit the hon member for Bryanston to use his fingers, he might only land in deeper trouble.

I think the hon member for Bryanston should rather sit absolutely still. If he has made such a spectacle of himself …

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister must not provoke the hon member.

Very well, Sir. I think we should rather move away from this low point and try to place the debate on a higher level.

It is a fact that a budget—and we are discussing a budget, and not people who are not here to defend themselves—does not consist only of hard, cold figures. A budget such as the one we had this year attests to the ability of a country to achieve; what a country is capable of. It is a reflection of the economic strength and capability of that country. If one looks at this year’s Budget, we as South Africans can be very proud of the ability of our people and of this country to achieve in the economic sphere, as well as in other spheres. As South Africans we can also be very proud of the economic strength this country of ours has at its disposal. A Budget also reflects the way in which a country is administered. An analysis of the present Budget shows us what a thorough and pure administration this country has. It also indicates that as a result of the pure administration of our country we are able to come up with achievements of this nature in the economic and financial spheres.

It is only logical—and one accepts this— that a budget will be criticized. Not everyone will agree with a budget, nor will everyone be satisfied with it. However, I think that in one’s criticism of a budget one must guard against allowing one’s country to sink into a morass of economic unwillingness. It is so easy to cultivate this kind of attitude in people, to let people sink into a morass of economic unwillingness by criticizing a budget unnecessarily and unguardedly.

There were many references to pensioners. It is so easy to exploit this matter for political gain and to say that we are not looking after our pensioners adequately. By constantly saying these things and conveying this attitude, people will eventually believe this.

Reference was also made to agriculture. Yesterday the hon member for Lichtenburg said that he was grateful for the drought aid being given, but that not enough was being done. This is the attitude being conveyed, probably just to gain a few votes and to pretend to the farming community and agriculture that they are the party that will look after the farmers, and that the Government does not look after them.

It was also stated yesterday that the White man is becoming poor. If such a statement is made continually, people will be plunged into a state of economic unwillingness and will eventually believe it. Hon members know that this is not factually correct, that it is not the truth. If we were to analyse the economic position of the Whites in this country this afternoon …

What do you know about that?

I know more about it than the hon member. That hon member acted as chief spokesman on finance for many years, and I want to tell him that during that time I heard some of the poorest speeches ever. [Interjections.] If we go on telling the White man that he is becoming increasingly poorer, we are under-estimating the economic capability of our people. Surely we have always had those with us who are struggling. Surely we have always had those with us who do not have the necessary ability and who are not capable of … [Interjections.]

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

No. Surely we have always had those with us who are not capable of earning a high salary and improving their position.

Do you have the figures in that regard?

I read about it and I know what the statistics are. If, for political gain, we are always trying to make the White man in this country think that he is becoming poor, we are going to cultivate an economic unwillingness in our people to use the resources at their disposal in the interests of the economy of the country. This is the thought I want to bring home to hon members. I believe that we should counteract economic unwillingness and economic inability by increasing the economic strength of our country. We cannot do so by simply engaging in politicking at every available opportunity. We would not be serving the economy of the country if we only look at politics and use everything possible to make political capital out of the situation. Then one would not be contributing to increasing the economic strength of this country. I believe that an important method of increasing that strength is to make better use of time.

People often speak about greater productivity. This afternoon I wish to state that higher production is possible in this country if the time at our disposal is used correctly. We must begin with our schools and work through to our universities and to the private sector, as well as the government sector. As far as our universities are concerned, one may well ask whether our academic year is being utilized to the full. If we take note that students are on holiday from approximately the middle of November to the middle of February, the question arises whether this summer holiday is not too long, and if the time is really being utilized.

Whilst it is logical that the Budget will be criticized, unguarded and uncontrolled criticism could lead to the destabilization of our internal situation. I repeat: If we are unguarded and uncontrolled in our criticism, we are destabilizing our internal situation. The Republic of South Africa’s relations with foreign powers are of the utmost importance. However, I want to state this afternoon that we would be making a very big mistake if we make the internal situation subordinate to those relations. Sound relations between population groups are of the utmost importance. In this country sound, healthy relations between the various population groups are of fundamental importance to the stability, progress and development of our country.

I do not think that the speech made by the hon member for Brakpan here yesterday was beneficial to these relations. His speech was not a contribution to the furtherance of sound relations between population groups. What did he say yesterday? He had two complaints. His first complaint was that we were not making provision for the recognition of a striving for an own identity. However, it is this very Government and this party that has relayed the message over the years, and it is still doing so today, that each population group can maintain its own identity.

The Coloureds as well?

Yes, the Coloureds as well, and I shall come to that in a moment. Just as we have looked after the White population group in this country, we have also looked after the Brown population group and the various Black peoples in this country, and we still have our own identity today. Is there anyone in this House who feels that his identity is being threatened? [Interjections.] I live in South Africa and I stand here as an Afrikaner, and my Afrikaner identity is not being threatened. I speak my own language and promote its use. [Interjections.] I participate in the practising of my culture, and I have never lost any of it along the way.

The hon member went on to say that our people are totally lacking in security. He said that we were going to repeal the Group Areas Act, section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. However, the hon member is aware that in all those cases investigations are being carried out by select committees.

What is your standpoint?

After all, those hon members know that the terms of reference of the Select Committee on the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act were to determine whether or not these laws should be amended or improved. They agreed on that. The hon member Mr Theunissen serves on that select committee. How can the hon member for Brakpan come and state here that we are in the process of repealing these laws? [Interjections.] I cannot believe that the hon member for Brakpan can be so irresponsible. After all, that is not how I know him. I cannot believe that he can make such irresponsible statements. That is uncontrolled criticism, and it is aimed at scoring political points and at obtaining political support. He is not serving the interests of South Africa by doing so, however.

He is a scandalmonger (“skinderbek”)!

He speaks with a bitter tongue (“bitterbek”)!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it in order if an hon member on the Government side refers to the hon member for Brakpan as a “skinderbek”?

Which hon member said that?

Mr Speaker, I said that, and I withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: Is it in order for an hon member on the Government side to refer to one of the hon members on this side as a “bitterbek”?

Which hon member referred to another hon member as a “bitterbek”? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I said the hon member was a “bitterbek”.

The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it. However, he remains a very stupid “bitterbek”!

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Virginia says: “You remain a very stupid ‘bitterbek’”. I think this casts a reflection on the Chair, Sir, since the hon member displayed this arrogant attitude towards you after you had asked him to withdraw that. [Interjections.]

Would hon members please refrain from hurling these personal remarks across the floor of this House. Did the hon member for Virginia repeat that the hon member was a “bitterbek”?

Yes, Mr Speaker.

The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

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

No, Mr Speaker, I have already lost too much time. Since I am replying to the hon member for Brakpan he must please listen carefully. Inter alia, the hon member said that our people lacked security. However, I wish to state that there is no other country in the world where there are so many laws on the Statute Book to protect people than is the case in South Africa. There are laws on our Statute Book that protect the White population of South Africa. Just name one other population group in the world that has a Group Areas Act and a Immorality Act to protect it. Just name one other population group in the world that has a Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act to protect it. Is that not sufficient security for the CP? Surely all this legislation affords security and constitutes protective measures. It seems to me that we should retain these measures and that we need them. The greatest security lies in dealing with own affairs. The problem with many hon members of this House is that they belittle this aspect. It is embodied in the new constitution and is of the utmost importance. Yesterday the hon member for Sunnyside referred to the schedule of the constitution and said that every own affair also has a general law. Hon members of the CP dismiss the question of own affairs lightly, but I want to tell them that the crux, the essential part of every own affair belongs with the specific population group on whom it has a bearing. In terms of the new constitutional dispensation we have the power at our disposal to do so. We can do so with regard to education, welfare services, local authorities and community life. The utilization of own affairs is of the utmost importance to each population group. We must do so with pride and retain our self-respect. We must not belittle it as hon members of the CP do in the House and at meetings.

Hon members of the CP are always conjuring up the integration spectre. The foundation-stone of the NP over the years, and until now, has been the right of self-determination of every population group. I want to reiterate that the NP looks after every population group in this country. It also looks after the White man in this country. Surely what the CP tells the people is not true. They must guide and assist people to utilize the right of self-determination they all have correctly. There are various forms of self-determination. One form is a total claim, in terms of which one wants to claim everything for oneself. However, hon members would concede that one is then creating a conflict situation. If there were a population group in this country that claimed everything for itself and denied others everything, surely one would be creating a conflict situation. The CP are objecting vehemently to our saying that they are racist. I want to tell them that they are not racist when they speculate about a Coloured homeland. The NP has created homelands for the Black peoples. However, I want to tell the hon member for Lichtenburg that he is racist when, as he did yesterday with regard to the wage gap, he refers to people of colour and says that they are not productive enough. Then one is a racist, and that is what the CP is always doing. They are always belittling people. There is the hon member for Kuruman. I know that the hon member’s greatest pleasure in private conversation was always to belittle other population groups. I know this from my own experience. Then one is a racist. One is a racist when one claims everything for oneself.

You are a liar.

Let us go on to something else. There is another form of self-determination, viz when one links this to territories. We have done this with regard to the Black peoples. The CP want to do this with regard to the Coloureds and the Indians. It is impossible.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Kuruman permitted to say that the hon the Deputy Minister is a liar?

No. The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it and I say that he is telling a blatant untruth.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that unconditionally.

Sir, I withdraw it, but he is still telling an untruth.

Order! All the hon member has to do is to withdraw that. He is not permitted to say anything further. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Piet, you are telling untruths.

Really, Sir, the hon member for Jeppe is so anxious for me to take notice of him. He is just like a little child who continually wants attention.

I shall tell them what you told me in private in my home.

Order!

I said nothing to the hon member in private conversation, since I have never been in his home.

You were my elder, man.

Yes, I was his elder, but in vain. [Interjections.]

I shall tell them what you said about P W Botha.

Order!

What I said about my Prime Minister? I have the highest regard for the Prime Minister.

You said that you could not trust him.

Order! I appeal to hon members to put an end to this dialogue across the floor of the House. The hon the Deputy Minister is addressing the House and hon members must give him the opportunity to do so.

I apologize. Sir, that I allowed myself to be led astray by that hon member.

You were an ardent supporter of a homeland.

I did contemplate a homeland in 1973, yes. When we had the Theron Commission we all spoke about it. I want to tell the hon member for Kuruman that in 1962, when I was still a clergyman in Wolseley, the NP held a meeting in Goodwood to discuss the Coloureds and their constitutional future. I was invited and I attended the meeting. In those days we discussed that. However, we reached the point where we said that a Coloured homeland is not our policy because it is neither attainable nor can it be implemented. I abided by that and accepted it. I supported the 1977 proposals. I also served on the Constitutional Commission together with the hon member for Brakpan and the hon member for Rissik. I am still on this side today because I stand by what was decided then.

Sir, I wish to conclude. I want to say that the form of self-determination we must strive for in this country is the self-determination the NP Government advocates, viz self-determination which, where possible, is linked to a specific territory, and, where it is not possible, an equal distribution so that there will be no hatred and so that peoples and population groups in this country can co-exist. If we can achieve that we will be creating a future for ourselves.

Mr Speaker, I want to refer briefly to some of the allegations which the hon the Deputy Minister made. He referred inter alia to the hon member for Lichtenburg’s reference in his speech to the narrowing of the wage gap and the effect this had had on the economy. The hon the Deputy Minister then levelled a flagrant accusation at the hon member for Lichtenburg and said that by referring to it he had been behaving in a racialistic way. I just want to refer the hon the Deputy Minister to what his own Minister of Finance said when he was in Canada. In Toronto the hon the Minister of Finance said—and this was reported:

The narrowing of the wage gap was adding 50% to South Africa’s inflation rate.

Horwood the racist.

Does the hon the Deputy Minister now want to suggest that the hon the Minister of Finance is a racist?

Order! Earlier today Mr Speaker told the hon member for Jeppe that when he referred to other hon members of the House he should not use their names. But the hon member for Jeppe is continuing to do so and shouted “Horwood the racist” across the floor of this House. Can the hon member explain to me why is is disregarding Mr Speaker’s ruling?

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! I am asking the hon member for an explanation.

Mr Speaker, I withdrew it. I just want to point out to you, however, that while this debate was in progress today, at least a half a dozen hon members on the Government side referred to us on this side as racists. Moreover, they simply addressed us by our Christian names instead of referring to our constituencies.

Order! I am specifically asking the hon member for an explanation since Mr Speaker reprimanded him for doing that earlier today. I want to point out to the hon member that Mr Speaker gave a ruling. He did not do so for nothing, but because he wanted the hon member for Jeppe to adhere to the correct procedure. I am therefore making a final appeal to the hon member now please to obey rulings from the Chair.

Mr Speaker, I shall obey your ruling. I am merely asking you, however, whether you will also take cognizance of any contravention of that ruling by Mr Speaker in regard to me by hon members on the Government side. I request you to allow the same criterion which is applied to me to apply to other hon members as well.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order. I suggest that the remark by the hon member for Jeppe comes very close to being contempt of the Chair. Mr Speaker, I ask you to consider calling the hon member to order.

Order! Did the hon member for Jeppe mean to cast a reflection on the Chair?

No, Mr Speaker.

Order! The hon member for Barberton may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs also waxed quite lyrical about the endeavour of the Government, and in particular the NP, to uphold and further the self-determination of every people and every population group in South Africa. I take it that he meant this to apply to the Coloureds as well. Then I want to suggest to him that he should talk to the hon Minister of Internal Affairs, who said here in a debate in this House on Monday, 20 February of this year, that the Coloureds had no aspirations of their own to self-determination. How does the hon the Deputy Minister reconcile his standpoint with that of the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs? The hon the Deputy Minister says that the Government wishes to further the right of the Coloureds to self-determination. The hon the Minister of Internal Affairs maintains that the Coloureds had no aspirations of their own to self-determination. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I now wish to return to matters pertaining to the Budget itself. It is all very well for the Government to adopt a policy of import substitution as far as the industries of our country are concerned. It is probably a good thing for any country if it is done within limits. Now, I also wish to submit that that policy is not only necessary in regard to the industries, but that it is also necessary in regard to the other sectors of the economy. And here I want to refer in particular to the agriculture.

What do we find now? While the farmers of South Africa are engaged in a struggle for survival, there is one group of farmers who produce sufficient quantities of their product to meet the total requirements of South Africa. I am referring in particular here to the tobacco farmers of South Africa. I am sorry that the hon member for Brits is not present in the House. I think he may be interested in this, because there are some of his voters who are.

What is the position? The average production of kiln-dried tobacco was in reality 24,4 million kilogrammes last year. The expected production for this year is 26 million kilogrammes. In reply to a question which I put to him, the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture said that the average consumption of tobacco in South Africa was 25 million kilogrammes per annum. But what is the Government doing, at a time when the farmers of South Africa are engaged in a struggle for survival? The Government issues import permits authorizing the import of 8,8 million kilogrammes of kiln-dried tobacco. [Interjections.] This is more than one third of the total tobacco consumption of South Africa.

What is the situation in regard to Burley tobacco? [Interjections.] Gossip? That, then, is the reply of the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture himself, Mr Speaker. Are hon members trying to suggest that their own hon Minister is a gossip-monger? [Interjections.] According to the reply which the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture furnished, the production of Burley tobacco last year was 4,02 million kilogrammes. The consumption of that tobacco in our country was only 3,087 million kilogrammes. Consequently that indicates an overproduction of more than 1 million kilogrammes. In spite of that, another hon Minister issues a permit for the import of 625 000 kilogrammes of the same type of tobacco. What is more, this particular tobacco is imported free of excise duty. We want to know from the Government whether this is one of the prices the farmers of South Africa have to pay for special agreements which are at present being entered into in Africa.

Since the farmers of South Africa are expected to pay an enormous premium in respect of the protection of industries for import substitution, we as farmers ask why the farmers, as producers of sufficient quantities of agricultural produce for the total consumption of their country, have to look on while a commodity such as tobacco is allowed to be imported into South Africa free of excise duty while sufficient quantities are being produced locally. What is the reason for this? I think it is inexplicable and unforgivable, particularly at a stage when we are experiencing balance of payments problems in our country and at a stage when our country has export problems as well as problems with excessive imports.

Another matter I want to refer to—I think the hon member for Vasco has already referred to it—is the apportioning of the customs and excise duties among the RSA and its Customs Union partners, in connection with which I should like an explanation from the hon the Minister.

In 1979-80 23,1% of the total customs and excise duties collected went to the BLS countries. According to the new 1984-85 Budget that amount is being increased to 36,6%. Let us analyse the position during the past three years. In 1982-83 the revenue from customs and excise duties amounted to R3 182 million, and the share of the BLS countries was R655 million. In 1983-84 the revenue dropped to R3 050 million, but the share of those countries rose from R655 million to R907 million. The hon the Minister is now budgeting for a further decrease in customs and excise duties during the coming financial year, because he foresees an income of R2 975 million, although he is allocating an amount of R1 089 million to those countries. I think it is totally unbelievable to maintain that South Africa is retaining its fair share of these customs and excise duties for itself. I therefore want to draw the conclusion that a subsidy is, in a covert way, being paid to each one of the BLS countries here. We should like to know from the hon the Minister why, since the revenue is diminishing year by year, the share of those countries—after all we know what economic activities one finds there—is increasing year by year.

May I please ask a question?

No, you people have wasted enough of my time.

I now want to come back to the Budget. The question has been raised here whether the hon the Minister’s estimated figures for the coming year are credible.

Of course.

The hon the Minister says “of course”. Let us consider the position of agriculture. During the discussion of his previous Budget we warned the hon the Minister that he had underappropriated in respect of aid to the agricultural industry. What happened afterwards? When the hon the Minister was looking for and found a reason to increase the GST, he advanced as his reason for doing so that he could not have foreseen the problems in the agricultural industry and that owing to the fact that he had had to grant additional assistance to the agricultural industry, he in turn had to raise the GST. This year the hon the Minister cannot say that he does not know that problems exist in the agricultural industry. Agriculture is engaged in its most serious struggle for existence ever, but what do we find? The hon the Minister knows that he must budget for the coming year but there are no figures in the Budget except when the hon the Minister says that the estimates which do appear are the amounts which he intends giving to agriculture, but I do not believe it. At the end of his Budget speech he said that he was budgeting for an expected surplus of R125 million, and he also said that that amount could be applied for aid to agriculture. I want to know from the hon the Minister whether he thinks that R125 million is going to be sufficient for aid with which to save the agricultural industry.

It was asked yesterday whether we thought the aid that had been announced was inadequate. Today the hon member for Witbank waxed lyrical about how the hon the Minister of Agriculture received standing ovations during his tour of the country last-week. There were occasions when he was not given a standing ovation. I want to know, if this aid which the State has now offered the farmers of South Africa, is adequate, as some hon members on the NP side seem to think, why then is it at present necessary for agricultural co-operatives to devise emergency measures for keeping the farmers on their farms? The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke knows very well what I am talking about.

I am not saying that the hon the Minister of Agriculture has not done his best, but what is the factual situation? Twenty-five per cent of the farmers’ debt is not owed to the co-operatives or the Land Bank or Agricultural Credit Board, but to the general banks, the ordinary commercial banks at which they have to pay 22% or 23% interest today. To those farmers who have to pay that prohibitive interest rate—an interest rate pattern which the Government seems to regard as the only measure for combating inflation— there is no assistance whatsoever on the part of the Government, except perhaps that they are able to apply for consolidation of their debts. Surely that was what the policy was in the past, and what was the reply one received from the Land Bank when one applied for consolidation of one’s debts: Your commercial bank helped you, did it not? Let it help you again.

But surely you know that Japie Jacobs is investigating that matter.

The hon the Deputy Minister says that Dr Japie Jacobs is investigating the matter. But the problem is an immediate one; there is no longer any time left to investigate matters; something must be done now. I want to sound the warning that the Government is not aware or does not wish to be aware of the serious position in which the farmers of South Africa, particularly those in the summer grain areas, find themselves.

The hon the Minister of Finance said that his Budget was a credible one. My time has almost expired now. In accordance with the aims of the Government this is probably the last session of a White Parliament in Africa, for in September a new dispensation comes into operation, when two other small Houses are to be added. Where in this Budget is any provision being made for the salaries of the people who are going to be elected to the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives? Not even R1 is being budgeted for that purpose; nothing at all. One of two things is true: Either the Government has no intention of introducing the new dispensation during the second half of this year— there is no provision for it in the Budget—or they do intend to do so, but the estimated additional expenses which this is going to entail are deliberately being concealed from the voters of South Africa. Surely this is not the first time we experienced this. My guess is that the voters will be informed after 27 July of precisely what this new business is going to cost in terms of rands and cents.

Another hit-and-run story.

The hon member is making his hit-and-run allegation again. Honestly, I am not prepared to emulate the level of debate of a “Grasboesman”.

Order! Is the hon member referring to another hon member now?

No, Sir.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Could I just draw attention to the fact that from among the ranks of the Conservative Party interjections are regularly being hurled in the direction of the hon member for Turffontein, implying that he is a “Grasboesman”. The hon member for Barberton is trifling with the Chair when he does that.

Order! Did the hon member for Barberton refer to the hon member for Turffontein as a “Grasboesman”?

Mr Speaker, I did not refer to the hon member for Turffontein, but if the hon member accepted that I referred to him as a “Grasboesman” …

Order! That is not the question. The hon member must indicate whether he referred to the hon member for Turffontein as a “Grasboesman”.

Mr Speaker, for the third time I say “no”. [Interjections.] I merely said that I was not prepared to descend to the level of a “Grasboesman”.

I now want to conclude by saying that it has become a habit …

Mr Speaker, in order for us to participate in this debate meaningfully, can you please explain to us what a “Grasboesman” is? [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon member for Barberton will be able to give an explanation.

In recent times it has become a habit of the State to underestimate its expenditure and it has almost become the practice for that underestimate to be off-set at the beginning or at the end of the financial year by means of additional appropriations. This is what is going to happen again in this case. I am referring in particular now to the aid which the Government promised the agricultural sector. No provision is being made for it in this Budget. The hon the Minister’s estimate was not indicated. He merely said that he might be able to use the R125 million …

That is not all.

Of course it is not all.

Why do you not say so?

I did. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: You ruled that I was not allowed to refer to other hon members by their Christian names and I accepted your ruling. While the hon member for Barberton was speaking, the hon the Deputy Minister of Development and Land Affairs referred to the hon member for Barberton four times as “Cas”. I ask you to ask him to withdraw it.

Order! This afternoon hon members heard the ruling by Mr Speaker that other hon members should be referred to as “hon members”. No insulting remarks may be shouted across the floor of the House at another hon member, as happened here this afternoon. I want to make an appeal to hon members to obey Mr Speaker’s ruling. If that is not done, the situation becomes untenable in a House in which we are trying to maintain a high level of debate. The hon the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs must therefore withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Did the hon member for Losberg refer to hon members on this side of the House as baboons?

Order! Did the hon member for Losberg refer to any hon member or members on the Opposition side of the House as a baboon or baboons?

Mr Speaker, I was referring to the Conservative Party in general. However, I withdraw what I said.

Mr Speaker, this afternoon we had a lamentable speech from the hon member for Barberton, the chief CP spokesman on agriculture. I am really disappointed in him. He acted irresponsibly, because he himself is a farmer and is supposed to be familiar with the specific circumstances in which they now find themselves.

He accused the hon the Minister of Finance of not having foreseen, last year, that there would be problems in agriculture. It is now very clever of him to say that he warned the hon the Minister. Did the hon member, when issuing his so-called warning to the hon the Minister, foresee what the extent of the present drought would be? Was he all-seeing?

Of course not.

Of course not. He does, however, expect the hon the Minister of Finance to have foreseen the extent of the drought and to have budgeted for it.

That is not what I said.

That is exactly what the hon member said. That is the kind of irresponsible statement flung at the hon the Minister of Finance and this side of the House. This also links up with the amendment of the hon member for Sunnyside. In the first paragraph of his amendment he states that the Government shows no appreciation of the disastrous situation in which the farmers find themselves. If we look at what the hon the Minister of Agriculture and his Deputy have done in recent months, and in particular in recent weeks, specifically to afford relief in the face of this disastrous situation—it is indeed a disastrous situation—in agriculture, it is completely irresponsible to come forward with the kind of standpoint with which the hon member for Barberton came to the House this afternoon. I also want to associate myself with what the hon member for Witbank said. In my area, where no very serious drought problems are being experienced, although there has also been some damage, the farmers have only the very greatest appreciation for the aid measures announced by the Government. In my constituency there has also been a flood such as the one in Northern Natal. Did the hon member for Barberton think that the hon the Minister of Finance should also have foreseen that flood? Should he also have budgeted for it in the financial year ended 31 March?

Now you are debating at standard 3 level.

That is not so. The hon member said—and I made a note of it— that the Government should have foreseen that this situation could occur in agriculture. The floods in Northern Natal, in the vicinity of Pongola, are going to cost the Govern-me‘t and the country more than R100 million, and the hon the Minister has to get that money somewhere. He did not budget for it. The hon member for Barberton says, however, that he should have foreseen the floods and budgeted for them. [Interjections.]

But I was speaking about the drought.

Surely they are similar situations. They are, after all, both disastrous situations. [Interjections.] The hon member was speaking contrary to his own better judgment, because he did concede that he was not saying that the hon the Minister of Finance had not done his best as far as the provision of funds in the budget was concerned.

What is the situation in connection with the drought we are experiencing at present? The SA Agricultural Union furnished certain inputs, informing the hon the Minister of Agriculture and the Government of the extent of the drought, and also extending an invitation to him to investigate the problems for himself. [Interjections.] The hon member for Barberton must now tell us whether he is of the opinion that the SA Agricultural Union acted incorrectly and did not properly serve the farmers’ interests in their discussions and negotiations with the Government, and also whether he thinks the SA Agricultural Union did its best and presented the correct facts, on the basis of which the Government immediately took certain steps?

When did I make such an insinuation?

I am asking a question. [Interjections.] In this way we are not serving the interests of agriculture in this country. Unfortunately we are dealing with a party of which that hon member—I do not actually know what he is doing there—is also a member. The existence of the CP is, in my opinion, the greatest disservice that has yet been done to South Africa. [Interjections.] In the first place that party has no policy of its own. [Interjections.] The hon member for Brakpan is having a good laugh. There was a time when he joined us in our fight against the HNP. I now want to ask him to name me one aspect in regard to which his party’s policy and that of the HNP do not agree. [Interjections.] The CP has moved away completely from the NP and is now fully in the HNP camp. [Interjections.] Those hon members must tell us what the present difference is between their policy and that of the HNP. I contend that there is no difference. Yesterday we even had the unsavoury comment from the hon member for Brakpan about the fact that the hon the Prime Minister did not use his mother tongue in the speech he delivered at Nkomati, but rather one of our official languages, English. The hon member for Brakpan must therefore tell me whether, in the interim, they have now also come to accept the HNP’s policy of one official language, Afrikaans, because it would appear to me as if that is his standpoint. If that is not the case, why does he blame the hon the Prime Minister for having used one of our official languages on an international occasion? It is a gradual drifting-away process, and the CP has now almost drifted completely into the HNP camp. [Interjections.]

Secondly the hon members of the CP and their supporters have lapsed into an overall spirit of negativism. The hon member for Barberton’s speech this afternoon is an outstanding and striking example of that. What is the reason for that? The reason is that in terms of their policy—that is to say if they have one—they can suggest no meaningful solution to the problems of the country. Instead they are engaged in belittling their fellow-citizens and making fellow-Whites seem suspect, something we encounter daily. Fellow-citizens are gossiped about. I do not want to say that those hon members adopt hit-and-run tactics, but this is actually developing rapidly into kick-and-run tactics.

Thirdly, hon members on that side and their supporters are engaged in tarnishing our entire body politic, even the proceedings in this House. Sometimes it turns into an unsavoury experience to sit here and listen to the quality of the debates conducted by those hon members. It is not, however, only here that we come across this; they are also engaged in tarnishing our entire body politic. Even now they are engaged in introducing ideas of this nature into our church. In my constituency, for example, there is a very well-known minister of religion, Rev Scheier. It is a pity that his name is not “Rev Schism”, because that is what he causes; he causes a schism in his own congregation and the town community. It is not, however, only in the clerical sphere that this is happening. There are also the cultural and educational spheres in which this tarnishing of our community life is taking place. And since when? It is not something that has been going on for a long time, having only taken hold recently, since the establishment of the CP. [Interjections.] It causes tensions amongst our people, something that is not necessary at all. It leads to divisiveness amongst our people, whilst it is specifically now that there is a great need, not necessarily for unity and unanimity—it is always a good thing to line one standpoint up against another—but for harmony amongst all the inhabitants of South Africa, including those hon members and their supporters. So that we can for a change, in the interests of our country, South Africa, act in a serious and responsible manner. We can then act responsibly and properly serve our country’s interests. It is specifically now, when there are very promising signs of our country having made great break-throughs in the international sphere and on the domestic front, and of its hopefully doing so in the future too, that they are dividing our people. The very hard work being done behind the scenes is now beginning to bear fruit. At this stage those hon members, with their negativism and their sullying tactics, are engaged in thwarting the fine efforts being made.

In the few minutes left to me I want to turn my attention to the Appropriation, and particularly to the speech of the hon member for Yeoville. I know why the hon member is not here and I should like to wish him a speedy recovery. A very predictable aspect of the hon member’s speech, as in the past— and as many hon members of his party do— is that he had it published in the newspapers the previous day. We could read the hon member’s entire speech in the Sunday Times on Sunday, and what he therefore said here was nothing new. The prepublication of speeches, however, is characteristic of that hon member, and we shall simply have to accept that. What is very interesting, however, is the moral support that the Prog press granted to his utterances. I just want to refer to a few examples. I have here the Business Day of 3 April 1984, a supplement of the Rand Daily Mail. The heading of one of its reports is “Government mismanagement of economy slammed”. In the same issue of the newspaper itself there is a heading “Grim future facing South Africa, says Schwarz”. That is the kind of emotional language they are fond of. What is interesting, however, is the fact that on the back page of Business Day a report appears written by the financial reporter under the heading “Giant potential—Clewlow”. I should like to quote a few brief sentences from the report:

Mr Clewlow added that there was a well-developed infrastructure in many spheres, including transport, communication and power networks, a sophisticated banking system and a rapidly developing educational infrastructure.

Then there is this important passage:

Who is this Mr Clewlow? He is a prominent official of Barlow Rand. That is now the “mismanagement” and the “grim future” staring us in the face.

I also want to refer to an article by the financial editor of The Argus. On 23 March he commented on Treasury statistics released by the hon the Minister. He said:

That is what the Prog Press has to say, in contrast with what the hon member for Yeoville came and told us. The “grim future”, of which the hon member for Yeoville speaks, is presented by the Rand Daily Mail in the following emotional terms:

Then he goes on to say:

That is what the hon member for Yeoville blazons abroad. On the same day on which that report appeared, there was also another report in the newspaper giving an indication of what foreign investors had to say about this “grim future”. I am referring to a report in Business Day in which it is stated:

These people obviously do not think that the picture the hon member for Yeoville presents for the year 2000 has any possibility of being realized, because otherwise they would surely not be investing millions of rand in this country.

Sir, my time has unfortunately expired. I just want to say that we have now grown accustomed to the prophecies of doom of the hon member for Yeoville and his party colleagues. Nothing this Government does— particularly the hon the Minister of Finance—can ever meet with his approval. If there is nothing else for him to say about that, he simply talks about the year 2000.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Ermelo will forgive me if I do not follow in his footsteps. His speech was addressed mainly to the Conservative Party and the hon member for Yeoville. In the short time at my disposal there are a few matters I should like to discuss with the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

†As far as the Budget is concerned, one of the more disturbing aspects of what the hon the Minister of Finance had to say was that there were many companies in South Africa which had abused the incentives and fiscal facilities provided for training schemes. I think that this is a very serious matter indeed because we find ourselves in the position in South Africa that we have a chronic shortage of skilled and trained personnel and that the House and the hon the Minister have gone out of their way to provide financial incentives for the companies in South Africa to train people for their own use, on which they will therefore make a profit. Then we have to hear from the hon the Minister of Finance that the system has been abused to such an extent that he will in fact be changing the scheme entirely. I believe that this is a matter which organized commerce and industry must take very seriously. I hope they will look into this matter and find out which companies abused the system to such an extent that it has to be changed. Unquestionably this country still needs an increasing number of skilled and trained workers. I hope the matter will not just rest there. My appeal to organized commerce and industry is to make it their business to find out what went wrong and which companies were involved.

I should also like to discuss with the hon the Minister the question of joint taxation he referred to here. We took note of the fact that the hon the Minister has not shut the door in this respect and that there is some hope that married working women may one day still be taxed separately from their husbands. I should like to say that we have also taken note of the fact that the hon the Minister of Finance has indicated to us that we should not raise our hopes beyond certain levels because at this stage he is still only referring the matter to the review committee concerned. I should like to reiterate, however, that South Africa has very special conditions. In particular, the hon the Minister should take note of the fact that the intrepreneurial class, the highly skilled and highly educated class in this country, represents no more than 11% of the total population and it is those people who are being heavily taxed. Not only is there the marginal taxation, but we also find that husband and wife are being taxed together and therefore fall within a higher tax bracket. I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister to give every possible consideration to changing this particular aspect of our income tax legislation. I also want to point out that we note with pleasure the fact that the balance is changing from direct income tax—a large percentage of revenue for the State—to one of better balance between indirect and direct taxation. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Kuruman has just broken the line. It goes to show that one can rely on the CP to do the wrong thing every time. [Interjections.]

I should like to encourage the hon the Minister of Finance to increase the proportion of indirect taxation in South Africa to a greater extent. I say this for the same reason that I mentioned when I spoke of the question of joint taxation. The entrepreneurial class in South Africa is extremely small. It has to carry the innovative management and face the risk factors for a total population of 24 million people. The entrepreneurial class among that 24 million is less than 1 million people. They are the people who are carrying the greatest percentage of direct income tax. One can see the distortions that have occurred in monetary control in South Africa—the reinvestment in real estate in order to avoid income tax. That is why I appeal to the hon the Minister once again to give this his urgent attention. I hope he will be able to confirm that the Standing Commission on Taxation is still considering the possibility of reducing marginal tax and of changing our tax emphasis from taxing income to taxing expenditure. That is my plea to the hon the Minister. I hope he will find out whether we cannot do this to a greater extent.

After all, Mr Speaker, there are only two things one can do with one’s money. One cannot take it with one. One can save it or spend it. What this country needs more than anything else is saving in order to create a pool of investment capital and of reinvestment capital. That is what happens to savings.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, an increased pool of savings will stabilize interest rates. We will then not have the wild fluctuation, and we will also not find ourselves in a position in which corporations have to invest in real estate via their employees in order to assist them in overcoming the burden of high interest rates on mortgage bonds. People can only save their money or spend it. If they save it, it will be in the overall interest of the country because of the capital it produces and also because of the stabilization of interest rates. When people spend their money the hon the Minister will of course benefit because of GST. We would like to encourage people to have both a savings and an expenditure balance. What they spend creates demand, and where one creates demand for a product one stimulates production. When one stimulates production one creates job opportunities. That is what we want in this country. I should once again like to appeal to the hon the Minister in order to find out whether it is not possible to shift the emphasis entirely—or at least 80% of the emphasis—on to taxing expenditure rather than increasing personal income tax. I leave it at that in the knowledge that the hon the Minister is a wise man; that he is a very astute man and that he will indeed take to heart my plea to him.

The next aspect of the Budget to which I should like to address myself is the question of providing finance for education. When I speak of education I speak of education right across the board, in all departments, in all ministries, including that of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning because he provides most of the funds for the provinces. In the first instance I should like to refer briefly to the Budget speech of the hon the Minister of Finance, in which he indicated that expenditure on education across the board had increased from R890 million in 1975-76 to more than R3,4 billion in the current financial year. The hon the Minister indicated to us that that represented an increase in expenditure of more than 283%. On the surface that is a very impressive figure indeed because when one analyses it, it amounts to an annual increase of approximately 35%. That is of course not correct. It is not correct at all because compounded at 12% a year that gives us almost the same figure. If one compounds an expenditure by 12% a year from 1975 to 1983 one will see that it barely keeps pace with inflation.

I am not decrying the fact that in the context of South Africa it is a magnificent achievement that we can spend so much money on education. The fact of the matter is, however, that compounded that increase barely takes care of inflation. This is so especially if one bears in mind that the rand of 1975 is worth only 38 cents today. There has been limited growth in the educational budget for expansion in terms of our population explosion.

The hon member for South Coast will be dealing with the question of the population explosion itself at a later stage in this debate and therefore I do not wish to dwell on this subject for too long except to say that it has tremendous relevance in respect of expenditure on education.

Do you want it to be reduced?

No, not at all. We would like it to be increased. However, I want to point out that although we have had relatively spectacular increases in expenditure on education this has in fact barely kept pace with inflation. This means that we are not keeping pace with the expansion required for the overall increase in our population in South Africa.

We note from the comments of the hon the Minister that the amount of R3,4 billion budgeted for education during the coming year is the second largest item of expenditure in the budget after defence. In fact, it represents 13,7% of the total Budget as compared with just over 15% for defence. I want to tell the hon the Minister that the Government must take note of the fact that because of our population explosion we are going to encounter a very serious financial problem as far as providing education for all population groups is concerned. I should like to elaborate on this statement. On average, 25% of a mature population find themselves at school or in institutions for tertiary education. The White population of this country is a relatively mature population in the sense that it is an ageing population and that it has barely a replacement birthrate. The birthrate of the Coloured population has also fallen spectacularly over recent years and the Coloureds are also starting to become an ageing population, as are our Indian South Africans. However, our Black population is still in transition from Third World to First World value systems, and it is here that we are going to run into a very serious problem. Particularly in view of the fact that we recently changed our income tax laws, I want to point out that the Blacks in South Africa will only provide R345 million in direct taxation although, even at the moment, their requirements amount to twice that figure. We must bear the fact in mind that between now and the year 2000—exactly 16 years hence—the 17 million Blacks of today will double to 34 million. That hon Minister may still be the Minister of Finance then. A large number of my colleagues who are as young as I am will certainly still be here, elections permitting, and we shall have to deal with that problem. What we have to do immediately is to lay the foundation for the financing of that education. We must not wait until it is too late. 76% of the school-going population of 10 million pupils by the year 2000 will be Black and, at an average of R1 000 per pupil per year, it means that from now on the hon the Minister will have to make a 20% annual increase available for education. That Budget must increase by 20% per annum compounded annually between now and the year 2000 merely so as to allow, in terms of today’s values, R1 000 per pupil or student in the year 2000. That is a tremendous task and a challenge. I want to remind the hon the Minister that education is the key to peace and prosperity in this country. Without education we shall be heading for a disaster greater even than that that would befall us if we followed the policies of either the CP or the PFP. [Interjections.]

I want now, Sir, to turn to a very urgent matter that concerns both the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, namely the forthcoming elections for the Coloured and Indian populations. There are two matters of the gravest concern which I want to bring to the attention of these hon Ministers because I think something has to be done about them now.

In the first instance there is the question of finance. I believe that the Government and this House must change its attitude in regard to the financing of elections. Up to the present this has been done by means of voluntary contributions on the part of individuals. The money has come from the pocket of the man in the street and the State has made a very limited contribution to party politics. I believe the time has come to change that system if we want all members of the Indian and Coloured populations to have an equal opportunity to participate legitimately in the process of the elections during August. I would seriously recommend that the House consider changing the electoral and the necessary financial legislation in order to allow a system, for instance, in which the State also makes a contribution to the process of democracy. I would suggest, for instance, that we make R25 000 available for every constituency and we refund the candidates in proportion to the percentage of the votes cast that day that they get.

You will lose out then.

I am not talking about myself. I am talking about the process of democracy. It is absolutely imperative that we do this. We must work out a system whereby candidates are refunded a portion of the R25 000 in proportion to the percentage of the votes cast for them. I believe that is the only way in which we are going to bridge the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” who must participate equally in democracy. I make a very serious appeal for that. It already obtains in the German and American systems. Without it there are going to be distortions to democracy here which will create an undesirable situation which we cannot afford in this country.

Secondly I should like to address a request to the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs or to his hon Deputy Minister, who is present at the moment. There is another serious problem which has occurred with the Indian and Coloured populations. Their leadership core is to found predominantly in their entrepreneurial class and their teachers. A very large sector of the Coloured and Indian communities find their leadership core in the ranks of the teachers, but in terms of the present regulations they cannot participate as candidates in the elections unless they resign their positions.

I want to make an appeal to both the hon Ministers concerned to change that at least to allow these teachers to have paid leave for the period between nomination day and the election day so that they too can participate as candidates. It is imperative that that leadership cadre should also have an equal opportunity to participate in the elections. I believe, more than anything else, that we would be failing in our duty towards that leadership cadre if we prevented them from participating. It is not as easy as just saying “yes, but they can participate if they resign their jobs”. There are very few White teachers today who can go without six weeks’ salary, but less so the Coloured and Indian teachers who are already on a lower salary scale but who have the same cost of living and cost of elections that we have.

If they have the same qualifications as White teachers, they are on the same salary basis.

Yes, but they do not enjoy the same party backing and they are going to have greater expenses than we have. Furthermore they cannot afford as readily as their White counterparts to go without six weeks’ salary and that is my appeal to the hon the Minister concerned.

Mr Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon member for Durban North. I must congratulate him on a very good speech. I think it has been a very responsible speech and I find myself in agreement with quite a number of the points that he has made.

*At a later stage I should like to come to the points he raised in connection with training. I agree with him that efforts must be made—efforts are being made—to achieve a better balance between direct and indirect taxation. I should also very much like to come back to the question of saving. On one point I agree with him 200%, and that is when he says the hon the Minister of Finance “is a very wise man”. Let me tell him the reason for it: The reason is that he comes from Paarl. He grew up there and went to school there, and we see the results here in the House.

In his Budget speech the hon the Minister of Finance’s watchword was the expression “disciplined action”. I should very much like to construct my speech around the concept of disciplined action. I should like to focus the attention of the House on the fact that it is not only the State and the Government that must use this watchword in regard to expenditure. I am quite sure that the extent to which it would be possible to put the South African economy on its feet in the coming year would, to a large extent, depend on the discipline exercised by the private sector and the man in the street. I do not have the slightest doubt that in achieving that ideal the private sector and the public are the State’s partners. I think it is quite wrong for most of the speakers on the Opposition side simply to place all the responsibility and blame for the difficult economic situation squarely on the shoulders of the State.

I briefly want to refer to the arguments from the Opposition side, particularly those of the PFP, against this Budget. For them it is firstly a question of the increase in State expenditure and, secondly, the extent of the deficit before borrowing. The third aspect relates to how that deficit should be financed. Let me concede at once that in recent years there has been a tremendous increase in State expenditure. I am afraid this is a situation characteristic of all Western countries. If one looks at all the additional factors present in the South African economy, one cannot fail to understand why this is so. If the Third World, in a First World and Third World situation, is constantly asking for the implementation of First World standards, this inevitably makes the situation even more difficult.

I want to refer to the extent of the deficit before borrowing. The Government has had no other choice but to withdraw the concessions applicable in the past. I sympathize with the hon member for Durban North’s view in regard to training. I want to ask the hon the Minister of Finance if he cannot give serious consideration to increasing the limit of R15 000 in regard to the salaries of people who come into consideration for training rebates. If one looks at how deficits can be financed, one is immediately confronted by the question of financial discipline. This brings me to the theme of my speech. If the State could cut its expenditure of R30 billion down to an amount of R25 billion, as the hon the Minister has said, the possible future success of the economy would depend on the other partner.

I briefly want to refer to the financial position of the consumer. The hon members for Gezina and Witbank have already referred to the position of the consumer and pointed out that the consumer himself should go out of his way to ensure that he gets the best that is available. The hon member for Edenvale alleged the very opposite, saying the position was deteriorating. I do not have the slightest doubt that a large portion of our White population will simply have to take the medicine and accept the fact that our standard of living is decreasing. A clever Englishman once said: “All debt is eventually paid, either by the borrower or by the lender.” The incredible characteristic of the present recession is the demand for credit, notwithstanding the high interest rates. This is not only related to inflation. The demand for credit has far exceeded the increase in interest rates and the increase in inflation. There is either a misguided confidence in the actual state of affairs in the economy, and its ability to recover, or South Africans are convinced that the authorities will not really succeed in bringing the inflation rate down. Many of them have become quite inured to the cost of money and are therefore borrowing their way through the recession. One need only look at a few figures. In recessionary conditions motor vehicle prices increase by 16%. In recessionary conditions clothing and textile turnover increases by 18% and household necessities by 22%. I want to repeat the question that other hon members have already asked: Is credit in our country, both for people who are credit-worthy and some who are not credit-worthy, not altogether too easily obtainable? Commercial banks are carrying an ever-increasing share of personal debt. Since 1976 consumer debt to banks has increased fivefold to R14 billion. Economists state that the small man is in debt to such an extent that the possibility of an upswing in consumer spending as a second leg of an economic upswing—the first being exports—is virtually non-existent for the foreseeable future. So one can go on rattling off figures. The average man’s short-term debt, ie in the form of overdrafts and hire-purchase accounts, has increased by 165% over the past two years—two years of recession. Hire-purchase accounts and overdrafts jointly account for R14 billion, and if an interest rate of 23% is calculated—that is the rate that people have to pay today—one sees that the interests alone amounts to R3 billion. Then also add mortgages. The extent of mortgages has increased incredibly in recent years. One could say that the average man’s total present-day debt is R28 billion. That is R3 billion more than the country’s total annual expenditure. On that his interest is R5,5 billion. That equals the value of 50% of our total annual gold revenue.

I want to link up with what the hon member for Durban North said, ie that our people no longer save. We no longer save in periods of recession. Seven years ago there was also a recession, but then our people were still saving. Today, however, our people are manifesting the syndrome that one should simply spend today in order to buy more cheaply than it would be possible to do tomorrow. [Interjections.]

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

If I have any time left at the end of my speech, I shall gladly permit a question. One thinks one is saving R100, but in practice it is the bank that has had to additional credit. I think the time has come for the Government to give very serious attention to an increase in hire-purchase deposits, for example, and a decrease in the period of repayment. I am afraid that those who contend that consumer spending is not going to decrease and that the economy is going to evidence an upsurge at the end of 1984, can only justify that argument if they are convinced that consumers are going to get even more credit than they have at present. I think it is an extremely unhealthy state of affairs. I am really concerned at the fact that a very large percentage of certain groups of people in South Africa are living far above their means, that they are trying to maintain a standard of living that cannot be justified. The golden rule—it applies to the State, the private sector and to each and every one of us—is that one’s spending must be in accordance with one’s income. One must be able to cut one’s cloth from the material available. Many people in this country have a standard of living that is simply too high. It is true, is it not, that our young people want to begin where our old people left off. Just go and see what is going on at our restaurants in the evenings, what cars our people drive and where they live. The average man’s debts are tremendous, and that is the result of pursuing a standard of living for which he is not equipped. Everyone goes chasing after higher salaries and higher standards of living, but meanwhile the quid pro quo, of higher productivity is simply non-existent. When the State applies occupational differentiation in order to retain the services of its workers, so that the machine of State can go on functioning, the private sector goes right ahead, even in a recession—I myself am in the private sector and I therefore know exactly what is going on there—and widens the salary gap even further. As a result there is no end to this vicious circle. The ripples just keep spreading.

I have frequently wondered what the effect of freezing salaries and wages would be. In England this was done, and with a fair measure of success. We say very glibly—and it is probably true—that in a country with a heterogeneous population such as ours we would probably never be able to do it, because it would lead to chaos and revolution. The day will come, however, when we shall have to choose between those two evils.

This brings me, in conclusion, to what I consider to be two of South Africa’s greatest problems. One of the hon members of the NRP is apparently still going to speak about the question of the population increase, and I am convinced of the fact that this is one of our greatest problems. The second problem is the question of productivity, about which a great deal has previously been said here. I ask myself the question: How is every rand in the country spent? How much thinking is there behind the spending of every rand on, for example, buildings. Here I am not only including Government buildings, but also private dwellings and company buildings. How much thinking goes into each rand paid out in salaries and wages? Does it really go hand in hand with the necessary productivity?

The hon member for Gezina referred to the tremendous figure of 6% with which productivity in the manufacturing sector decreased, while salaries and wages increased by 18%. Where are we heading? This does not only apply to the State, but also to the private sector and John Citizen himself. When we speak of productivity, we so glibly tell our people they have to work harder. It is not, however, a question of working harder, but of working with greater acumen and efficiency. It does not depend on the labourer in the factory or in the street—whether he is in the private sector or in the employ of the State—whether he is going to work harder or more productively. It depends on middle management, and here I want to agree with the hon member for Durban North. I accordingly made an appeal to the hon the Minister to try to determine, if possible, whether the limit of R15 000 in regard to training could not be increased slightly. Productivity means nothing more than the optimum utilization of what is available to us, ie labour, capital, machinery, energy and raw materials. In a developing country like South Africa, with a wide diversity of labour force units, it is a tremendous task to get optimum results. The success with which this is achieved, and the contribution of the private sector and of John Citizen, as the State’s partners, will eventually prove whether this Government can succceed in making South Africa the burgeoning giant of Southern Africa that it has the potential to be in future.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon member for Paarl. It was interesting to listen to the points he touched on, and as an economist I agree with him that it may be dangerous for all of us to begin thinking of freezing wages and prices and so on. Because we are trying to expand private enterprise, I want to associate myself with his standpoint on this.

During the past two and a half days we have heard and learnt quite a lot about economics. The economists have various names for various forms of economics. After President Reagan had come into office in the USA, we heard about “Reagon-omics”. We have also heard about “Thatcher-nomics”. When one listens to hon members of the CP one is listening to “tortoise-nomics”.

I should like to devote my speech to the Development Bank, and I want to begin by referring to the hon member for Langlaagte, who made terrible statements in his speech about money which had become available and which flowed out of the country after the signing of the Nkomati accord. I have a copy of the hon member’s speech here …

It is a good speech.

It looks like “tortoise-nomics” to me, because it was a retrogressive speech. He referred to the dangerous proportions the outflow of funds was beginning to assume. He said that there was an outflow of R1 500 million from the country and it was being handled by the Department of Foreign Affairs. A large part of the CP’s debating concerned the by-elections. If the hon member for Langlaagte would just take a little trouble to do his homework properly, he would see that in the Estimate of Expenditure under programme 3 of the Department of Foreign Affairs, it is stated that an amount of R517,3 million is going to these people. I do not know how the hon member arrived at his amount, which is three times more. He is going to use that amount in the election campaign, and their speeches are again going to dangle like bunches of bananas from his fingers, to quote these statements of theirs. The hon member is engaged in suspicion-mongering politics. I challenge him to tell me how he arrived at those amounts. That also applies to his statement that the individual taxpayer pays 56% of all tax in South Africa. He should tell us how he calculated these figures and percentages. After all, it is his poor people who have to pay. After all, a large amount of the GST paid comes from companies. However, the hon member forgot that for the sake of what he wanted to achieve in the by-election campaigns. I repeat that his entire approach amounts to suspicion-mongering. After holding discussions with the Department of Finance, I was unable to substantiate any of the figures quoted here by the hon member. These are figures he sucked out of his thumb for political gain. I shall leave the hon member at that, for this is typical “tortoise-nomics”. [Interjections.]

I should like to continue if the hon member for Langlaagte will allow me to do so. He had an opportunity to make his speech and the way he treated the truth in that speech left much to be desired.

I should now like to refer to the Development Bank. This is a very good institution which has a great future in South Africa. It is an institution which will be of great value to South Africa and its neighbouring countries. I therefore want to address myself to the hon the Minister of Finance, also in his capacity as chairman of the Council of Governors of the bank, and to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who is also a member of the Council of Governors. I personally have very high hopes for this bank, and for two reasons. The bank does not participate in activities which could cause problems in the sense that it has to decide between countries A, B and C. The bank works according to a system which leaves it considerable latitude in which to achieve its objectives.

The need for a multilateral institution became increasingly essential during the late ’seventies. It is very important to remember that trend changed during the late ’seventies and I feel it is necessary to consider the reasons why the bank was established. The development institutions which existed at that stage did good work, but they no longer satisfied all their objectives fully. It was necessary to come forward with a new institution, something which the hon the Prime Minister in fact announced on 22 September 1979 when he said that he was making provision for a new dispensation in which participating multinational decision-making could take place with the inclusion to a greater extent of the private sector as a participant. This is the important point which is so easily forgotten. The bank is not competing with the private sector. One of the objectives which the Council of Governors has set itself is to ensure that private enterprise will be involved under all circumstances. This is very important. I also want to ask the hon the Minister to make available the document which has just been published, Development Bank of Southern Africa: Articles of Agreement, to every member in this House so that we shall know exactly what the bank stands for. Then any possible misunderstandings which may arise in connection with the Development Bank can be eliminated entirely.

In addition the agreement provided that it would start with the RSA and the four independent countries of the Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and the Ciskei as members. However, this does not prevent any of the states which have not yet gained their independence from having their affairs as well dealt with on merit and on the same basis when it comes to funds. This is another point which we have to spell out very clearly here at this stage. The priorities throughout Southern Africa—that is what the bank was established for—will be worked out on the basis of where the needs are and where the greatest benefit can be gained from the utilization of that money measured against such norms. I want to repeat that those norms will not only be determined on the basis of the greatest profit. Those activities which produce the greatest profit are in any case the ones which will also be financed by private banks. Therefore if we simply measure it against what the banks give, it would be wrong. Although the Development Bank is defined as a bank, one of its further objectives is in fact to operate as a development fund. We should therefore see this bank as a development fund rather as a development bank, with the emphasis on the word “bank”.

The establishment of the bank has led to the geographic distribution of economic activities, in conjunction with the new decentralization effort of the Government, receiving greater stimulus. We can already see this in the objectives which have been spelled out, namely economic development, increase productivity, equal distribution of economic development among the development areas of Southern Africa, the utilization of public and private capital for this purpose, and the making available of specialized knowledge. Another important point the hon member for Paarl also discussed was that this bank was also providing specialized training in the field of decentralisation, something that is essential to Southern Africa, to people who did not have that knowledge.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister, if possible, to tell us how much money the bank will have available in aggregate to lend to the people of Southern Africa during this financial year. The bank also works on the basis of a certain new concept which in my opinion is very important. This is a concept which has been tested throughout the world and which has become very important as far as development work is concerned. I am referring to the concept of the project cycle. It is better to work on the basis of the project cycle than to take up a project and try to manage it as well. This bank will not interfere in or participate in the private management of companies, projects or undertakings. That is not the function of the bank. This bank has been established to give assistance to furnish guidance and to continue to stimulate the creation of employment opportunities where these are necessary in Southern Africa.

I maintain that we must try—and when I say this I am not merely referring to the hon members in this House but also to members of other governments in Southern Africa who will be involved with this bank—to keep this bank out of the political arena. If we want this bank to fail, we should start…

Is it the taxpayer’s money?

No, it is not the taxpayer’s money. The bank borrows this money abroad and locally. The bank also has share capital. [Interjections.] If the hon member for Rissik does not know what is going on he should first acquaint himself with what the bank stands for. That is why I said that the money being used here—money from abroad and from domestic sources, as well as money obtained by means of share capital—should be above politics. If we drag this bank into the political arena, as hon members of the CP want to do, we are going to have problems. Then the objectives of the bank will definitely not be achieved. That is why I am asking that we try to keep this bank out of the political arena and give it a chance to develop in accordance with the objectives that have been laid down for it. It is unwise to try to indulge in petty politics by alleging that the money in that bank is being used for this or that group of people of colour, or that it comes from a certain group of people of another colour. This has nothing to do with the objectives of the bank.

In conclusion I want to ask that we take cognisance of the fact that at this stage the bank is not the Robin Hood of the world of financial institutions either. It is not a bank which takes money from the rich to give it to the poor. That is not what this bank does. The objectives of the bank are based on a pragmatic approach, as has already been spelled out. It has been very clearly stated that the bank is already using money at this stage to the benefit of the greatest common denominator for the whole of Southern Africa.

Mr Speaker, the hon member Dr Welgemoed talked on two subjects. He firstly carried on an argument with hon members of the CP. I do not, however, wish to add to that except to say that I should like him to forget about “skil-pad” economics and to pay more attention instead to the economics of Black taxi owners. In the second instance the hon member gave us a long dissertation on the activities of the Development Bank of Southern Africa. I could not find much in what he said with which I disagree. Nevertheless, I should like to ask him whether the South African Government owns part of the share capital, or even the whole capital, of that development bank.

No, not at all.

The bank is then not owned by the State in any shape or form. That surprises me, Mr Speaker. I do accept the hon member’s word for it.

I want to get back now to the speech made earlier this afternoon by the hon member for Bryanston. I want to refer to something he said, and I want specifically to draw this to the attention of the hon the Minister of Finance. The hon member for Bryanston made a statement which caused the hon the Minister of Finance to become very excited. He took a number of points of order, which, in my view, were not really points of order. In an effort to give a long explanation to this House … [Interjections.]

Are you casting a reflection on the Chair?

No, not at all. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Minister of Finance a question now. I have the speech of the hon member for Bryanston in front of me here. In his speech he said, and I quote:

I want to ask the hon the Minister of Finance now whether this was true or not.

Not one cent was lost.

That is not what the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is talking about.

That is indeed not the point at all, Mr Speaker. The fact that not one cent was lost, has got nothing to do with the question I have asked of the hon the Minister. Did the hon the Minister of Finance sign away hundreds of thousands of rand unwittingly? That is the question I want him to answer, Mr Speaker.

I did not sign away anything.

The hon the Minister says he did not sign away anything. [Interjections.] I have in front of me here, Mr Speaker, Annexure A, which is exhibit 17D of the Erasmus Commission report. This is a letter addressed to the hon the Minister of Finance. It is in regard to Information funds. The projects concerned are listed on a number of pages. The figures given here do not total hundreds of thousands of rand but indeed millions of rand. Every page, from the first to the sixth page, all bear the hon the Minister’s initials at the bottom. The final page bears his full signature at the bottom. [Interjections.] This signature of the hon the Minister of Finance was in relation to funds he was asked to provide by his then colleague the former hon Minister of Plural Relations and Development. He was asked to sign this documentation in order to authorize the then Department of Information to spend these secret funds. It had to be done in a hurry because they wanted to spend the money quickly. There were millions of rand involved.

Do you also have the document in terms of which those amounts were cancelled?

Yes, Sir, I have. At the bottom of page seven we see the following statement:

However, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether this was done on the original document or on a copy of it?

I shall answer that when I speak. It is a very good question. [Interjections.]

The point is whether the signature was subsequently cancelled or not. The signature was appended to this document, and the document is quite clear.

Why don’t you read the report of the Erasmus Commission?

I have, on a number of occasions. I also have the hon the Minister’s Senate Hansard of 22 March 1979 here in front of me when he tried to explain the whole matter in the Senate on that day. However, Sir, I think I have made my point in this regard.

I want to inform this House that at 05h00 last Wednesday morning a group of officials from the Eastern Cape Administration Board arrived at the security gates of a company factory in Port Elizabeth. The security guard who was a Black asked them their business and also asked them to sign the check-in register. This was his duty. He has asked me to do it in the past and I have so signed. Unfortunately, the Eastern Cape Administration Board officials were apparently far too important to sign that register. They refused, and instead, asked the security guard for his “dompas”. As he could not produce it, he was arrested and detained or, as the Eastern Cape Administration Board put it, “assisted” by them in obtaining his document. This “assistance” involved removing him from his job and restricting his freedom for a period of time. On the morning in question, the officials entered the factory where production was in full swing because the factory works a number of shifts, and they “assisted” 109 Black workers from their machines and from the premises. The figure of 109 was the figure given by the Chief Director of the Eastern Cape Administration Board. As a result of this action production in the factory ceased. By midday two out of three production lines were still not operating and eight out of 22 delivery trucks had not gone out. Of the 109 “assisted” Blacks, 105 were subsequently released and four appeared in court. The Eastern Cape Administration Board blamed the company for not having co-operated with the board in terms of the registration of Blacks. The company denied this and maintained that they were negotiating with the board in regard to some contract workers. I have obtained all this information from the Port Elizabeth Press.

Whatever the accusations and denials of both parties may be, this raid should not have taken place. Whether or not the Eastern Cape Administration Board or the company was right, I maintain that no such raid should be able to take place in a civilized society. Such actions belong more in a police state than in a democratic society, and we hope that we are a democratic society.

On that same Wednesday morning I asked to be allowed to table a question on the incident for reply that afternoon. However, the hon the Minister said that he was not able to obtain the reply in time, which was fair enough, and so the question was not allowed. It was placed on the Question Paper for the following Friday but stood over for reply. As the incident had by that time been concluded, and as I was to have this opportunity to speak in the House and to debate this issue, I withdrew the particular question. However, my action had alerted the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development who immediately took steps to minimize the consequences of that raid, and I think he did well in that regard, he Chief Director of the Eastern Cape Administration Board has had discussions with the company concerned and also with the Midland Chamber of Industries. Apparently a method of consultation has now been set up and agreed upon between the Eastern Cape Administration Board and the Midland Chamber of Industries which hopefully will prevent a repetition of this type of raid in the future.

The company’s problems have now been sorted out as have the problems of the board, and so the incident is over. However, the damage has been done, and that damage is both local and international in its scope. We heard from the hon member for Houghton only yesterday about the fact that disinvestment is being debated in the Senate in Washington this very week. The company to which I have referred manufactures an international product and, as such, they are a target company and have to be extremely circumspect in all their actions.

This action at this factory has no chance of escaping the attention of the International Labour Organization and the attention of the disinvestment lobby in America. Does one really believe that reports which appear on the front page of the Eastern Province newspapers where American companies have many, many investments are going to escape their attention? It will be noted, as I have said, that this raid took place in the very week that disinvestment is being debated. There is no doubt in my mind that this raid has caused harm to South Africa.

The Government—we know well—will no doubt blame the English Press, Opposition politicians, “opstokers”, inciters, “links-li berales”, old Uncle Tom, company and all. The basic fact remains, however, that had the raid not taken place, there would have been no damage. The raid is the fault and the result of the system, and that system is the system of apartheid.

Locally there has also been damage done. The damage to race relationships within the factory concerned and within the trade unions is great. The problems in Port Elizabeth have been overcome—I wish I could have the attention of the hon the Minister— but a similar raid could happen anywhere and at any time. I believe what has to be done by Parliament—this is my purpose in raising the subject today—is to ensure that the power to make this type of raid is taken away from each and every Administration Board. The basic problem, we are aware, is the apartheid system. The Blacks have to put up with influx control, job reservation, contract labour regulations and a host of aggravating controls which no White, not even a foreign White, has to put up with. The system is unjust.

Given that the system exists, we must try to administer it with compassion and not with hob-nailed boots. Let me quote one person speaking on this recent raid:

What makes it even worse is that the Chief Director of the Eastern Cape Administration Board tells us that it was not a raid, but a normal inspection. There is something very sick about a society that considers an action in which a force moves into a factory, stops production and removes 109 workers of whom only four are subsequently charged to be a normal inspection.

I should like to seek information from the hon the Minister about these normal inspections. Who authorizes them? Is it the chairman of the board concerned or is it the Chief Director or is it some petty official with an overdeveloped sense of his own importance? Certainly, whoever authorized this normal inspection should be fired. This type of insensitivity has no place in any position of authority.

I now get to my reason for and purpose in raising this matter. I seek assurances from the hon the Minister, and I number them. Firstly I seek his assurance that he dislikes actions of this nature which create a bad image of South Africa. Secondly I seek his assurance that he will take action to prevent similar actions in the future, not just in the Eastern Cape—that is a minor issue—but in the country as a whole. It is all very well for the Eastern Cape Administration to have solved its problems with Midland Trading, but what about all the other Administration Boards? As long as we have these normal inspections, so long will we continue to have adverse publicity throughout the world.

I think there are two things that should happen before such a normal inspection takes place. The first is that it should be authorized by the Chief Director of the Administration Board concerned or in his absence the chairman. In this way I hope we shall achieve a more responsible attitude towards these inspections and that we shall prevent raids similar to the one that has just happened. Secondly it would give us the advantage that at least we would know who was responsible for the action. If I had thought that either the Chief Director or the chairman of the Eastern Cape Administration Board was personally responsible for this raid—I do not believe so—I would have called for their resignation.

Secondly, I think that a warrant authorizing such a raid should be obtained from a court. The hon member for Houghton referred yesterday to the American insistence on due process, in other words the due process of law. I believe that due process should occur before any raid of this nature is made. I believe that in making application for a warrant to raid a factory or any other premises, the Administration Boards concerned must produce a satisfactory reason to the court officials for believing that the person or organization to be raided was not complying with the law. If this was the case, the warrant could perhaps be issued. However, to leave it to junior employees within an Administration Board will only continue to give the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs a great deal of difficulty. The proper and ultimate solution is of course to do away with these odious and discriminatory laws. I want to remind the hon the Minister that the buck—as Harry Truman said—stops at his desk and that he owes it to South Africa to ensure that we have no more distasteful episodes of this nature.

I would now like to turn to some financial matters. I want to tell the hon the Minister of Finance that I believe the basic fault of this Budget, is the lack of control of expenditure. The hon the Minister said that after Herculean efforts the figure of expenditure was brought down from over R30 billion to just under R25 billion. I think he is becoming confused between Hercules and Mighty Mouse.

What’s that?

I said that I think you are becoming confused between Hercules and Mighty Mouse.

This year’s Budget is 18,05% higher than the Budget introduced last year and 11,7% higher than the revised Budget. It probably bears as much relation to this year’s actual figures as last year’s Budget bore to reality, which is remarkably little. The Government is unable to stay below its expenditure budget.

A Senbank study has shown that seven times in the last eight years actual expenditure exceeded the Budget by more than 3%. Last year it was a massive 8,2%. Because his predecessor’s erred, does not make him right. If this spendthrift Government achieves its budgeted expenditure this year—which I doubt very much—it is still higher than the current inflation rate, and thus represents a rise in real terms.

It was not 8% more.

What is not 8%.

It is 6%. Did you not listen to my Budget speech in which I said the increase was 6%.

I took the figures given in the hon the Minister’s actual Budget and the increase works out to 8,2%.

You left out the bond discounts.

If the spendthrift Government … The hon the Minister is trying to interrupt my speech. The result of all this overspending is that over the last four years the Government’s share of the overall cake has increased. For 1983-84 it was no less than 25% of the GDP, which is over the acceptable limit set by the International Monetary Fund.

Is that correct? They never told me that.

Yes, it is. I understand that it is 1% higher than the limit set by the International Monetary Fund. At the same time we are told by the hon the Prime Minister that the philosophy of the Government is to encourage free enterprise.

We are at a time when the economy is and has been at a low ebb for some time. We need growth in the private and not in the public sector. The taxes which the hon the Minister has imposed on the private sector will inhibit growth, while the public sector is at the same time spending more and more money. The real failure of this Government, this hon Minister and the Budget, is the failure to limit expenditure. As a result we see the prospects of economic recovery being pushed further and further into the future. Given the increase in expenditure, the increase in taxation is inevitable. There appears to be a feeling amongst the public that personal tax has not been increased. However, it has been increased, as was ably illustrated by the hon member for Edenvale. It was simply done by the process of inflation which resulted in bracket creep.

The hon the Deputy Minister brought John Scott into the debate yesterday. I would commend to John Scott a study of the phenomenon of bracket creep, because I assure him that he is being crept up on. The hon the Minister of course knows the facts of this full well. Without increases in the rate of individual tax he has budgeted for no less than 26,3% more State revenue from personal tax.

Let me give three examples of bracket creep. If one’s original salary was R8 000 one paid an average rate of 5,42%. If one’s salary went up by 10% to R8 800 one ended up by paying an average rate of 6,14%, which is an increase in the average rate of 13,28%. If one earned R20 000 and one’s income increased by 10%, the rate increased from 16,47% to 18,04%, which is an increase of 9,53%.

Have you only now discovered it is a progressive rate of tax?

Of course it is a progressive rate of tax, but because of inflation people are escalated into higher brackets and end up considerably worse off.

They are all better off.

At the same time that living expenses are rising they are fuelled by general sales tax increases, by SATS increases, by maize price increases and by MVA increases, all of which are controlled by Government. In fact, when one considers the control that Government has over so many prices, the rate of inflation is nothing short of a disgrace.

How should we cut expenditure? This is what we are always asked. I submit that the public sector’s total salary bill is far too high. I am not talking about individual pay packets, but about the overall total. On individual pay rates all I am prepared to say is that after the 12% increase and the restructuring, together with house subsidies and pension benefits, public servants are in as good or better a situation than their opposite numbers in the private sector. We need to do in the public sector what Dr Grové has done, and is still doing, in the SATS. There is no firing, but those who leave through natural attrition are not replaced. This should be coupled with a strategy of reducing red tape and many unnecessary bureaucratic controls, and thus becoming more productive in the public sector. I have no confidence in the Budget and support the amendment of the hon member for Yeoville.

Mr Speaker, as I was sitting here since Monday, listening to speeches of hon members of the Opposition, especially when I was listening to the hon member who has just sat down, I was reminded of the words of the late Sir Winston Churchill spoken on 26 March 1944, words which I believe accurately sum up the attitude and position of the South African Opposition today. He said:

I do not know so much about that! I quote further:

I believe that is a perfect and accurate summing up of the attitude of our Opposition. Of course it is the right and indeed the function and duty of the opposition to oppose and to criticize. That is not in issue at all. However, the Opposition also has a very important constructive role to play and contribution to make. Indeed the hon the Prime Minister and the Government are entitled to rely on the alliance of the Opposition in facing the many challenges and problems confronting them in governing this troubled land and its plurality of people.

In this debate, as previously, we have had a great deal of criticism and denunciation of the Government and especially of the hon the Minister of Finance. What was woefully lacking, however, was any indication of an awareness of the Opposition’s duty to align itself with the Government in dealing realistically with the real problems of South Africa.

*It is an irrefutable fact that essential defence expenditure and financial assistance for drought and flood damage has lately made enormous demands on the State’s financial resources. It is equally true that the continuing low gold price on world markets has seriously affected State revenue from that source. Add to that the prevailling recessionary conditions in the countries that are South Africa’s most important trading partners and it becomes clear to any objective observer that the budget under discussion is firstly an honest and meritorious effort—and I want to emphasize this—at meeting, within the bounds of possibility, the challenges in the economic sphere and dealing with the problems; secondly it is an effort at doing justice to all the sectors of the economy and, thirdly, at making reasonable provision for all the branches of the national economy. This would be clear to any objective observer, but objectivity is a commodity we unfortunately cannot expect from the Opposition.

In his criticism of the budget and of the Minister of Finance the hon member for Yeoville showed absolutely no understanding for the realities forming the background against which the budget should be evaluated. On the contrary, he held it against the hon the Minister for having referred to those conditions at all and accused him of trying to hide behind natural disasters. If the hon member wants to ignore those realities, he is unfit to express any opinion on the budget. He is simply condemning the budget because it does not succeed in creating a heaven on earth for everyone, irrespective of the restrictions and the demands that have to be borne in mind.

When, thanks to the incentives and various measures and other attempts on the part of the Government, and with the co-operation of the private sector, we succeed in stimulating the growth rate of the country, the hon members of the Opposition complain about the high inflation rate. If a purposeful attempt is made to keep the inflation rate down to an acceptable level, the Opposition complains about the low growth rate. If an attempt is made to maintain an optimum balance between a reasonable growth rate and an acceptable inflation rate, which I believe has been the case in the budget under discussion, the Opposition complains about both, namely a too low growth rate and a too high inflation rate. There is never any acknowledgment for the fact that attempts to stimulate the growth rate of necessity tend to make the inflation rate rise, and that inflation control measures of necessity have a damping effect on growth. There is no acknowledgment of that, but they just expect the impossible of the Government and the hon the Minister of Finance as far as this is concerned.

If the South African economy experiences an upswing, the Opposition talks about the inherent strength of the South African economy. Then there is not a word of recognition or appreciation on their part for the fact that the Government has, by way of fiscal, monetary and other measures, created the right climate for prosperity. If the South African economy finds itself in a state of recession, however, it is the Government’s fault and not the result of inherent shortcomings in the economy or the result of other circumstances over which the Government has no control. No, then it is the Government’s fault. No credit is given when things go well as far as the economy is concerned. The fact of the matter is, as has already been said in the debate, that there are the very closest links and interaction between a country’s economic, political, military and spiritual preparedness or capability. It is maintained time and again that economic preparedness or strength is an essential substructure a country’s military and political strength. This is a fact, but what is just as true is that a country cannot be economically strong if it is not also politically and militarily strong and if its population is not also morally strong. These things all complement one other. One cannot have one without the other. They are all equally essential to one another. So to talk about the strength of the South African economy, without taking the political, military and moral strength of the country and its people into consideration, is completely unrealistic and misleading.

†The hon member for Houghton said that there must be no further removals. She is not even prepared to consider removals on merit, because according to her, there is no merit in removals. They are all bad. I maintain that this is not a responsible or realistic approach to the worldwide problem of urbanization, which is also evident in South Africa. This shows that the hon member has no appreciation of the socio-economic problems involved or the effect on the employment situation. At the same time, however, the Opposition demands a stable and well cared for society and a sound economy. They do not care one bit about the infrastructure necessary to be able to maintain the things they demand.

*With the prospects for peace in Southern Africa becoming increasingly rosy, as is the case now after the signing of the Nkomati Accord, the agreement with Swaziland and the arrangements with the Angolan Government regarding the withdrawal of South African forces from that country, the progress is accepted and welcomed as if it descended on us from a clear blue sky. There is very little if any appreciation, however, for the Government’s actions in the form of a purposeful strategy, involving South Africa’s redoubtable economic, military and political strength involved, which brought this about. On the contrary, when the South African security forces cleared up nests of ANC supporters in Maputo and elsewhere, hon members of the Opposition lustily joined in the international chorus protesting about the destablization of neighbouring countries. Then they joined in claiming that South Africa was interfering in the internal affairs of its neighbours. To what extent did hon members of the Opposition not question and sow suspicion about Operation Askari just the other day? Now we are reaping the fruits of that operation, there is not even a suggestion of understanding or appreciation, on the part of the Opposition, for the contributory role that all these events played in bringing about the present satisfactory situation.

After the contemptible bomb attack in Durban yesterday, hon members of the Opposition also expressed their aversion to this kind of behaviour and called it an outrage. I grant them that. But the moment steps are taken against persons involved in subversion, sabotage and terrorism, the Opposition makes a tremendous fuss about encroaching on basic human rights, personal freedom and of the “rule of law” When these things happen one cannot want to dissociate oneself from them and, when such things are being engendered, champion the people involved in such diabolical deeds.

†With reference to the" hon the Prime Minister and the Government, I say to hon members of the Opposition in all sincerity, and I quote from something I read somewhere sometime:

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon member for Mossel Bay. I listened to him not only as the hon member for Mossel Bay, but also as the chairman of an exceptional, large Afrikaner cultural organization. Whist I was listening to him, I thought about how this dispensation has already had an effect on Afrikaner national life, what effect this is still going to have in the future, as well as the particular role that hon member is going to play as a member of the NP in his particular cultural organization. It was simply a question I thought of. I maintain that the dispensation the Government is creating is bringing about drastic changes in the pattern of society in South Africa, particularly in the ranks of the Afrikaners. With this discord that has come about—and I can understand that there will be discord in a society, in Afrikaner ranks as well; and it will not be the first time, and probably not the last time either—one hopes that the church and cultural leaders will act in the most responsible way with regard to that which is unique to the people and to which we all attach a high value, despite our sharp and acrimonious differences in the political sphere.

Do you display a sense of responsibility at the cultural level?

When Afrikaners come forward to establish a particular cultural organization according to their principles and standpoints—as has happened recently—I find it very odd that one detects a kind of acrimony in certain members of the NP. I believe that there are reasons for this. It seems that there are cultural leaders in the ranks of the NP who, on the one hand, are feeling very uncomfortable about the political direction in which the Government is moving and, on the other hand, are also afraid that they are going to lose their specific power base. Of course, this is a subject that will be discussed very thoroughly in the future. In my opinion, if there is a need among certain Afrikaners to establish a new cultural organization they have every right to do so. It does not matter who they are, I have no objections.

I have inferred from conversations in the Lobby that this is possibly the last time the hon the Minister will deal with the Budget in this House in his capacity as Minister of Finance. Whether or not that is true, I cannot say. However, I do want to point out that I have always found the hon the Minister’s attitude towards me very dignified and polite. I must say that I like the hon the Minister. Of course, I do not wish to claim that this feeling has to be mutual. I believe that a Minister of Finance does not have an easy task. I do not think it is easy for him to find correct norms each time that will serve as a guide to him when he has to obtain money. To allocate the money he receives properly and fairly is just as difficult a task, of course. Particularly in a part of the world such as Southern Africa, with its unique problems, one can understand that the task of a Minister of Finance is perhaps even more difficult than elsewhere. Of course, what I am saying does not mean that I do not agree with hon members of my party when they criticize certain aspects of the hon the Minister’s Budget.

Of course, certain people encounter financial problems through their own doings. Not all financial problems are the fault of the Government. However, I want the hon the Minister to realize that there are people in South Africa who are struggling. This is not only due to the taxes imposed on them by the Government. We must bear in mind that there are also local and provincial authorities that impose certain burdens on individuals and families. I could focus the hon the Minister’s attention on one example of this. During the past month or so, deposits on water accounts in Pretoria have been increased by as much as 500% in certain cases, whilst the water accounts of some people have increased by as much as 400%. These increases represent an enormous sum. This is money that has to come out of the pocket of the ordinary salaried person. These are things that have a tremendous influence on the standard of living and the quality of life of people.

However, I find that another interesting facet has come to the fore in this debate. I have been here for quite a number of years and I have therefore listened to many debates in this House. What I want to point to is the fact that hon members on the Government side confine themselves fairly strictly to the purely financial aspects of the hon the Minister’s Budget. Over the years, of course, we have learned that this specific debate usually moves in a political direction. This is therefore a debate in which we can adopt certain political standpoints. I want to address the hon the Minister on a matter about which I feel very strongly. I really cannot enjoy this debate—to tell the truth, this session of Parliament—knowing that the sovereignty of this White Parliament is going to disappear. [Interjections.] Hon members on the Government side can make as much noise as they like. I am putting my standpoint and the standpoint of my party. We do not find it easy to accept that a struggle which our people and the White man in Southern Africa has been engaged in for centuries in Southern Africa to establish their own sovereignty has been in vain. It is not easy to accept that that sovereignty is simply going to be given away now. [Interjections.] In addition, one of my major accusations against the Government lies in the fact that these things are being done under the flag and in the name of the NP, the party that really came into being as the political national front of the Afrikaner. To me this is the most shocking thing. That is why I believe that history will judge this Government. Of course, I must concede that sitting here directly opposite hon members of the NP, after having sat in the same party for so many years, has perhaps led to us seeing one another in a somewhat different light. I think hon members on the Government side also see us in the CP differently now. [Interjections.]

The hon the Prime Minister has led the NP in a propaganda campaign against the CP over the past two years. He has done so in a way which has not always attested to purity. Over the past year or so the hon the Prime Minister has made a statement that has been proclaimed by the NP from platform to platform. That is that the homeland policy of the CP with regard to the Coloureds is going to cost R85 billion. I have not made inquiries at the office of the Hon the Prime Minister about this, but I placed a question on the Question Paper in this regard. I asked the hon the Prime Minister the following question:

1. (1) Whether the Government has instituted an investigation into the cost of establishing a Coloured homeland; if so, (a) when was the investigation ordered and (b) who undertook the investigation;
2. (2) whether the report of the investigation will be tabled; if not, to whom will it be made available?

I received the following astonishing reply from the hon the Prime Minister. He said:

I now want to put this question to the hon the Minister of Finance: Is he aware of such an investigation that was instituted, an investigation which arrived at an amount of R85 billion? This is a task that scientists or researchers, or whoever, will have to undertake. When the hon the Minister replies to this debate next week I want him to tell us whether he is aware of such a scientific investigation that has been instituted, as well as how much money has been spent on it and what the norms are according to which that report was published.

As my friend, the hon member for Barberton, indicated today, the Government has not given us an indication of what the costs of the new dispensation are going to be. We do not know what it is going to cost. I am therefore amazed that the Government has gone to the trouble of getting officials of the State to ascertain the amount the hon the Prime Minister and hon members of the NP are proclaiming from platform to platform on behalf of such an unimportant little party such as us. I want to state categorically today that I do not think that such an investigation has been instituted. If it has, in fact, been instituted I do not think it has been done on a scientific basis.

I put a second question to the hon the Prime Minister, viz whether the Government had instituted an investigation into the establishment of an Indian homeland, and what was his reply? His reply was:

Once again, this is an astonishing reply. The Government spends its money, its energy and time on a small and unimportant Opposition party in this regard. When we ask what the establishment of an Indian homeland would cost we are told that we must first determine its borders.

I do not mind the NP having changed its direction, but let us be honest with one another in the political debate in South Africa with regard to these matters.

May I please put a question? Up to and including 1982, did the hon member accept that a homeland for both the Coloureds and Indians was impractical politics?

The party’s standpoint was that it was impractical.

And the hon member accepted that.

As far as my own standpoint within the party is concerned, I have always said that the only alternative we had was the alternative of segregation, complete segregation, or integration, and in this regard I should like to quote the hon member Mr Vermeulen.

But I want to know what the hon member’s own standpoint was.

My standpoint? Since I was a student I have always said that if one accepts the diversity of groups in South Africa, the White man must have his own territory if he wants to retain sovereignty over that territory. Therefore my standpoint was that if this is what I claim for myself as a White, the Coloureds and the Indians must not be denied that. [Interjections.] I have never tried to hide this. What did the hon member Mr Vermeulen say? I quote:

I stand by that—these are the only two directions in which we can move: Either the direction of the PFP, or the direction of the CP.

I wish to conclude by saying that in the history of my people—I am speaking about the Afrikaner people—there was a time when we had to make a choice—that was in 1836—whether or not we were going to remain under English rule. I am sure that if they had held a referendum at that time, those who were in favour of moving would perhaps also only have received 33,3% of the votes. The struggle of a people continue to exist is a never-ending struggle, and one does not ask oneself what it is going to cost. That is not a question one asks. When we moved away in the struggle for sovereignty and our continued existence we did not ask what that Greak Trek was going to cost. When President Paul Kruger wanted to declare war on the powerful British Empire of that time, he did not ask what is was going to cost him. When the war was over the cost was not calculated only in terms of money, but there were also lives that had been sacrificed in the struggle for the continued existence of a people.

I want to say this here this evening, to the hon members of the NP as well: They can go ahead with the tricameral Parliament. They say it is going to work; we have indicated why it is not going to work. I can tell them one thing, however. One cannot stop the struggle of a people for its sovereignty. One cannot stop it. Ultimately, that struggle will be resumed in South Africa. It will not die because a number of leaders of a particular political party have renounced that ideal. I know what I am talking about. The CP has been engaged in this struggle for two years. We have waged the struggle against the once mighty NP, the Press, the radio and television from platform to platform, and I know that we are winning. A politician must not make predictions lightly, but I say that over the next three, four or five years the standpoints of the CP regarding the White man will triumph. I have no doubt about that.

We will enter the new dispensation with this standpoint and this attitude: We shall do so with the finest and best of democratic principles, but I can give this assurance: The battle our fathers began will rage until we die or win.

Mr Speaker, I appreciate the remark the hon member for Rissik initially made about the hon the Minister of Finance. I think that remark was extremely apt in a debate in which people have seen fit to pass a number of unsavoury remarks about the hon the Minister which were totally uncalled for. I should like to thank the hon member as far as that is concerned.

I want to reassure the hon member. I am not at all qualified to talk about finance, and for that reason I shall react to the political arguments he advanced. I do not want to react directly to his arguments. He put a question to the hon the Minister of Finance, for example, to which he will definitely receive a reply.

It is, after all, true that those hon members broke away from the NP and formulated a policy in terms of which they sought to propagate the idea of a Coloured homeland without performing a cost estimate and without undertaking a scientific investigation. The support organization of those hon members, Sabra, has said through its leader, Prof Boshoff, in the presence of the entire population of South Africa, that they have not undertaken such an investigation. I think we shall find that the hon members fall very short of the mark as regards scientific considerations as far as this matter is concerned. In contrast to the hon member for Rissik, who was standing here today in sackcloth and ashes because we are on the eve of a new Parliament, we are receiving it with gratification and excitement. We are looking forward to the implementation of the new dispensation because, in contrast to the hon member for Rissik, we believe that while we are not depriving our country and people of their sovereignty and right to self-determination, we should also give this to other peoples and groups who do not have it at present. It is a fact that sovereignty and the right to self-determination can assume various forms, and are not confined to the form the hon members of the CP ascribe to it.

I should like to deal with the CP in general terms, as regards this topic as well. If one considers the foundation of South Africa’s peace and prosperity, one comes to the conclusion that three very important and cardinal elements have to be linked together. In the first place there must be civil obedience, a spirit of maintaining law and order. In conjunction with that there has to be peaceful evolutionary development of relations in this country. There has to be a spirit of good neighbourliness in Southern Africa. It is impossible for the CP to assist the NP in any way to achieve these objectives, because the CP has a direct interest in racial tension and conflict. They are creating the expectation that the new constitutional dispensation will lead to disaster and chaos.

Conflict.

The hon member for Jeppe has just confirmed what I said. By virtue of this behaviour the hon members of the CP again find themselves in bad company, although for a different reason than was the case with the company in which they found themselves during the referendum.

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

If I have time at the end of my speech I shall give him an opportunity.

I repeat that they again find themselves in the same bad company as during the referendum campaign. They find themselves in the company of the enemies of South Africa abroad as well as the ANC, the UDF and the South African Council of Churches. The successful implementation of the new constitutional dispensation will result in the CP leaders being revealed to their supporters as a bunch of political frauds and liars.

It is a well-known fact that the Russian strategy in Africa, and specifically in Southern Africa, capitalizes on tension and conflict, whereas it is powerless when peace prevails. They know how to promote anarchy by various means, but they cannot deal with peace, because they have never learnt to provide any development aid. The question now is how the CP is going to deal with peace in South and Southern Africa. Will they, as was the case at the Nkomati Accord shyly and sullenly be witnesses to the proverbial peace treaty which we are going to conclude with the Coloureds and Indians in South Africa? The CP followers and supporters will not allow them simply to accept this state of affairs. It is easy for the CP to agree with the Government when it levels criticism at those people who advocate a theology of violence. It is easy for the CP to agree with the Government when it levels criticism at people like Bishop Tutu and Allan Boesak. It is just as easy to support the Government when it takes action against people from the political left wing who advocate civil disobedience. When certain theologians from the right wing of the political spectrum advocate what amounts to a theology of violence, then the CP is silent for the sake of political expediency. When CP followers and supporters are quilty of civil disobedience, then the CP is silent, because it suits them politically. The CP has not forged emotional links with Africa and and its Black inhabitants. They think with a Western heart and in a Western idiom, which makes them nothing but a bunch of neo-colonialists. In their mind’s eye they see White trade unions, White sports fields, White post offices and White churches which Black people only enter if they have to work there. In their mind’s eye they see Black farm labourers, Black gardeners and Black nannies. They do not think of Black people as allies. They do not think of Black people as allies in the trade unions or in the world of business, in the combating of inflation and in the increasing of productivity.

They think Black people do not play a role in our security forces to ensure our safety. I am convinced that there are a number of supporters of the CP who do not think of Black Christians as people who have to form a buffer against communism. Communism and Marxism, of which Whites are the greatest exponents, do not exist in their world. Those hon members are turning self-determination into a farce. The Whites have given their verdict by a two-thirds majority and have said they want to share their right to self-determination with Coloureds and Indians in this country, but the CP do not accept this. [Interjections.] I have yet to meet a Coloured or Indian leader, or hear of one, who is in favour of the idea of a Coloured homeland. And that is to say nothing about the extent to which the Indians reject this. I maintain that there is no meaningful correspondence or discussion between the CP and the Coloureds on this subject. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

If the hon member Mr Theunissen wants to ask a question, I shall gave him an opportunity to do so later. The right to self-determination is a more tolerant concept than the CP wants to suggest. It manifests itself in various forms and it means effective participation in decisions which affect one’s life, with full understanding for the aspirations of other people who are also affected by those decisions. The days are long past when one could pass laws affecting other people’s lives without being prepared to debate those laws with them and also to defend those laws to them.

What about the Blacks?

The CP, and that includes the hon member for Sunnyside, is engaged in a flight from reality. The moment a standpoint is adopted which they do not like, they pass it off as a trick or say that it does not exist.

What standpoints are you referring to?

I am referring to the standpoints which other people adopt and which the CP do not like. The CP then reacts by saying that those standpoints are a trick to prepare the White electorate for integration and majority rule. One is justified in asking how the CP is going to convince the Coloureds and Indians that homelands are the solution to their political aspirations if they cannot even convince the Whites about the viability of this idea.

This question applies equally to the PFP. I am not going to let them get away scot-free. How are they going to convince the Whites that the prosperity and salvation of the White electorate lies with the PFP, if that party is not prepared to repudiate Black consciousness groups which adopt the standpoint that a national convention is merely an instrument whereby Whites are to transfer power to the Black majority? They are never repudiated. There is not even a suggestion of power-sharing. It is purely a bare-faced usurping of power, and the PFP are as silent as the grave about this. How will the PFP convince the Whites of their good faith if their followers flirt with the idea of civil disobedience without the PFP cautioning them? People like Mrs Mana Slabbert and Mrs Sheila Duncan, speaking before Black Sash audiences, are giving a degree of legitimacy to breaking the law without the PFP lifting a finger.

Are you remembering that I still want to ask you a question?

Yes, I remember.

It is clear that when it comes to the consistent implementation of law and order, the voters can only rely on the NP. The CP’s subjective involvement with right-wing anarchists and the PFP’s subjective involvement with left-wing anarchists makes them incapable of adopting an unprejudiced approach to this. When the Government levels crisicism at right-wing actions, the PFP shouts “Hurrah!”, but they remain silent when left-wing elements do the same thing, and the CP reacts in exactly the same way when the roles are reversed.

On the banks of the Nkomati River, when the treaty with Mozambique was signed, it was a privilege to speak to Black people from the Republic of South Africa. There one discovered that there are Black leaders with backbone, people who believe in peaceful, evolutionary change.

There is not one of them who believes in apartheid.

Those are the allies of those hon members who joined them in propagating a “no”-campaign, but now that they have adopted a different standpoint, they are being held up as propagandists for the policy of apartheid. That is how inconsistent those hon members are. [Interjections.] On the banks of the Nkomati River one found that there were Black leaders with backbone who believe in peaceful change. These are men who are glad that the treaty has been signed and who share many of one’s fears and doubts. The peoples of South Africa, White and Black, must learn to talk to each other. In this regard the CP and the PFP are, however, equally conservative; they only hear and see what they want to. A comparable experience is a talk with a Black diplomat in the concrete jungle of New York. While gossiping with him about the Americans and the Russians, you both feel homesick for Africa and its wide open spaces.

The future demands that today’s Black and White leaders, inside and outside South Africa, must find common ground, and this can only happen if we talk to each other and communicate with each other in an orderly atmosphere in order to accommodate the rights and aspirations of minority groups and live in a spirit of good neighbourliness.

Mr Speaker, I now wish to put my question to the hon member. When I said that conflict was built into the new dispensation, the hon member said that because I had said that, we were in bad company. I should now like to quote from Hansard of 1980. [Interjections.] That is what the question is about. It is a very short quote, namely:

The hon the Prime Minister said that, and now I want to know from the hon member whether he considers the Prime Minister to be bad company.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell the hon member for Jeppe categorically that the CP have an interest in conflict in this country. As long as there is peace, they stand empty-handed before their voters. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member say that this party has an interest in conflict in South Africa? [Interjections.]

I do not think the hon member is suggesting thereby that the CP is encouraging conflict. As I see it, he is only voicing an opinion on a topic of general concern, namely conflict politics. It seems to me as if the hon member for Rissik wants to say that the hon member for Krugersdorp feels that the CP has an interest in inciting revolution in the country. I do not see it that way. The hon member for Krugersdorp may proceed.

Mr Speaker, the interests of the hon members of the CP are determined by the fact that if we succeed in implementing the new dispensation peacefully, their scare-mongering will come to nothing.

Mr Speaker, if I were to say that the type of debate which is being conducted here today is a credit to this House, I should not be telling the truth. What I do not like is that the debate is concerned with personalities. It is concerned with people. It is concerned with denigrating our leaders. The people who are being mentioned here are among the most prominent leaders in South Africa. We are witnessing the use of torch commando tactics, of denigration and of attempts to belittle people. There is a constant process of suspicion-mongering. Some hon members devote more than half their speeches to information derived from old speeches, dealing with things that were said at a time when the circumstances of today were not taken into consideration. Now an attempt is being made to evaluate these statements and remarks in the light of the circumstances in which we find ourselves today. The hon member for Rissik says that history is the judge in the matter.

I also turned to history in an attempt to find out what had given rise to the circumstances of today. It is very interesting to find that separation has been part of our history since this country was first colonized. Nowhere in history, however, are there any signs of a real vertical division. On the other hand, one does not find any evidence in history of any sentimental, fraternizing, philanthropic approach which succeeded. There are several examples of this in Africa. Ever since this country was first colonized, the concept of workers, slaves if one wants to call them that, Black and Coloured people from all over the world, has formed part of the world in which we grew up. In fact, Salmon, Jantjie, Apools and Mieta always hved within earshot of the kitchen door. They were part of the world in which this people grew up. When the Whites began to move into the interior and to adopt a nomadic way of life, stock theft was one of their constant headaches. When one analyses the border conflicts, one sees that not one of those conflicts were born of racialism. They were rather caused by the need of a nomadic race for better and more livestock. They were not based on racialism. The history books make it clear to us that each one of these conflicts was followed by a settlement between Black and White, between the Boer leader and Black chief. These settlements dealt with possible action to be taken if stock theft were to occur again. What is even worse is that Salmon was armed to guard him employer’s livestock. This is part of the history of this country. Even he who is the subject of such acrimony was given arms to help protect the possessions of the Whites. Surely this is part of our history. Let us examine the kind of settlements that were negotiated in our history. There are sufficient examples of the way in which peaceful tribes were even settled among the Whites. In order not to mention a fictitious case, I want to refer to the story of the Gcaleka tribe of the Eastern Province. That tribe was removed from its own area and resettled among the Whites in order to counteract the friction among chiefs.

From this one could cross over to the history of Natal. Directly after the battle of the Black Umfoloos, the same Andries Pretorius who had been involved in the bloody battle of Blood River resettled the “tame Zulus”, as they are called in the history books, behind the Whites at the foot of the Drakensberg in order to save that small group of Zulus from the conflicts between warring factions in Natal.

I shall quote a third example. When the Whites moved into the North-Western and Western Transvaal, they came upon isolated tribes which we know as the people of Bophuthatswana today. The History books indicate tha there may have been 12 tribes in that area. There were, for example, the Bakgatla, the Bakwêna, the Taung, the Barotse, the Bathlapin and the Bafokeng. The Bafokeng gave President Kruger the name of “Mamelodi”. The meaning of the word “Mamelodi” is the key to the special relationship which existed between these two groups. “Mamelodi” means “the man who cares for us”. Does this indicate racialism? Does this indicate partition? Does this indicate that there cannot be any peaceful coexistence?

So we must become a unitary state.

Sir, I do not reply to people who cannot pay their debt. These tribes joined the Whites in making war on the militant Mziligazi.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member says that I cannot pay my debt. Can the hon member tell me which debt?

Sir, may I proceed?

The hon member may proceed.

As I have said, these people marched with the Whites on the Mziligazi. It is an historical fact that upon their return, the Boer commandos made these Black tribes gifts of farms. These all form part of the patchwork region in which Bophuthatswana is situated today. This is the one side of the story.

When one analysis the history of the English under British rule in Natal after the Cetshwayo era, one sees that the English in Natal destroyed the tribal chief systems in the Zulu community and created corridors in between in order to ensure peace. The predominant theme in our history is the search for peace and quiet as a basis for survival in this part of the world.

However, our history does not end there. In the field of labour relations, we needed labourers on our farms and eventually in our cities as well. Because of this, we went to fetch families. We fetched labourers who had lived on our farms in a family context, to come and stay in our backyards on their own. When we analyse this society which existed at the time, we find that while on the one hand, there was a fear of a possible attack by the Blacks, on the other hand there were the games that were played on our farms. There was the clay ox factory down at the clay pit. There was doll-making in the shade of the seringa tree. There were the family prayers at night, attended by the whole household. All this became a part of our world on the farms. Today we are looking for land for the White man. After a period of more than two centuries, this conflict has now arisen. Today we are looking for land for the White man and sovereignty over our own territory.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Brentwood to speak again, I want to point out that just before business was suspended, the hon member for Langlaagte made a remark while the hon member for Brentwood was speaking, to which the hon member for Brentwood reacted by saying: “I do not reply to people who do not pay their debt.” It is possible that the hon member for Brentwood was alluding to a party which did not pay its debt.

However, the hon member for Langlaagte reacted to that by asking what debt it was that he had not paid. The remark was made in reaction to what the hon member for Langlaagte had said by way of interjection. Apparently the hon member for Langlaagte feels offended because his dignity has been injured by this remark. I consequently request the hon member for Brentwood to withdraw the remark.

I withdraw the remark, Mr Speaker. I did not mean it in a personal sense. I withdraw it unconditionally.

The hon member may proceed.

Before business was suspended, I was outlining certain diabolic incidents in the course of our history.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon the Leader of the House allowed to refer to the hon member for Langlaagte as SP, while you have ruled that hon members may not refer to one another by their first names? [Interjections.]

Order! In the light-hearted, humorous mood in which the hon the Leader of the House did it, I do allow it. The hon member for Brentwood may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I was indicating how on the strength of habit, customs, culture and lifestyle, we turned the separation of certain groups according to their traditions and ways of life into a norm. I also pointed out how on the other hand, the economic pattern in this country, as well as the great diversity of population groups in this country, did not allow this to continue indefinitely. With all due respect, I believe that it was perhaps the intention of the Creator that our contact with the other groups in this country should oblige us to perform the pastoral service for which he called us to this country at the southern tip of Africa. I believe that this was so because we had to spread His message in our kitchens and everywhere we came into contact with people of colour. However, the history of this has yet to be written. If this is the ideal for which we had to live, the practice we had to engage in, if this is what we would have liked, we have seen the proof of the fact that it never can or will materialize.

Furthermore, history will have to judge the conduct of the hon member for Lichtenburg, a man who also co-operated in trying to unite these people who belonged together, and who expropriated the land of Whites in the process, in order to obtain sufficient territory on which certain other population groups could have a viable existence. This was the conduct of the hon member for Lichtenburg up to 1982. Since then, however, he has joined those Whites whose land was expropriated in protesting that the White man in South Africa has been sold down the river. The history of this remains to be written, Mr Speaker.

History will also have to judge the significant contribution made by the hon member for Waterberg to the improvement of the quality of education of Blacks, in Soweto as well. Since then, however, the hon member has refused to allow Blacks a place of their own in so-called White South Africa. History will also have to judge the contribution made by the hon member for Waterberg to religious instruction in Black schools. This is the same hon member who said in Johannesburg on 10 October last year that only those who were Afrikaners, only those who were Whites, could ultimately be regarded as Christians. Only those who voted “no” came within the definition of Christianity. The historian will have to give his assessment of Dr Connie Mulder, who personally gave the name “Plural Relations” to the department concerned, who wanted to turn Soweto into a fairyland with the help of his magic formula, and where does he stand today with his standpoints?

This reminds me of a story about a jackal. When the farmer caught the jackal in the kraal one night, where it had caught a fat young lamb, the jackal stroked the lamb’s head and released it. Then he said to the farmer: We two really are breeding fat lambs on this farm these days. The point I want to make here is that the wily animal did admit that it was their lamb. However, can this be said of our former colleagues? The moment this lamb had matured, the moment this dispensation had to be implemented in practice, it was no longer our lamb. When this happened, the former colleagues took up an opposing position and loudly objected to the lamb that had been born.

We cannot get away from this; this is the world in which we live. The PFP should not get excited about this, believing that we are heading for a mixed society, because this is also clear from the history of Africa: There is no room for such a situation in Africa. When people are not united in an ethnic context and when they want to live in a mixed society, it will ultimately lead to chaos.

I blame everyone who wishes to pursue this pattern, as well as those who pursue the opposite extreme, because there is no parallel between the history of the Black peoples and that of the Coloureds of this country, after all. There has never been any parallel. There has never been any substantive proof that this type of thing can succeed.

And the Indians?

It is even more applicable in their case. There is no parallel between the Indians and the Black peoples.

The historians—with this I wish to conclude—will ultimately decide and write about an NP which eventually, under the most difficult circumstances, converted Southern Africa into an orderly commonwealth of nations.

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

No, I do not wish to reply to a question.

We have paved the way for creating a commonwealth of nations in South Africa which could coexist in this country. The history books will tell the story of mutual agreements to bring about peace and order and prosperity, the development of a Third World in accordance with civilized norms, without any cheap sentimentality and political falsehoods. This is the world which we are moving towards, a world in which everyone will have a place in the sun, a world in which we shall ask for a place in the sun for ourselves as well, a world which requires us to make sacrifices, a world which requires us to make major contributions, a world which requires people to make the supreme sacrifice and to act in accordance with God’s greatest gift to mankind, in order to accomplish something which will be to the glory of His creation in all its diversity.

Mr Speaker, if the hon member for Brentwood adopted the same approach in the teaching profession as he did both before and after the suspension of business for supper, it makes me realize how prejudiced so many of our young people must be as a result of his distorted view of history. The only one point that he has proved again is that there is no such thing as “White South Africa”. What that hon member wants characterizes so much of what the NP wants, and that is that they want their cake and they want to eat it.

Is there a White Pinelands.

Yes indeed, and a Black Pinelands too. They are integrally joined, and that is what the hon Chief Whip cannot understand. [Interjections.] That is why, when I listened to the hon member for Krugersdorp prior to the suspension of business, I heard him tell the hon members of the CP in this House that they do not consider Blacks to be fellow human beings. He has the audacity to say that when he and his party do not even consider the Blacks to be citizens, let alone human beings. He may consider them to be citizens of some other state or territory but I challenge the hon member now—he can answer me across the floor of the House—to tell me whether he believes that Blacks who are born in South Africa should not enjoy full citizenship rights.

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

No, Sir, I am asking that hon member a question. Perhaps he will just answer across the floor of the House. [Interjections.] Hon members opposite must not try to help him; I am sure he can cope. [Interjections.] That hon member can cope much better than many hon members on that side of the House. However, that question is, of course, the key question. Until such time as the hon member is prepared to answer that question he should stop suggesting to the hon members of the CP that they do not see Blacks as human beings. If one denies a person the right of citizenship then one denies his humanity.

Rubbish!

Mr Speaker, the hon the Deputy Minister of Co-operation is so busy moving people that he has no time at all to be moved by the human condition.

You are talking rubbish. I have not removed one person. [Interjections.]

That hon Deputy Minister will have to accept the responsibility because he is the Deputy Minister and time and time again has the authority either to order or stay a removal. [Interjections.] One cannot blame it on the officials. The hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development and his Deputy have to take responsibility for that.

You just get your own people in Pinelands in order. [Interjections.]

My job is to protect the people of Pinelands from people like that hon Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] I should like any one of those hon members opposite to stand against me in Pinelands and express that same attitude, instead of supporting the NRP all the time which has not helped them at all. [Interjections.] It has not helped them at all in three elections.

Why don’t you stop the agitation in Pinelands?

There is no agitation in Pinelands. We are a peace-loving people. [Interjections.]

Order!

Don’t worry about that, Sir, I can handle that mob … [Interjections.] … those hon members.

Mr Speaker, reform is a contemporary buzz word in South Africa and particularly in South African politics. Every now and again in a particular generation a word is thrown up and everybody fastens on to it. It has been related specifically to the new Constitution but, of course, there are serious differences of opinion as to whether or not the Constitution does present reform.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it in order for the hon member for Pinelands to refer to hon members on this side of the House as “the mob”? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Pinelands corrected himself immediately by saying “the hon members”.

Thank you, Sir. I only wish that that hon member would listen because he may learn something if he listens to my speech. [Interjections.]

There is no doubt that for the NP the new Constitution is a major reform measure. For the CP, however, it is a betrayal of long-held principles and policies and is regarded by them as being retrogressive rather than reformist; in other words, one man’s meat is another man’s poison. The PFP, however, views the new Constitution as a desperately sad loss of a golden opportunity and a pale reflection of genuine reform in South Africa.

It is not only parties in this House, however, that have varying views of the new Constitution. The Coloured and Indian communities are hopelessly divided, not only in respect of various political parties and groupings but even in respect of families, churches and organizations of every description. Not surprisingly, Black South Africans are set solidly against the Constitution and regard it as anything but reform. In other words, instead of the constitution being a symbol of reform, it is divisive rather than uniting. The question could well be posed during this Budget debate whether there is another less subjective way of testing reform. Is there an objective test of the measurement of the Government’s intentions?

Yesterday’s tragic and mindless bomb blast in Durban is an urgent and painful reminder that we have a long way to go in this country before we have convinced all groups that true reform is on the way in South Africa.

You are justifying it now.

Nonsense! That is absolute rubbish and you know it. [Interjections.]

Can the Budget itself be a measurement or even an instrument of reform? This particular Budget has been called many things. The most appropriate is perhaps that it is a hire-purchase budget; in other words, new burdens are imposed in instalments. There was first of all the GST, then the bread price and many other increases and then of course the Budget itself. It is certainly easy to determine the conscious and unconscious priorities of an ordinary family by an analysis of how it spends its income. It is obviously much more complicated to analyse the budget of a country, but it is possible and I believe even desirable to do so against the background of the urgent and desperate need for understanding among ourselves as to what reform is and ought to be.

I want to put it to the hon the Minister of Finance that as it stands, the Budget falls short of being an instrument of reform. If the apartheid ideology, which is so deeply imbedded in the fabric of our very society, was done away with, far-reaching rationalization of functions would occur within a number of the departments within this Budget. It is for example highly probable that there would be only one major department of education instead of the present 18, namely four provincial departments for Whites, 10 homelands departments, the Department of National Education and the Department of Education and Training, Coloured education, Indian education, and so one can go on. If there were to be one department of education, there can be no doubt that this rationalization would involve considerable savings.

Similarly, a single Department of Health and Welfare would do away with the necessity of having separate welfare allocations for Whites under Health and Welfare, Coloureds and Indians under Internal Affairs and Blacks under Co-operation and Development or their appropriate homeland departments. Has anybody in his life ever heard of anything as ridiculous as the health and welfare of a nation needing to be carved up into so many different departments and sections and thereby increasing the overheads.

Tell that to the electorate.

I am not worried about the electorate. The hon member should stop worrying about votes and worry about what is right for the country for once.

I put it to the hon the Minister that his job would be simplified if there was one department with one allocation in terms of the needs of the health of the nation. However, we create more and more departments which increase the overheads and other costs all the time.

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

No, I am sorry.

It is quite fascinating to look at the absolutely wasted expenditure incurred by apartheid. I only have time tonight to refer to some examples. I want to refer to the budget of the Department of Co-operation and Development. Under Programme 1 an amount of R98 000 is budgeted for the Commission for Co-operation and Development. There is also an amount of R235 000 under the heading Commissioners-General. Under Programme 2, one has the following kind of Orwellian language:

An amount of R96 568 000 is budgeted for this. I is unbelievable. I will repeat that: To arrange the presence of Blacks in White areas, R96 million. The figure for Programme 5, the development of Black areas towards self-determination, is R414 548 000. That is also unbelievable.

What is wrong with that?

The Government has been wasting money and pouring it down the drain for countless generations. If that hon member does not know it he should talk to some of the more verligte members behind him, although not immediately behind him. They will know that the policy is a dismal failure and that it will continue to fail.

Under Programme 7 the figure for Black persons citizenship certificates is R876 000 and for identity documents R5 851 000. Under Internal Affairs—I am sorry the hon the Minister is not present—the figure for population classification is R162 000 and that for population registration R7 835 000, while the figure for publication control is R890 000. Just think of the money that this Government is spending on an ideology which in no way can work.

Under Community Development—I am sorry the hon the Minister is not here but I am sure his Deputy will listen—the figure for group area demarcation if R260 000 and that for administration of group areas R10 099 000. As far as Industries and Commerce is concerned, we have made it very clear over and over again that if it is right economically—that is the true test—then decentralization can be very valuable. However, if it is done on the basis of an ideology and it does not meet the test of true economic worth, then we believe it is money down the drain. The amount that we are spending on the decentralization of industries—and so much of it on ideological grounds rather than on economic grounds—is R232 162 000.

The above is incomplete but it still amounts to R769 584 000, or more than 3% of this Budget. It does not sound very much if one puts it that way, but let me put it in another way to the hon the Minister. It is more than the appropriation for the Departments of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Agriculture, Environment Affairs and Fisheries, Justice, Industries, Commerce and Tourism, Manpower, Commission for Administration, Foreign Affairs, Transport Affairs and the Prime Minister. I would suggest that that is quite a lot of money and quite a number of important departments. If only this hon Minister would have sat down and looked at the Budget, at the demands and at the expenditure and income, in terms of priorities for the people of South Africa rather than planning a Budget in terms of an ideology, what a genuine transformation, what reform, would then be ushered in for South Africa? However, tragically, ideology has once again been the determining factor of this Budget, as in so many others. I have only pointed to over R700 million, but the expenditure in the inhibiting of people’s life chances, their opportunities and the creation of wealth which are stunted because of this ideology, cannot be measured, even in millions. However, this Government goes on spending these amounts on an ideology.

One of the central factors of democracy is the right of the citizens of a country to have a decisive voice in the way their taxes are spent. It was a turning point in history when Parliament instead of the king was given that right. If one wants to test the extent of democracy in any country, one must ask the question: Who determines how the money is spent? It is significant that the hon the Minister in his Budget Speech emphasized that this would be the last year when one budget would be presented. From next year there will be four budgets—a general affairs budget and three own affairs budgets. Is there any country in the civilized world which determines the way in which it spends its money, whether it be on education, health, social welfare or agriculture, in terms of racial classification? However, the hon the Minister said one other very significant thing. He said that whilst there would be several budgets, there would be only one Minister of Finance. Guess where that Minister will come from. Guess who will have the final word.

It will be an “Owen” affair. [Interjections.]

If it is not that hon Minister, Minister Horwood, it will be someone who succeeds him in this particular House. I put it to the hon the Minister—am I right? Or is he suggesting for a moment that there could be a Minister of Finance from the Coloured or the Indian House?

You will have to wait and see.

We will have to wait and see. Anyone who would like to guess and put any money on any one population group or guess from which House the Minister of Finance will come, can do so, but I predict that it will be the present Minister of Finance or his successor. That Minister will certainly not come from the Indian or the Coloured House; in other words, the final Power, measured in terms of finance and spending, will be in the hands of the white NP. This is, however, symptomatic of the new Constitution and the approach of that party, but I warn this Government that this situation will not last forever. The ominous signs are there for all to see. We are a conflict society and the genuine sharing of power must lead away from a constitution devised by one group to a new constitution where might is not right but where the voice of all the citizens will have a fair share in the determining of income and expenditure, of privilege and responsibility.

There is, however, one small ray of hope in all this. The Government’s willingness to sit down and talk with President Samora Machel of Mozambique, once described as the Marxist lackey of Soviet imperialism, and its clear commitment to the resolution of the Namibian problem, even a willingness to speak and negotiate with Swapo, must inevitably lead to speaking to the Black leaders within our borders. The central question in this Budget debate and in every debate in this House is not where the Government will speak or when they will speak, but with whom they are going to speak in order to resolve the escalating conflict in our land. [Interjections.] Can we afford forever to ignore those forces and those movements which have obvious widespread support in the Black community? Is it not better for ourselves and our children to negotiate now before there is even further loss of life?

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon member for Pinelands but I am just afraid that I may be labouring under a misapprehension. I do not want to put intentions or words into the hon member’s mouth which he did not intend, but he did refer to the bomb explosion in Durban and said inter alia that there were many more people that we should have to persuade and convince. I almost gained the impression that the hon member wanted to intimate—I hope I understood him incorrectly—that people have reason to resort to violence.

You are under a misapprehension.

I am very glad to hear that. [Interjections.]

I think it will be a good thing if the hon member will convey this in a positive manner to their youth organizations. They should express themselves openly against violence.

What are you implying?

I am not implying anything.

Are you suggesting that our youth organizations are for violence?

One gets that impression. However, I will take the hon member’s word if he says that it is not so.

This party stands for peaceful negotiation, whether it concerns the young people or the old people.

But they published a pamphlet … [Interjections.] I will leave it to the hon member to speak to those young people so that they will project a positive and non-violent attitude.

*This evening the hon member made another remark that I should also like to have clarified. By way of an interjection during the speech of the hon member for Mossel Bay the hon member said that we were too concerned about the voters. May I take it, then, that the hon member contends that we should ignore the voters and proceed with a type of dictatorship? I do not want there to be any misunderstanding between the hon member and myself. The hon member puts things in such a way as to be susceptible to different interpretations. I do not wish to infer that the hon member advocates a kind of dictatorship and that we should ignore the voters, and if that is not the hon member’s view then I accept it as such. The hon member should perhaps express himself better, so that his statements are not susceptible to incorrect interpretation.

I will try and simplify my speeches.

The hon member need not simplify them; all he need do is formulate his statements clearly and correctly. He must just say what he means. That is all I expect of him.

The hon member also came up with a few other interesting allegations. For example he contended that our decentralization policy was based solely on ideological premises.

I said that where it is based on ideology, it is wrong.

The decentralization of economic activities in the country is based on the needs that exist in the under-developed areas. After all, we know that an over-centralized economy gives rise to evils of many kinds, for example, uncontrolled influx to the metropolises, which, in turn, leads to an over-supply of labour in those areas. This results in a drop in wages and standard of living of the people who move there. Surely this is a well-known fact that we can observe in the rest of Africa. I do not wish to say to the hon member that the question of decentralization in South Africa is not a political matter. That hon member laughs, and I can understand that. With his know-how in this field I can believe that he would laugh about that. Decentralization is a principle that is recognized world-wide. Economic activities must be distributed across the length and breadth of the country to the maximum extent to prevent any excessive overcrowding of people, with all the detrimental consequences that entails. I gained the impression from what the hon member for Pinelands said that everything that results in separation in this country is a big mistake, entails major expense and is wrong. Apparently, all we have to do in South Africa is to say that there is no difference between people; all we have to do is abolish all measures of separation or distinction in order to have a contented and prosperous South Africa. If we follow that policy we need not philosophize about the results; we need only consider what the situation is in the rest of Africa. We have the reply to that. We need not philosophize about it because the answer is already known in the rest of Africa.

Surely, Sir, that hon member’s party also has a policy based on a federation, has it not?

It is not based on it; it is a federation.

Very well, for the moment it is a federation. However, even in a federation one surely has to have decentralization of government. Surely, in that case, one also needs duplication, or is it only a sham federation? A federal form of government implies a renunciation of power, to a greater extent, to the components of that federation.

Of course. Geographically. [Interjections.]

That is quite right. The hon member has just helped me. [Interjections.] Sir, I should appreciate it if the hon members would give me a chance now and again. Therefore the policy of those hon members implicitly incorporates a very strong element of geographic decentralization, decentralization of political power. Then, too, it is necessary to decentralize in the field of education, economic development and all the other matters. However, when we do this under the overall heading of decentralization, then the hon member says that that is wrong. The hon member says that there is at least a small ray of hope, viz the present preparedness of the Government to speak to President Machel and others. Surely that has always been our standpoint. This Government has always been prepared to speak to people on the basis that our equality and sovereignty is recognized. Surely the hon members know that there are many Governments in Africa that did not wish to speak to us at ministerial level and that did not recognize us as a state and a legal government. I want to say that our self-respect and the self-respect of South Africa do not permit us to go and speak to anyone who places us in an inferior and subordinate position. We are prepared to speak to people when our sovereignty is recognized and when we are recognized as a legitimate state and government. However, we are not prepared to speak to people who say that we are an illegitimate minority Government in this country, and who do not recognize us in terms of international law. [Interjections.] Is the hon member for Green Point now saying that we are not a legitimate Government?

You are a legitimate minority Government.

Do hon members question the legitimacy of the Government?

No.

I am pleased that the hon members do not do so. [Interjections.]

I should like to go further.

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

I shall give the hon member an opportunity to do so after I have disposed of a few other points. This evening I should like to react briefly to a number of questions put to me by the hon member for Pietersburg in the course of the debate. I want to say in advance that I understand that the hon member is not able to be present here. Unfortunately I cannot be here tomorrow. Tomorrow I shall be on my way to a place where I think he should like to stay and where he is not going to stay. Accordingly I shall have to reply to him in his absence and I shall have to ask the hon Whips of the CP to convey my replies to him. However, I understand why he cannot be present here this evening. I wish to put a few questions to the hon member. I feel free to do so since he put several questions to me. In the first place, I want to ask the hon member whether he sold all his shares in the newspaper Die Afrikaner. I also wish to ask him whether he possessed those shares when he was nominated as a condidate for the NP in Pietersburg. [Interjections.] Next I want to know from the hon member for Pietersburg why be bought those shares in Die Afrikaner.

He was listening to his inner voice.

Quite correct, yes. He was listening to his inner voice. [Interjections.] The next question I want to ask is addressed to hon members of the CP in general.

Rather ask old Daan himself.

Yes, I might as well put the question to the hon member for 3. After all, he is not afraid of replying. [Interjections.] I gather that Prof Carel Boshoff is now a very big, strong and shining light in that party. He is now a leading light in the CP. Now I should like to know from hon members of the CP—and from the hon member for Pietersburg in particular—what they have to say to the following. In about 1979 Prof Carel Boshoff held meetings in the Northern Transvaal. At that time he wanted to give the whole of the Northern Transvaal to the Black people by way of consolidation. Implicit in his proposals at the time were Pietersburg, Tzaneen and other places as well. He was so serious about his plans that the people of Northern Transvaal held protest meetings to oppose his grandiose consolidation proposals. Now, I just want to know whether or not hon members of the CP still endorse those grandiose consolidation proposals advanced by Prof Carel Boshoff. [Interjections.] Prof Boshoff was the great champion of those consolidation proposals. He was the man behind them, and we in the Northern Transvaal would now like to know where the CP stands with regard to Prof Boshoff s consolidation proposals. What is also important is the question whether they and Prof Boshoff now differ from one another as regards those consolidation proposals.

I shall tell you where we stand. We stand diametrically opposed to the integration policy of the Government. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sunnyside can reply to me on this score in good time. However, I just want to know whether the CP and Prof Carel Boshoff are still in agreement about this. Are they still in agreement about the plan to sign away virtually the entire Northern Transvaal by way of consolidation? In the public interest, and also in view of the by-election in Potgietersrus, I believe that hon members of the CP must now say to us whether they repudiate Prof Boshoff or whether they still support him. The people of the Northern Transvaal want to know. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietersburg put several questions to me. Apparently he has read all my speeches in Hansard over the past 18 years. He discovered a speech which I made in this House in 1972, and that speech appears to have impressed him tremendously. Of course, it does not take much to impress the hon member for Pietersburg. However, he really went into transports about that speech of mine. He devoted almost his entire speech to me and to my speech of 12 years ago. He put certain questions to me and, throughout, only spoke about the coming by-election in Rosettenville and, of course, the by-election which is to be held in Potgietersrus. He asked inter alia whether a single hon member of the NP could come and tell him whether the Coloureds who will be sitting in this Parliament will have the same rights as the other hon members. He wanted to know who the shoe fitted now, and went on to ask whether we on this side of the House were too afraid to reply to that. He implies thereby that we would be political cowards if we did not reply. He wanted to know where these people who will be attached to the new parliamentary system are going to live and what rights they are going to have. He also asks what their status will be in comparison with that of members of the White Chamber [Interjections.]

I want to remind hon members of the CP that years ago we held a debate here on the policy of the United Party of introducing six Coloured representatives into this White House of Assembly. That was the point at issue at the time. We said that we rejected it. We said that we opposed it because that would mean that we should not be giving the Coloureds self-determination in regard to their own affairs and that we should also be jeopardizing our own self-determination by introducing another population group to act as arbiter in respect of the differences between the White political parties. [Interjections.] That is what the NP calls unhealthy power-sharing. It is unhealthy power-sharing if one introduces another population group into one Chamber, because one thereby destroys the right of self-determination of all population groups and, in addition, makes that group an arbiter in respect of disputes in White politics.

You are falling over your own feet.

Mr Speaker, I think that the hon member for Brakpan should keep his mouth closed for a change so that we can see what his eyes look like. [Interjections.] The NP still stands by that. I want to put this question to the hon members of the CP: Do they agree that the new dispensation constitutes a recognition of the fact and the principle that there are three population groups in this country? What does the CP say to that? Now those hon members are quiet. Does the hon member for Brakpan recognize that the new constitution constitutes a confirmation and a recognition of the fact that three population groups will be presented in Parliament? Now they are all quiet, but all of them accepted the 1977 proposals. They all stood by the electoral college and they all stood by one executive Cabinet with the same powers and functions as the present Cabinet. They all stood by that, and their silence and embarrassment now shows me that that is the truth. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietersburg also asked me whether the status of the MP’s would be the same. I cannot understand why the hon member for Pietersburg puts that question to me, because he need only read the Constitution. That Constitution makes no mention of differences in status among MP’s. That Constitution creates three Houses. They are three equal Houses with three different population groups. Therefore the answer is that their status is the same. I have already said that those hon members stood by the 1977 proposals. They stood by the fact—and Mr Vorster replied to that in this Parliament in April 1978—that the Constitution did not prescribe the colour of the State President. At the time the hon members of the CP went along with that, viz that there would be no discrimination as regards who could be State President in this country. Therefore they accepted that a Coloured or Asian could also become State President. They cannot get away from that.

The CP has no alternative but to adopt those points of departure with regard to the new constitutional dispensation. The hard fact of the matter is that we in South Africa cannot pretend that there are no other people in this country. We in South Africa can not pretend that there are no differences among people. Our continued existence in this country will be determined by the extent to which we recognize and deal with those differences that do exist in a sensible and friendly fashion. The denial of differences leads to the chaos we find in the rest of Africa. The hon member for Pietersburg, too, asked several questions about where the children of those members of Parliament would have to go to school I think we have already said often enough that education is an own affair. Surely we said that every population group would have its own schools.

Dining rooms.

Their own dining rooms too. [Interjections.] The trouble with the hon member for Pietersburg is that he does not realize that he is a member of a plural population in which relations are changing. He does not realize that there is progress rather than retrogression. They live in a society in which more tolerance, more understanding, more dialogue with one another is developing, because this is the formula for peace in the future, and not the politics of conflict and the exploitation of race prejudice and the inner fears that people cherish.

I want to go on to refer briefly to the hon member for Lichtenburg. He made a very interesting speech. He contended that what Willem de Klerk wrote today would be the policy of the NP in two years’ time. I say to the hon member that what Jaap said five years ago is the policy of the CP today. [Interjections.] To that I want to add that what Jaap said yesterday, will be the policy of the CP in five years’ time, because the CP is on the move. It is trekking towards the past. It is trekking deeper and deeper into the past. The question which arises from this is: How far into the past does the CP want to trek? I contend that that will be as far as Jaap treks, because they cannot afford to be less out of date than Jaap and company, because their entire political philosophy and strategy must be to outbid the HNP.

The hon member for Lichtenburg said that the capita of the Swiss always moves to the right. Their periodical Die Patriot has now voluntarily gone into liquidation. I want to know from the hon member whether he was a director of the company that published Die Patriot. Was the hon member for Waterberg also a director of that company?

I shall not help you make your speech. Are you incapable of making a speech without asking questions?

You are afraid.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May an hon member on the Government side tell an hon member on this side that he is afraid?

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

I gathered—if my information is incorrect then the hon member for Lichtenburg must tell me so—that he and his hon leader were directors of the company that published Die Patriot.

Find out the facts yourself.

It is my information that the hon member is a director, as is the hon member for Waterberg.

Are you ashamed of it, Ferdi?

I do not know whether the hon member for Lichtenburg feels ashamed of being a director.

Tom is also a director.

Yes, the hon member for Soutpansberg is also a director. [Interjections.]

Tom is a sleeping partner.

I understand that the hon member for Soutpansberg is the sleeping partner. It seems to me that the capital that flows to the right, flowed into and right through a hole in Die Patriot, so that that company is now insolvent.

The hon member for Lichtenburg attacked the hon the Minister of Finance and said that the Government was using loan capital to finance current expenditure. He went on to say that we were becoming an African state.

How did you finance The Citizen?

The hon member for Bryanston should not protect his partners now. They were partners at the time of the referendum and the hon member had better leave it at that now.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Earlier today the Deputy Speaker forbade the hon member for Bryanston to make any further interjections. Is it in order for the hon member to make interjections again today.

I do not know for how long the hon member was forbidden to make interjections.

It was for the entire day.

Order! If the hon member for Bryanston was forbidden to make remarks during the debate today, then he may not do so this evening either.

Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speaker clearly said “this afternoon”. [Interjections.]

Order! I shall ascertain from the Deputy Speaker what his ruling was.

Mr Speaker, I have no objection to the interjections of the hon member for Bryanston because they are not worth much although I enjoy them.

It appears that the ruling of the Deputy Speaker applied to this sitting day, and therefore that includes this evening. I shall not punish the hon member for Bryanston for the interjections he made but he must comply with the ruling for the rest of the day.

The hon member for Lichtenburg made the irresponsible allegation that the Government and the hon the Minister of Finance were making an African state of South Africa and that our financial affairs were not being administered properly. However, what did the CP do as far as Die Patriot is concerned? They cannot even manage the finances of a newspaper; how, then could they manage the finances of a country?

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

No, I cannot answer questions now because I have only three minutes left. I am always reasonable with the hon member but I definitely cannot answer his question now.

The hon member of the CP accused the Government of mismanagement, but they were not even able to arrange the affairs of a newspaper. Apparently they made use of loan capital to cover current expenditure. That is what they are accusing us of. It seems to me as if the capital that flowed into them from the right, flowed out again on the left. Did the newspaper borrow capital to cover current expenditure? I am not asking that of the hon member for Soutpansberg because I do not want to disturb him. [Interjections.] Did the hon members not perhaps borrow money from the Swiss? After all, the Swiss are now lending money right and left. Apparently the Swiss had no confidence in the hon members, and rightly so. Today that newspaper is no more.

I have before me a pamphlet issued by the Conservative Party on 30 January this year. I quote:

[Interjections.] I quote further from the pamphlet:

[Interjections.] The most priceless thing in the pamphlet is the following:

[Interjections.] At the bottom of the pamphlet there is a note to say that the address is no longer in Verwoerdburg. [Interjections.] The best part of this entire pamphlet is the sentence “Werp julle brood op die water …”. I suppose one has to fill in the dots oneself. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I want to tell the hon the Minister of Manpower that the CP won Soutpansberg without the aid of any newspaper and that is also going to win Lydenburg without the aid of any newspaper. [Interjections.]

And Kuruman?

Kuruman too. The hon the Minister of Manpower made the untrue statement that the hon member for Lichtenburg, the hon the Leader of the CP and the hon member for Soutpansberg were directors of Konserwatiewe Koerante. That is a piece of gossip-mongering that he is blazoning abroad. They were not members of the board of directors of Konserwatiewe Koerante. That was one of the first untruths the hon the Minister uttered.

The hon the Minister said further that what Mr Jaap Marais was saying five years’ ago is present-day CP policy.

That is the truth.

I now want to highlight another truth. What was the policy of the old United Party and the Progessive Party five years ago, is the present-day policy of the governing party. [Interjections.] That is the truth. The hon the Deputy Minister of Co-operation agrees.

Where do you get that?

The hon the Minister of Manpower said that a number of years ago Prof Carel Boshoff wanted to include large parts of the Transvaal, including Pietersburg, in the Black homelands, and wanted to know whether we repudiated Prof Carel Boshoff. Let me tell hon members another little secret. The hon the Minister of Manpower and I were very good friends, and he was someone who very strongly advocated a Coloured homeland. [Interjections.] He wanted the whole of the Cape Peninsula, including Stellenbosch, delimited as a Coloured homeland. As an ex-Matie I asked him please to leave Stellenbosch out of his Coloured homeland.

What did the clown do? That Government clown!

Now the hon the Minister is trying to link us up to Prof Carel Boshoff’s proposals. He is one of the biggest somersaulters I know of in South African politics. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Brakpan refer to the hon Minister as a “clown”?

Of course.

The hon member for Brakpan must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: I should like to draw your attention to the fact that the hon member for Langlaagte, in responding to a previous point of order, said: “Of course”.

The hon member for Langlaagte must withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it.

The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

The hon member for Pietersburg put certain questions to the hon the Minister of Manpower. When the old United Party wanted to bring eight Coloureds to the House of Assembly and six to the senate, in other words, 14 Coloureds to parliament …

To the House of Assembly.

To Parliament. The hon member for Mossel Bay cannot understand it. There would have been eight members in the House of Assembly and six in the senate, and jointly the two Houses constituted Parliament. [Interjections.] He does not, however, understand that. The hon the Minister asked, at the time, whether those 14 members would be able to live in Acacia Park if they were to come to Parliament. He also asked whether their children would be able to attend school in Acacia Park and whether the members would be able to use the dining-room here. That is a question the hon member for Pietersburg also put to him. The hon the Minister did not, however, answer anyone of these questions. [Interjections.] He could not answer them. He was angered by the fact that the old UP wanted to bring 14 Coloureds to Parliament, but now he and his party are bring 85 Coloureds and 45 Indians to Parliament. We asked those questions about the dining-room, about Acacia Park and about Fernwood, but the hon the Minister is as silent as the grave. Let me now, however, leave the hon the Minister at that.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs said the corner-stone of NP policy was self-determination. When the CP says it advocates the self-determination of peoples, the hon the Deputy Minister says the cornerstone of NP policy is self-determination. When the NP says it advocates the right to self-determination of peoples, it means that each people can decide for itself on every facet affecting its life, and that means a Parliament of its own and local authorities of its own. That is self-determination. [Interjections.]

Let us take a look at what the governing party’s self-determination means. The word still remains the same, but they have given a completely different meaning to self-determination. What does the hon the Minister of National Education say about self-determination? I quote from Hansard of 14 June 1983, column 9347:

The governing party’s self-determination is a combined type of self-determination.

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

Mr Speaker, I am not prepared to answer a question now.

I want to go on by quoting from Die Vaderland of 17 April 1982:

In other words, the self-determination of which the NP speaks is self-determination in regard to Whites, Coloureds and Indians— the new nation they believe in. The CP, on the other hand, says: We believe in the right to self-determination of the respective peoples living here on the southern tip of Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Krugersdorp says that members of the CP broke away from the NP. I resigned from the NP, however, because I had promised my voters in 1981 that the day the NP accepted power-sharing, and brought Coloureds to Parliament, that decision on its part would terminate my membership of the party. [Interjections.] The day the NP accepted power-sharing, it ended my membership of the party. The other hon members sitting here with me did not break away from the NP either; they were suspended from the NP because they refused to accept power-sharing and a multiracial Government.

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

Mr Speaker, I am sorry, but I do not have time for questions now.

The other members of the CP were suspended because they refused to accept power-sharing and a multiracial Government in South Africa. [Interjections.] On 20 March 1980 the CP established a new political party in the Skilpadsaal. We drew up a policy and held a public congress. We did not hold a congress behind closed doors, nor was our policy drawn up by a mixed President’s Council. We drew up a policy that was discussed in public; that policy was adopted, and the CP is even now still advocating that policy. I do hope that the governing party at least does not begrudge the CP the right to adhere to the decisions of its congress, because after the NP had held five congresses for the acceptance of the new policy, this new integration plan of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, we did not begrudge them the right to adopt that policy. We do not begrudge the NP that right, because their congresses placed the stamp of approval on the new constitutional dispensation. [Interjections.]

If it is right, fair and Christian and will defuse conflict if the Tswana people are given a fatherland of their own, surely it is also right, Christian, fair and liberating to give the Coloureds and the Indians true freedom within the borders of their own national states. [Interjections.] If it is Christian in the case of the Tswana, surely that is also true of the Coloureds and the Indians. [Interjections.] But that hon Minister and the hon the Minister of National Education, who said the Coloureds are a people, are no longer saying they are a people or a people-in-the-making, but are parroting the hon the Prime Minister’s contention that they are part of the South African nation. The CP says that true freedom and self-determination for the Tswana people took place by way of separate development, until their eventual independence within the borders of their own fatherland. As good neighbours we can now live alongside each other in peace and friendship. The CP says that what we have given the Tswana people we also demand for the Whites of South Africa. We demand the same right to self-determination, which this Parliament has given the Tswana people, for the Whites of South Africa. If the CP states that it wants to retain this Parliament for the Whites, a Parliament which decides on every facet affecting the Whites, being able to make laws governing those aspects and not merely a few own affairs, the CP members are vilified as racists who will not grant the Coloureds, Indians or Blacks anything at all. The CP states that it does not begrudge the Whites true freedom. Nor does it begrudge the Coloureds, Indians and various Black peoples that same freedom.

Where?

I have challenged the hon member for Wellington to join me in a meeting at Wellington so that we can argue this matter, but he did not have the courage to accept my challenge. I am also prepared to discuss these matters with the hon the Minister of Manpower at Lydenburg. I invite him to join me in a discussion of this new constitution in Kuruman.

Jan, you are out.

Oh, Helgard, you do not figure at all. The NP says the Coloureds are not a people, nor a people-in-the-making, but rather part of the South African nation. They are giving the Coloureds and Indians representation in one tricameral Parliament in a unitary State. There will be, in point of fact, a multiracial Cabinet, a multiracial electoral college, a multiracial President’s Council and multiracial standing committees. The NP says that the Coloureds speak our language, share the same religion, fight on our borders and are part of our nation. They place the Coloureds in a separate chamber, however, merely on the grounds of the colour of their skin and because the Coloureds belong to another race. If the NP says that although they speak our language, share our culture and fight on our borders, it is placing them in a separate chamber, I am saying that they are being placed in that chamber on the grounds of their skin colour. So are the NP members not the racists? The CP differentiates on the grounds of there being a diversity of peoples on the southern tip of Africa. I am not ashamed of anyone in the world telling me that I am a member of the Boer people. Nor do I think a Tswana would feel ashamed if one told him that he belonged to the Tswana people. Likewise, I do not think that the Coloureds or the Indians would be ashamed if one told them they belonged to those population groups. If the Coloureds and Indians are to be told they are being placed in separate chambers because of a difference in skin colour, however, they would be hurt.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Kuruman has just said that they had no newspaper during the by-election in Soutpansberg. I personally came across the remains of Die Patriot in Soutpansberg. I have before me a newspaper entitled “Soutpansberg KP”. It consists of eight pages full of their propaganda and stories. However, the hon member says that they did not have a newspaper. That is untrue, because I have this newspaper here in front of me. Due to certain reactions by the Conservative Party in this House I have decided to deviate from my prepared speech. I want to give a brief summary of my prepared speech and if I have time left after discussing the matter I want to discuss, I shall come back to it.

[Inaudible.]

I shall get to the hon member for Brakpan. That is exactly why I am deviating from my prepared speech.

I wanted to say in my prepared speech that a political party and its leader have to comply with certain requirements in order to be successful in this country. I wanted to say that those requirements included characteristics such as responsibility, a grasp of reality and a vision for the future. In addition, with reference to the relevant report of the President’s Council, I wanted to put certain facts to this House with regard to the population possibilities for the future. I wanted to single out certain scientific facts and indicate what solutions the policy of the various political parties offered in this regard. I wanted to conclude by mentioning who the responsible leaders were and who possessed the vision. However, I shall leave it at that for the moment.

The hon member Mr Schutte referred to a verbatim version of a speech delivered by Dr Treurnicht in Germiston on 16 December. I am not going to quote the entire speech verbatim, but I do just want to pick up the thread of the story. At that meeting in Germiston on 16 November, the leader of the Conservative Party spoke about a person who was caught carrying a bomb in Pietermaritzburg. I shall just quote a few data in order to pick up the thread of the story. He said:

Then follows the word “laughter”. Thus the Leader of the Conservative Party put it in such a way that the audience laughed about it. He went on to say:

The audience then shouted: “Skande! Skande!” The hon member put it in such way that the audience had to react in that way. He went on to say:

He said it in such a way that someone in the audience said to him: “Doktor, vertel ons so ’n bietjie daarvan.” How did the leader of the CP, the man who has to be responsible, react? He said:

Again he said it in such a way that the audience laughed about it.

Sir, I am speaking about prerequisites that a man has to comply with, if he is to provide the kind of leadership we can look up to in this life of ours. I have before me another report from Die Vaderland of 16 March. The title of the report is: “Bom by PW: Terroris 20 jaar tronk toe.” There is a photograph of people with raised fists and the caption to the photograph is:

The report goes on to mention that Mr Justice Jacobs sentenced Ngcobo, 23, in the same court in which he had committed his first act of terror on 30 January 1983 by causing a TG 50 mine to explode there. The report goes on to say that the Judge said that from 1980 up to the present, 193 people had already been killed in terror attacks in the Republic. I am very sorry to have to say this evening that the figure is no longer 193. The figure has risen again. While the hon member Mr Schutte was speaking yesterday, I sat with a report in The Argus before me entitled “Car bomb horror: 3 killed, 5 seriously hurt in rush-hour explosion on Durban Esplanade.” The hon member for Brakpan then had the opportunity to reply. He did reply, but passed over it lightly and said that the hon the Minister of Law and Order had supposedly alleged that the ANC requested people to cast a no vote in the referendum. It is a plain fact that all leftist organizations and all enemies of the Government— although for different reasons; that is true— maintained, like the ANC, that people should cast a no vote.

I have already pointed out that there are certain requirements that a good leader should comply with. However, I also wish to point out that one of the gravest weaknesses in a leader is the incapacity to act responsibly and realize the value of admitting when one has made a mistake. It is a weak leader who cannot admit that he has made a mistake and undertake to try to rectify it. A man who cannot admit His mistakes cannot be a leader. [Interjections.]

At the meeting in Germiston the hon leader of the CP said: “Ek weet nie wie die born metjie gedra het nie”. On the same occasion he asked: “Nou wat van daardie bommetjie in Pietermaritzburg?” I want to say to him, what about that little bomb in Durban, Sir. After the bombing incident in Pretoria I, as chairman of the co-ordinating medical committee of a civil defence division, conducted group discussions with, inter alia, the Surgeon General with regard to the bomb incident in Pretoria. I believe that anyone who does this kind of thing in a frivolous way, purely for the sake of petty political pointscoring; anyone who makes people at a meeting laugh by asking “Wat van daardie bommetjie?”, and saying “Ek weet nie wie die bommetjie gedra het nie”, is acting totally irresponsibly. I shall tell hon members of this House what the effect is of that little bomb that the people were sitting and laughing about at a meeting. I believe we should educate our people so that they may realize what the true situation is in this country. We know that the more success we achieve, the more treaties like that of Nkomati we establish, the more our enemies will try to attack us. We must make our people realize this and try to educate them to understand the gravity of incidents of this nature; not simply to laugh about them at public meetings. What about that little bomb, Mr Speaker? Today’s edition of Die Burger carries on its front page a report entitled: “Die slagoffers se name”. An eyewitness of yesterday’s bomb incident in Durban describes it as follows, and I quote from this mornings edition of Die Burger:

Later in the same report he says:

Mr Speaker, I ask: Who carried that little bomb? Another eyewitness of the incident, the owner of a cafe, described it as follows:

Again I ask, Mr Speaker, who carried that little bomb? I hope there is no-one in this House who is laughing about this.

The headline on the front page of The Cape Times this morning was: ‘“Help me,’ cried vitcim.” The report it carried read as follows:

Later in the same report we read:

Still later in the report we read the following:

Again I ask: Who carried that little bomb?

The final newspaper report I want to quote in connection with this matter, is the main editorial in this morning’s edition of the Cape Times. If I am not mistaken, the Cape Times was another of the newspapers that encouraged people to cast a no vote in the referendum. The newspaper’s editorial— this was in the Cape Times, and if I remember correctly this is a newspaper which voted no, as they did—was entitled “The Durban atrocity” and read as follows:

I do not say that the hon leader condones this kind of thing—I know that he does not—but I say that to speak frivolously when referring to this kind of thing, when one wants to be a leader of one’s people, is not good enough. I want to repeat what I said before: We do not need a Galtieri for South Africa.

I shall conclude this part of my speech by saying to the hon member for Brakpan that it was extremely weak and irresponsible of him not to take the open opportunity created for them last night by the hon member Mr Schutte to say that it was a mistake. I say that a man who does not even have the guts to do that, will not have the guts to react properly when this kind of thing hits us. The people of this country cannot follow a man like that.

The hon member for Rissik—I almost said the hon member for risk—has just referred to this new cultural organization and said that the Barnards and so on could also establish a cultural organization. They are intimating that this has nothing to do with politics. Let us now look at the people who have to be consistent. The Sunday Times of 19 February 1984 writes:

The paper was reporting on the tea party in Prof Boshoff s garden. I quote further:

This big shot who spoke there and said that it was the NP’s funeral; what are we to believe now? Is this the kind of organisation which has nothing to do with politics? How far can we believe these people? They make out that they are the mouthpiece for the Afrikaner and the mouthpiece of the church and of culture, but they have already caused a split in politics. They are causing a further split in culture and they are also operating in the religious sphere.

In what way are these people concerning themselves with religion, and they did not start today? Those hon members are very fond of reverting to the past. After all, we said that they were in the forefront on the way to the past. We know that that is the case. The hon member for Turffontein referred to the speech on 10 October about how consistently Christian we supposedly are. I say that one can go a little further back. There was also the time when the following was said: “God straf hierdie land met die re geerders wat hy verdien”.

It will be recalled that after the so-called Hertzogites—that is to say, Dr Albert Hertzog and his people—broke away, the HNP was eventually founded in October 1969. When a debate was in progress here about the so-called verligtes and verkramptes, the so-called recalcitrants, where was the hon the leader of the CP at that stage? He was editor of Hoofstad while the struggle was in progress, and on 3 January 1969 he wrote:

At the time Mr Vorster came up with a new initiative. He said that there were new fields that we had to embark upon. Indeed, he said that the NP was a party of change. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rissik is speaking now, but he is a risk for Afrikanerdom. I shall proceed with the quotation:

A few months later he wrote:

Then follow these significant words:

He then took sides with those so-called recalcitrants or rightists. Not much later, and very ironically, where do we find that same member? We find him still in the NP, and in fact in the Cabinet. I say that he has been travelling this road for a very long time. I have several other excerpts I could quote in connection with the hon member but unfortunately my time has almost expired.

In conclusion I just wish to say this. We follow a party whose leader possesses vision and drive, and in this regard I just want to quote a short extract from what the hon the Prime Minister said at Nkomati:

I conclude by asking: Who carried that little bomb? We follow P W Botha.

Mr Speaker, I think the hon member Dr Vilonel will agree with me that the first amendment we shall have to effect to the new Constitution will in all probability be an amendment declaring his kind of speech to be an own matter concerning the NP and the CP. I think we need a fourth House, not for the non-homeland Blacks but for resolving this old struggle being waged between the CP and the NP. That kind of speech contains absolutely nothing for the country. It was nothing but an old election campaign speech which was delivered in this House at the taxpayer’s expense.

Are you putting up a candidate in Rosettenville?

Does the hon member want us to?

Yes, please, the more the merrier. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, there have been one or two references made to the Nkomati accord. We on this side of the House have made our enthusiasm and feelings in this regard very clear indeed but I feel that it is time that the NP were reminded—and this is so often the case—of the manner in which they have taken so long to react and continue to take so long to react in respect of taking the necessary action that this country needs. I want to refer in this regard to some cuttings I have here dated 12 April 1975, nine years ago almost to the day. This is in regard to a visit which the then UP member for Green Point, Mr Lionel Murray, paid to the Frelimo leaders in Mozambique. This visit of his received a certain amount of Press coverage and I should like to quote from some of these reports because they are so pertinent to the situation as it is today. We feel that this sort of approach could have been made so much earlier, and the NP must take cognizance of this fact in regard to exercising other options that it has in order to make sure that the same sort of delay does not occur in respect of other moves that it will obviously have to make. I should like to quote one particular paragraph in The Cape Times, as follows:

That was nine years ago. There were several other reports, but I will quote from only one other which stated:

The Government of the day and therefore the National Party is at last taking cognizance of the advice of that party and ourselves. They are doing exactly that, which is to be commended.

Is the hon member implying that the nine year delay in arriving at the Nkomati accord was the fault of this Government?

There is no question that the Nkomati accord and moves in that direction should have been made a whole lot earlier. Until now, the perception of that hon member and his Government has been one in which they have inculcated into the people of this country a belief in a beleaguered situation in which peace …

Why did you never suggest it? [Interjections.]

It was suggested nine years ago when the hon member for De Kuilen was still a member of the United Party. [Interjections.] For a Government frontbencher to ask a question like that is quite … [Interjections.] … I do not think there is a good enough word for it.

The hon member for Mossel Bay asked a question which clearly indicated NP vulnerability. We had the spectacle tonight of an hon Minister spending all his time during this Second Reading debate attacking a party and bringing an elemerit of derision into the debate. We know that the political scrum is a tough one and we know that people must enter the political fray, say their piece and expect to be chopped up. However, the Government’s record in respect of race relations and attitudes towards people has a nasty respect of derision attached to it. They will have to stay completely away from that attitude and approach to politics if they are to justify theit bona fide approach to politics in the future. It is too much a part of the Government’s past and does not need to be continued. If the CP wants a rehash of all the old National Party policies, let them have it. The hon member for Krugersdorp was quite right when he said that time will pass them by because, as we move ahead, they can only benefit from conflict situations and not from the progress made through reform.

Never fear when Vause is near.

The hon member for Kuruman is absolutely right.

That is for the National Party.

No, he is right for South Africa.

I want to refer to the speech made by the hon member for Durban Point yesterday in respect of the two other legs which the Government needs to approach urgently. The one leg was the question of confederation. The Government likes to make glib references to confederation but the moment it is suggested that the confederation has a content beyond what it sees, it jumps up and down and says that that is federation. If confederation does not have more in it than the Government already sees then it is no more than the bilateral agreements which we already have. In other words, in the Government’s concept of federation, we already have a confederation. If that is not true, then we have to advance a state of confederation. I should like to suggest to the Government that unless the confederation contains the element of joint decision-making over common affairs of the member states …

That sounds like Black majority rule.

Do not get frightened about that. Those hon members will understand it sooner or later. Unless it contains a common nationality it is senseless because the Government itself continually makes reference to the question of a common economy. If we share a common economy, how does one sort our the division of it, the control of it and the access to it unless one has joint decision-making in a confederal system?

You are talking about a federation but are calling it a confederation.

You see, Sir, the NP falls right into it feet first. The NP’s concept of a confederation, from what the Cabinet tells those hon members, and from what they are allowed to know on the basis of needs to know, is a simple bilateral agreement situation. That is not the sort of confederation that this country needs in order to take it out of our current situation. The PFP, before it gets anywhere near a federation, will have to go through the confederal stage. The confederal stage of cooperation, of joint decision-making and of common nationality is going to be the key as to whether we ever move ahead into a federal stage. The success of that confederal arrangement will determine the success or failure of the plural situation in this country.

My hon leader made these points last night. The hon member for Kuruman is quite right when he says: “Never fear when Vause is near”, because one hears solid sense when he talks. Every time the NRP says something, a little later the NP begins to get into gear. The problem is that the NP have a sort of homicidal impulse. Everything that it takes up it makes a jolly good effort at ruining first. It makes a first class effort of it. [Interjections.] I know the hon member sitting there right at the back from the years he sat next to me here. I know exactly how he reacts to these situations. I am sorry he is feeling uncomfortable now. He is squirming a little bit on the bench there. We will sort him out just now. Just when it is on the brink of good things and is making progress, the NP comes up with something like Khayelitsha.

I should like to dwell a while on this because I think we have to get some fundamentals sorted out in respect of Blacks in this country. I should like to ask hon members on that side of the House—perhaps the hon member for Springs might be happy to answer—the question whether there are any Black South Africans in the country and therefore, on the basis of their citizenship, have any rights in the Republic at all.

You voted “yes” for a constitution that says “no” to those people.

The simplistic attitude of that hon member is so short of the truth. [Interjections.] I am asking hon members of the NP whether Black South Africans have rights in the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] There are Black South Africans whose birthright in this country entitles them to the things that the hon leader of this Party said last night cannot be denied them. It is on the basis of this that I say that the Government’s intention to move these people to Khayelitsha is utterly, crassly, ideologically stupid. Ideologies have no place in current South African politics, none whatsoever. Those townships and the people settled there are the very foundation of a stable workforce of Black South Africans that the Government is going to need to help it through the years ahead. Those are the moderates that my leader was talking about yesterday. Those are the people who realize that home ownership and a steady job are important, and that settled administration is far better than revolution. However, what does the Government do with these people? They disrupt them by moving them from a settled situation on purely ideological grounds. I see the hon member for Mossel Bay is looking very perplexed.

I am surprised that you are talking so much nonsense. [Interjections.]

I should then like the hon member for Mossel Bay to tell me why these people must be moved if it is not on ideological grounds. Would the hon member like to answer that question now?

No, you are making your speech now; I have already made mine.

As the hon member suggested that what I am saying is nonsense, I should like him to tell the House whether those people are being moved for ideological reasons or not.

That is not the only reason.

Of course it is; there is no question about it. This Government has not learnt anything at all and, in spite of the commendable steps it has taken, as my leader pointed out yeasterday, out of fear of the CP, it now turns around and upsets the whole train of progress. I must point out to the Government that unless they get the concept of confederation clearly sorted out and move in the direction of joint decision-making in confederal affairs—in other words, towards a confederal nationality— and unless they change their concept of reform, including residential rights, in order to include Black South Africans as well, we will not be making any progress. Unless Black South Africans are included in the Cabinet Committee and unless they allow those people acces to Central Government decisions, we are going to merely gloss over the whole constitutional problem. I accept that hon members on the Government side are acutely aware of this but when a move such as that of Khayelitsha is proposed the man in the street gains the impression that there is no progress whatsoever. It is therefore essential that this sort of thing is put on ice.

I should also like to suggest that a moratorium be placed on the question of independence for those states that are opposed to it. Let us rather get on with the discussion about confederation and forget about this question of independence that has always been made such a prerequisite. I believe that there should be no coercion to take independence before confederation. We believe that confederal discussions must take place because such an approach will introduce an entirely new climate, especially in the light of the dialogue created by the current détente process. We believe that we must make use of this climate to restart the process of meaningful dialogue with Black leaders in South Africa now. We also believe that the formation of a confederal body is an absolute prerequisite for peace and the impression that South Africa must create, namely that it is fighting for peace on its borders and not for apartheid; that it is fighting to buy itself time to increase the momentum for reform, and that it will do so if given the opportunity by its neighbours and internal moderate leaders. Equally, any group that conforms to the concept of non-violent solutions, must be included in those discussions. When we look back in the history of this country 15 years ago, I am very certain that the UDF, Azapo and similar organizations would then have been banned. We would never have countenanced them, but we have moved and we have progressed. We have now reached the stage where only organizations that want to bring about change by violent means are beyond the scope of discussion and dialogue. I think we must use this climate of détente and the successful accord that has been achieved to broaden our vision and our field of discussion to include everybody who can possibly contribute towards a stable ongoing reform situation. The prerequisites are that a confederation must contain confederal nationality and joint decision-making, and that the citizenship rights of non-homeland Blacks, including home-ownership and the points mentioned by my hon leader in this House yesterday, are absolutely without any shadow of doubt elements which are required to make those discussions successful.

A few moments ago the hon the Minister of Manpower spoke about three groups. To hear a Cabinet Minister of our Government talking about only three population groups in the Republic at this stage of our development, is quite incredible. [Interjections.] That sort of attitude must disappear from the NP approach. To carry on waging a war with the CP while there are so many more important things to do, is really wasting very valuable time.

Mr Speaker, I have listened with attention to the speech of the hon member for King William’s Town, and whilst I cannot question the sincerity of his intent, I must say that his speech, like so many others I have heard in this debate, rather reminds me of a science lesson which was given in the palace at St Petersburg to the last czarevitch of all the Russias. When the tutor asked the Russian Crown Prince what the colour of coal was, he replied: “White”. The teacher then said: “Yes indeed, Your Highness, white, whitish, greyish, grey, blackish, black, Your Highness”. Why I mention this, is because one must really be a little more accurate in one’s definitions of what one is talking about when one discusses concepts such as confederation and federation. I want to remind the hon member for King William’s Town that his party, from its inception in 1977 right until the present moment, has had a federal/confederal policy; in other words, it has had a policy which distinguishes between a federal structure and a confederal structure.

It is that ping pong policy of theirs.

Yes, I am coming to that.

Most dictionaries like the Oxford Dictionary and Webster’s, as well as certain constitutional experts like Lijphart, whom that party’s constitutional guru’s, Prof Kriek and the former hon member for Mooi River like to quote so often, define a confederation more or less as follows—I did not know that the hon member was going to speak about it and therefore did not bring a dictionary along:— An association of independent, sovereign states co-operating voluntarily with one another in the common interest or against a common enemy. That is the definition of a confederation.

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

I will give the hon member an opportunity to ask a question when I have dealt with the definition of a federation. The definition of a federation is an association of autonomous but not sovereign states co-operating together with one another and surrending part of their sovereignty to a federal umbrella parliament. It is therefore not a question of federation going further than confederation or confederation going further than federation. However, that hon member’s party draws this distinction. However, I shall come back to that point.

I also want to take issue mildly with the hon member for Amanzimtoti.

He is not here.

I know that he is not here and I regret that he is indisposed. He told me he was not going to be here and I told him what I was going to say. As I have said, we must be accurate in our definitions. I think that it is also rather silly—the hon member for King William’s Town complains about us being derisory about the absurdities of other parties here—for a member like the hon member for Amanzimtoti to get up and state baldly in the House that he is sure the National Party will ultimately accept the NRP’s confederal policy because it has already accepted the NRP’s tricameral dispensation. I want to refer again to the diatomic, molecular constitutional structure, federal and confederal, which we previously referred to colloquially as “Bill Sutton’s balls”.

You have accepted three parts of it so far.

The point I want to make—and the hon member for Durban Point can listen to this—is that in terms of that structure the federal component of that diatomic molecule of theirs was a quadricameral structure. It was a quadricameral structure for the common area. In other words, it involved a fourth Chamber for the urban Blacks. Now, if one has a quadricameral policy, one does not have a tricameral policy. We have always had a tricameral policy.

Really?

We had a tri-parliamentary system in 1977 and now we have a tricameral system in the same Parliament, but in effect and in principle it is the same. The point I am trying to make here is … [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, the hon members interject and ask questions but then they do not listen to the reply. We have a tricameral system and not a quadricameral system and we reject a fourth Chamber, no matter what the Conservative Party wants to lead us to believe. Therefore, I think it is absolutely absurd of the NRP to say that they advanced the tricameral Parliament and that we have followed their policies. If anything, it is the other way round.

The same applies to the conferderal policy—once we have agreed on a definition. The National Party has always had a confederal policy. Whether it was called a commonwealth of states by Dr Verwoerd, whether it was called an association of states by Mr Vorster or whether it is called a confederation of states as it is now called, it has always been a confederal structure. Whatever one wants to call it, it has always been a confederal structure.

You have left out the constellation. That was the one in between.

The constellation is still in existence. That applies to the wider family of nations in the whole of Southern Africa, a concept that is akin to the European Community. I do not wish to waste any more time on this kind of semantic argument beyond saying that it is a fruitless exercise to try to usurp policies from one another.

There is also an example where the Conservative Party is guilty of the same sort of thing. In a publication that is being distributed by that party in the Rosettenville constituency, they have a big headline: “CP policy.” Then, speaking about self-determination, they ask the question whether self-determination is possible. “Of course it is”, they answer. They go on to say:

Now, Mr Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

That quote which is now being prescribed as CP policy, is a direct quote from the publications of the NP, and I want to ask hon members of the CP from whom Transkei, Venda, Ciskei and Bophuthatswana obtained their independent status. It obtained it from the NP; not from the CP.

*The CP had virtually no share in that whole process and the self-governing status of the …

Oh, come on Chris, you were not even here then.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. [Interjections.]

Order!

What is the point you want to make, Chris?

Order!

The point I want to make, is that hon members of the CP are trying to mislead people in this regard. [Interjections.] There are many of these things with which they mislead the public at large. For example, they are misleading the people by pretending that the successes achieved by the NP were their own successes, while in fact they were our successes. [Interjections.] Then those hon members simply go on to say… [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please allow the hon member for Benoni to make his speech now.

Mr Speaker, those hon members allege that a Coloured state as proposed by the CP will be more viable than half a dozen of the present Black states. They go on to say that the Coloured people have almost 2 000 ha of land in the Cape Province, where 89% of the total Coloured population reside. It is of course true that about 89% of the total Coloured population live in the Cape Province. It is also true, however, that 62% of them live here in the Cape Peninsula, and that these 2 000 ha, which, the CP claims, is more viable than several of the Black states, consists of the semi-desert arid areas of the north western Cape and the west coast. They might as well say that the Sahara Desert is viable and that that is where 85% of the Arabs can live. [Interjections.] That type of deception is nothing but blatant dishonesty. [Interjections.]

*Mr Speaker, I actually want to speak about the absolute dishonesty one cannot tolerate in this House. It is being manifested by some hon members who should be absolutely the last people on earth to sound that note. By doing that they drag the debates in this House down to the very unsavoury level we again had to experience here this afternoon by, for example, making public the personal finances of people and making other similar remarks. I want to refer to an example. I am not a person who likes to descend to that level of political debating.

While making his speech in this debate on Monday, the hon member for Sunnyside referred to Government debt. Then the hon member for Turffontein asked him by way of an interjection how much money Die Patriot owed. At that moment the hon member for Jeppe said by way of an interjection: “Less than Chris Rencken.” When I asked him to whom I owed money, he said he did not know. [Interjections.] I merely want to point out, Mr Speaker, that I regard it as an uncalled-for reflection on my person when someone suggests that I owe more money than the R700 000 that Die Patriot owes. [Interjections.] Besides, that newspaper is at the moment in provisional liquidation. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Jeppe is the last person to be in a position to cast that kind of reflection on my person. [Interjections.] I have before me a newspaper cutting from the Sunday Express of 12 April 1981. I just want to quote the following excerpt:

It is, of course, true, Mr Speaker, that …

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member, but earlier on this evening the Speaker ruled, in respect of the hon members for Brentwood and Langlaagte, that an hon member could be offended if he were referred to as being in debt. I fully agree with the hon member for Benoni that he could have been offended by the interjection by the hon member for Jeppe. In my opinion the hon member should raise the matter with the Speaker. If the hon member for Jeppe were present at the moment, I should have ordered him to withdraw it. However, I do not believe that the hon member for Benoni should continue in that vein and he should now regard the matter as settled.

Sir, I shall leave it at that. I merely wanted to say that I was offended. I think it was an uncalled-for aspersion and I take exception to the sort of interjection that party makes against me personally and which is devoid of all truth. I have never in my life paid anyone less than R1 for a rand. [Interjections.]

Such a lot is said by that party and its hon leader about honesty and consistency and one’s Christianity. I want to examine a few aspects of that consistency. It was not so long ago …

Tell us what you said about Jan Grobler.

Order!

Jan Grobler and I have sorted things out. It is now “finish en klaar”.

They must leave us alone.

I can tell the hon member for Barberton that there have also been occasions when I quarrelled with my wife, but now we are on very good terms again. [Interjections.] Something like that is not impressive at all.

I am surprised that you have a wife.

I beg your pardon?

I am surprised that you have a wife.

Sir, I do not know whether that is another reflection on me.

Order! The hon member for Barberton is making interjections while his back is turned to the Chair. I shall appreciate it if he would face the Chair when making interjections so that I, too, may hear them.

Sir, I said I was just surprised that the hon member had a wife.

Order! The hon member for Benoni may continue.

Sir, I do not know what that sort of remark means. Why should anyone be surprised that I have a wife?

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I regard the remark by the hon member for Barberton as a blatant insult …

Really?

I think it is insulting to the hon member for Benoni if the insinuation is made that my colleague is not worthy of a wife. [Interjections.]

Order! What are the exact words the hon member for Barberton used?

Sir, I said I was surprised that the hon member had a wife.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it. I am no longer surprised.

Order! The hon member for Barberton must not trifle with the Chair. He must withdraw the remark unconditionally.

Sir, I withdraw it unconditionally.

The hon member for Benoni may continue.

I conclude by saying that the hon leader of that party boasts of his Christianity and his consistency, and in this regard there are a few things I want to recall. Recently he refused to make a recording at the SABC on a Thursday because it would be broadcast on a Sunday evening and he did not want to take part in a political programme which would be broadcast on a Sunday evening.

Are you now engaged in character assassination?

I am dealing with facts.

Do you belong to a church?

Yes, I belong to the D R Church.

Shortly afterwards that same hon leader invited the Press to the famous champagne breakfast. He invited the Sunday newspapers, knowing full well that they would write about it in the Sunday newspapers because they write political reports for publication on a Sunday. I want hon members to tell me what the difference is between a party-political programme broadcast on television on a Sunday and such an article appearing in the Sunday newspapers. That same party which is now being so sanctimonous when it comes to party politics on Sundays and so forth, and which also makes its own arrangements to celebrate the Day of the Vow because the ordinary and traditional celebrations we have always held are not good enough for them, those people who know that the Vow stipulates that the whole day shall be regarded as a Sabbath, published their first Patriot—that is the one the CP published itself, not the one published by Konserwatiewe Koerante—on 16 December 1983. [Interjections.] Their first publication appeared and was distrubuted in Acacia Park by the hon member for Jeppe on Ascension Day. I object to their accusations that our Christianity is not consistent while they act in this manner.

That party and its hon leader must now stop judging other people in respect of their Christianity. I urge them to do what all decent people do, and that is to leave that judgment to God.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Benoni will forgive me if I do not respond to his speech. Quite frankly, Sir, I would not know where to begin!

The hon member for Pinelands began the debate this evening by discussing financial matters but, since then, we have heard absolutely nothing about financial matters at all. In terms of a strange convention of this House it would seem as though hon members tend to avoid speaking about financial matters in the budget debate. Therefore, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I conclude this evening’s debate by returning to financial matters.

There can be no denying that the agricultural sector has been responsible for quite a few of the headaches suffered by the hon the Minister of Finance during the past year. Aid to an ailing agricultural sector has imposed a severe strain on the State’s coffers, and the situation is at present far from satisfactory. Despite the massive aid schemes that have been launched during the past three years, agriculture in this country is still in a crisis situation. Even the most optimistic prognosis accepts the fact that the next few years will be critical for the agricultural sector and, unless the industry is handled with great care and sensitivity, its recovery is likely to be greatly retarded.

Let us consider the facts in order to establish just how grave agriculture’s financial crisis really is. Since 1981, farming income has dropped by more than half—from R2,7 billion in that year to R1,2 billion in 1983. Last year alone, farming income dropped by 41%, and the Land Bank was called upon to consolidate R862 million of farmers’ carryover debts with the co-operatives. This is short term finance, Sir. This figure will rise to a staggering R1,2 billion by August of this year. Loans to farmers increased by 300% during this period and now stand at some R816 million. Total farming debt now stands at close to R10 billion or some R140 000 for every farmer in this country.

The hon the Minister will agree that these are frightening figures. He also knows that there will be a steadily growing stream of supplicants knocking at his door and requesting more aid in the form of increased subsidies, loans or handouts. I do not envy the hon the Minister his position, unless he has a hitherto undisclosed source of funds.

On the other hand, it is fair to ask what role, if any, the hon the Minister has played in strengthening the financial foundations of the agricultural sector. Why is it, Sir, that every time the weatherman sneezes, the entire agricultural sector catches cold? Does the fault lie only with the climate of this country or do financial management and the taxation of farmers, for example, also play a role? We know that we live in a land with an erratic climate and that seasons of good and bad rainfall give rise to boom or bust agricultural conditions. Is the hon the Minister happy that he, in conjunction with his colleague the hon the Minister of Agriculture, has done everything in his power to help the agricultural sector cushion itself against these violently fluctuating financial conditions? I believe that they have not.

I believe that the hon the Minister and his predecessors have for years now been putting out the wrong message to farmers. The message that they have put out has apparently been interpreted as follows: The Government can always be relied upon to help you out of trouble. All you have to do, is to prove that you are in trouble. It does not matter how you got into trouble. It does not matter if you have, for example, ploughed marginal land in an unfavourable climate. It does not matter if you were guilty of gross mismanagement. If you are in debt, you ask the Government for a loan, and it is expected to find the money somewhere, somehow. I do not believe that this is a good thing. I believe in aid when it is necessary, but it must be qualified aid. If aid is not qualified then, instead of being realistic about our difficult climate and planning ahead for the inevitable hard times, farmers are positively encouraged to exploit resources on a short term basis, secure in the knowledge that the Government is always there to bail them out.

It can be said that farming has become a gambler’s dream. I want to refer to maize farming as an example. The high fixed price of maize is the jackpot and the gamble is the rain. [Interjections.] If one hits a good rainy season, then the chances are that one will make a fortune. However, if one hits a bad season, one does not go out of business; one simply goes to the Government and they give one a new supply of chips so that one can try again. Better luck next time, says the munificent Minister.

The result is predictable. There are few incentives to farm more productively. Inefficient farmers or farmers in marginal areas can gamble on quick returns leaving long term considerations and financial problems to the hon the Minister, his colleagues from agriculture and the Land Bank. The hon the Minister does not make things easier for himself. The get rich quick attitude has been fostered by the agricultural tax system. Farmers are, for example, allowed to write off the cost of agricultural implements against tax in the first year. Consequently, in order to avoid paying tax, they very often buy machinery which they do not need. They say that it is better to keep buying new machinery than to give it all to Horwood.

Those who do plan ahead and save their profits to tide them over the bad years are penalized by having to pay tax and then, as if this were not enough, they have, in the bad years, to watch those who squandered their money in the good years, jostle with one another to get to the head of the handouts queue. Why save and pay tax when one can spend and have fun, secure in the knowledge that, like the man on the flying trapeze, there is always a safety net under you to catch you if you should fall?

Australia operates a “drought bond” system which encourages saving during the good years and which makes the farmer less dependent on the Government in bad years. The South African Agricultural Union has made suggestions in this regard to the Government. One hopes that the hon the Minister and his colleagues will take these suggestions seriously. Perhaps the hon the Minister could give us an idea about Government thinking on these important matters.

To sum up then, South African agriculture is in a state of crisis. This crisis is as much a consequence of financial mismanagement as it is of the drought. South African farmers have, through their official mouthpiece, indicated their willingness on a number of occasions to attempt to lessen their dependence on subsidies and handouts. It is time that the Government started taking this matter more seriously than it has done in the past. It would not be an over-exaggeration to say that not only does the future of agriculture hang in the balance but the future of the country as well. Without a healthy and viable agricultural sector, we will not be able to face the future of this country with confidence.

Mr Speaker, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

Agreed to.