Mr Speaker, I move:

That the Report be adopted.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I am aware that the hon member for Yeoville, who initiated this debate on behalf of the official Opposition, is at present indisposed. I should like to express the hope that he will recover fully.

The hon member referred inter alia, to my standpoint that the processes of constitutional and socio-economic reform were in the nature of things closely interconnected and had a mutually complementary role to play. I wish to point out that this is not only my standpoint, but also the standpoint of the Government as a whole. It is obvious that instability results when reforms are initiated in which no regard is had to the equilibrium between the respective spheres of interest. Raising the level of political participation of the respective groups and individuals without a corresponding improvement in their quality of life could also have a destabilizing effect. In the same way the participation by specific groups with the exclusion of other groups could have the same deleterious consequences. For that reason it is also true that political reform should be co-ordinated with progress and development in the intellectual as well as the social and economic spheres.

Mr Speaker, before I react fully—if time allows me to do so—to the accusation made by the hon member for Yeoville that this Budget at present under consideration does not make provision for social and economic reform, I should just like to emphasize one specific aspect, and that is the earnest regard which the Government has for the comprehensive approach to which I have just referred. This is best illustrated by the existence of five planning components, ie constitutional, economic, social, scientific and physical, within the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. This also illustrates very clearly that the planning activities and the advice ensuing from such activities, are closely co-ordinated. This is necessary for two important reasons and because of two important premises.

The first is that the claims of the respective population groups in this country to participation in the decision-making processes affecting their lives inevitably stem from the need to improve the quality and the circumstances of life of the people concerned by means of political participation. This is a standpoint with which the Government agrees. Not only does the Government agree with the standpoint, but it is also the motivating reason why the Government is engaged in a process of constitutional reform. I am prepared to discuss at a later stage the scope and the contents, the sufficiency or otherwise, of this process. I shall do that when I have more time. Today, therefore, I shall content myself with these general statements only.

In the second place, however, the Government at the same time realized very clearly that the test of successful participation in the decision-making processes is, on its own, not sufficient. Something else has to be added, and that is that the effectiveness of participation in the decision-making processes must be gauged by the degree to which it leads to the maintenance or the improvement of people’s circumstances of life. For that reason political participation in this specific connection cannot stand on its own and isolated. I submit that the successful implementation of the separate development strategies of the Government, which were planned in conjunction with the private sector, is an important instrument in the process of achieving these goals to which I have referred. I also believe that it is of cardinal importance that we remember this when we conduct a debate here on the Budget.

What are the manifestations of these two premises I have sketched, when it comes to taking active steps in this regard? The regional development strategy is part of it. The population development strategy is also part of it. The national community development strategy is a further part of it; so, too, are the Small Business Development Corporation and the Development Bank of Southern Africa. The participation of communities which are affected is of course of great importance. I maintain that this is also a great stimulus for self-development, for participation in itself is a stimulus to the self-development of all communities, including those here in our country. That is why constitutional structures must be created which make provision for this clear need. At the same time we must also realize on the other hand that a stable society, a stable internal and external security situation, is also an important prerequisite for ensuring progress in the social, economic and political spheres. I believe hon members will agree with me when I say that provision is being made for these things in this Budget.

The hon member for Yeoville said there was nothing in this Budget in regard to the new constitutional dispensation. The hon members know however—and I am merely referring to this—that in regard to the Budgets of the respective Houses there are various laws which make and must make provision for that. In the first place, the Constitution Act itself makes provision for a transitional stage in the transfer of functions from one level of administration to another, and as own affairs. In the nature of things legislation in regard to the budgetary formulas will have to be passed in this House before we prorogue and before the implementation of the new dispensation. The Budget as such, however, makes no provision for the budgetary formulas in question; not today either. For that reason it will still have to come.

Furthermore, legislation will be introduced that lays down the norms and standards, financial and otherwise, in regard to the separate services which will have an effect on the separate budgets. We shall have an opportunity to debate these matters.

The final remark I want to make in this connection is that surely it is wrong to advance the argument that the Budget is the only instrument the Government has for achieving the diversity of goals that it has set for this country, whether these are social or economic or constitutional. Surely we find the Government’s policy standpoints and its administrative and implementative activities in White Papers on unemployment, in statements and other policy documents.

The second remark I want to make in this connection is that surely we cannot discuss a Budget without taking cognizance of the disruptive effect which fluctuations in the gold price has on South Africa, a factor over which we have no control. Nor can we do so without taking cognizance of the destructive effects of the worst drought in living memory. Naturally the Budget also deals with these things by giving consideration in the short term to the economic situation in which we find ourselves.

However, I want to come to something else which I think is of importance. This debate repeatedly brought into prominence and emphasized certain features of the way in which we conduct public debates, and in the time at my disposal I should like to refer to a few of these features, for if we are not prepared to discuss them critically, I am not sure whether we will really be able to deal with the problems of this country. The way in which we conduct debates on topical problems is of real importance if we wish to seek the solutions.

The first feature I wish to refer to, an alarming one which almost makes one want to cry out in despair, “Cry the beloved country!” is the obvious and conspicuously intolerant mode of conduct adopted by hon members opposite towards other hon members of this House in connection with standpoints which differ from their own standpoints. This could be damning evidence against us in respect of our ability or inability to deal with the extremely critical relations problems in our country. The fact remains—and I wish to make this admission myself—that when I consider the enormity of the problems of this country which we call our fatherland, then I think they should make alt of us humble.

A second feature which emerged in this debate and to which I wish to refer, not in a spirit of condemnation but in the spirit of seeking an atmosphere which will enable us to talk to one another, is the futility of this method of conducting a debate which we have once again experienced, the object of which is obviously not, in terms of the undertaking of the hon the Leader of the official Opposition, to seek and emphasize points of agreement, but in fact to do the very opposite, and the fact we propogate standpoints here in this House on the basis of our political affiliations and in terms of what we think the general public expects of us.

What is more true of South Africa than of any other country I know of? This: A leader in South Africa does not follow a beaten track. A leader in South Africa has to prepare the way for other people to follow, and if we do not have that ability, there will be no beaten track for us. I am not saying this in a spirit of reproach, not towards people in this House, nor anyone outside.

A third feature which has made itself conspicuous during the past three days was the varying reactions of the various parties to the same set of circumstances and the same set of facts. I can best illustrate this on the basis of a few examples. Once again I am not singling out anyone in this regard.

Let us consider the first accusation of the official Opposition in respect of the Budget proposals of the hon the Minister of Finance. Their first accusation was that the Budget did nothing or very little to improve the basic differences in respect of the services rendered to people by the State, as far as groups were concerned; in other words, to reduce the gap in wage structures and in the services of the State which are rendered on a group basis. This is the obvious standpoint of the official Opposition. Remember, we are discussing the same Budget. On the other hand, the standpoint of the CP, defined in general, is that we are doing too much for the Coloureds, the Black people or the Asians.

The hon member for Lichtenburg will appreciate what I say if I speak to him. He said that the process for the redistribution of income had already advanced a very long way in South Africa. When he made that statement he was adopting a critical attitude to the process.

Yes.

The hon member confirms it. He was, at the same time, condemning that process.

Because it is not linked to productivity.

I shall come to that.

In the first instance, I want to tell the hon member that when one talks about the redistribution of income and of a Budget as an instrument to achieve a more equitable distribution of income, that redistribution takes place on various levels and among various groups. There is also in this Budget a major process for the redistribution of income among Whites. The hon member did not complain about that. I want to contend that there is quite probably a greater process for the redistribution of income among Whites in the Budget than between Whites and non-Whites. The revenue figures in the Budget prove this, for 28,3% of the Whites are responsible for 80% of the total direct income tax. This confirms that that process is also taking place among Whites. I ask the hon member whether he agrees that it should take place among Whites.

It should take place.

That is the trouble. The hon member for Pietersburg, however, has asked for higher pensions. I take it he was asking for higher pensions for everyone. How does one gauge the increase in productivity of pensioners? Of course one cannot gauge it, but that is the norm the hon member for Lichtenburg wishes to apply when we have to do these things in a Budget.

Not everyone is a pensioner.

I am coming to the hon member. At one stage the hon member for Lichtenburg was a member of the executive. As such he was responsible for the training and education of Black people. Let us see what the hon member did when he occupied that office in an executive capacity and not in an opposing capacity. Under the guidance of that hon member in his then capacity—he occupied that position from June 1979 until 2 March 1982—he effected salary parity for all Black teachers above category C. [Interjections.] Listen to what the hon member is saying now, Sir. Now I am a racist.

No. You say I am a racist.

I shall go further and ask him whether he made a productivity analysis of the work done by those teachers.

No, I did not, but it would have been better if I had done so.

The hon member said he did not. In other words, the hon member is now admitting his ineffectiveness when he was still a member of the executive.

A second example I want to quote is the different ways hon members opposite react to the same set of facts. The hon member for Pinelands, in his statement on the tragic bomb attack in Durban, tried to find justification for that incident. His interpretation, and that of his party, of the reform activities at present in progress, of the reform initiatives of this Government, is that we are striving for the statutory entrenchment of discrimination and domination. On the other hand, hon members of the CP say that the same reform initiatives mean the destruction of White rights and of White self-determination. The hon member for Pinelands does not believe in any reform activity which will not lead ultimately to majority rule in a unitary state.

You are talking rubbish again.

It is on record. His definition of reform must inevitably lead to Black majority rule. Would the hon member for Greytown say that I am wrong? On the other hand, hon members of the CP see the destruction of White self-determination and White rights in everything which is being done to improve the lot of other groups, to improve it in practice—I am not referring now to theoretical formulations—in every single thing which is done, whether it be in the social, political or economic spheres. [Interjections.] I shall illustrate this. On the one hand we find the absolutization of non-White rights, and on the other the absolutization of White rights. The hon. member for Rissik and his fellow members are people who place themselves on a high moral pedestal. But the hon member for Rissik will admit that he was the person who, according to his own admission, distributed a damning anonymous document about a fellow Afrikaner. It is on record in Hansard. The hon member said in his speech: “The struggle of a people for its survival is an everlasting struggle …”. The reply to that is “Yes”, but it is not the prerogative of one people or one community only. I want to tell the hon member for Rissik that I agree with him and I do not think that a people or a community need feel guilty or need be declared guilty when it wishes to ensure its survival and wishes to improve its circumstances of life. What does make a difference, however, is how a people or a community wishes to do so. It does make a difference what kind of measures a people adopt to ensure its future. It makes a difference whether it is merely concerned with the naked fact of its survival or whether it is also concerned with the intrinsic spiritual substance of its survival. The Afrikaner people, of which I am a member, is the best example of this. In its struggle for survival the issue has never been total and violent self-assertion, but always that of fairness. When a people has its back to the wall, there are unfortunately those among our number who shrug off the clear discipline of moral convictions and principles and are guilty of reactionary conduct. When we throw the principle of justice overboard and allow mere survival in itself to give moral sanction to our attitudes and deeds, regardless of the methods adopted, we are on a dangerous course. I concede to the hon member for Rissik that in terms of the formulation of policy the CP is prepared to say that they do not begrudge other peoples and groups what they demand for themselves. What we are concerned with here, however, is the practical realization of these things.

I want to go further. On the one hand, the Constitution is condemned because it excludes Black people, while on the other hand it is condemned because it is alleged that the Government intends to include Blacks in the Constitution. The hon member for Lichtenburg must not nod so affirmatively now, because I shall return to him in a moment. The only principle on which all of us agree is that the existing political and economic system cannot be allowed to continue. However, when it comes to an assessment of what is possible and what is not possible, it is dismissed on the one hand as negligible and cosmetic and, on the other, as being destructive of existing rights. What did the hon member for Lichtenburg do in this specific connection? He accused the Government of, in fact, being engaged in establishing a federation without informing the people about it. Allow me to say on behalf of the Government that whoever advocates a federation on the basis of the principle of one man, one vote, in the same institutions is not announcing Government policy, but is committing fraud. The crucial problem in this country is, inter alia, the accommodation of Blacks in political systems. Does the hon member for Lichtenburg not agree that they should be accommodated?

Not in a federation.

But surely that is also what I say. What did the hon member do, however? The hon member was a Deputy Minister, and in 1977 and 1978 he was the chairman of a committee within his own department. That committee wanted to give substance to a mechanism for creating links between Black states and South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member should keep quiet now. I want to quote from the then report of the hon member. In paragraph 2.2.3.3 of the report of that committee under the heading “Interstaatlike strukture” the hon member advocated greater status for a conference of state with independent Black states. He proposed that this could be done, and I quote:

The hon member went on to say:

[Interjections.] In the first place, therefore, he wanted to co-operate within that association with Black peoples by means of which decisions could be taken affecting their lives and our lives and, secondly, he wanted to share citizenship with Black peoples within that association. [Interjections.] Was that hon member, when he made that recommendation, engaged in the same process he is engaged in today, namely doing something in which he did not believe? He should talk to the hon member for Kuruman who wishes to absolutize self-determination.

While I am dealing with this subject, let me also deal at once with the hon member for Kuruman. The hon member spoke about the concepts of the hon the Minister of National Education in connection with self-determination over own affairs and co-responsibility for general affairs, and alleged that we had created a new concept as far as self-determination was concerned. However, the hon member himself adopted a standpoint which the hon the Minister of National Education adopted, namely that there are spheres of self-determination and spheres of co-responsibility and on that basis he was elected to Parliament. Now he claims to be adhering to a high moral standard and says that he gave his voters the undertaking that if co-responsibility should be …

Power-sharing.

Yes, power-sharing. He alleged that he said that if power-sharing should be introduced, he would leave the National Party. Consequently he is finding moral justification for leaving the National Party. He has every right to do so, but he conveniently forgets that he gave another undertaking as well. It was a written undertaking, namely that if he was no longer a member of the party, for whatever reason, he would resign his seat. [Interjections.] What is the level of morality in politics according to the hon member’s own definition of morality? [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I will not follow the hon the Minister in his tirade against the hon members of the Conservative Party. However, there were other matters which the hon the Minister mentioned on which I would like to comment.

The hon the Minister spoke with a great deal of feeling about the need for us to develop a style of debate in this House which is constructive and which will assist in solving the problems of the country. The hon the Minister knows that we in these benches have said repeatedly, through the hon Leader of the Opposition, that we believe it is necessary for us to endeavour to seek points of agreement and to identify points of agreement if we are to make a constructive contribution to the affairs of the country. We therefore agree with the hon the Minister on that. We too want to avoid futile debate, debate which does not help towards solving the problems of the country.

The hon the Minister was also at great pains to assure us that the Government does not see constitutional development in isolation and that the Government is aware that these matters will need to be co-ordinated and that there will have to be development and reform in the social, economic and other spheres along with any constitutional reform. We welcome that assurance and for our part we will await with interest more practical demonstrations that the hon the Minister and the Government do in fact appreciate the need for that sort of negotiation to take place. It is quite right that, if we are looking at the problems of South Africa in their totality, we must look at constitutional reform, improving the quality of life in South Africa and narrowing the gap between the haves and the have-nots. If we are looking for real security in South Africa, all of this is absolutely necessary.

Then the hon the Minister showed some humility when he said that, looking at the enormity of the problems in South Africa, he felt very humble. He said he felt that we should adapt and moderate our style of debate in view of the enormity of these problems. That is so. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we of course realize the problem he and his party have in the House in being caught between the PFP on the one side and the CP on the other side. I think that in that sort of situation the Minister must be more discriminating when he suggests that there is no moderation in debate. I want to assure the hon the Minister—and I think I speak on behalf of every member on this side of the House—that we are totally bored with the daily feud between the National Party and the CP which we find totally unproductive and totally futile. I believe that the hon the Minister, his party and the Government must try to avoid that sort of situation continuing because it is of no interest to South Africa and it is totally unproductive.

There is, however, another aspect the hon the Minister must understand. He can talk of constructive debate and trying to find points of agreement, but I want to tell him that, because it is our function as the Opposition, we will continue to test the Government’s actions and policies against its stated commitment to reform. That is our function as we see it. That is the function of the Opposition. The Minister must also realize that, in so doing, we reserve the right as the Opposition to be critical and to try to test the sincerity of the Government when it says it is committed to reform in South Africa. Having said that, I hope I have established some sort of link with the hon the Minister.

I am now going to continue to talk about some other matters. I shall also be referring to some of the matters the hon the Minister has dealt with. There has been a great deal of talk in this debate about the Government’s peace initiatives and I believe they have been welcomed on all sides of the House. While it is realized that there are bound to be numerous obstacles still to be overcome and that we are really only at the beginning of the road towards securing peace on our borders, I believe that the initiative which the Government has taken in recent times does represent a major attempt to seek stability in the Southern Africa region.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he agrees with me that in the final analysis our ability to negotiate internationally depends on our ability to solve our problems internally?

That is absolutely correct. I agree with the hon the Minister entirely. We are not going to achieve anything beyond our borders unless we can resolve the pressing problems within our borders. So, I agree with the hon the Minister entirely.

Let me get back to the question of the peace initiatives and the peace accord. If one looks at the enormity and variety of the problems of Southern Africa—population growth, poverty, drought and lack of development in so many parts—then it is quite clear that political instability is something that the Southern African region simply cannot tolerate and afford. If we are to survive in Southern Africa without major disasters overtaking us, we need a long period of political peace and stability which must in turn result in the economic stability which the region so desparately needs. However, if this is to be achieved, it is going to require patience, it is going to require a great deal of faith and trust, it is going to require a high degree of mutual understanding amongst the parties and it is going to require sacrifices. It will also require major adaptations on all sides and we in the RSA are going to be tested to the full in the years that lie ahead. We are going to be tested not only on our diplomatic skills, not only on the material contributions we can make to neighbouring states, not only on the input we can make in trade relations between ourselves and others and in providing expertise and skills, but most of all we are going to be tested on our respect for human dignity and for the rights of others. That is going to be the big test to which South Africa is going to be subjected. We are part of Africa and we find ourselves straddled between a First World situation, which we seek to be part of, and a Third World situation, which we are part of. This is part of our dilemma. If we are to establish lasting and meaningful empathy with our Black neighbours of the Third World, we are going to have to show them that we deal with them as equals, that we have turned our backs on racism, that we have abandoned the arrogance of White top-dogism which has bedevilled our relations with the rest of Black Africa for so long. What is more, in the long term we are going to have to convince our neighbours that when they deal with us they are not dealing with the “White Pretoria regime”, as they have labeled us in the past. We will have to assure them in the long term that when they deal with us they are dealing with the Government of South Africa representing 25 million South Africans of all colours. That is important. Then, and only then, can we hope to secure political and economic stability in Southern Africa and establish a natural and lasting association with our neighbouring states. However, I want to emphasize that none of this can be achieved unless and until—this is the point raised by the hon the Minister in his question to me—we normalize relations amongst the race groups in our own country, unless and until we abandon apartheid and discrimination here at home, and unless and until we recognize and respect the rights and dignity of Blacks within our own borders. None of the other initiatives will succeed unless we do this. In other words, we have to do what the Department of Defence has been saying for so long, namely that the solution to the problems of South Africa is 20% a military one and 80% a question of winning over the hearts and minds of people. That is something we have to do if we want to find real internal security.

On the subject of internal security—the hon the Minister has referred to it as well— we have had a further stark reminder of the need for us to find internal security with the dreadful Durban bomb blast earlier this week. All civilized people will condemn this act of indiscriminate killing and maiming of innocent human beings, and our deep sympathy goes out to all those involved or whose families were involved. This was not an attempt to destroy a government building or a military installation, it was not an act where the perpetrators, whatever their motives, pitted their lives and courage against others in armed conflict. It was nothing of that sort. It was a cowardly act of sheer murder with no concern for the innocent, for women and children, Black, White or Brown. It reflected the mentality of anarchists with no thought of compassion or elementary humanity, but bent simply on wanton destruction of life, limb and property. This was by far the worst act of terrorism in Natal, but, of course, it was not the first. Durban and Pietermaritzburg have suffered numerous other acts of terrorism where property has been damaged and innocent people have been the victims, and it gives a distressing picture of the inroads these incidents are having on the security of ordinary people.

The hon member for Mossel Bay yesterday, while acknowledging that all parties deplored these acts, suggested that we in these benches were insensitive to the climate which gave rise to these dreadful acts. [Interjections.] That is what he said, but the opposite is the case. In fact, we have through the years been, and we are, deeply sensitive of the political climate in which we live, where urban terrorism is becoming part of our daily lives. We warned about this and we have been very sensitive of it for a number of years.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Mossel Bay yesterday attacked us for being concerned over basic human rights, personal freedom and … [Interjections.] I have his speech here. He suggested that by showing that concern, we in the PFP distanced ourselves from the acts of terrorism and the climate in which they arise. As usual, he is totally lacking in logic. If one does not have concern for basic human rights, if one does not have concern for personal freedom or for the rule of law, then one is inviting the very situation of anarchy of which these acts of terrorism are a symbol. That is what the hon member said yesterday.

I never said that.

He said we were so preoccupied with human rights, with the rule of law and the rest of it that we distanced ourselves from the acts themselves, that we could not recognize them. What we are saying is that unless one has human rights, unless one recognizes human freedom and unless ons is true to the rule of law then, in fact, one is encouraging a situation of anarchy in the country.

However, when we look at the acts of terrorism, we should be asking ourselves the question: What are we doing to change the political climate in order to try to halt these dastardly acts? We can further tighten up our security; we can have more policemen; we can restrict on-street parking. We can do all these things but in the end these* measures in themselves will not stop urban terrorism. This is symptomatic of something far deeper than mere murderous acts of desperate people. These acts are designed to disturb society, to produce a feeling of insecurity and to strike a chord of sympathy with those in our society who are deprived and discontented. That is what these acts of terrorism are designed for; to gain the sympathy of those people who are deprived and discontented and who feel themselves excluded from the society around them. Therefore the ultimate deterrent for us is to move heaven and earth to produce a contented society. [Interjections.]

Will the ANC be satisfied under a PFP government?

I am not saying that they will be satisfied. I am saying that we have to move heaven and earth to produce a contented society; to close the gap between the haves and the have-nots and to see to it that all are equally zealous of the need to share internal security in South Africa. We will, however, not achieve that until we get away from harsh racial attitudes, from inequalities based on race, and unless we abandon discrimination and apartheid in all its forms.

These days the Government shies away from the word apartheid because it has become a millstone around their necks internationally. They do not like the word, nor do they like other people using it. We have had people saying that apartheid is dead, but it is no good turning one’s back on the word unless one also turns one’s back on the substance, on what it represents to those people who are affected by it.

In regard to what the hon the Minister said earlier about constructive criticism, I want to point out that none of these initiatives are going to succeed unless there is a profound change of attitude on the part of the Government on the question of race and apartheid. Apartheid, or separate development—call it what you like—means discrimination against those who are Black; it means inequality of treatment, denial of opportunities and downright hardship for millions of South Africans.

How does one reconcile these things with our laudable attempts to seek accord with our Black African neighbours? We have had the Nkomati Accord and now the Swaziland Accord, both of which are to be welcomed on the basis of hopefully achieving greater security for all concerned. In the case of Swaziland, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has indicated that this accord was actually reached about two years ago and that it was considered that the timing was not right for the matter to be made public then. I hope we will in due course hear more from the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs in regard to the history of these negotiations and the details of the accord reached then and now. In the light of what we are told, it seems more than a coincidence that only a few months after these negotiations two years ago, we had the Ingwavuma/Kangwane debacle in South Africa. This was when the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, showing none of the finesse which he since seems to have acquired, tried to bulldoze us into handing over large areas of South African soil and hundreds of thousands of our own people to Swaziland. We know he was responsible for that disastrous attempt, and at this stage one must ask whether that was merely part of the package which is now being publicly proclaimed as the Swaziland Accord and, if so, what is the position today? Perhaps the hon the Minister of Finance, who ought to have an interest in this matter as leader of his party in Natal, will be able to respond to some of this when he replies to this debate. Has this been a factor? Has the whole Kangwane/Ingwavuma issue been a factor in our accord between the two countries announced over the weekend? Again I must stress that it will serve little purpose if we achieve accord with neighbouring states without seeking accord with our own people, or even if we achieve external accord at the expense of our own people. This would certainly have been the case two years ago in regard to Ingwavuma Kangwane, when the Government seemed quite prepared to sell the Zulu and the people of Kangwane up the river in order to satisfy a neighbouring state. In the process the Government succeeded in alienating tens of thousands of people and also succeeded in getting involved in a series of disastrous court actions. [Interjections.]

This was a classic example of trying to buy external security at the expense of internal security but in the long term we know that the needs of external security have to be reconciled with our responsibilities to our own people in this country. By the same token we have to reconcile our attempts to seek accord with our Black neighbouring states with our day to day handling of our own Blacks in South Africa.

I just want to cite another example of this. It has been referred to already in this debate but it needs to be referred to often. How do we reconcile these external accords with the heartless, forced removals of Blacks from one part of South Africa to another in the name of apartheid and separate development? We have talked about this before. One does not only think of the financial costs involved but also of the mounting resentment and insecurity involved for those affected by these forced removals. Yet, de spite our talking about it, the process of removal or relocation still continues in spite of the assurances of the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development that forced removals would not take place unless absolutely necessary. In fact millions of people have already been removed and relocated through the years in South Africa, and hundreds of thousands are still being threatened with removal and resettlement.

This speech of yours will make nice reading at the UN.

Never mind that. The hon member for Mossel Bay should realize that the UN knows everything about this. It is absolutely true too. Every week in this House my colleagues and I ask questions in connection with removals in various parts of South Africa, and twice a week, with almost monotonous regularity, either the hon the Deputy Minister or the hon the Minister will get up and tell us that people are to be removed. Yesterday it was some 9 000 people. The day before it was …

Why do you always have to overstate your case?

I am not overstating the case at all. [Interjections.] The hon member for Mossel Bay should stop being arrogant. He should take note of what is taking place and of what is still being contemplated by the Government in respect of the removal of people.

Mr Speaker, my time is nearly expired. I want to reiterate that if one looks at attempts to achieve accord beyond our borders it is absolutely clear that none of those attempts can succeed nor can there be real reform in South Africa unless the Government is prepared to review its total attitude to the racial situation in South Africa, to remove grievances, to accept that we are a nation of 25 million people in South Africa and that there should be equal opportunity for all in this country. That is the only way in which we will achieve security. That is also the only way in which we will accomplish economic prosperity in South Africa. We will have to make full use of the efforts and the contributions of all sections of our population.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Berea referred to the bomb incident in Durban the day before yesterday. Together with the hon member for Durban Point and the hon member for Berea I also want to express, as a Durbanite, my absolute abhorrence at this very dastardly act.

I do, however, want to take issue with the hon member for Berea. In the same breath in which he referred to this act of sabotage, he added that the people who had perpetrated this act were speaking on behalf of the deprived and the discontented.

I did not say they were speaking on behalf of those people. I merely pointed out that they were trying to gain their sympathies.

Yes, they were trying to gain the sympathy of the deprived and the discontented. In the same breath the hon member went on to speak of apartheid. What is the deprivation about which the so-called deprived people are discontented? Of what are we depriving people? [Interjections.] Are we depriving them of the right of opportunity? Has any other Government in history done more to give these people the necessary opportunities and to create opportunities through education? I challenge the hon member for Berea to tell me whether there is a single country in the world that has closed the gap between the First World and Third World to a greater extent than has this country which he seeks so much to malign. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Berea went on to talk about peace initiatives and the Nkomati accord. Although I was not fortunate enough to be present, I watched it on television. Stripped of all the pageantry and decorum of the occasion, two things will remain in my mind. I shall remember the hon the Prime Minister of South Africa shaking the hand of the President of Mozambique and indicating thereby that we want peace and not war, good neighbourliness and not conflict, prosperity and not the poverty that is the scourge of Africa. In the second place what will live long in my memory is the ringing phrase used by the hon the Prime Minister namely: “I have a vision.” He said he had a vision of a constellation of states of Southern Africa living in harmony with one another to the mutual benefit of each other.

The hon member started his speech by saying that he had been completely bored by the debate between ourselves and the hon members of the CP. Frankly, Sir, I could not care two hoots what bores the hon member. I am going to participate in that debate.

*I said in the no-confidence debate that I intended to put certain questions to the hon the leader of the CP on that occasion. The hon member for Waterberg was not present when I spoke, but the hon member for Rissik invited me on that occasion to go ahead and say what I wanted to say. I did not avail myself of that invitation, because I thought that it would not be fair to address a person in his absence. I intended to speak on Tuesday, but I understand that the hon member for Waterberg had a bout of influenza and that he went home. I sympathize with him, because I have a scratchy throat myself. I sympathize with him and I am not suggesting for a moment that his absence from this House is merely a matter of convenience. I understand that he is quite seriously indisposed.

We on this side of the House have repeatedly given voice to our dissatisfaction with certain statements made by the hon member for Waterberg during the referendum campaign, and I do not wish to repeat all those matters and the discussion in that connection. I promise the hon member for Rissik that I am not going to refer to the Kruger Day speech made by the hon member for Waterberg and all the other things, although I would have like to do so and probably would have done so if the hon member had been present. I shall inevitably have to adapt my remarks this afternoon in terms of what I actually wanted to say.

Say what you want to say. I shall tell him everything.

I should be very grateful to the hon member for Rissik if he would do that, although it will also appear in Hansard. If the hon member for Waterberg would then do me the honour of replying to me in this connection on a later occasion, I should be very grateful.

The most controversial remarks made by the hon member for Waterberg concerned religious matters. I want to say at once that I am one of those who allege that religion and politics should be separated. Religion is not only a part of my life. It is not only an important part of my life; it is one’s whole life. In particular, it is relevant to politics as well, if religion is taken to mean the service of God. There has been a piety contest lately. Religion has been dragged into the political arena in an extremely crude way in order to create an emotional reaction against the other political party. I do not wish to accuse the hon member for Waterberg of having acted in a crude way; he is a man who has tremendous finesse. It is precisely when one has finesse that one is sometimes able to say the crudest things. However amusing the hon member for Rissik may find this, there is no doubt about the fact that the remarks that have been made of late have created great confusion in the hearts and minds of many believers.

You must weigh your words.

I do weigh my words. What has greatly added to that confusion has been the claim that the hon member for Waterberg speaks with very great authority. Is he not the one who once said that Christianity was actually his strong point?

Who said that?

The hon member for Waterberg said that Christianity was his strong point.

Where did he say that?

It was on 12 October.

Where did he say that?

It was on an occasion which had been advertised as a “Tukkie-jol”. On that occasion he reacted to criticism which had been directed at his Kruger Day speech. He said: “Christianity is my strong point.” I do not want to reproach him for having said that. I do not think it was part of his prepared speech. I believe that he merely said it in the heat of the moment and that he himself felt somewhat ashamed of having said it.

On that same occasion he had the temerity to challenge the theologians. To crown it all, the hon member for Rissik told us in this House that the hon member for Waterberg was the greatest theologian in this country.

One of the greatest.

Very well, one of the greatest theologians in the country. I do not want to hold the hon member for Waterberg responsible for what the hon member for Rissik says. I think he himself dismissed it as the sycophancy of a person who was being rather extravagant in his enthusiasm. [Interjections.] A man who is portrayed as such a great theologian, one of the greatest theologians, must certainly weigh his words.

He is a greater theologian than you or I.

I said that I would not refer to the referendum campaign, but what I find upsetting is that the hon member made some of his most dangerous statements in the calmer atmosphere which prevailed after the referendum, when he was able to weigh his words carefully. I am referring to the meeting in Germiston, at which the hon member spoke about the three sixes. I am specifically referring to this because the hon member for Waterberg referred to the three sixes again in the no-confidence debate. I really wish he had not done so.

There had been doubt in my own mind and I had given him the benefit of the doubt by attributing it to the malice of a newspaper reporter. However, when the hon member defended it in this House, he removed all doubt that had remained in my mind. He enveloped his whole explanation in a plethora of words. Twice he repeated the word “ridiculous”. His innocent statement had caused a “ridiculous” commotion in the country. He spoke about the malicious intentions of people who wanted to place a certain construction on his words. Then the hon member quoted his exact words (Hansard, 1984, col 293):

Then the hon member went on to say that anyone who added anything to that would be guilty of an untruth and that anyone who placed a construction on these words would be doubly dishonest. I am not going to add anything to those words, because I assume that the hon member quoted his words in full. But I am going to be doubly dishonest—as he called it—and to place a construction on them. I want to ameliorate it by asking the hon member for Rissik to help me. The hon member for Waterberg must please explain to us whether, when he spoke of 66,6, while knowing full well that the correct figure was 66,3, and when he referred repeatedly to the three sixes and when he told his audience that they should not draw any conclusions, the idea of the mark of the Antichrist never once entered his mind. If he were to say that, it would not only be a gross untruth; it would also be an insult to our intelligence. You see, Sir, this hon member has the rare knack of saying what he thinks without saying it. He is the pre-eminent practitioner of the reservatio mentalis. The same teacher who taught him ethics taught me ethics as well, and he impressed upon me that the reservatio mentalis was despicable, contemptible and just as bad as a deliberate lie.

Are you accusing the hon member for Waterberg of having told a deliberate lie?

Yes.

I am accusing him of …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I should like to have your ruling on an interjection made by an hon member opposite, implying that he was accusing the hon member for Waterberg of having told deliberate lies.

The hon member merely said “yes” and nothing more.

Order! Which hon member said that and what did he say?

It is I, Mr Speaker, and I only said “yes”.

To what did he say “yes”?

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: If the hon the Deputy Minister alleges that reservatio mentalis is the same as a deliberate lie, with reference to what the hon member for Waterberg said...

The hon the Deputy Minister was merely drawing a comparison in accordance with his own views.

Mr Speaker, I was merely saying that the ethics teacher of both the hon member for Waterberg and myself impressed that idea upon us. That was all I said.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: May I point out to you that when the hon member for Rissik asked the hon the Deputy Minister whether he was accusing the hon member for Waterberg of having told a deliberate lie, the hon member for Stilfontein interjected by saying “yes”. The implication was that the hon member was confirming that this was in fact the case.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister has just explained what he meant. The hon member for Stilfontein could not possibly have replied in the affirmative to a matter which the hon the Deputy Minister was stating in this House. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

What is it in the make-up of the hon member for Waterberg that makes it so extremely difficult for him to admit having made a mistake? Why must he try in this House to gloss over the indefensible remark that he made, and we all make mistakes? Does the hon member wish to project an image of irreproachability, perhaps? Is this perhaps why the HNP knows him by no other name than Andries Withandjies? Several hon members have referred to the bomb incident at the Pietermaritzburg town hall, but he tried to create the impression that it had simply been a ploy. Meanwhile, a man has been convicted and sentenced to many years’ imprisonment. However, we have not had a word of apology from the hon member. In a much more serious vein, I want to refer to a remark made by the hon member in Pietersburg or Rustenburg, I do not remember where, namely that what the NP advocated was love and reconciliation. Surely that is not true. I wish it were, but the hon member has rated us too highly and given us too flattering a testimonial. He would have had a case if he had taken us very severely to task for the meagreness and inadequacy of our love, but to accuse us of showing too much love is something which I find totally inexplicable on the part of a man with his background. After all, the hon member knows that love is the greatest Commandment and the essence of all the Commandments. Surely the hon member knows that even if one did a thousand things, if one did not have love, one would be nothing.

The hon member talks about the concept of “reconciliation” and he drags the concept into the political arena in an absolutely irresponsible way. He does not do it in order to preach the message of reconciliation, as he and I are called upon to do, and that calling did not stop the day we left the pulpit. It is a lifelong calling. He did not want to preach reconciliation, but to criticize those who did. He reproached us at a political meeting for advocating reconciliation. It was not just a slip of the tongue. The hon member referred repeatedly to the concept of “reconciliation” while participating in the referendum campaign. On one occasion he severly criticized the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning because the latter had made a speech about reconciliation. The hon member for Waterberg said that he would not presume to talk about nuclear physics, so how could the hon the Minister talk about theological matters? Surely this is a new theology. Since when have these truths of salvation been the monopoly of learned theologians? What did the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning say about reconciliation? I was present. He was reacting to what hon members opposite had said about reconciliation. He said that what he understood by reconciliation was that Christ had come to bring about reconciliation between man and God and that that reconciliation should filter through to the relationship between one human being and another. Does the hon member for Rissik, who is a theologian, know of any of the greatest theologians in our country who could express this more accurately? Surely this is the essence, the power and the glory of the Gospel. Surely this is the one message that is to be found in the Scripture from Genesis to Revelations. Why does he have to create doubt in people’s minds in this regard? Why should there be doubt in the minds of thousands of believers who have always understood it in the same way as the hon the Minister and simple people such as I and others? This hon member’s leader should set the matter right at the earliest opportunity, in the interests of values that are infinitely more important than politics.

Two years ago, the hon member for Waterberg and his friends walked out of the NP caucus, and with that, the dream of the hon member for Rissik came true.

The hon the Prime Minister threw him out. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik was “thrown” out of that caucus in such a way that the hon the Prime Minister appealed to him to come and see him before the next caucus meeting. What did the hon member do, however? Without any pressure having been brought to bear on him by anyone, he and 15 of his friends wrote letters saying that they were resigning as members of the NP. Now he comes here and says that they were driven from the caucus, which is an untruth. [Interjections.] For the hon member for Rissik, a dream came true when he walked out of the caucus. For a long time, he had begged and pleaded with that man whom he regarded as Moses to lead him out of “slavery”. If I have to draw any conclusion from the hon member’s bitterness, he may have been disillusioned and that promised land may not have brought him the satisfaction which he had expected.

The destruction which the hon member for Waterberg has wrought in this country must weigh heavily on his conscience. I often heard the hon member say—even a few weeks before the caucus meeting—that he was not one to cause a rift. But was the hon member sincere in saying that he was not one to cause a rift?

Yes, he was sincere.

I agree with the hon member for Rissik: the hon member for Waterberg was sincere in saying that. He did not want to cause a rift and he meant it sincerely. The only other interpretation that remains is that he yielded to pressure, and that casts a reflection on the quality of his leadership. When I think of the hon member’s leadership, I think of the feeble little man who took a big, strong Amazon to wife. When they were standing in front of the pulpit, the minister said: “Thomas Brown, do you take as your lawful wedded wife Mary Jones at your side?” The little man said nothing. Thereupon the minister repeated the question. The woman gave him a dig in the ribs, and he said in a small voice: “Sir, please, I do not take. I am taken.” [Interjections.] I think the hon member for Waterberg has allowed himself to be lead astray by every Daan, Willie and Carel.

Karel Swanepoel! [Interjections.]

I am afraid I did not hear the hon member’s witty remark, but because of the time limit, this is the moment to conclude my speech and to resume my seat.

Mr Speaker, it is alleged that Adolf Hitler once said that if one simply repeated a he often enough, it would subsequently be regarded as the truth. [Interjections.] It is very interesting to find that in South Africa these days we have an exercise centring around the events of 24 February 1982, namely who caused the rift. The point is that the man who split the Afrikaner people from top to bottom, like the Veil of the temple was once rent in two, will stand revealed in the history of South Africa as the one who did it. Shortly after we were driven out of the National Party it was said with much bravado: “I have cleaned up the party; you must now clean up the organizations.”

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

No, Sir, I do not have the time to reply to the questions of a muttering member. As the Conservative Party grew to the point where today it is the greatest factor threatening the National Party in South African politics, as more and more Afrikaners and English-speaking conservatives turned their backs on the National Party, anxiety and fear began to be felt and the scene had to be changed by asking: “Who caused the rift?”

Let us now place on record the events of 24 February 1982. [Interjections.] Now first of all, I want to see where he hon member for Benoni is. What happened in the caucus of the National Party on 24 February?

We all know.

No, Sir, let us tell one another. Initially, on the Monday, there was a statement on power-sharing, a statement to the effect that what had first been regarded as sharing of power had subsequently been certified by the Prime Minister as a form of healthy power-sharing or a healthy form of power-sharing—whichever it may be. The one NP document puts it one way, and the other another way. On the Tuesday notice was quite suddenly received of a caucus meeting that had been brought forward. It would take place an hour earlier because the hon the Prime Minister had to leave for Windhoek the next day. You will recall, Sir, that until the Monday he was still to have addressed an NP meeting in Johannesburg on Thursday.

In any event, the Wednesday caucus meeting then took place and in the process the hon the Prime Minister said: “I must go to Windhoek today and I want to know where I stand with this caucus before I do so.” At a given moment the then Leader of the House, Mr Fanie Botha, pulled a prepared motion out of his pocket and read it out. In that motion it was stated that the caucus pledged its unqualified support to the Prime Minister of South Africa, as far as his inter pretation of policy was concerned as well. [Interjections.] This is on record in the official documents of the National Party. Thereupon a debate followed, to which most of us on this side and the hon members on the Government side were witnesses. A vote was then called for, and a vote was taken. Far more hands went up than the 24 that were eventually counted. They are sitting opposite. Then the former Chief Whip, the then hon the Minister of Community Development, said: “Write down their names.” In the process my leader, Dr Treurnicht, stood up at a given moment and indicated that he still wanted to say something, but the hon the Prime Minister then said: “Go! Go to Albert Hertzog! Go to the HNP!”.

That is not true. You are lying. [Interjections.]

They can all say I am lying. After all, I know there is one who knows I am speaking the truth. [Interjections.] That is the NP story. [Interjections.] I was sitting next to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and I said to him that this was a wonderfully orchestrated plan of theirs. I told him that it had been planned down to the last detail. Those who had put the hon the Prime Minister up to it, had misinformed him. They had told him that Andries Treurnicht and three or four others would leave.

His five “meide”.

Twenty-four then left. Ah well, a pendulum swings to the left and to the right, and six returned.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Kuruman refer openly in this House to him and his “five ‘meide’”? [Interjections.]

What exactly did the hon member for Kuruman say?

Mr Speaker, I said one of the hon Ministers said “Andries Treurnicht and his five ‘meide’ must get out today”. [Interjections.]

That was what was said there.

Order! It is very clear to me from the vast number of remarks and interjections that are being made here that radical differences exist between the facts which the hon member for Soutpansberg is recounting here and what hon members opposite feel. I want to suggest that hon members, instead of shouting back and forth at one another that this was what happened, or was not what happened, that this is the truth whereas something else is not the truth, should first acquaint themselves with the true facts and that the next speaker should then recount the actual facts. I am not going to allow any further interjections, nor a general altercation across the floor of this House on this matter. The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

We were driven out of that caucus. Subsequently the general committee meeting of the NP was held, on the Saturday. The hon member for Roodeplaat, the hon member for Verwoerdburg and the hon the Deputy Minister, these days of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, and other men were sent to the Transvaal to organize for that meeting. It would be a Transvaal thing. At that meeting the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs rose to his feet and told the meeting that the hon the Prime Minister happened to be in Pretoria because it was his daughter’s birthday. [Interjections.] It was the truth that was told at that meeting. The fact of the matter is that it was not his daughter’s birthday. Mr Fanie Botha, the former Leader of the House, later recounted how the attendance of the Prime Minister had been very clearly and very well planned and orchestrated to coincide with that meeting. What did it deal with? It dealt with the planning of this present constitution. They knew that there was still a certain element of true Nationalists left in the caucus, which had to be driven out because as long as they were there they would not be able to get these diabolical sell-out plans of theirs through the caucus. I think that is sufficient. I think we can discuss this matter further at a later stage. Sir, it was a very good suggestion which you gave hon members to give their own version of the events.

Today the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made an observation in respect of the conduct of a public debate and the quality of such a public debate. Unfortunately he was himself immediately afterwards guilty of making a certain reference to the hon member for Lichtenburg. It is very clear that the hon the Deputy Minister who has just resumed his seat did not hear what he said. I just want to repeat one thing which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said. I reject as arrant nonsense the allegation which he made that the CP maintains that too much is being done for the Indians, the Blacks and the Coloureds. I want to reject as arrant nonsense the allegation that the CP regards everything that is being done for people of colour as a threat to the Whites. I want to say nothing further about that subject.

I would have liked to have discussed the Budget with the hon the Minister, but I think I must now come to another aspect. During the by-election in Soutpansberg I spoke about the drought aid and I said there that the drought aid was unpractical, unrealistic and unsympathetic. The hon the Minister thereupon replied to me during the debate on the Part Appropriation. The hon the Minister indicated in that reply of his that long-term drought aid had amounted to R960 000. Subsequently, however, the hon the Minister mentioned a lot of other figures that had nothing whatsoever to do with direct drought aid, and in that way he arrived at a sum total of R13,5 million. What he actually did was to conceal his R960 000 in that figure of R13,5 million. The hon member for Turffontein repeated that refrain. The next day it was proclaimed to the whole of South Africa on the news that the aid to Soutpansberg had amounted to R13,5 million. [Interjections.] It was concerned with drought aid. Now I want to tell the hon the Minister that that aid which he referred to went for the most part to stock farmers. Is that correct? He said that 80 of them had been assisted. But how many bona fide stock farmers are there in Soutpansberg? There are at least 240 bona fide stock farmers in Soutpansberg, and only a third of them made use of that aid. Why? Because the point of departure of that aid is soil protection, with which I have no fault to find. But who was able to make use of that aid? Either the extremely strong farmer could make use of it, or the one who was already in a desperate situation. The farmer in between could do nothing with it.

I now want to tell the hon the Minister that in Soutpansberg—I do not have the official figure—there are 1 500 farmers, there may even be 2 000, and of these only 80 received assistance. What about the others, because they were all afflicted by the drought? What about the vegetable farmers? What about the fruit farmers? All of them have been afflicted by this drought.

I want to content myself by saying that the aid which those farmers need is not a kind of aid in respect of agriculture. For them it is assistance in remaining on their farms. They need cash flow, and they need post-drought-recovery aid.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Soutpansberg gave an account here of what allegedly happened on the day of the split in the caucus. I want to tell the hon member that I was also there that day, and I want to say that the hon member for Waterberg was led and driven out of the caucus that day by the hon frustrated member for Rissik who had been brooding and scheming in the NP for many years. [Interjections.] On that day it was the hon member for Rissik who threw down the gauntlet for the first time and placed the hon the Prime Minister in the position of having to compel them to make a choice. The hon member for Rissik was followed by the hon member for Meyerton. The two Van der Merwes led the hon member for Waterberg out of the caucus that day. The hon member for Waterberg was obdurate and reluctant to leave, but they led him out. [Interjections.] The reason for that was that the hon member for Waterberg is no leader and was unable to take the lead in any way on that day. The Turks in his own ranks led him out of that caucus meeting on that day. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon members must give the hon member an opportunity to state his case.

I am sorry that the hon member for Waterberg, the leader of the CP, is not here today. I realize that it is on account of illness. I am sorry about that. In his absence, however, I want to say something to him about his attitude to the Nkomati Accord. I want to put it to the hon the leader and the other hon members of his party that it is a laggardly attitude they are adopting. They are adopting a spineless attitude to the Nkomati Accord. [Interjections.] The Government succeeded in achieving one of the greatest diplomatic successes in the history of this subcontinent. It elicited favourable comment throughout the world. It caused a stir in Africa. It made the communists despondent, but the hon the leader of the CP said that the Nkomati Accord was a piece of paper that could be tom up.

Of course it is.

That was what the hon the leader of the CP said at a meeting in Parow. According to a report in Die Burger of 21 March the hon the leader of the CP said, and I quote:

Surely we all know that it was not a covenant of love. It is not even possible for us to make a covenant of love with hon members of the CP in this House. How would we then be able to make a covenant of love with a neighbouring state of ours, which until recently was still baring its teeth at us? Is it not an exceptional achievement that the Government could succeed in concluding a peace treaty with such a neighbouring state, as we did in fact do? If that is not a diplomatic break-through, I do not know what a diplomatic break-through is.

It was my privilege to be personally present at the concluding of that accord. It was an experience. That was also what the many high-ranking people from South Africa, who attended the function, also thought. Business leaders, ambassadors and other leaders who attended the signing of the accord, also thought so. That is why I want to say to the hon the leader of the CP in his absence today that even if this accord should not come up to expectations, a peace initiative was nevertheless started that day which it will not be possible to halt. This initiative is going to gather momentum throughout the whole of South Africa; in fact it has already begun to do so.

The hon the Leader of the CP said that the reality of the accord first had to be put to the test. He said the proof of the pudding was in the eating. He said very sceptically that the pudding would first have to be tasted to determine whether it was really a pudding. Of course we are realistic enough to know that reality still has to be put to the test. That reality is consequently already being put to the test. However, there could have been no reality, no pudding, if it had depended on the CP with its negative yes-no and yes-but attitude. If the CP had not let the pudding burn in the oven, they would have dropped it in the sand. I want to put it to the hon the Leader of the CP that even if nothing further comes of this accord, it has already produced wonderful benefits for South Africa.

One of the most important conseqences of that accord is in fact the phenomenon that Mozambique is now beginning to take steps against the ANC in its country. Less than a year ago the ANC exploded a bomb in the centre of Pretoria. After that the SA Defence Force launched reprisal raids against ANC positions in Maputo. Owing to the Nkomati Accord the entire situation has now changed drastically, and Mozambique itself is clearing out ANC nests in its country. The ANC is therefore being given increasingly less room in which to manoeuvre.

I want to ask the hon the leader of the CP something. He can give me an answer at a later stage. Does he still think, today, that the Nkomati Accord is a mere piece of paper which can be tom up? Reports are streaming in from all over the world, reports which indicate that the Nkomati Accord has created a more favourable climate for South Africa in Africa and abroad; a climate which is causing more doors to open for us, and which can help keep the worst lightning bolts away from us.

Mr John D’Oliveira is a journalist whom all of us here remember. He used to sit in the Press Gallery as a parliamentary reporter. He wrote as follows from London, and I am quoting from a report in The Argus of 26 March. Under the headline “Botha outwitted Russians”, The Argus reported:

Even the highly respected newspaper, The Economist of London, wrote as follows:

Even from Moscow itself we have received reports indicating that the Russians are concerned about their waning influence in Southern Africa. In The Citizen of 27 March we find this interesting report:

We see here the results of the Nkomati Accord, but it is dismissed by the hon the leader of the CP as a piece of paper which may be torn up.

One can understand why the hon the leader of the CP is so negative, so chilly, yes, so cold about Nkomati. It is as a result of his new fraternity with the HNP. These days the hon the leader of the CP must keep on glancing over his shoulder to hear what Brother Jaap has to say. What does Mr Jaap Marais say about Nkomati? He says his party was shocked at the way in which the CP disregarded the standpoint of the HNP by attending the ceremony at Komatipoort. The HNP is beginning to dictate to the CP to an ever-increasing extent, and the CP is increasingly beginning to dance to the tune of the HNP. Hence the colourless, listless, unenthusiastic and cannot-win attitude of the hon the leader of the CP to Nkomati.

In the few minutes I still have at my disposal, I should like to discuss our farmers. In his Budget the hon the Minister of Finance announced further aid for the drought-stricken farmers of South Africa. The Government has indicated that it has an open heart and hand for the farmers of South Africa, and we should very much like to associate ourselves with that fine attitude. However, we are so inclined to turn only to the Government for aid to the farmers. We forget that the private sector, numerous companies and business undertakings, do a great deal of business with the farmers of South Africa and that in the years of prosperity they made fat profits out of the farmers of South Africa. The State has shown its willingness to help, but the State cannot do everything on its own. Today I want to ask the private sector to play its part as well. This is an unprecedented crisis in which our farmers have found themselves, not through any fault of their own, but on account of the three successive lean years which plunged them into tremendous and burdensome debts. Today I want to ask the creditors, money-lenders and mortgagors to display magnanimity and have patience with the farmers who have fallen behind in their payments. The farmers owe billions of rands to banks, financial institutions and attorneys, as well as to mortgagors outside the public sector. According to the latest available 1983 figures the farmers owe the private sector alone an amount of R3 598 million. This does not include the R1 500 million which they owe the co-operatives, nor the R1 043 million which they owe the Land Bank, nor the R271 million which they owe Agricultural Credit. That amount of R3 598 million which farmers owe the private sector is a huge amount. Our farmers are deeply in debt to the private sector. That also means that the private sector is deeply involved with our farmers. That is why I want to plead with the private sector to play its Part as well to help our farmers in their crisis.

I shall tell the creditors how they can accommodate our farmers. In the first place they can help our farmers by not charging such high interest rates and by reducing interest rates as far as possible for the farmers. It is the high interest rates on mortgages and loans which are at present causing the farmers such hardships. As certain farmers told me, it is the high interest rates that are killing them.

In the second place these people can accommodate the farmers by extending the loan period, which will make the instalments more bearable for the farmers. In the third place the creditors can help our farmers by granting farmers who have fallen behind in their interest payments, an extension of time. This will enable many farmers to get their heads above water again.

I want to make an earnest plea to those in the private sector who have provided farmers with finance not to humiliate our farmers with summonses, court cases and sales in execution. I want to ask them not to destroy the spirit of our farmers. Our farmers have always been courageous and full of enterprise, but their courage can be broken by creditors bearing down on them.

There are companies and business undertakings that should not forget that they made large profits out of our farmers in the good years. They would do well to plough back some of those profits of theirs to help our farmers now. They must not forget that they talked some of those farmers into big transactions involving expensive implements, expensive harvesters and expensive tractors. If action that is too drastic is now taken against farmers with debts, it would only add further momentum to the exodus of farmers from the farms. This is a tendency which must be stopped at all costs. South Africa places a high premium on agriculture, and is in great need of its farmers.

Mr Speaker, it was the hon member for Vasco who said on Monday that the hon the Minister of Finance had long-term vision. I disagree because in my opinion his so-called vision has many flaws in it. In the debate I want to concentrate on what I consider the most serious flaw and which reinforces my view that there is in fact no vision at all.

There appears to be complete inaction and a lack of perception by the Cabinet to react to the report of the Science Committee of the President’s Council on Demographic Trends in South Africa. This report was tabled in the House more than a year ago. I should like to quote from the report on page 229:

For a Government which is proud of itself for having governed for 36 years, if ever there was an indictment on the Government, then surely this is one. Where are the national programmes? Does the Government of the day not realize that without a national programme being implemented as a matter of urgency, our chance of survival as a nation is diminishing daily? Are we aware that if the population explosion is ignored, there will be nothing left to argue about? We will become like the rest of Africa: over-populated, under-nourished, importers of food and ultimately a nation of beggars. Unless we act now, it does not matter who governs in the year 2000, because there will be nothing left of any consequence to govern. Is this the legacy we wish to leave? I ask hon members on the Government benches: “Is this what they want?” In the same report on page 156, the following is quoted:

“If anything were ever to put a limit on the development of South Africa, it would be the lack of water. Not only is it by and large a dry country, but its rivers discharge more than three times less water than the annual precipitation total might lead one to expect …”

Our present urban population is 16 million. The projection for the year 2000 is that it will increase to 36 million, more than double in 16 years. The total population projection for the year 2000 is 50 million, and by the year 2020 81 million, if we continue on our present course. What are we doing about it? Let us look at some financial projections. The figures are based on 1981 prices, so they are already way out. In the year 2020 education will cost R2 billion per annum; health R670 million per annum and housing R780 million per annum. These are only three examples. There are many more. What of welfare, the creation of infrastructure, social and other services? Where is the money going to come from? At the rate of the population is going to grow according to predictions, if no action is taken, there is no alternative for us except to face a life of poverty and starvation. The population growth rate in South Africa is one of the highest in the world and 90% of our arable land is already being cultivated. This is more than the percentage of 80% in Europe and in South East Asia and considerably more than the 60% of North America and Russia. In 1973 when the total population reached 23 million, there was 0,57 ha of arable land per person in South Africa. In the year 2000 there will only be an estimated 0,32 ha per person, which is less than the 0,4 ha considered necessary to provide one person with sufficient food. The Minister of Health and Welfare says that a comprehensive population development programme is necessary, with the objective to raise the quality of live and living standards of all the people in South Africa. We all agree, but the President’s Council told us that a year ago. A year has been wasted, and we only have 16 years left before we reach the year 2000. We have 16 short years in which to achieve a goal, but firstly, we must curb the population growth.

We are quick to boast about our ability to keep pace with technology and the First World, but in fact when it comes to curbing population growth, we do not even compare with Sri Lanka, Mauritius or Thailand. These countries have a national programme. Sri Lanka with a population of 50 million in 1970 had a birth rate of 39 per thousand, but this has been reduced so that in 1983 it was only 23 per thousand, a reduction of more than one third. In Thailand the birth rate in 1970 was 41 per thousand, but by 1980 it has been reduced to 27 per thousand. Mauritius has reduced its birth rate to 20 per thousand. Columbia in South America had no programme in 1977, but two years ago did 50 000 sterilizations in one year. None of these countries have had economic development on the scale which we enjoy in the Republic, but they are succeeding in doing something positive about curbing the population growth. What of Communist China? In 1960 they had no plan in this regard. In 1970 a plan was formulated and put into action. They say that in 1990 their population growth will be zero. There are many others countries like India, Pakistan, Taiwan and South Korea who have been successful in dramatically reducing their population growth. Why not the Republic of South Africa? This is a matter of survival and as such it militates for a national policy to be implemented. Not tomorrow. Today.

Instead of a national policy, what do we find? We find an unenthusiastic response by the Government to the President’s Council’s report. The service of family planning, where not lacking, is totally inadequate. In some areas it is completely non-existent. The family planning programme is run at six different levels, namely the State, provincial, Divisional Council, municipal, voluntarily and family planning associations. Everybody is completely self-satisfied and there is no co-ordinated action or co-operation. In fact, organizations obstruct each other. Can the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare tell us if a meeting has been held with all these organizations in the past year in order to co-ordinate and co-operate and to co-ordinate the actions as a whole? I do not know. I sympathize with the hon the Minister, but sympathy does not help. It is only the hon the Minister of Finance who can help. Finance must be demanded, as it is a case of urgency. We can no longer tolerate the present situation.

To confirm my argument that there is a lack of funds in this regard, I want to quote from a letter of the Department of Health and Welfare. It is dated 10 February 1984 and is directed to the Director of Hospital Services. It concerns family planning, and paragraph 2 reads:

Can we continue in this vein when we are in a crisis position? Can we afford to have only one page of the report of the Department of Health and Welfare of last year devoted to family planning? The position is intolerable when one considers the facts which I have already mentioned.

I want to refer to a few more facts. At Tygerberg Hospital in 1982 the total number of births to married women between the ages of 15 to 35 plus was 6 156. The figure for unmarried women between the ages of 12 to 35 plus was 5 989. I want to analyze the figures in relation to unmarried women. In the category of 12-year olds there was one birth; 13-year olds, 10 children; 14-year olds, 16 children; 15-year olds, 76 children; 16-year olds, 220 children; 17-year olds, 407 children; 18-year olds, 518 children and 19-year olds, 585 children. In the age group 20 to 24 there were 2 285 births and in the age group 25 to 29 there were 1 130 births.

I venture to say that the Government in fact encourages people to have more children. The more children you have, the larger the tax rebate one gets. The bigger the family the easier it is to get subsidized accommodation. Mothers with three or four children born out of wedlock receive monthly allowances. Maternity ward beds are provided for as little as 50c with the taxpayer having to pay the balance, which is not inconsiderable. Many women in the poorer sector of the population have baby after baby and refuse to use any contraceptive device or method or to be sterilized. It is not unknown for women to come into hospital, have children and then disappear and leave the children behind for the hospital to take care of and to try to have them placed with a family or in an institution.

If we are serious and we want to do something about the population explosion, we cannot allow this situation to continue. What are the remedies? There are a few practical things which we can do. We can change the tax situation. After two children, the tax rebate can be removed and an additional tax per child can be charged. One can give a family with two children the family who practises birth control, first priority with housing. We can cut allowances for children born out of wedlock. We can also control maternity facilities in provincial and Government hospitals for women having three or more children unless they agree to sterilization. Otherwise they must go to private hospitals or have their children at home. A woman should have the right to decide abour sterilization on her own without the consent of the husband, not as it is at the moment. We should make more use of the media, such as TV with imaginative advertisements, information programmes, panel discussions and create an awareness of the effects of a population explosion. We must also inform men and women of the misconceptions regarding contraceptive methods. We should embark on an extensive programme of education at all levels, but especially at adolescent level.

The figures which I have given, confirm where one of the major problems lie. It is ironic that a girl of 16 years can give consent for sexual intercourse and that a girl can get married at 16 years with the consent of her parents, while contraceptive devices cannot be given to people under the age of 18 years without parental consent. The doctors and nurses are put into an inviduous position every day with this situation because they are continually being asked and faced with requests for contraceptive devices by adolescents who are sexually active. This is an area we must look at again. It is no use running away from the situation. We have to stand up to it, face it and try to find solutions.

I realize that there are political, cultural and religious overtones to contraception and sterilization, but this whole subject must be lifted out of the political and religious debate for the sake of everybody’s future. It is a plain case of survival and, if we are to survive, these connotations must be overruled. One cannot enjoy the benefits of belonging to Western civilization without being able to accept the responsibilities that go with it.

We have no time to waste. Hunger and thirst know no boundaries and recognize no colour. Africa, with the highest birth rate in the world, already suffers more starvation than any other part of the world. Even the West cannot, in the assistance it gives, keep up with the population growth. We must provide a free service in respect of all birth control measures right through the country down to every village and hamlet. The entire medical profession must be mobilized and brought into the scheme on a paid basis. If we can provide the service, we can succeed; if not, the economic and social structure of society will collapse under the sheer weight of numbers in the very near future. That is why I urge the hon the Minister of Finance to set aside large sums of money to embark on a national programme because, whatever programme we embark on today, it will only start showing results in 10 years’ time.

In conclusion, I want to point out that a former State President, the late Dr Diede richs, said:

That was said in 1976, but to what effect? I therefore specifically ask the hon the Minister of Finance what he is going to do about the predicament we find ourselves in in relation to population growth. I say he must find at least R20 million to enable the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare to embark on an on-going programme. That is the matter I should like the hon the Minister of Finance to reply to.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for South Coast made a very interesting speech to which the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare and the hon the Minister of Finance will cetainly be devoting some attention. In the short time at my disposal I should like to refer to a report that appeared in a small newspaper which is distributed by the CP in Rosettenville and in which it is said, amongst other things:

What are the true facts? I think they should, for a moment, be brought to the Conservative Party’s attention so that they can comprehend the true state of affairs. The fact of the matter is that there were probably about a dozen public meetings held, meetings at which I personally was present, answered questions and myself spoke on several matters. Dr Piet Koornhof also held a meeting there. I feel there is no communication between the leader of the Conservative Party and the editor who disseminated the information. The fact of the matter is that Dr A P Treurnicht and I held the first meeting in November 1978. Was that not a public meeting? Why does that party make use of such untruths? [Interjections.] There is the hon the Minister of Finance sitting over there. On 3 May 1980 he and I held a large meeting. It was an extremely enthusiastic meeting where people just came right up and spoke personally to him and his wife. I am also reminded of the meeting that various women held there with Mrs Marthina Botha on 28 March 1982. I know the hon members of the CP do not like that, but I want to give them the facts that they do not have at their disposal. On 30 March 1981 Dr Lapa Munnik and I appeared before a large audience. On 6 March 1982 it was Minister Hendrik Schoeman. On 14 April 1982 it was ex-Minister Fanie Botha, on 28 June 1982 Minister Pik Botha, on 22 October Deputy Minister Piet Badenhorst—that was in 1982—and on 3 June 1983 it was Minister Kobie Coetzee. [Interjections.] Those hon members are afraid of the truth. Those are the facts of the matter.

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

No, unfortunately I do not have enough time at my disposal. I have only 10 minutes. Apart from the meetings I held at private homes, I also held two large meetings in Glenesk. One evening I even baked pancakes there. On another evening we showed films to the people and held a public meeting there.

Are hon members forgetting the role I played, particularly in those circumstances, in calling in the assistance of 12 social workers, presenting them with a bulky report so that I could find out under what conditions my people in Pioneer Park and Glenesk were living? Have they forgotten how other members of the NP and I agitated at meetings for the Rand stadium to be closed down and for an end to be put to soccer matches against non-Whites?

Have they already forgotten what I did for the nurses and of some of the speeches I made on various occasions at the South Rand Hospital? Have they forgotten about my agitating about the report on rental malpractices in the Rosettenville constituency, a report that appeared in Rapport of 14 August 1982, and the fact that I exposed all these malpractices? Have they forgotten about the housing project involving millions of rand that is possibly going to take place there now, and the fact that we are only looking for the necessary land to give to the constituency’s inhabitants? Have they forgotten about my pleas for the post office which is now going to be completed in 1986?

The accusation I am levelling at those hon members today, particularly the hon member for Waterberg for whom I once had great respect, whom I once held in great esteem, is that he does not do anything to verify the facts. Why does he not tell that to the hon member for Jeppe?

Why does he tell such untruths in the newspaper? Why is the NP besmirched in that fashion? I am not going to permit it. [Interjections.] Those hon members’ newspaper, Die Patriot, accepted advertisements from Indian business undertakings, but did they ever receive that money? Have they ever received the money from Bodhana Stores in Roodepoort? Is that newspaper, which is published in Rosettenville, a subsidiary of the defunct Die Patriot?

The editorial material published in that newspaper is the same as that which appeared in Die Patriot. The same little picture with the caption “You may say you should vote for P W Botha” also appeared in Die Patriot. All this material appeared in Die Patriot. Nor is the CP at all original.

Their informants were never actually members of the NP. They never read the daily bulletin that was published in Die Transvaler. They read Die Afrikaner, and because they read Die Afrikaner they could never see when and where I held any meetings. That is why they were hiding behind the HNP. Their office is in Steeldale, in the Alberton constituency. They want to use a barrier of steel to protect themselves against the NP fire-power from Rosettenville. [Interjections.]

Are you going to shoot them?

I shall send them packing. They will be pursued as they have never been pursued before. That party did not have the courage to erect a “no-table” in Rosettenville during the referendum. That work was done by the PFP. Only they had the courage to go there. The PFP eventually consolidated the no-vote for those hon members there. Who put up the posters there? The HNP. I am speaking about the poster: “For the sake of our future, vote no”. That was the poster depicting the two children. The other poster stated: “Remember Rhodesia said yes”.

I am sorry the hon member for Jeppe is not in the House today. I should have liked to have spoken to him about this matter. He has not yet set foot in my constituency, but we are going to be coming after him, and eventually Rosettenville will again remain an NP seat, as always. [Interjections.]

Eventually?

Yes, eventually, and I shall tell those hon members why. Just look at the following data: In 1933 the South African Party won the seat with a majority of 845 votes. In 1936, in the four-cornered struggle in which the UP and the Dominion Party also locked horns, the Labour Party obtained a majority of 518 votes. In 1938 the UP beat the Labour Party by 1 067 votes. In 1943 there was a convincing majority of 4 116 for the UP, and on that occasion there was even a communist candidate who obtained 292 votes. In 1948, in a six-cornered contest with approximately 10 000 voters, Mr Hepple, a Labourite, gained the seat with a majority of 3 017 votes. In 1953 the Labourite, Mr Hepple, had a majority of 6 195. In 1958 Dr Fischer was elected with a majority of 4 963 votes. In 1961 it was an uncontested seat. In 1966 Dr Fischer won there with a majority of 1 632. In 1970 Dr Fischer beat the Nationalist by Dr Otto 3 578 votes. In 1974 it was again an uncontested seat; in 1977 I won the seat for the NP for the first time and again in 1981. I can give hon members the assurance that our victory on 27 June will again be a brilliant one.

Mr Speaker, it is always a great privilege and pleasure to be asked to speak after the hon member for Rosettenville has spoken. I am saying it is a privilege because I believe that he has again convinced us this afternoon that Rosettenville is the best-served constituency in the Transvaal. [Interjections.] It is not always all that easy, however, to have to speak after the hon member has spoken, in the sense that has the gift, the ability; to hold and audience’s attention, as he has done again today. His speech left the Opposition speechless. All they could do was stare at him unable to say a word. [Interjections.] It is not everyone who can manage to do that.

When one takes part in the Budget debate at so late a stage, it is very difficult to come to the fore with any new arguments. I do not want to become involved in a dispute with the CP or the official Opposition this afternoon, but I just want to make one statement arising out of what the hon member for Soutpansberg said this afternoon, though he is unfortunately not present at the moment. It is clear that during the short space of time that he was not present in the House, his intellect rusted up completely, because his version today of the events involved in the split is far from the truth.

Were you there?

No, I was not there, but I am aware of the events leading up to it. The hon member for Soutpansberg did not tell the House of the secret meetings they held before the time.

Were you there?

I was not there, but I do know who was present. [Interjections.] The story he told here was that it had all been rigged and that it had been planned in advance that they be driven out. That is not, however, the truth. They had planned to go even long before that. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow hon members to sit, with their backs to the Chair, making interjections. Hon members must please not do so in future.

History is busy repeating itself in this country. If one thinks back to the years 1933, 1934, one is reminded of conditions more or less identical to those prevailing today. I recall that at that time there was also disunity in the ranks of the Afrikaner. That was in the days of the Smelters. Friends did not greet one other. There were disagreements amongst brothers. Fathers and sons held divergent political views.

Today there is again disunity in the ranks of the Afrikaners; fortunately not quite as bad as it was 50 years ago. There has, in fact, been a small splintering-off of those who have gone one way. Fifty years ago there was also a serious depression in this country; a depression that led to more than one man’s downfall. People—farmers included—could not obtain credit. Money was very scarce. Business undertakings closed down. Farmers were compelled to leave their farms and bankruptcies were the order of the day.

At that time, fifty years ago, our country was also caught up in the oppressive grip of what had been, up till then, an unprecedented drought. Many people—not only the farmers—and whole communities were financially wiped out at the time. Those were exceptionally difficult days. The drought and the depression resulted in South Africa being faced with a serious poor White problem. I am reminded of people, for example the late Father Kestell, who tried by way of the idea of a rescue bid to get Whites, who had sunk into poverty, back on their feet again. Those were tragic days in the history of the Whites in this country.

Now, after fifty years, we find ourselves in almost identical circumstances again. These are similar circumstances to those which, at the time, were the cause of so much misery and sorrow, so much grief and so many social problems. We are again experiencing a serious recession; a recession which is regarded by some economists as tantamount to a depression. All the symptoms characteristic of a depression are also prevalent today. Together with that, our country is being ravaged by a drought which, in certain areas, has assumed more serious proportions that the drought of 1933.

In speaking about the drought, I am speaking on behalf of a constituency that has probably been the hardest hit by the drought prevailing at present. People in cities and towns say they can understand the farmers’ problems. They show their sympathy and say they are sorry for the farmers. When one is really the victim of a drought, however, when it affects one’s own people, people one comes into contact with daily, and when it also affects one personally, something eats away at one’s soul; something inside one just snaps. I want to emphasize that no one who has not experienced such a drought for himself can really describe it to anyone else. No one who has not experienced such a drought for himself can imagine what the victims have to suffer. I can tell stories of heart break in the face of the drought and its devastating effects. What does one tell someone—for example a man well on in years— when he tells one that he has lost all his money, all the savings set aside for his old age? What does one tell someone like that when he informs one that he now has to incur debt in order to start from scratch again?

I am relating these events merely in an endeavour to give urban dwellers some understanding of the situation in which agriculture in South Africa finds itself today.

Having said that, I should also like to take the opportunity of thanking the hon the Minister of Finance and the Government for the assistance announced in this connection. I know that not all the requests for assistance from the SA Agricultural Union have been complied with. I am aware of the fact that the granting of certain aid, which has been requested, is still being investigated and that we can expect further announcements at a later stage. I am, however, also aware of the fact that a Government can only help as far as its financial capabilities permit it to do so. The aid measures are emergency measures. They are measures introduced to enable farmers to go into production again. This is not charity being doled out to farmers. We must guard against one thing, however, in the sense of ensuring that a poor White problem does not rear its head again. I say this because I am aware of the fact that there are farmers who want to leave their farms and accept other positions with a view to fending for themselves, but they cannot get any work. If those people were to be forced off their farms, they would all head for the cities and towns where they would sit without work and without any accommodation. That would be an evil similar to that experienced in 1933-34.

I want to conclude by making an appeal to hon members of Opposition parties. I want to ask that we do not use the drought conditions for political ends. We must not politicize the drought because this would not serve the interests of our agriculture; on the contrary, our agriculture would suffer as a result. That is why I regret the fact that in his amendment the hon member for Sunny-side said that the Government showed no appreciation of the disastrous situation in which the farmers found themselves. Surely that is not the case. If one were to read the speech that the hon the Minister of Agriculture made to the farmers, one would see that he promised them assistance and gave them the assurance that this Government was standing by them. [Interjections.] I realize that the aid measures that have been announced will not help the farmers out of their difficulties. That is not, however, the intention, and not what we asked for either. The only thing that can save the farmers is rain. Once the drought has been broken, within a year or two our country will again be boasting surpluses. Agriculturists do not lack the necessary will, guts and the perseverance. In these difficult times they merely ask the city dwellers to understand their position and are grateful for the help that is forthcoming from the authorities.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Winburg spoke with emotion about the drought, particularly as far as the effect of the drought in his own constituency is concerned. As one who was born in the Karoo I grew up with 17 years of drought. I know the circumstances and I can understand the feelings of the hon member for Winburg very well. I want to assure him that all of us on these benches share his feelings. I must say, however, that to drag the suffering of people—in this case the farmers—into the political arena is in my opinion completely wrong.

†Mr Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon member for South Coast who unfortunately is not in the House at the moment. However, I see that the hon member for Durban North is in his place. The hon member for South Coast certainly made a very interesting and amazing speech on family planning. In fact, I should like to ask the hon member for Umbilo whether he agrees with a great deal that was said by the hon member for South Coast in regard to sterilization, promiscuity and so forth.

The hon member for Umbilo will reply to you.

Thank you. It was also interesting to hear that apparently the hon member was not sent an invitation to a joint meeting of the various health groups on the occasion of which very adequate guidance was given by the hon the Minister’s department in regard to the national plan for family planning and so forth. However, perhaps that is just like the NRP who never seem to know what is going on in this House. [Interjections.] If there is one party that has really done well in regard to family planning and fertility it is the NRP. I think they should tell the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare how they have managed to reduce their numbers year after year until there is now hardly anyone left. [Interjections.] I think they have a secret there that they should share.

The hon member for South Coast had the whole thing wrong. The hon the Minister of Finance can give the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare virtually any amount of money but family planning and female fertility have nothing to do with money. This is a socio-economic problem. The upliftment of the people will reduce the fertility of their women. Therefore, if one looks at the more wealthy groups, one notices that they have smaller families. In fact, they show a zero growth rate. The poorer and the less educated communities are, the higher the fertility.

That is in the long term. Are you talking about the short term as well?

I do not always come to the defence of the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare, but no nation has ever been able to cure this in the short term. I have listened to the plan, and I think it is adequate because it looks at all matters. I would suggest that the hon members of that party, instead of just sitting there, should endeavour, before they disappear, to find out how the hon the Minister and the nation will try—the Government and the private sector are involved in this—to solve this problem. The Government on its own cannot achieve success.

Do you think the Government is doing enough?

I do not think that any government can do enough. But we can help the Government.

I should like to refer to the hon the Minister of Finance whom I think must feel very lonely because nobody has looked at him this afternoon.

It is not too bad.

I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Houghton where she raised two very important points with the hon the Minister. About one of those points I should really like to talk to the hon the Minister in the short time I have available.

A very adequate little magazine is published by the South African Medical Association. The magazine is called Medical News. As we all know, the South African Medical Association forms part of the World Medical Association. In the leading article of Medical News of 1 April—this is the latest issue— there appears the heading “Infant health now a priority”. In my plea to the hon the Minister I want to add on to what the hon member for Houghton told him and I shall also tell him what I should like him to do, if possible. I quote from the article:

I think we are all agreed that South Africa is both a First World and a Third World country, and therefore the problems of developing countries affect us in South Africa too. I read further:

The report goes on to talk about immunization, but I do not think I have time to talk about it now.

We understand the problem of malnutrition which is again a socio-economic problem. I should not like to say whose fault it is; it is a reality. My plea is that we should assist people who are finding food too expensive because malnutrition occurs as the result of a shortage of basic foodstuffs.

I wanted to get a picture of what is going on in South Africa because, as we all know the diseases caused by malnutrition, like marasmus and kwashiorkor, are not notifiable. We therefore have to use certain guides in order to get a picture. I was fortunate enough to come across a recent article. It says:

*This is about 40 000 to 50 000 per annum. This is lower than the actual number of deaths, because these people often tend not to report all deaths. I read further:

I asked the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare a question in this regard. I asked him to give me the child death rate under the various population groups. It is generally accepted that those figures are an indication of the socio-economic problems in the community. He gave me the figures for 1981 and 1982. The figures for 1983 were not yet available. As regards deaths per thousand children before the age of one year, the figures in respect of Whites remain more or less constant, viz 13 per thousand. In respect of Asians the figure for the two years was 20 and 18 respectively. In respect of Coloureds the figure is 59 per thousand and in respect of Blacks, 80 per thousand. In respect of Soweto the figure is only 34 per thousand, while in some rural areas the figure rises to as much as 200 per thousand. This difference between the various population groups can be observed in respect of many things in South Africa. The signs of socio-economic problems, including malnutrition and a food shortage are, therefore, clearly visible from these figures. Blacks are hardest hit by this, while the figure in respect of Whites is comparable to other countries in the world.

†We have been told that this is the last Budget that will be discussed by Parliament in its present form. We have also been told that the hon the Minister might not come back to this House to present another Budget. I would therefore like to ask the hon the Minister to do something for us. I do not want to become personal, and I do not know what he will ultimately be remembered for, but I would like him to come to this House before the end of the session to remove general sales tax on basic foodstuffs. That will not mean the end of malnutrition, but I cannot see how a mother should be taxed when she provides food for her children or why pensioners should pay tax on foodstuffs. I cannot see why a person should be taxed when he is hungry. In my profession I see the results of this kind of suffering. An inability to buy foodstuffs not only leads to hunger and malnutrition but also affects the quality of life. If the hon the Minister wants to be remembered, I would like to ask him to seriously consider removing general sales tax on basic foodstuffs. I do not think it is impossible to do so. The hon member for Pinelands gave examples of how this could be achieved. I am told, and the hon the Minister can tell me if I am wrong, that if GST is not levied on basic foodstuffs, the rate on other items would only need to be increased to 8,5%. I personally think that in the current situation there can be no doubt that the rich are able to cope while the poor are suffering. I think it would be easy for us to pay that extra sales tax on luxuries. Why must people be penalized if they want to stay healthy, while they are not penalized for buying things that make them ill? That is my plea to the hon the Minister.

Mr Speaker, on several occasions the hon member for Park-town has referred in this House to the problems of malnutrition in our country and how it affects people. We are ad idem with him on this and we cannot find fault with the factual statement that there is malnutrition, particularly among certain people, in this country and that it is a major problem. During the past three years, however, the hon member for Parktown has not said a single word about how we should combat malnutrition. Conveying food to people and giving them handouts is no way to combat malnutrition. I shall come back to the hon member for Parktown later.

I now want to refer to certain remarks by the hon member for South Coast who made a very wilful speech. He is a decent fellow and I like him, but his speech this afternoon was very wilful. Like the hon member for Parktown, the hon member attended a very illuminating information meeting the other morning. If the hon member was not there he should have been. The lecture dealt with the growing number of people in the country and how to provide them with food, etc. Hon members are aware how seriously the Government studied the report of the Science Committee of the President’s Council on population growth in this country. The hon member for Parktown was present when the most exciting plan was announced at that meeting to combat this problem. Numbers are becoming a problem and plans have to be devised to control the numbers. Part of that mechanism for controling the numbers will in fact result in people being given food and in the problem of malnutrition being solved. We shall be able to solve these problems in Southern Africa if we are allowed to interpret the pace-setting and peace-making role we are playing at the moment.

The Government is trying, with the limited means at its disposal, to create a dispensation in the socio-economic and political spheres within which the reasonable aspirations of everyone living here can be satisfied as far as is humanly possible. We have made a great deal of progress towards the emancipation of the Black people. That emancipation has to take place is not an issue. What is, however, problematic is the fair and reasonable allocation of territories. The Government is working on this everyday and is making responsible proposals which will be acceptable and implementable. This is a tiring, difficult and sometimes painful process and we should have no illusions about it. The signs are there that the people who are really involved and who are really affected will never want to turn back once they have been placed on the road to the development of their own states.

The Development Bank of Southern Africa and the exciting and essential regional development programmes are matters the hon member for Pinetown would do well to introduce to his constituency. He could tell those people with the money that we have to make the best of this regional development. Then the hon member for Parktown will be participating in solving the malnutrition problem in South Africa. If these plans are assessed fairly, one has to admit that no existing or previous aid rendered anywhere in the world surpasses it. In the circumstances we find here, the emancipation strategy cannot take place without aid being rendered. The two go hand in hand. As part of the plan we are engaged in to introduce a fair dispensation, the Government is continuing with its constitutional development programmes for Whites, Coloureds and Asians. In spite of tremendous pressure there are signs of increasing support for this. No UDF, no radical left-wing or right-wing parties and no prophets of doom will cause us to abandon the plan to continue on this road of reform and development of our country into a safe stronghold for all its inhabitants. After September 1984 when a State President is going to be elected and we shall take the first steps in the new dispensation, we shall begin to prove that none of the bad things the CP in particular has said about what would happen in the new dispensation, will become a reality.

Why are we achieving success both at home and abroad? The reason is that we are not working on a “hidden agenda”. We are working towards the strict implementation of the well-known twelve-point plan of the Government and everyone would do well to take another look at it. This is the plan about which the hon member for Waterberg, Dr Treurnicht, said at Zastron in April 1981: “Ons kom met ’n manifes wat ons plan vir die toekoms uiteensit.” Woven into this plan is a strong peace-seeking element. During the past few weeks we have had proof that we are in earnest about that plan. What is happening now and coming a reality now in fact proves that we are the peacemakers of this subcontinent.

Over the years there have been many planners and advisers, some outside the scrum and others on the sidelines. One of them once made an interesting speech. I want to quote from it and I hope the Whips will give me the opportunity to complete my quote and not stop me in the middle of it. The subject of the speech was: “Mikpunte vir die jaar 2000.” I am quoting:

This speech was made in 1969. I shall quote further:

I maintain this is precisely what we are doing today. We are not recoiling from the consequences of the plan we are implementing. However, there are people who did get cold feet. One of those people is the author and maker of that speech on that occasion in the past. This speech was distributed as an information document of Sabra. The writer was a certain C J Jooste, the former editor of Die Patriot.

Of the former Die Patriot.

Yes. He will probably be given another post in the new “Volkswagen movement”. We are doing precisely what C J Jooste advocated in his speech. And what is more, we are doing so openly and in a respectable way. To the north of us there are states that have organized themselves into the OAU and front-line alliances. If the forming of a front-line alliance were to mean that the front-line states considered that they had to form the vanguard to restrict the politico-economic sphere of influence of the RSA, then the world has to admit today that something else is happening. The RSA’s example of stable government, economic prosperity, military power, its behaviour which compels respect and its desire to continue to exist, are making an impression on people. People to the north of us are beginning to think twice and beginning to wonder whether the answer for Africa does not in fact lie in Africa, and not elsewhere. After all, we know what the symptoms and signs of the totally destructive seeds of Marxist expansionism are as far as Africa is concerned. They have changed Africa into a continent of despair. People have begun to realize that the answers lie in Africa itself. That is why what was quoted in a recent edition of Courier Austral Parlè mentair is true. I am quoting:

Mr Speaker, it gives me pleasure to participate in this debate. I would really have liked to talk to a few hon members of the CP, but as usual they are not present this afternoon at such an important debate. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Does it accord with the practice in this House for an hon member not to be ruled out of order when he refers to hon members of the CP not being present in the House?

That is not a point of order. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke may proceed.

I wanted to talk to the hon member for Sunnyside, who moved an amendment, but, he is not here. I also wanted to talk to the hon member for Barberton, who dragged agriculture into politics, but he is not here either. The hon sleeping member for Soutpansberg talked about the various phases of drought aid and he is not here either. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sunnyside moved an amendment in terms of which the Government is supposedly showing no appreciation of the disastrous situation in which the farmers find themselves. [Interjections.]

Order! Only the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke has been called upon to speak and only he will be allowed to continue this debate.

As far as I am concerned, the hon member for Sunnyside knows nothing about drought or drought aid. If I were to cross-examine him about the drought aid given to our farmers last year he would not be able to reply to me. He moved an amendment, however, which stated that the Government showed no appreciation of the disastrous situation in which the farmers found themselves. Last year we spent more than R2 billion on the farmers.

We on this side of the House have always had respect for the hon member for Barberton as an expert on agriculture, but what did he do yesterday? He dragged agriculture into politics, and we will not forgive him for that. We have lost the respect we had for him and in future we shall treat him in the way in which he behaved here. He referred in a subtle way to the Land Bank and criticized that body. I reject what he said with contempt.

I now want to refer to a letter written by a former member of this House, Mr Cas Greyling, from Louis Trichardt, which was published in Rapport of 4 March 1984 and which concerned this entire matter of the politicizing of agriculture. He wrote the following:

Then comes the most important part:

It is a former member of this House, a person who is no longer a member of the NP, who is making these responsible statements. I want the CP to take a look at this and then reconsider its attitude.

I do, however, know why the CP is acting like this. There is a rural by-election being held in the Northern Transvaal and they are now trying in a subtle way to make the aid measures announced by the Government appear suspect to the farmers, as if they are inadequate.

I now want to get to my speech, however, and in the first place take the opportunity to thank the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Agriculture most sincerely for the gigantic effort to provide aid to our farmers. I realize, however, and many of my people have also pointed this out to me—that certain levels will still have to be given further attention. For that reason I want to react in a responsible manner by saying that I believe that in due course the Government will also give attention to all those other aspects and that announcements will be made about them later.

I want to devote the major part of my speech today, however, to the Land Bank. The Land Bank is an institution which can rightly be called the mother of agricultural financing in South Africa. Since it was officially established in 1912, the Land Bank of South Africa has had one principal objective, and that has been to provide credit to the agricultural sector on a basis which has been adopted to the vicissitudes of the agricultural industry. Over the years the Land Bank has introduced various schemes benefiting agriculture as a whole.

During 1983 agriculture was plunged into a crisis as a result of the drought that led to the introduction of emergency measures. This lead to the Land Bank, over and above its normal activities, having to introduce measures to ensure that all applications for drought aid could be finalized as quickly as possible. In this connection let me just mention that up to 15 March 1984 the Land Bank Board considered 5 937 drought aid applications, of which 5 410, viz 91% totalling an amount of R454 million, were favourably considered. In addition the Land Bank Board considered 842 drought aid applications from sugar farmers in Natal, of which 751, viz 89%, totalling an amount of R27 million, were approved.

From these figures it is clear that the Land Bank has made a major contribution to the implementation of the drought aid measures. There are people who brought complaints to my attention, inter alia that the actual payment of loans took a long time. I took up the matter with the relevant Deputy Minister under whom the deeds office falls, but I want to ask whether the Land Bank cannot also make arrangements so that when a loan is granted, registration and payment can take place more quickly.

The Land Bank has 24 regional offices scattered throughout the country.

These regional offices have played, and in the years ahead will continue to play, a big role in speeding up the processing of farmers’ applications. I want to mention two of the regional offices of the Land Bank serving my constituency, viz the one at Potchefstroom and the other at Lichtenburg. The staff and the two general managers, Messrs Delport and Smit, worked through the night and over weekends to keep up to date. I want to thank these two gentlemen in particular, as well as all the other staff members, for their unfailing diligence. The Land Bank also has 564 male and 384 female officials who give agriculture an extremely professional service. During the entire period in which the drought aid measures were in force, up to and including the end of February of this year, these people worked 70 000 man-hours of overtime. For this we want to thank them. We also want to convey our special thanks to the Managing Director.

There is, however, one man I want to single out by name. He is a person who is extremely helpful to us as members of this House, particularly when we are here in Cape Town. I am referring to Mr André Jansen, who deals with a number of our representations as members of Parliament. I want to thank him most sincerely today. Over the years he has proved himself a friend of the farmer.

The Land Bank also employs the services of 1 200 Land Bank valuers. These valuers are full-time in fanners who in the national interest, render a service to the farming community in a most selfless manner. The valuers are only compensated for the actual expenses they incur when they undertake valuations for the Land Bank. These farmers, who sacrifice their time for the sake of their fellow-farmers, are people who also have my respect. I therefore also want to thank them.

In a speech which the hon the Minister of Agriculture made at Lichtenburg he informed the farmers there that he had requested the Land Bank, via the hon the Minister of Finance, to discharge a larger percentage of the commercial bank debts of farmers. To date the Land Bank has more or less maintained the policy that only one-third of the commercial bank debts of farmers may be discharged. At times there were exceptions, when a larger percentage of the relevant commercial bank debt was discharged. I want to associate myself with the hon the Minister of Agriculture in this connection and ask that this request receive serious consideration.

The SA Agricultural Union asked that the interest of farmers with commercial banks be subsidized. For quite understandable reasons this request was refused. In the fight of this refusal it is becoming increasingly important to have a larger part of farmers’ production debts with commercial banks taken over by the Land Bank. I even want to ask that in the event of adequate security being presented, the Land Bank should consider granting 100% loans to farmers for the purpose of paying off their production debts with commercial banks. I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister of Finance could make a statement in regard to my request at a later date.

This brings me to the final point I want to touch on. I see the drought and measures announced last year, as well as the enlarging of the aid schemes announced a few days ago by the hon the Minister of Agriculture, as short-term and medium-term aid to agriculture. We shall, however, again have to give serious consideration to introducing aid measures enabling farmers to survive in the longer term. In this connection one could make certain proposals. I want to confine myself, however, to a single long-term proposal.

In the first report of the Jacobsz Committee it was recommended that the Government consider a proposal that farmers be allowed to invest the surplus funds they have available in good years with the Land Bank and that they be allowed to withdraw those funds in years when they need them, paying tax in the year in which they withdraw the funds. At that stage the hon the Minister of Finance gave certain reasons why that system could not be introduced. We accepted them as such. Today, however, I want to urge the hon the Minister—particularly owing to the fact that as a result of fluctuating climatic conditions agriculture as an industry is a hazardous venture—to try to ascertain whether it should not be made possible for all farmers to reduce the risk factors in the agricultural industry by means of the said funds. Constant appeals are made to farmers to give greater attention to their financial planning. I think that this concession would motivate farmers to invest money in good years instead of purchasing unnecessary items and implements. I can, however, understand the problems the Department of Finance would have in administering this fund. The period and the amounts involved could possibly cause problems.

In conclusion I should like to make a concrete proposal, namely that the hon the Minister of Finance give serious consideration to making a concession to farmers by allowing them to invest an amount of approximately R200 000 with the Land Bank for a period of five years, and only paying tax on it when that amount, or part thereof, is withdrawn. I feel that the hon the Minister of Finance will be giving serious consideration to this request and will be able to make an announcement in this connection at some or other stage. I believe that this is one of the matters that would definitely help our farmers a great deal in the long term.

Mr Speaker, I hear that we are now living in the era of the great appointment with the future. On the basis of this, I take great pleasure in presenting to you the beautiful music of the future of the Republic of South Africa, composed after the successful battle in the “Bergs”. This is the sound of that wonderful music:

This wonderful testimonial given to the CP, the party which is such a force to be reckoned with in this House that during the entire Second Reading debate on the Budget, hardly a single member got up on the Government side without launching an attack on the CP or on its leader, the hon member for Waterberg, is contained in no less a publication than the Official Yearbook of the Republic of South Africa for 1984, on page 178. This is the book for which the department of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible, so this is their testimony with regard to the CP. [Interjections.].

Since we are now in the era of our appointment with the future, I want to record my appreciation with regard to the presence of the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs. In accordance with the procedure of this House, I approached my Whip to negotiate with the Whip of the NP so that the hon the Deputy Minister would be present, because I should like to bring a specific matter to his attention.

I want to refer to a question which I addressed to the department of the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs in connection with the racially mixed marriages that had been solemnized in this country during 1983. On that occasion, the reply was that nine such racially mixed marriages had taken place between Whites and Coloureds and Whites and Indians during 1983. It was also said that these marriages which had been solemnized were:

I want to emphasize the fact that the Afrikaans word “klaarblyklik” means “ongetwy-feld, verseker”. It does not admit of any doubt, therefore. It is the conviction of this department that these marriages were undoubtedly solemnized in contravention of this particular Act. In his reply, however, the hon the Minister said:

The hon member for Brakpan said the day before yesterday that he was convinced that this Act was one of the Acts that were going. When the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs participated in the debate yesterday, he blamed the hon member for Brakpan for having made this statement. He reminded the hon member of the fact that the Act was at present being considered by a select committee which had to decide whether the Act should perhaps be amended. Those were his very words; he did not say “improved”, but “amended”.

This Act has been on the Statute Book of this country since 1949, ie for 34 years. On the basis of this, no one in this country can plead not guilty on the basis of having been ignorant of the Act. Surely the hon the Deputy Minister will concede to me—after all, we two have experience of this—that no marriage officer in this country, White, Coloured or Indian, can be a marriage officer unless he has been appointed by the Department of Internal Affairs. When such a person is appointed, he is provided with the relevant Acts which he will have to deal with as well as the particular provisions which apply in this connection. On the basis of this, I want to ask whether there is any marriage officer in this connection who is able to plead ignorance of the existence of this Act and the prohibition which it imposes.

Surely the Deputy Minister is also aware of the fact that there are certain churches, which I do not wish to name, which instruct the marriage officers from their ranks not to act in accordance with this Act, but to ignore the Act when it comes to such cases of people belonging to different races who wish to marry one another.

I should like to ask: If this Act is not on the way out, why are the hon the Minister and the department trying to find excuses for these people who deliberately contravene the Act?

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

No, I do not have time.

Surely the Act has been deliberately contravened, because everyone is aware of its existence. Why are excuses being made for people who have contravened the Act by saying that it has not been done deliberately? How can one plead that one has not done something deliberately while one has deliberately contravened the Act?

Have you never been mistaken?

I also want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether the fact that such people are being defended in this way is not going to cause other marriage officers to contravene this marriage legislation in future and then to excuse their behaviour by saying that they did not do it deliberately. Who will then be able to judge the deliberateness of the one who has already been exonerated and the deliberateness of the other one who still has to be exonerated? I want to warn the hon the Deputy Minister that this kind of conduct, this kind of condonation, this kind of attempt to excuse the contravention of an Act, will make the Act powerless in future. In future, people will contravene this Act on purpose, and their defence will be that they did not do so deliberately. I should like to know how many of these English churches, whose marriage officers have been instructed to ignore this Act, have been involved in these nine cases.

In the light of this I want to say that I am primarily concerned with the future of the Whites. I am concerned with maintaining racial purity. I am also concerned with the fact that it should be a priority for each one of us. In the few minutes I have left, I want to quote what someone has said in this connection, as follows:

Do hon members on the other side of the House agree with this quotation? If they disagree, I want to tell them that this is what the hon the Minister of National Education wrote on page 62 of Ideaal en Werklikheid.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Koedoespoort began by referring to the fact that speakers on this side of the House are continually referring to hon members of the CP and crossing swords with them. This is inevitable, because it happens under the greatest provocation. The hon member also spoke about the NP’s appointment with the future. The NP does have an appointment with the future, because it deals with the future of this country and its people, unlike the hon member for Soutpansberg, who gave us a twisted version of the past in this House this afternoon. The CP occupies itself with who said what when, while the NP occupies itself with the appointment which the inhabitants of this country have with the future.

The hon member raised a hue and cry about nine mixed marriages which had taken place. It is against the law and those people contravened the relevant Act.

Are you sure?

Of course. In addition, those very cases gave rise to the appointment of a select committee whose task it is to investigate the relevant acts and to amend them if necessary, without losing sight of the original purpose of the acts.

Do you support the Act?

of course I support the Act, but there is no Act that cannot be improved. Even the constitution can be improved.

The hon member for Koedoespoort also made much of the Afrikaner’s culture, his identity and his racial purity, which is allegedly being threatened by this. The culture, identity or racial purity of the Whites in this country—specifically the Afrikaners—cannot be guarenteed by any law of any nature. [Interjections.]

Earlier on in the debate, the hon member for Rissik had a great deal to say about the Coloured homeland. I personally know that the hon member believed in a Coloured homeland in 1977, together with Dr Connie Mulder, in spite of the fact that the 1977 proposals had been accepted. The hon member has admitted that.

I said so as far back as the 1950s.

When the National Party produced proposals in 1977 which finally ruled out the possibility of a Coloured homeland, the hon member for Rissik and Dr Connie Mulder remained members of the National Party. At the time, Dr Mulder told a former hon member of this House before a congress of the National Party that he did not agree with the 1977 proposals, since he believed in a Coloured homeland. That very afternoon, however, he sold the 1977 proposals to the congress. Therefore the integrity of certain people must be questioned. Prof Carel Boshof is a prominent figure in the Conservative Party. What has become of the idea of a homeland for Whites which he propagated at all kinds of secret meetings? Is a White homeland still part of the CP’s policy?

Yes, it is.

Then the hon member should tell us more about it. Why is he so quiet about it? [Interjections.]

Now that we have come to the end of this debate, I also wish to refer to economic matters. Early in this debate, the hon member for Vasco referred to the cost of housing, including the prices of housing and the enormous increase which had recently been experienced in building costs. During the 1970s, when an anti-inflation campaign was also being conducted, it was decided, inter alia, to formulate a set of national building regulations in order to reduce the costs of building by means of uniform standards. The South African Bureau of Standards drew up an excellent set of regulations. This is presently under consideration, and we are eagerly anticipating the implementation of the building regulations to reduce building costs. However, it is not only the building costs that are very high. The effect of the current high prices of houses has been that the commission earned by estate agents on houses over a certain price—and this includes virtually all houses in urban areas—is more than the cost of the bricks used in building those houses. Now can you imagine, Sir, the inputs that were made, in terms of capital, labour and enterprise, in manufacturing the bricks of that house, compared with the input of the estate agent’s effort in selling that house? Then one has to try to relate this to the remuneration of the two parties. I do not think the two are comparable. Either the price of bricks should be increased, which I do not agree with, or the remuneration of the estate agent is disproportionate.

There are many kinds of heroes and achievements in various fields in our country. We make a great fuss of our heroes and achievements in the field of sport. We have film heroes and war heroes. We even make heroines of beautiful girls. However, we do not make a hero of a person who excels in the economic sphere. In the eyes of the public, the economic hero is the man who either exploits the consumer or evades tax. I think this is wrong. I think we could conduct a campaign of economic nationalism in our country—we all contribute to the economy of our country—in order to encourage our people to take pride in our economic achievements and in our own contributions to these, which ensure that our country is capable of becoming just as strong economically as the finest example in this connection, namely Japan.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Hercules will pardon me if I do not react to the latter part of his speech, because there are other matters I should like to discuss. I just want to say that as far as his reply to the hon member for Koedoespoort is concerned, I wholeheartedly support his statement that the Afrikaner does not need a law to preserve his racial purity, or just his purity, if I may use that term, and his identity. I wish I had the opportunity and the time to reply to the hon member for Koedoespoort. Every time the CP say they are not racists and I have to listen to this kind of speech I cannot understand how my conception of Afrikaans can be so entirely different to what they mean by Afrikaans words. What the hon member for Koedoespoort fails to understand is that no mixed marriage—not 6, 8, 20 or 30—can threaten the identity of the Afrikaner. How the hon member for Koedoespoort can speak about the racial purity of the Afrikaner, when he ought to be acquainted with the history of the Afrikaner and he ought to know that we cannot use the term “racial purity” in view of the origins of the Afrikaner, I simply cannot understand.

I should have like to discuss a few aspects of the Budget, particularly the question of planning. Unfortunately I am unable to do so. Therefore I shall raise the matter in the discussion of the relevant Vote. I want to discuss a matter of public interest that has already been mentioned here. The issue is that of Khayelitsha and the removal of the people of Nyanga, Langa and Guguletu in this regard. I wish to place on record my appreciation for the presence of the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development and of the hon the Deputy Minister. The hon member for Houghton referred to this problem as did the hon member for Durban Point. The hon member for Houghton indicated the extent of the problems that would arise in respect of international repercussions and the image that would be created if we were to continue with the removal of people, particularly Black people, in this regard. The hon member for Durban Point pointed out that the threat of removal of these people would have only one effect, viz to bedevil further internal relations in South Africa. I simply cannot understand the Government, and more specifically the hon the Deputy Minister, not appearing to be aware of the implications of the proposed step of removing the people of Nyanga, Guguletu and Langa. I cannot understand how we can reconcile these things with what we regularly say, for example that we must treat Blacks as people, as the hon member for Krugersdorp said yesterday, concerning which the hon member for Houghton replied to him. I cannot understand how the Government can say that it regards it as a matter of top priority to maintain and develop good relations among the race groups in South Africa while it does this kind of thing. I cannot understand how the Government can say that it is the peacemaker in the subcontinent when we cannot even make peace among our own groups. I cannot understand how it can be said, as the hon the Deputy Minister of Welfare and Community Development said, that love is the greatest Commandment, when there is no sign of love in the way we take action against these people. I cannot understand how we can say “We have a vision” and then do things like this to the people of our own country. I cannot understand how we can speak about the maintenance of the dignity of the individual if we violate it time and again in this way.

It is pointless our saying, as the hon the Minister said, that we are no longer going to have forced removals when in fact, as the hon member for Durban Point indicated, we want to achieve the same by indirect coercion. The hon the Deputy Minister knows that for many years the policy in regard to the urban Black man was to make life as impossible for him as possible, in the hope that he would keep out of the city or leave it. The hon the Minister, too, knows that that is true. He also knows that that policy created tremendous resentment and, moreover, that it did not succeed. All the policy succeeded in doing was to create a tremendous backlog in the field of housing and in other fields. The hon the Minister knows what I am talking about.

What has this threat done? In the first place it has created tremendous uncertainty among the Black people of Cape Town, more specifically the inhabitants of Langa, Guguletu and Nyanga. That threat shook confidence in the Government’s good intentions as few other things have done. That announcement brought home anew to the Blacks their political powerlessness. It emphasized their inability to influence the politics of the country. I shall come back to that in a moment.

What did this announcement do? It confirmed anew that the Government will allow nothing to guide or to check it in the implementation of its ideological policy. There is no motivation other than pure ideology for removing the people of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu to any other place. It is nothing but ideology. There is no way that the hon the Deputy Minister, who is shaking his head so much, can give me any motivation for this other than that it is being done for purely ideological reasons.

It is for the sake of a better community life. [Interjections.]

I am coming back to that. I shall reply to the hon the Minister on that score in a moment. Not a single responsible body of which I am aware has expressed itself in favour of this removal. No Blacks have done so. I still have to encounter a Black person here or anywhere else who is in favour of that removal. That is one of my replies to the remark of the hon the Deputy Minister to the effect that they are being removed for the sake of a better com munity life. Nor do I know of any Coloureds who have expressed themselves in favour of this removal. Nor do I know of any responsible Whites, except for politicians on the Government side, who have expressed themselves in favour of this removal. The Chambers of Commerce, the Afrikaanse Sakekamer and other institutions have said that the removals are wrong and that they create resentment and bitterness among Blacks.

I wonder whether the Government has given a moment’s consideration to the dilemma in which that announcement has placed people? Innumerable people, particularly in this part of the country, have been placed in a dilemma. Any employer or body that has a share in die development of Khayelitsha is going to be branded with the stigma of having had a part in the removal of the people of Nyanga, Langa and Guguletu.

How is a body such as the Urban Foundation, which is constantly devoting its energies to providing housing for our people, to react to steps of this nature? The hon the Minister knows that this decision on Nyanga, Langa and Guguletu has made it impossible for the Urban Foundation to carry out its work effectively in the Peninsula, particularly in view of the reservations that, unfortunately, already exist. How must those Coloureds feel who are eventually supposed to move into that area? How must the Coloureds of the Peninsula feel if they know that they may obtain housing in that area at the expense of Blacks who were removed from there, particularly in view of their own experience in District Six and the removals under the Group Areas Act?

We must consider this issue, and the enormity of the plan, objectively. It is not only in terms of numbers that it is an enormous plan, but also in terms of the moral principles underlying it. It is estimated that the de facto population of those three areas is approximately 166 000; 48 000 in Nyanga, 84 000 in Guguletu and 33 000 in Langa.

What are the possibilities for expansion there?

At this stage 166 000 people are involved in this matter, and I am now referring to the people and not the possibilities for expansion. We did not say that the people of Crossroads and elsewhere could not be accommodated in Khayelitsha, although we had our serious misgivings about the fact that the poorest part of the population were being moved furthest away from their places of employment. However it is not the people of Crossroads who are at issue now but the people of Nyanga, Langa and Guguletu. At the moment their is a de facto population of about 188 000, and of this number, according to estimates, there are probably between 130 000 and 150 000 who have been established in those places for generations and who live there with their families. Therefore they are not migrant labourers; they live there with their families and have been resident there for generations.

If it were to be alleged that Khayelitsha was to be used for the settlement of people from Crossroads we could accept it, because the majority of people in Crossroads have only been living there for about the past two decades. However the majority of the people in the three urban areas, viz Langa, Guguletu and Nyanga, have been living there for generations. If we want to see this question in perspective we must ask ourselves—and now I want to come back to the hon the Deputy Minister, who is sitting their mumbling, and remind him of what he had to say about love—what our reaction as Whites would have been if we had been faced with this threat. The total population of Bloemfontein and of the Goldfields is 171 000. If the Government were to say to the Whites of Bloemfontein and the Goldfields that they would be resettled there in a few years’ time, can the hon the Deputy Minister imagine what that would lead to? The total White population of Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage is 166 000, just as many people as the population of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu, and I challenge the Government even to consider saying to those Whites: For one reason or another you must leave there.

The total number of Whites in the Witbank/Middelburg area, or in the Bethal/Ermelo area in the Transvaal Lowveld, is 166 000, just as many as the Blacks in those three residential areas in the Peninsula. I challenge the Government to ask itself what the reaction would be if those Whites were told that they had to leave. In other words, if the Government were to dare to do anything of the kind then you and I know, Mr Speaker, what the reaction on the Whites would be. You and I know what resistance these people would put up.

Therefore we must not pretend to be stupid and believe that there will be no resistance on the part of these Blacks, and I warn the Government, in all seriousness, that there will be tremendous resistance if we are going to remove the Black people from these residential areas.

In conclusion, what is being emphasized here? It is very simple, viz that the Black man, as a result of this threat, is being made aware that the only way he can prevent action of this kind is to acquire political power. This simply lends force to those people’s insistence that if they cannot obtain it in a peaceful way they will go to any lengths to obtain political power in some other way. By this action the Government is doing South Africa a greater disservice than it has ever done by any other step it has taken up to now. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member Prof Olivier will excuse me for not reacting at this stage to what he had to say. However, I have little time at my disposal.

Accordingly I just want to take this opportunity, particularly since I come from a part of the world which for years has been battling with a serious drought, to thank the hon the Minister of Finance and his department as well as the hon the Minister of Agriculture and the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, for all the aid we have recieved from them thus far. You will permit me, Mr Speaker, also to react, with reference to what has already been said in this regard, to the amendment of the hon member for Sunnyside in terms of which he contends that the Government shows no appreciation of the situation in which the farmers of South Africa find themselves as a result of the severe drought.

This afternoon I also wish to convey my thanks and appreciation to the hon the Prime Minister. I can personally attest to the number of times over the past year or more that the hon the Prime Minister has asked with concern—he asked again yesterday— whether rain had yet fallen in my part of the country. He always asks how things are going there. He shares our concern. He also shares the life of the farmers of South Africa. The same can also be said about the Government as such. Accordingly it gives me the greatest pleasure to convey my thanks to him and to the Government today.

The past year was the most difficult year of the past four decades since the Second World War for the Government of South Africa. Nevertheless the hon the Minister of Finance did everything in his power to help agriculture, too, to balance its books. In the meantime he also did a great deal to make provision for aid to the farmers in the difficult circumstances that they have to deal with at present. I wish to state clearly this afternoon that I do have faith in the farmers of South Africa. Every cent spent on the farmers of this country will be repaid twofold.

We are all aware of the tremendous task performed by the farmers on the platteland. The farmers is the pivot on which the entire rural community hinges. Moreover, the farmer is largely responsible for employment on the platteland. Then, too, the farmer is also the welfare worker of the platteland. He sees to the welfare and the accommodation of his employees. The farmer provides all the needs for his employees. Therefore we cannot permit the downfall of our farmers.

I also want to point out to the hon the Minister of Finance that problems will occur again in future. I also believe, however, that it is impossible to make provision in this Budget for all the needs and problems of the country’s farmers. As in the past I believe that the necessary aid will in any event be granted as the need occurs. I am sure of that because the hon the Minister has never in the past hesitated to furnish aid when it has been necessary. More aid can of course be provided in the Additional Appropriation next year. After all, it has never been necessary for the farmer to endure the worst as a result of the Government neglecting to provide for essential aid to the agriculture of South Africa.

I do also want to mention a different matter that is troubling me. On the one hand, of course, inflation has made a tremendous contribution to the benefit of the farmer; I refer to the role of inflation in the rise in land prices. This is the one factor which has resulted in the farmer still having borrowing power in these difficult years that he has been going through. It has increased his liquidity and enabled him to obtain bigger loans. On the other hand, however, it has also created the problem that because he had to negotiate bigger loans in order to bridge the difficult years he has had to pay larger amounts in interest. One of the reasons why this has been the case is of course that commercial banks have sharply increased the rates of interest on loans. For example, the prime rate on commercial bank loans is today 21%. The interest on cash credit accounts from co-operatives has also been increased from 17,5% to 19,5%. These tremendous interest rates that have to be borne by farmers nowadays are of course one of the major causes of the problem situation in which they find themselves.

Another matter we have discussed before and which I should like to refer again at this point is the following. I know that it is difficult to determine what proportions of a farmer’s overdraft has been devoted specifically to production aids. Nevertheless I want to ask the hon the Minister of Finance to investigate whether it would not be possible to work out a method whereby this facet could in fact be calculated. The obligation could be imposed on the farmer, his agricultural co-operative and his bank to prove what proportion of that overdraft is due to the drought and increased production costs. I am not asking this afternoon for subsidization of a motor-car or light van that the farmer could still use, but of the fodder and fertilizer and other requirements that have to be purchased. I request the hon the Minister to consider this. I said that due to the rise in land prices farmers have been able to obtain bigger loans on their farms, but it has already been pointed out here this afternoon that it has not always been possible for him to discharge that loan because the commercial bank does not want to surrender its security. Therefore the Land Bank is unable to accommodate such a farmer fully and as a result he is saddled with that interest rate of up to 22%. I ask whether something could not be done to subsidize those expenses borne by the farmer as well.

I feel that it could almost be regarded as unfair to the farmer who has paid his co-operative account by way of an overdraft, that he is now unable to abtain a subsidy, in contrast to the man who has not paid and who has allowed his co-operative debt to accumulate. I really want to make a strong plea in this regard.

I have already said that the year 1984 is a very difficult year for the farmers. I want to say to the hon the Minister of Finance this afternoon that in spite of what has been said today during this debate we greatly appreciate his sympathy with the fanners. I also greatly regret the fact that the hon member for Brakpan said that when the hon the Prime Minister appoints another Minister of Finance he should see to it that it is a Minister who represents a constituency. We who know the hon the Minister of Finance as a courteous and sympathetic Minister know that the hon the Minister himself knows what is going on in this country. He is also a member of a caucus of the biggest party in this country of ours. The hon the Minister is also a person with a household and I do not think that that kind of allegation ought to be made. The hon the Minister does what he can for the country.

Sincere gratitude was also been expressed for what has been done for our elderly people with regard to the increase in civil and welfare pensions.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 75.

Mr Speaker, I had intended to reply to this debate at length this evening. However, I was informed this morning that tomorrow is apparently a holiday and in the circumstances I want to move at this stage:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.