Mr Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to associate myself with the many tributes that have been paid to a distinguished lady who has served us here in Parliament for very many years. I want to wish the hon member for Houghton well in her retirement. The contribution that she has made towards the well-being of South Africans over very many years is appreciated and I know this monumental contribution will be remembered by many for a long, long time.

I would now like to come to the Budget of the hon the Minister of Finance. In his speech yesterday the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Delegates made mention of the fact that some R80 million from the education Vote had been cut back.

I would like to say to the hon the Minister that our administration has been concentrating on the promotion of educational programmes over the past few years. These programmes are designed to increase the output of students with technical and vocational skills. This development resulted from the calls that had been made over the years by business leaders in South Africa who reminded us of the shortage of skilled manpower in this country and believed that our community could make a positive contribution in this regard. We set the necessary machinery in motion to plan and build schools and to commence classes.

We are very disappointed that it is necessary to cut back funds to the extent of R80 million at this important stage in the execution of this programme and in regard to a matter which is of crucial importance to our country. Sooner or later, when the realities of our country’s problems have been addressed, our economy will have to come back to its rightful position.

Industry must progress and develop, and the required manpower must be available in order to enhance the progress and development of industry in this country. I wonder whether the decision to cut back to the extent that I have mentioned is in fact going to contribute to the broader progress of our country and whether or not it is going to satisfy young men and women who have been looking forward to participation in this direction.

Having said that, I would again on this occasion like to refer to the shortage of land for Indian housing, an issue which we have been talking about for many years now. In the short time that I have been in office and responsible for this Ministry, it has become patently evident that this represents a very serious problem which impedes the provision of housing at an adequate pace to satisfy the demands being made on us.

Besides a shortage of land, the delay in the proclamation and registration of townships is also a factor inhibiting the steady pace of housing development in our country. In 1985, when we moved to our Parliamentary quarters at Pelikan Park, we saw a fully laid-out township, where even the street-lights were burning at night. Some of them are still burning. However, at the end of five years not a single house has been built in what was, in 1985, a completely laid-out township! When enquiries are made, we are told that there are problems and difficulties in registering that township in order that it can be made available to people.

I believe that whatever the problems standing in the way of speedy registration, they must be examined and resolved, or else a township standing idle for five years in fact means a doubling of the price of that plot of land for which an applicant has been waiting.

In the final analysis the State to some extent has to accept financial responsibility but the individual who is going to build his home on that stand pays a higher price. I believe that an investigation has to be carried out with a view to streamlining procedures so that land purchased and developed into townships can readily be sold or made available to people who are on the waiting-list. Without the ability to obtain a transfer the likelihood of obtaining a mortgage bond becomes very difficult. We have talked about this for some time now and I hope that the Government will address this as a serious problem which has to be overcome.

My Ministry has made representations to the Department of Housing in the House of Assembly with regard to 101 ha of land in Cato Manor which is part of the Cato Manor complex and is known as Randgebied. Two days ago, in a Durban newspaper, a report appeared that this land is to be sold by public auction for White development as a result of a decision taken by the Department of Housing in the House of Assembly. As far back as 1987 representations were made that we would like to have this land, in respect of which I, as Chairman of the Executive Committee, made representations to the then Prime Minister, Mr Vorster, in 1975. However, we heard nothing in this regard except for seeing this report in the newspaper. This land is required because from the area that was made available to us in Cato Manor, some 100 ha have been taken for a teaching hospital and a plant for water purification, and some of the land, comprising Eckashale, is unsuitable for housing development.

I would like to see the House of Assembly put a stop to the programme to sell this land by public auction and make it available to the rightful owners of that land.

Thirty years ago this land was taken away from us, for thirty years it has remained vacant, and today we ask for that land. This decision on the part of the House of Assembly has to be reversed and that land must be made available as compensation for the land to the same extent which we had to forego so that housing development can commence on this piece of land.

I also want to refer to reports which have appeared in our local papers about representatives of the Indian community whose political philosophy and approach to resolving the political problems is different from those of us who participate here in Parliament. They have gone abroad to India to advise the Indian Government as to the kind of action they should take in dealing with those members of Parliament in the House of Delegates as well as members of local authorities, management committees and local affairs committees. I am not really interested in that aspect of it, but I have something to say to the people of India and the Government of India. If they are prepared to listen to a group of people who have a political philosophy which is different to the philosophy of those who are committed to finding answers by peaceful means, in all decency they should also give us an opportunity of stating our case at some time or the other, so that they can understand what we are trying to achieve.

However, what is more important, it paints a very poor picture of a government in that they have to listen to somebody who represents a segment of the population whose philosophy is different to that of most of the people here—a government which has done nothing to find out what goes on in South Africa. They do not even allow their newspaper people to cover events in this country. All I say is they must send out some of their journalists and let them talk to people across the whole political spectrum. Let them see South Africa and let them report honestly to the people of India as to what is going on here. We do not want them to defend what is wrong, but we want them to see the country as it is and make an assessment after they get first-hand information of what is going on in this country.

In terms of a report in the newspaper I as a Hindu will be denied the opportunity of going to a place of worship in the land of my forefathers. That, to me, is far removed from democracy and freedom and the right of the individual.

I also want to take this opportunity to refer to the visit of certain South African clerics to the USA where—as we all know—they will be making representations. However, I hope that the people who are going to listen to them will—in the light of what has been going on in this country and in the light of reports by other well-meaning people who have come out here and seen for themselves—not be taken in by the call for sanctions and harsher measures which will affect the economy of our country and in the end affect the Black people and the people of colour in this country.

As the British Ambassador speaking at Wits University said, Mobil’s going away from South Africa has not enriched one Black man. With all these examples I sincerely trust that there will be some people in America who have respect for the truth and who will be able to give the correct responses to men like Archbishop Tutu, Dr Boesak and others who are accompanying them on a campaign which is directed against economic development in this country.

I hope that the statement attributed to Archbishop Tutu in a local paper that negotiations would take place is correct, because I would welcome that. I sincerely trust that the move on the part of friendly countries in the world—like West Germany, Britain and some of our other trading partners—to assist in the process of negotiation towards realising a constitutional framework acceptable to all people in this country, will make an impact even on a country like India.

It will hopefully make them realise that there are a million Indians here whose future depends on the solution of the problems of this country—solutions acceptable to Black, White, Coloured and Indian. That country will hopefully also not run away from its responsibilities but make a positive contribution towards creating the right climate and helping to get the actors around the negotiating table.

Mr Chairman, I have had the very interesting experience over the past few days of reading my own obituary notices. I am still very much alive, so it has been an experience which in its own way has been fairly unique. It will therefore come as no surprise to hon members to know that this is the penultimate speech I shall be making in Parliament: There remains only my motion of censure on Judge Strydom next week before I depart these hallowed halls.

I have to admit, without actually saying “I told you so”, that it has been a source of considerable satisfaction to me, particularly over the past ten years, to have been present in Parliament when many of the laws which I opposed when they were introduced, have since been repealed, years later in most cases. I think of the legislation pertaining to job reservation, the Black Labour Regulation Act, the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, section 16 of the Immorality Act, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, and, of course, the pass laws and influx control, which at long last signified the acceptance by the Government of the inevitability of the permanent urbanisation of the Black population in South Africa.

I have to predict today that as a result of ongoing economic forces, increasing Black resistance and pressures which will be put upon the Government by the opponents of apartheid, many more of the laws that prop up the apartheid system will in fact be repealed in the future. I have no doubt that eventually the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act will either be repealed or simply waste away de facto, that the Land Acts of 1913 and 1936 will go, that schools and hospitals run by the State will be integrated or privatised, that Black people will have proper, legitimate representation in this Parliament and that the Population Registration Act, if not actually repealed, will simply end up as an Act of no significance, except as a register of racial statistics—all, I might say, part of the programme proposed by the DP.

I think that many of these changes will come about in measured fashion, some too late and often too little to defuse the anger and frustration of the vast majority of South Africa’s population, but come they will, I predict, quite ineluctably.

The hon the Minister of National Education, Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Assembly and State President designate has made a number of very welcome statements of intent. They are welcome because they are enlightened statements. However, what is needed now is to translate intent into reality. The State President designate is not a starry-eyed liberal but he is a pragmatic man and he is intelligent. He surely must realise that if South Africa is to survive as a viable and prosperous entity on the African continent, he must put the country’s interests above the interests of the NP.

This means that he cannot tailor his party’s election propaganda to suit the lowest common denominator in South African politics, that is the racist. One can understand his earlier reluctance to commit himself to specific reforms. He did not appear to have the ultimate authority to do so as long as the chain of command in the NP, and indeed in the country itself, was in doubt. As an old African saying has it: “You should not argue with the crocodile if you are still in the water.” The hon the Minister of National Education, the State President designate, I believe is no longer in the water. He has both feet on the banks of the river and he is in no danger of being dragged down by the crocodile. He should now go for it. He should take the gap, so to speak. He should tell us and the world what he definitely will do, as soon as he takes office, to restore peace at home and the respectability of South Africa abroad. In the mean time, he must use his power to prevent all offensive actions by the State from taking place. Deaths in detention, more blatant abrogation of due process, more hangings, more forced removals are key provocative issues that must be avoided at all costs.

Then too, there are positive steps that the State President designate could take apart from the oft-repeated call for the release of Mandela and company and lifting the state of emergency. He could, for instance, suspend prosecutions for infringements of the Group Areas Act pending the declaration of Free Settlement Areas. He could announce the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry into the death penalty and meanwhile declare a moratorium on hangings. I feel this is particularly important in view of the Upington case and the 25 persons facing the possibility of the death sentence. At present there are a considerable number of people in death row. As regards annual executions, South Africa compares only with countries like Iran and Iraq.

The State President designate could perform acts of grace like leaving the Oukasie people where they are, stopping any further efforts to incorporate Botshabelo into Qwaqwa, and allowing the Magopa people to return to their ancestral land from which they were illegally evicted some years ago. All of these are high-profile cases—particularly in diplomatic circles.

It is true that none of these actions would in any way affect the political power structure in South Africa as the DP would want to do, but they would contribute enormously to the creation of a climate in which negotiations to ensure a peaceful future could commence among representatives of all sections of the South African people. Also important, of course, is the fact that they would stave off the impending threat of total isolation of South Africa by, for instance, the further breaking off of air links such as the USA and Australia have already done. They would also stave off the imposition of further punitive sanctions against this country.

I want to conclude by saying that the past 35 years have been personally very rewarding. I respect the institution of Parliament, for properly used it is the premier forum of the land—both for the dissemination of alternative policies and for the preservation of values pertaining to civilised, democratic countries.

It is a major channel whereby one can elicit valuable information, and it provides the opposition with a direct means of confrontation with the government of the day.

I have had the unique experience of having had a ringside seat from which to watch, and indeed to participate in, the making of over three and a half decades of South Africa’s history. Certainly there have been times of intense frustration, and there have been times of crashing boredom, but there have also been some very interesting times. There have been many opportunities to meet people I would otherwise never have met, both at home and abroad, and thereby to make friendships which I shall always cherish. I refer in particular to the friendships that I have made through my long association with the Progressive Party and then the PFP in and out of Parliament.

I owe a debt of gratitude to many people in and out of Parliament, especially during my 13 years as the lone Prog MP, when I was much assisted by my researcher, Mrs Jackie Beck, and by successive Secretaries to Parliament who helped me through the intricacies of parliamentary procedure. When I started out as the lone Prog I had been a member of a large party. I was a back bencher, and I had not really bothered very much with the intricacies of procedure. I left that to the Whips. When I was alone, however, I had to master the procedure. I think of the late Mr McFarlane and of Mr Victor, and more recently of Mr De Villiers, to all of whom I owe a debt of gratitude. I think of the much harassed Questions Secretary, and other members of the staff like Mr Erasmus and Mr Van der Westhuizen.

Last, but not least of course, I refer to the willing help I have always had from the service officers. All have been extremely helpful, patient and courteous, and Parliament is fortunate indeed in having such a dedicated band of men and women at its disposal. I suppose, Mr Chairman, I must include you, Mr Speaker and some of your predecessors in my thanks, considering that I have only been thrown out of Parliament twice in more than 35 years! That is probably a record.

I owe special gratitude to Speaker Klopper who was the Speaker during my years as the lone Prog. He always used to tell me at the beginning of every session that he never agreed with a word that I said but was going to see to it that I had every opportunity to say what I wanted to say, and he did. Very interesting indeed, considering that Mr Klopper subsequently joined the CP after he left Parliament.

I must also thank officials in the State departments with whom I have had much to do over the years by virtue of my parliamentary status, and often in very difficult and hostile circumstances, considering the portfolios that have been of special interest to me, namely Law and Order, prisons, Black affairs and human rights—none of which really warrants the description of a non-contentious matter in South Africa.

Finally, I want to express my gratitude to members of the Press Gallery who have always given me wide coverage. I want to thank members in the House who have sent me kind messages over the past three days. It is amazing how one’s imminent retirement brings out the best in one’s opponents!

Of course, like all members of Parliament, my first debt of gratitude is to my constituents and particularly significant in my case because the voters of Houghton have returned me at one election after the other—nine elections in all—usually with increasing majorities. However, I believe that the time has now come for me to have a change of scene and for my constituents to have a change of face—a younger face—after the September general election.

I want to conclude by wishing my colleagues in the DP the best of British luck on 6 September. I trust that not only will they regain the seats we lost in 1987 but that they will again become the Official Opposition in South Africa and be able to pressure the Government to push forward with all the reforms that are necessary to make South Africa a non-racial democracy and well-respected among the Western nations of the world.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to talk about partition today, because that is when an impoverished person has become rich and then does not want to share anything with other people.

If we consider how territorial factors have influenced political decision-making, we realise why we have a policy of separate development in the RSA today. Because of this policy there are White towns which are getting poorer, and the State is not able to develop these towns. Similarly the House of Representatives is battling to find suitable school accommodation, whereas in virtually every town the House of Assembly has a school which is getting emptier. Rural towns are turning into ghost towns. People of colour are totally excluded from the country’s important economic resource, namely agriculture. We have no say in the mining industry, and even less in deep-sea minerals which are the common heritage of mankind. If we look at the total concept of general affairs today, we realise that it forms the power base of the NP and that only Whites benefit from it.

Secondly I want to consider how political decision-making has affected territorial factors. Apart from the Group Areas Act which has cut the RSA into small pieces, there are also the principles of territorial separation. The homeland policy and the Group Areas Act gave rise to commuters and migrant labourers. Furthermore the legislation influenced the distribution of Blacks in the RSA and there are the big urbanisation processes which are causing social problems. The question now arises what political models are going to be suggested for South Africa.

One of the findings in the report of the Erika Theron Commission was that the Coloureds must not be seen as a community which has a culture different from that of the Whites. In the light of this I feel there are a few things which must be said.

This specifically concerns the position of people of colour in the Republic and people’s attitude towards them. I realise more than ever before that we are Afrikaners and that I can never be British; nor can I be an American or a New Zealander. Africa is where I-grew up. Africa is where we all belong.

We have not yet accepted a geographic home. The Afrikaners have not even accepted people of colour who have the same language, culture, religion and forefathers as they had, as their equals yet. The RSA still remains the home of racists. Afrikaners must ask themselves seriously whether they can justify our survival in the light of this history. Do they deserve any sympathy while they do not want to respect the rights of others?

One of my greatest interests is African music. A theme which is being heard more and more throughout Africa nowadays is the concept of unity, freedom and peace. This is the culture of our people. I do not know whether we are going to achieve our objective but one day we will all be free and united—with or without the conservatives in this country.

How are we going to achieve this objective? It is going to be a bitter pill for some people to swallow, but now is the time to talk. The danger exists that if the Whites decide one day that they are ready to talk, they may find that people of colour do not want to talk any more. Just think of the Soweto riots which eventually spread to the rest of the country.

The present leadership of the internal and external anti-apartheid movement is still surprisingly moderate. This includes the ANC. They are predominantly rational nationalists who would like to see a solution in the RSA.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton has unfortunately left the Chamber. I want to thank her for giving my leader-in-chief a personal message as the future President. This means she has already accepted that her party is not going to get very far in the forthcoming election. [Interjections.]

If one looks at the speeches which have been made recently from Pretoria to Durban—there are a few other places in the rural areas too—one finds that the big attack from both the CP and the DP is against the economic policy of the Government. The reason for this is that they cannot yet decide what their political policy is. They are attacking the NP by saying that the income of the Whites has declined a great deal against constant prices. The CP says the reason for this is overexpenditure in the Budget in which everything is being given to the Blacks—this is what the CP is saying everywhere—and the overexpenditure is being financed with borrowed money. Now and then we hear an interesting economic theory from them! I assume the DP does not agree with this reason for the decline in the per capita income of the Whites!

I submit that on average Whites have not become poorer during the past 20 years. I am pointing this out, because figures are being distorted here left, right and centre. We have gone through difficult times. The gross domestic product of South Africa only rose by 1,1% between 1980 and1987, but fortunately it rose by 3,2% in 1988. However, both those parties say that this 1% increase may be ascribed to the mismanagement of the Government.

Now I want to ask: Is the Government responsible for the fact that the gold price has declined from the highest price of 870 dollars to 372 dollars at the moment?

It is!

Is the Government to blame for the fact that the oil price rose by almost 500% a few years ago?

It is! [Interjections.]

I am very sorry, but I am not speaking to the hon members to my left; they do not understand this in any case. [Interjections.] Is the Government the cause of R25 billion in capital flowing out of the country? [Interjections.] We must look at the basic facts. Our economy is part of the world economy and I do not think we can determine the gold price, like hon members on that side of the House think, and I do not think we can determine the oil price. They may be able to, but we cannot. [Interjections.]

The DP says that if they succeed with their policy of Black majority rule, Senator Dellums will get rid of all the legislation against us, and we will have an inflow of capital again. The CP also thinks that there will be an inflow of capital if they come to power. It may come from the Republic of China, because look how they treated a Chinese citizen who wanted to have a cup of tea in a Chinese restaurant at Boksburg Lake.

If we look at the recession and the issue of poverty proclaimed by the DP, I want to ask the following question. In today’s newspaper one can read how the profits of C G Smith of Tongaat have increased. I am also thinking of SA Breweries, Highveld and Samanco. Not one of the hon leaders of the DP is here at the moment, but what about LTA? Recently the profits of the top 100 companies in South Africa have increased by between 20% and 40%. Is this an indication of how bad things are?

Perhaps the DP should ask their friends in the business world not to put up their prices so quickly. Perhaps the hon member Dr De Beer and Dr Worrall can ask their friends to look at what they are paying their workers. Perhaps they should ask the hon member for Randburg, the Christian Socialist, to take a look at the profits which have increased so tremendously. [Interjections.] Do they think that their Black majority rule—after all their policy is one man one vote on a common voters’ roll—and the resultant decrease of 30% in the standard of living of the Whites, according to Prof Sampie Terreblanche, will allow the South African economy to flourish again as it is flourishing in Africa?

Recently we have heard more lies and disinformation about the economy than have ever been proclaimed from a political platform before. It is correct that some of our people were battling, because the economy was battling. There are people who were battling because of the drought. However, the average White has maintained his position through the difficult times which this country and the economy have experienced.

Between 1975 and 1985 the average income per White household rose by 5,5% after income tax had been deducted. I concede that if we add sales tax, there may not have been much of an increase. However, between 1975 and 1985 the income of the Whites did not decline against constant prices.

[Inaudible.]

Never mind, I shall get around to the hon members in a moment. I have many figures pertaining to them, too. [Interjections.]

This increasing decline in the direct income of the breadwinner of the household against constant prices was 8,5%. [Interjections.] The Whites in South Africa…

Order! Hon members on the left hand side of the Chamber must control themselves more. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

The fact that the White maintained his position is thanks to the increase in indirect income, for example fringe benefits, the fact that more women entered the labour market, and the fact that the sizes of White families decreased.

One could level the criticism that I am deflating the retail price index, because recently there have been interesting stories in certain Sunday newspapers in connection with inflation which has risen by 30%. The hon member for Yeoville was also concerned about this, and said he was inclined to believe this was true. This story originated with a mathematics professor at the University of Durban-Westville. If the cost of living had risen by 30%, I can tell the hon member for Yeoville what a good monetary policy we have, because our money supply has declined in real terms.

However, if one looks at the production index, or the old wholesale price index, one sees that it rose by 13,2% in 1988, whereas retail sales rose nominally by 22,5%. This is a real increase of 7%. However, if that professor was right, retail sales would have risen by 37%.

Someone has got hold of the wrong end of the stick, either the professor or a certain newspaper in Johannesburg or, to a certain extent, the hon member for Yeoville. If the figures are correct, the Chamber of Mines owes the Black workers a 30% wage increase. One must also give the workers a 30% higher wage, and then we are not even talking about the salaries of the poor hon Ministers in this Parliament. I suppose we can also get a 30% increase.

I want to come back to the position of the Whites. My argument is that the Whites have not become poorer. It has been said that their taxation has risen tremendously. However, the taxation of the Whites has declined in proportion to the total taxation, and this includes all kinds of taxation. Income tax has declined from 92% in 1960 to 85% in 1988. Sales tax of the Whites has declined from 54% in 1980 to 47% in 1988. This means that the incomes of our other population groups are definitely increasing, and the White are no longer solely responsible for all tax.

I also want to mention that 20% of all Whites pay 65% of the total tax. This means that we must be careful when we are so quick to talk about redistribution. Although the tax the Whites pay has increased by 9,3% in real terms between 1980 and 1988, we must also look at the expenditure, because the State has directly subsidised the White as regards services.

It is very interesting that direct assistance to Whites as a percentage of State expenditure declined from 14,6% in 1980 to 10,9% in 198687, but it was 12% again in 1988-89. We must take the increase in the expenditure on Defence and the Police during this period into account.

At the moment the expenditure on direct White subsidisation—education, health, etc—is precisely what it was in 1960, namely 3,6% of the gross domestic product. If one looks at the increase in this direct expenditure on Whites, one sees that it rose by 0,5% in real terms between 1980 and 1989. In the case of education it rose by 2,1%.

I may run out of time and I should like to come to the hon members here to my left. The hon member for Western Free State said that if they came to power there would be a redistribution. Very well, we like that. Between 1980 and 1989 the tax which the Coloureds paid increased by 69%, that of the Whites by 75% and that of the Blacks by 96%. What is interesting, is that the subsidies of the Coloureds…

Which Coloureds?

… the people of the House of Representatives, rose from R810 in 1980 to R1 077 per capita in 1989 at constant prices. The average subsidy per person for South Africa is R639.I am grateful they are in favour of a redistribution, because this gives us a chance to bring their subsidy per person down to the average for South Africa, which is approximately R669. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Wuppertal must make fewer interjections. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

It is interesting that the direct income of this group dropped by 18,3% between 1975 and 1985. This is the highest of any population group, and is far higher than that of the Blacks in South Africa. The total income per capita of the average Coloured household rose by 3,5% however, compared with the 11% of our Blacks. [Interjections.]

I do not want to draw any conclusions, but it is clear that the per capita income of the Blacks in South Africa is rising and is rapidly overtaking that of the people of the House of Representatives.

So what!

It is a good thing, because we are going to apply the redistribution from R1 000 to R660. [Interjections.]

The Whites in South Africa have a message for the CP. A White South African must have an income of at least R35 000 before he can make a contribution to the costs of the Police and the Defence Force. For that reason we can tell the people that the Whites who make big contributions to the Blacks do not happen to include many CPs, because 20% of the Whites pay 65% of our tax. I think we must tell the people in South Africa about that distortion, because this is true.

I want to end on a more serious note, namely that one cannot increase the income per person in South Africa by means of redistribution.

That is what you are trying to do.

One can only increase it by means of training. In the USA there has been a sharp decline in the per capita income recently. The reason for this is that the labourers do not have enough training. People with mathematics, chemistry, physics and computer science are being sought. This means that the people who are trained in these subjects move into the higher income groups, and those who are not, sink down.

In the case of Japan, and even in the United Kingdom, mathematics up to matric level is virtually compulsory. It is of no avail for us to quarrel with one another, because until we have trained our young people in these sciences the average income of not only the people represented by the House of Representatives but also of the Whites will decline. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have just listened to the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance. I must tell him that if this is the so-called liberal Nationalist with whom we are going to be confronted after the elections, I foresee a dark future for us. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister says that the members of my party do not understand what he is talking about when he tells us that the petrol price is what it is today because of the rand-dollar rate of exchange. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Boksburg can also limit his interjections.

Why is South Africa the polecat of the world today? Why are we in the position in which we are at present? It is because of apartheid. [Interjections.] If the Government were to abolish apartheid in this country, South Africa would take its rightful place in the outside world. The hon the Deputy Minister cannot tell me that I do not understand. It is he who does not understand.

The Government is wasting money because there are 150 000 empty desks in White schools in this country. The hon the Minister of Finance said in the Joint Committee on Finance that this was the NP’s policy and we simply have to accept that certain of our policy directions are expensive. This was the hon the Minister’s reaction to this—not the hon the Deputy Minister’s. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members to my left are loudly cheering the hon member. If I allow them to do that, I must also allow the other side of the House to loudly voice their displeasure. I cannot allow one side to behave like this and not the other. Hon members must now decide whether or not they want the hon member to proceed with his speech. I shall give him injury time. [Interjections.]

Today I want to dwell on two hon members who have announced their retirement.

The first hon member I want to mention is the hon member for Houghton. I met the hon member at the very start of my career here in Parliament in 1984. She was always very polite to me, and she always inspired me with the dedication with which she did her work. Over the years this hon member has become a symbol to this country’s people—a symbol of opposition to apartheid. After all these years of service she has rendered in Parhament I can rightly and proudly pay tribute to this great South African lady, who was pre-eminent among those who opposed apartheid in South Africa.

I also want to pay tribute to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. When the history books for the past five years are written one day, the name of the hon the Minister will appear prominently in those books, because he played such a prominent role in the reform initiatives of the past five years. The hon the Minister was, for example, responsible for the Black Communities Development Amendment Act, which introduced a dramatic about-face and granted proprietary rights to Black people in our urban areas.

This hon Minister was also intimately involved in the abolition of influx control and the pass laws. He was also intimately involved in the Physical Planning Amendment Act, which lifted certain restrictions on Black labour in our urban areas. He was also involved in the legislation which made it possible for Indians to settle in the Free State and Northern Natal.

The hon the Minister was also responsible for the establishment of regional services councils at the third tier of government, which made it possible for communities at ground level to decide on the services in their towns and cities together. The hon the Minister was also responsible for the establishment of new multiracial provincial executive committees and the abolition of the White provincial councils. He was also responsible for the establishment of a joint executive committee for KwaZulu in the Natal Provincial Administration.

In conclusion I should also like to pay tribute to him for the fact that he was involved and played a major role in the drafting of the Constitutional Affairs Amendment Act. This Act makes provision for a national council or great indaba consisting of representatives from all communities to negotiate on a new constitution for South Africa. It will require a great deal of courage from a successor to this hon Minister not only to take his place, but also to indicate the initiatives for the future.

It is a pity that apartheid has divided us into separate camps in this country, that we have developed separate sets of values in the process and that we do not have sufficient appreciation of each other’s human dignity, fears and aspirations for the future. Without fear of contradiction I can say that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has served South Africa with distinction during his 30 years in public life. I wish him a happy retirement.

I now want to discuss the liberal sector of the NP which remains. Before I come to them, I want to reprimand my party’s opposition in Parliament briefly. Because their time here is limited, I shall complete my debate with them now.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives has levelled a number of allegations against my party. He mentioned inter alia that the hon member for Randburg, Mr Wynand Malan, had told him that when he came to Parliament he should not copy the conservatives or the CPs of the new dispensation. However, that is precisely what he has done since 1984! He has become a CP!

This hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives has no credibility. No Black leader wants to talk to him and for that reason I shall not even respond to his reactions to the things Chief Minister Buthelezi asked us to convey here.

This hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives placed an advertisement in the weekend newspapers. I wonder who is paying for this advertisement, but we shall go into this later. In the advertisement he says his party is striving for a South Africa which is free of apartheid. Who are they trying to bluff? After all, we know that these hon members are nothing but Coloured Nationalists. After all, we know that they voted for the Free Settlement Areas Act, which extends the Group Areas Act. We know that they agreed to the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, in terms of which provision is made for severe penalties for people who are homeless. This legislation makes criminals of people who do not have homes. On 6 September they will have to answer to the voters for this. They will have to pay a very high price for this.

The hon member for Upington is, as far as I am concerned, the most telling example of that party’s political future. In 1984 under the LP’s banner he polled 5 667 votes in Upington. In 1988, when he stood under the banner of the DHP and when his leader held a meeting for him there, he could only poll 72 votes in his party’s name.

In this advertisement they say that they reject confrontation and extortionist politics. When we confront the Government about apartheid and negotiations with them do not succeed, we do not apologise for that. Our primary role in this dispensation is to represent our people. It also refers to extortionist politics. When the LP is asked to support the Government in certain cases, and we make certain counter-demands, request certain rights for the people we represent, and this process is considered to be extortionist politics, we do not apologise for that either.

Negotiations have come to a complete standstill during the past two years. There has been no progress. The reform initiatives I have mentioned to hon members here, largely took place in the first three years of this dispensation. Let us look at the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. After four years of negotiation, after four years of debate to put our people’s case in this Parliament, we have not achieved anything. Now that it is politically expedient for the NP, now that there is a Boksburg, they want to amend the Act in such a way that Boksburg cannot put up any more notice-boards. However, apartheid can remain alive and well in Vereeniging, in the Johannesburg bus service and in the city centre of Pretoria. This kind of swindling is still going to cause this Government big problems in future. We are not stupid. Hon members must not think we are stupid. We are intelligent. We were the victims of apartheid. Hon members cannot teach us anything about apartheid. What they do not even know about apartheid we have suffered. I consequently foresee serious problems in future negotiations if this is the basis on which there are going to be negotiations and reform.

My party is yet again prepared to negotiate. We are prepared to hold discussions as equal partners. We are prepared to sit down around the table and meet each other halfway. However, matters such as the rectification of our fundamental human rights and the abolition of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act are not negotiable. What can a person negotiate on? Boksburg will be thrown open, but Johannesburg’s bus service and Pretoria’s bus service will remain closed because they are controlled by the NP? No thank you!

Retrospectively I can say that without being aware of the fact thus far the CP has made the biggest contribution to the abolition of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. They have caused the Government great embarrassment. What the LP could not achieve through negotiation, the CP achieved when they tried to turn back the clock. Then they embarrassed the Government to such an extent that they had no option but to give urgent attention to this election before 6 May.

The most telling example of this debate in connection with separate amenities was the appearance of the hon members for Turffontein and Overvaal on TV last year just before the municipal elections. The hon member for Turffontein put up an absolutely pathetic showing in this debate when the hon member for Overvaal said to him: “But we are simply implementing the Acts you put on the Statute Book; we are simply implementing NP legislation.” That is why I want to say… [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is good Parliamentary practice to refer to the speaker who made a contribution before you. I should like to put two questions to the hon member Mr Lockey. Firstly, I want to ask whether he, when it suits him, could give me an example of any country in Africa in which there was greater investment where no apartheid existed, and in which greater improvement occurred where there was no…

That is the old story!

Yes, it might be the old story, but unfortunately it is a true story. [Interjections.] It is true and therefore I invite the hon member to react to it.

The second point which I wish to make is the following. It is a question which I also want to ask that hon member. The hon member Mr Lockey paid tribute to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. If that is the manner in which to pay tribute to someone after what you have done to him, I wish to say that I would rather have enemies than friends like those. Does that hon member know what they have done to him? They have murdered the only person in the NP to which he has paid tribute.

Oh no!

Hon members must listen. What did they do to him? [Interjections.] Which Minister is the only one whose Vote was not approved by the LP? The person who was the LP’s friend! Is that friendship? [Interjections.] Is that friendship?

That is politics; it is not friendship! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, if that is friendship, give me enemies. I prefer them anyday. [Interjections.]

I should like to use this opportunity to say farewell to two gentlemen, Dr De Loor and the receiver of revenue, Mr Kinghorn, who is leaving the service and to retire on pension. I wish to thank them for the service which they have rendered over the years.

The persons who are going to fill their posts are Mr Wronsley and Mr Hattingh, respectively. I wish to welcome them and I hope that they will co-operate with the personnel of their new departments and committees just as well as we, as a committee, worked with these people.

I want to refer briefly to the hon member for Barberton. The hon member made a statement here the other day—I do not know whether it has been corrected in the meantime or not—with which I differ. He referred to the loan levy which will now be imposed on companies, as announced by the hon the Minister, and said it would not be deductible from income tax as an expense because the money had been borrowed. I think that he is wrong.

He did not say that.

If he did not say it, that is another matter, but that is how I understood him.

That is a normal expense and any expense or interest in that respect will be deductible. I am glad if the hon member says he did not say it, because then we do not have a problem.

With regard to the hon member for Yeoville, I want to take this opportunity to describe his speech, which he made here the other day, as an extremely positive contribution. I do not think that any statement that he made can be faulted. To me, it was a contribution by a good South African who, when it was necessary, put the interests of this country above politics, both petty and party politics. Therefore I want to endorse it and associate myself with what he said.

†I want say to the hon the Minister that I think it is time that the call he made, namely to buy South African, must be highlighted and supported by everybody. When I look at that and I think about what one gets on the South African Airways in the line of imported cheeses and that type of thing, I think it is time that we swept our own doorsteps before we start telling other people to buy South African.

*Before I turn my attention to the Vote, I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister with respect to our senior citizens. The senior citizens are in actual fact that group of people in the country—this includes all our various population groups—who are suffering the most at the moment. If we can write off R460 million from agriculture, I wish to appeal to the hon the Minister and ask him whether there is any possibility of helping the aged, who were responsible for the development of this country and who contributed to the establishment of the infrastructure of this country. I should like to ask that a special recalculation be made to see whether we cannot assist them, even if it is only with a minimal amount. A minimal amount of R1 or R2 per month is of far greater value to these people than we can ever imagine. Even this minimal amount contributes to their running costs and can make a difference to their existence.

While I am on the subject, I wish to make another appeal to the hon the Minister. As far as retirement annuities are concerned, during the past 15 years we have stood still at an allowance of R3 500 per year. The amount remained static. I wish to request that we see whether it cannot be increased to plus-minus R15 000. It is a plusminus figure for which an equivalent can be found during the period during which it was static. It could possibly contribute to the improvement of the living standards of the aged. The number of elderly persons is also increasing percentage-wise.

The following point I wish to make in this respect is the question of the concentration of five major power groups in our South African economy. This results in the percentage effect or extent of the activities of these five groups being so great that with this small economy which we have in South Africa it does not permit a normal rhythmic economy such as in the USA and the larger Western European countries. The influence which can be exerted by those power groups is so vast that one could perhaps consider the unusual situation of price determination, or rather price control. Each year the results of these great power groups reflect the millions and millions of rands in profit which are generated. Together with this one also gets the accompanying price increases above the inflation rate, and I feel that this is something which could be addressed at some stage.

I should like to refer to a speech made by the hon member Dr De Beer, one of the parliamentary leaders of the DP. I wish to ask him why there was such a great difference between his speech and that of the hon member for Yeoville. Whereas the hon member for Yeoville made a completely positive contribution, the hon member Dr de Beer made a completely negative contribution. What interests me now is the following: Why doesn’t he use the actual facts? Why does he use the wrong facts? After all, he is aware of the actual facts. He quoted that South Africa’s productivity in recent years, between 1981 and 1987, increased by 1,1. He furnished additional figures, some with reference to income. He attributed everything to irresponsible Government expenditure.

Surely he knows that those are not the realistic figures. He, as well as the hon member Mr Lockey, should know that according to Prof Kantor and Dr Anton Rupert, the informal sector is generating 30% of our total domestic product. If that is true, surely his figures are not correct. He is intelligent enough to know that and the hon member for Houghton should use her influence to inform him that one has to use the correct figures when you are in such a responsible position.

He will answer you.

Have those hon members calculated what the figures are if one adds that 30%? Last year’s growth figure was 3,3%. If one adds that 30%, you have a respectable growth rate. One cannot discount that figure. The hon members know that the official figures with which the hon the Minister works, exclude the informal sector. In order to arrive at a realistic figure when we calculate the growth rate, we have to include that informal sector figure.

If one looks at the statistics which we received yesterday one sees that our total growth rate during 1970-1988 was 2,17%. The economically active population, however, increased with a total of 1,9% between 1970 and 1988. This does not include the informal sector. If one includes that 30%, it results in an improved figure. If one considers what the growth figures were for the economically active groups, one sees that the figure for the Whites was 1,5%, the one for the Coloureds was 2,6%, for the Asians 3,3% and for the Blacks 1,8% in addition to the official figures which do not include that factor. Again, if one includes that 30%, you obtain a far better picture of the true situation in South Africa.

If one considers what the salary increases were, one sees that the figure was 12,5% for Whites; 13,4% for Coloureds; 16,1% for Asians; and 17,7% for Blacks. If one takes into consideration that the consumer price index was 13,5% during these years, then there has not been any impoverishment, not even according to these official figures. The moment one includes the realistic figures of the informal sector, and one must do it, these figures change and those which we do have are shown in a far more positive light than the hon member Dr De Beer was prepared to concede.

One can continue in this way. In 1985 the taxation rate on individuals was 11,1%. In 1988 it was 11,2%. Therefore a slight increase occurred over four years. Furthermore one sees that the expenditures increased from 3,5% to 4,8% in 1988.

In this way fixed investment in 1988 increased on an annual basis for the first time in seven years, and one sees that the capacity utilization in our manufacturing sector is on total strength. Then the picture seems very different than is usually the case and as it is made out to be. Then we come to the big test of why the DP displays this kind of negativism.

May I address a final question to the hon member Mr Lockey? The hon member Mr Douw and he have associated themselves completely with the DP in their future vision. Is that correct? The hon member is smiling very complacently, therefore I accept that it is correct. If it is correct, I wish to ask him another question. He joined forces with them. What is the difference between him and the hon member for Schauderville?

He was given his marching orders!

He was given his marching orders, but was nevertheless accepted by that party. Is there still a difference between him and the hon member Mr Lockey now that they have accepted him?

He is not coming back! You need not concern yourself about that.

He is going to be a candidate of that party. What is the hon member going to do then? What is he going to do if he returns as a member of that party—even if he is an official candidate of that party? [Interjections.] It is once again a matter of friendship, and all that I can say is that the more of those kind of friends he wants to give me, the more I prefer enemies. [Interjections.]

Today I wish to sympathise with the hon member for Yeoville. I read the economic policy of the DP attentively and today I wish to establish a fact. If he wrote a single word of this piece, I shall eat my hat.

I returned to his magnum opus. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I regret that I do not have the depth, the vision and the background of the hon member for Houghton who has been in Parliament for 36 years. I have had a mere five years and I must say that nothwithstanding that fact, because of the shenanigans which went on in the House of Delegates, much of those five years have been wasted.

They have nevertheless been fruitful years in that they have helped me personally to overcome some of the prejudices which I held, principally against Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. It has enabled me to interact with fellow South Africans of the Afrikaner tribe—whether they belong to the NP or the CP—and to understand them.

As a matter of fact, I said to the hon the Minister of Finance about two years ago that he personally made life a little more difficult for me because I was no longer able to castigate all Afrikaners in the manner which I had had the luxury of doing previously.

To that extent, being in this Parliament for the last five years has been helpful to me personally. I think that to the extent that, with the assistance of the leader of the Labour Party in particular, the mechanisms and the procedures of Parliament have been used constructively to show up the fallacies of the policies of the Government, it has also been useful.

I want to take a minute to talk about the hon member for Houghton. There was a time, when Genl Smuts was the man in charge, when most of the White people in South Africa went along with the policy of White racial supremacy. However, there was also a time, after Smuts was defeated at the polls, when Leo Marquard, Margaret Ballinger, Edgar Brooks, Alan Paton and others broke away from the United Party to form the Liberal Party. Later still, good, honourable, far-sighted South Africans like the hon member for Houghton saw that the country has to move forward and started the Progressive Party.

I am satisfied, without a shadow of doubt, that the work done by that hon member, even while she was a solitary exponent of liberal values in this House, resulted in some of the changes that we have witnessed in the last three to four years.

I would say that she has been a stalwart in that connection, but that would not necessarily mean denying the fact that the Dutch Reformed Church itself has undergone an interesting metamorphosis. The Dutch Reformed Church realises that apartheid is in conflict with Christian values. That has had an effect.

Amazingly, even the Broederbond, to some extent, has undergone a change, under the pressure of moral persuasion. Morality seems to have penetrated the citadels of the Broederbond and we now hear interesting noises coming from that direction. The factor of economic integration has forced the Government to make certain changes which it might not otherwise have made.

We cannot and dare not ignore the factor of violent revolution. I think everyone in this country realises that there are only two courses before us. There is either the path of peaceful prosperity which means the accelerating of reform or that of violent revolution. There is no other way. If we do not have peaceful reform, then we shall have violent revolution.

The fact that the armed military might of this country has kept violent revolution at bay merely gives us a breathing space to push ahead with peaceful reform. After all, it was a former Minister of Law and Order of this country who proclaimed, while speaking in East London, that if he had to suffer the vicissitudes of poverty in the townships, he too might be tempted to throw stones. It was a human being speaking, the Christian in that person coming out. Interestingly, since he made that statement, the Government itself has moved positively to help change the living conditions of people in the townships.

All these are plus factors. The international pressure, without doubt, has helped in the movement towards reform although that reform has halted. Because that reform has halted, I want to say quite clearly that the NP Government in this country constitutes the biggest threat to the security of all our people in this country. [Interjections.] The reason for this is that it is the policies of that Government which make enemies out of the majority of the people in this country. The White people in this country constitute a mere 5 million out of a total population of 35 million.

If one makes enemies out of the majority of people in this country, then one is cutting one’s own throat. That is what the NP is doing. By continuing to deny political rights to the Black majority in this country, to that extent it is incurring the wrath and the hatred of that Black majority, and is damaging not only the security of the whole country but also the economic security of all the people in this country.

It is damaging the emotional security of the White people and other minority groups in this country. Because it damages them emotionally it actually harms them psychologically and the policies of this Government actually expose our people to much greater insecurity than would have been the case had we had Government by consent.

I am not talking about government with the agreement of the majority of the people, because that is impossible. However one can attain government by consent. It is possible to have government by acquiescence. Stalin ruled with terror and Hitler ruled with terror. They had government by acquiescence and that is not good government because in the long run it brings down the societal structure upon which any government can depend.

When I say that we must have government with the consent of the majority of the people, I want to state quite unequivocally that I do not believe in a Black majority government. I believe in a majority government. If that government is going to be a Black one, I will accept it. If it is going to be a White one, despite the majority of the people having the right to elect it—and if, therefore, the majority of the people elect a White government—I would accept that too. I think that if we are going to have a majority government in this country, we will in all probability have a mixed government which will see to it that the interests of all the people are looked after.

However, what vision is the present Government giving to the people of this country? What future is it holding out? There is nothing—no vision. Only on Friday we are told that we will have one executive authority and one single Parliament for the whole of the country. The following Monday we witness some backtracking, and the hon member of whom it is said that he is destined to be the future State President of this country is acting no better than had he been the hon Leader of the CP—the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly.

He talks about own affairs. He wants to maintain and perpetuate the system of apartheid. I would much rather deal with the CP than a man who talks like that with a smile on his face, but has something else in his heart. I would much rather deal with people who speak out and tell me exactly what they think so that I know exactly where I stand with them. Why do I say this? I say this because I am a South African. I am dedicated to this country, and I want this country to be dedicated to me. The country belongs to me. I belong to the country. This means every single person in this country, whether he be Coloured, Indian, White, Afrikaner or Jew, they are all our people and we must act as one people. If we do not do that we will take this country—as this Government is doing—into insecurity, into danger and, fearfully, possibly into perdition. That we cannot permit.

The vision that ought to be held out by this Government, the vision which we of the DP would like to see held out to all the people of this country, is one in which every single South African has a stake in the country. Every single South African will feel secure that the Government of this country is looking after his interests, not the interests of one racial group dominating the others, whether it is a White or a Black racial group, but looking after the interests of all the people of this country. That is the vision we need. That is the kind of vision which the hon the Minister of Finance used to hold out before he became the Minister of Finance. I challenge him to expound that vision once more and to cut away the restraints of his Cabinet colleagues. He has the vision, I know it. I have talked to him. I have listened to him outside of Parliament. He knows where this country should be taken.

Why is he not speaking out? To the extent that he does not speak out he will find himself in the the same grave difficulty that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning found himself in. I have no doubt that that hon Minister knew what had to be done for the country but did not do it because he was held back by the hon the Minister of National Education, the caucus of the NP and the more difficult people within his own group. The result was that he became the personification of all that was wrong with the policies of this Government. He became the target of all the criticism. The hon Minister of Finance must understand that.

At a different level, we need security for our people domestically and not just militarily. The city of New York has more policemen guarding the interests of the citizens of that city than we have in the whole of South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

I am not arguing for a police state. Let me talk about my own constituency. The nearest police station is half an hour’s drive by motorcar. The police at the Sydenham police station do not have a helicopter. If, therefore, there is a burglar in one’s house, the probabilities are that one will be killed before the police arrive. I have been pleading with the hon the Minister of Law and Order for a police station or at least a sub-police station in Reservoir Hills for the past five years. My pleas have so far fallen on deaf ears. All I get are beautiful smiles. He smiles pleasantly but shuts his ears. We need, not only in my constituency but throughout the country, a better and stronger Police Force numerically and a better motivated and equipped Police Force so that people can feel secure.

The hon the Minister says that there is not enough money. This country is busy building a KAVA jet fighter at enormous cost to the taxpayer.

One tenth of the money is being spent on building a jet-fighter, which is of no use to us in this country. It may only be of use because of possible hostility as a consequence of the evil policies of apartheid. If it were not for apartheid, there would be no need to build a new KAVA jet-fighter. We would be able to buy everything we wanted. [Interjections.]

One tenth of the money given to the hon the Minister of Law and Order will provide all the people of this country with adequate security. One twentieth of that money will provide proper welfare services and adequate health services for all the people of our country.

I come back therefore to the fundamental question in response to the signal response given by the hon the Minister of Law and Order. [Interjections.] It is the evil policies of apartheid which necessitated Armscor and which made it necessary to spend hundreds of millions of rand.

I want to deal with the hon the Minister of Law and Order. I have been after him for the past four years to provide a proper group life insurance scheme for all our policemen, regardless of race or colour. The hon the Minister has done nothing about it. [Interjections.] He tells me it will cost money. When it comes to the average policeman every member of the public is entitled to look to the policeman for support. If a householder suspects there is a burglar in his home, he rings for the police. The policeman is expected to risk his life. The householder normally does not do so.

Why should we then as citizens expect the policeman to risk his life and not provide adequate cover in case he gets shot? In Cape Town a young policeman was shot doing his duty. What did his widow get? She merely received the statutory amount of money provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.

I have been pleading with this hon Minister, both publicly and privately, for the past three years that he should speak to his colleague the hon the Minister of Finance and tell Mr Scrooge to open up the purse strings to see to it that our policemen are granted this extra protection. If we cannot protect our policemen adequately, how can we be satisfied that they will protect us?

I want to come back to the matter of security. The best friend that the communists ever had in South Africa was the NP. When the NP came into power, they pushed the communists underground in 1950. Underground the communists were able to function far more effectively than they ever were able to function when they were a legal entity.

The best friend of the ANC has been this Government. As a result of the ANC being banned and pushed into exile, the ANC not only became a martyr, but today the ANC is the recipient of tens of millions of rand in terms of direct financial aid from the Americans and others. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, after the announcement by the retiring hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on the Government’s constitutional vision for the future and the NP’s election plan last Friday, there was great jubilation in certain circles within the NP, in liberal circles in South Africa and also in certain Press circles. It was said that there was now much greater clarity about the future plan and that the NP was now on the attack and was going to tackle the election on that basis.

Last Monday one of the NP’s foot-soldiers, one of its newspapers which was ecstatic about the announcement, ie Die Transvaler of 15 May 1989, said, and I quote:

Suddenly there is great ambiguity. Who caused that ambiguity? None other than the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP with his speech last Friday, and with his television interview on Sunday evening—which was worth more than a million rand in advertising time. He used that time on television to introduce greater ambiguity.

Proof of my contention that there is greater ambiguity lies in the fact that yesterday the NP lost two municipal wards—one to the CP and one to the DP. Do hon members want to tell me that this is because the voters now have a better understanding of what is going on? If that is so, we say thank you, please explain to them what the policy is, because then they will reject it. The newspapers—the NP’s foot-soldiers who have to convey their policy—say that there is now greater ambiguity. The voters reject the NP.

I want to tell hon members that the NP’s approach to this election has been a serious one. Yesterday the secretary-in-chief of the NP went to Standerton in person—the local chaps are not even good enough to monitor the election. The secretary-in-chief was there, and they lost a seat. [Interjections.] The figure obtained was greater than the NP’s previous majority. We advanced by 9%.

Their foot-soldiers, however, say there is ambiguity. The fact is that certain obstacles have been defined by the NP itself as being obstacles to reform. Thus the three aforementioned Acts have been identified as obstacles, and the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP intimated that he was going to remove those obstacles. I take it that means he is going to get rid of the Acts.

Certain other obstacles have been identified, and this was done by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He identified the NP’s concept of groups, group protection and group participation in the future Constitution as an obstacle. He said he was prepared to remove that obstacle, but the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP is apparently not prepared to tackle this obstacle. He said there should be participation on a group basis. The hon the leader-in-chief of the NP says, however, he will remove other obstacles, but that their formula, or the idea they have, is so just that they are going to the negotiating table on the strength of that formula, and that their just formula is so persuasive that they will be able to convince other groups to accept this group concept. The hon the leader-in-chief of the NP, the hon the Minister of Finance and other hon members of the NP now have a golden opportunity to demonstrate to South Africa how they are going to convince a group to accept their idea as being just. Hon members of the LP, in conjunction with hon members of the NP, are members of Parliament.

Have you people taken over their policy?

No, of course not. The CP has a completely different policy. [Interjections.]

One of the groups with which the NP wants to go to the negotiating table is sitting here. [Interjections.] They say they are not interested in group protection and group participation. Hon members of the NP must now use the persuasiveness of their argument and illustrate to us how they set about convincing a group. For the past five years, in conjunction with hon members of the House of Representatives, they have been participating in the constitutional dispensation. Surely they have some experience of this matter by now. Surely they ought to know that this is a fair and just state of affairs which is acceptable to them. After five years hon members of the NP have not been able to convince them. Those hon members must now demonstrate to South Africa, and to the CP here in Parliament—they only have until we adjourn to do so—how they are going to convince a group at the negotiating table. [Interjections.]

There is a further stumbling block, and that involves the numerical aspect. They say they will eliminate that stumbling block by giving groups an equal say, regardless of their numbers, and they use the American Senate as an example. States with differing numerical strength each get two representatives. In the American Senate, however, voting takes place and the votes are counted, even though the representatives represent states that do not have the same numerical strength. What those hon members want to do is to reduce 30 million people to 20 or 25 groups. The point is, however, that those groups must vote, and I should like to know from the Government how it is going to protect the minority groups, and maintain the group concept, if the majority of the groups vote against having groups or group representation.

A further imperfection in the policy they advocate is that if the groups cannot find common ground, there should be an arbiter. Today I want to tell hon members that there can only be an arbiter if all the groups accept the existence of an arbiter and are satisfied with such a situation. I am asking the Government to demonstrate to us how it is going to persuade the groups to accept the arbiter it proposes, if the majority do not want to accept that arbiter. I also want to know whether the casual proposal that the President’s Council be changed means that that council is to be the arbiter they envisage for any future action that must be taken. Is that the arbiter in regard to which they now want to introduce these changes?

In contrast the CP’s approach, policy and view concerning South African politics is that one people does not make decisions for another. [Interjections.] The CP does not want to make decisions for hon members of the House of Representatives. The CP does not want to make decisions involving other peoples. Our policy is that we want to make decisions about our own people and our own area. [Interjections.] The CP is not in favour of any form of power-sharing.

If hon members were to read their history, they would see that we as a people have never been in favour of power-sharing or of oppression. It happened with the British, and we have never found it acceptable that any people should govern us or jointly govern us. That is how things are and how they will remain. The British declared war on us, but it did not help them one bit. We retained our independence and our desire for freedom, and that is why we now want our own sovereignty.

If other peoples want to share power, they are free to do so. We do not decide for them whether they should or should not share power. We want to make it very clear that the CP is not in the market for power-sharing and never will be. We are there to fight for the sovereignty of the various peoples in South Africa.

I want to come to the hon the Minister of Finance and ask him specifically—I have received various reports from South West Africa during the past day or two—to provide the facts.

Scandal-mongering!

The hon member should think again before he simply shouts scandal-mongering.

I received various reports, which all agree on two aspects. The first is that Untag purchases cheaper fuel in South West Africa than the inhabitants themselves. Everyone is agreed about that.

The second point on which the reports agree is that the suppliers can demand certain refunds from customs and excise. I am now asking the hon the Minister what the position is. Some reports say that Untag is obtaining fuel at the landed price and pays no tax or customs and excise duty whatsoever. I am asking him whether that is true.

Why do you not ask South West Africa?

I am asking the hon the Minister, because the amount must be claimed from customs and excise. Can the hon the Minister not furnish a reply? The Administrator-General is his representative in South West Africa.

No, he governs there.

I am asking the hon the Minister what the position in South West Africa is, and what the South African taxpayer is paying to subsidise Untag. [Interjections.] How much is the South Africa taxpayer paying to subsidise Untag. [Interjections.] I am asking the hon the Minister to provide the facts.

If he turns tail today and says he has nothing to do with that, I must accept that it is more or less true. They consequently pay no tax and the South African taxpayers are subsidising them, unless the hon the Minister proves the contrary to be true.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance made the most pathetic contribution here that I have ever heard in my life. [Interjections.] He said that we were not poorer than we were 20 years ago. Why did he not go back to the Anglo-Boer War; he could then have said that we were richer than we were 80 years ago. [Interjections.]

Is it not a fact that this economic predicament began in 1982 when the NP accepted the policy of power-sharing. Since 1982 we have started getting poorer. One cannot gloss over that. We are growing poorer because the Government is redistributing our prosperity, the national product. [Interjections.] It is a distribution based, not on achievement, but on artificial intervention in the economy. That is one of the legs of the socialism they are engaged in.

The fact is that those who produce and those who spend are increasingly being taxed in South Africa as a result of that policy. In the journal Southern African Freedom Review there is a very informative article about taxation and the taxation rate in South Africa, in comparison with that in the rest of the world. The informative figures that are mentioned indicate that a person earning R25 000 in South Africa pays 31% in taxation, whilst for the same amount he would pay 25% in the UK, 19% in West Germany, 15% in the USA and 15% in Japan too.

That is incorrect. You are now talking about tax on marginal income.

If a person earns R50 000 in South Africa, he pays 42% tax, 45% in the UK, 22% in West Germany and 15% in the USA and Japan. That is the one mistake the hon member for Vasco made. After mentioning the incomes of the various people, he did not indicate what role the hon the Ministers and the Exchequer played in these tremendous amounts that people have to pay.

This redistribution in South Africa is taking place by way of State finances and the narrowing of the wage gap, without taking productivity into consideration. The result is that everyone in South Africa—not only the Whites—is growing poorer today. There are an increasing number of scientific reports being published about this. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Lichtenburg, who has just spoken, is the deputy leader of the CP, and today one would have expected him to give us a few statements about their policy, clearly spelling it out prior to the election. We should like a few answers in this regard.

It is no use criticising us on our success or lack of success. That hon member must tell us how far he has come, in the past five years, in his negotiations with hon members of the LP. [Interjections.] He is not willing to talk to people of colour, however; that is the gist of it. If he does not want to talk, I take it he wants to make war.

Surely that hon member had an opportunity to explain clearly to us today what he meant by the territories or pieces of land for the various peoples. We should like to hear about the land, because there are various pronouncements about that. The hon the leader of the CP makes one pronouncement, the hon the deputy leader another, Prof Boshoff a third and Eugéne Terre’Blanche a fourth. We should like to know, and before the election the people must know what the CP’s policy is. If they had a clear idea of what it was, they would vote for the CP, but they are not going to vote for them on the basis of scandal-mongering reports. The CP must tell us today what its policy of partition means. Where are those people going to? Where is their land? The CP must tell us today whether they are going to have those people removed by force.

The policy of those hon members brings down misery upon this country. There is a court case in progress at the moment. These young people start shooting because of statements made by those hon members. Those hon members are the ones inciting the people to take up arms.

A few years ago White men boarded a train in Pietersburg and simply opened fire on people. They said they were shooting because the people were Black. They hate people of colour. [Interjections.] They hate the Blacks. That is the truth of it! Must we, however, place our future in the hands of people who are going to bring us misery and who openly say they are in favour of discrimination? That is what they say. They will have to remove people of colour by force. They are not sensitive to the needs of people of colour.

They speak about disunity in the NP. They must examine their own disunity. In their case it is so bad that Eugéne Terre’Blanche does not dare to move about amongst them unarmed. They want to kill one another. They also want to kill us.

That hon member should have told us about his “Boerestaat” today. Some say he must only have Whites in that State. Hon CP members say it should be a question of majority occupation. Hon members must just give me one area which, for the most part, is occupied by Whites. In other words, they are going to relocate the people of colour. They will have to run, however, or get onto lorries.

We have already travelled by lorry!

Yes, they are going to, whether they want to or not. [Interjections.] If they do not want to travel by lorry, they will have to travel on foot. They will have to trek, however. They must now tell us where the White homeland is, now before the election, how big the White homeland is and whether hon members of the LP are satisfied with the small piece of land they now have.

They must ask the leaders of the national states whether they are satisfied with the small piece of land, because they have finished dividing it up. They must also answer the following question: Who is going to be allowed into that national state or “Boerestaat”. They say it is a White national state they are now going to establish. Who is going to be allowed into that state?

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: To the best of our knowledge, the speaker said “they also want to kill him”, the “they” being a reference to the CP. I am suggesting that it is unparliamentary for an hon member to say that hon members of this House want to kill someone else.

Order! Who said who wants to kill whom? [Interjections.] The hon member for Losberg must clarify the matter for me. The hon member must again put his point of order, because I did not understand the gist of what he said.

Mr Speaker, the gist of my point of order is the following: The hon member gave an explanation of a court case and went on to say, with reference to the CP: “They also want to kill him”. May I suggest that whoever the “him” is, it is unparliamentary to say that hon members of this House want to kill anyone else.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I want to say today that in South Africa we have three models or three choices. The first is the conflict model, and that is the model favoured by the CP and by Eugéne Terre’Blanche. The second model we have is the negotiation model, and that is the NP’s model, and the third one is the DP’s model, and that is one involving surrender.

I want to pay tribute to the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates for their standpoint in regard to reconciliation. From morning till night those people advocate reconciliation. They say let us forget the past, let us speak to one another and see whether we can negotiate. The NP welcomes that, because we want to hold discussions. We want to find solutions, not make war. We want to negotiate. We in the NP are in favour of justice and fairness. Those hon members are also in favour of that, and that is why we shall find common ground.

We are in favour of the removal of discrimination—we say this openly—and those hon members are also in favour of it. That is what they advocate, and we are therefore going to find common ground. As things stand we have made great strides towards finding common ground. We are in favour of permanent co-existence, power-sharing and living together in this country. We shall not relocate that hon member’s people. We want them, we need them and we are going to remain with them. We want to tell the voters…

Hear, hear!

We want to put an end to past domination. We want to tell the Black people who are in South Africa that they can live here permanently. There need not be a sword dangling over their heads. They are part of the set-up.

We reject partition as the only solution, and to say that partition can solve all our problems is untrue.

A new Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning! [Interjections.]

The hon the leader of the CP said that this Government did not have a plan. That is untrue! The party that does not have a plan is the CP. The CP is also the party that thrives on scandal-mongering. [Interjections.]

In South Africa we are very proud of the fact that we have made so much progress, and we are going to make even more progress. Under the guidance of the new leader-in-chief of the NP we shall definitely make progress. Some people say the CP does not begrudge others their rightful place. I do not have much time now, but recently an article appeared under the title “Oran-jewerkers kry trekpas op eie dorp”. Their own people have driven them away, saying that their policy of majority occupation had failed there, that they should get out and implement it somewhere else.

Boksburg does not want those people any longer. Carletonville does not want them any longer. South Africa cannot afford the CP.

That is the truth!

Who won there?

We must put a stop to this incitement to violence that is taking place in this country at present. Can hon members imagine what would happen in South Africa if Black people or Coloureds began shooting at the Whites? What emotions would that not unleash? Can hon members imagine what emotions are unleashed when speeches made by hon members, their supporters, their fellow party members or their allies incite people to such an extent that they resort to violence? That has serious consequences for us. We cannot condemn this strongly enough in these circles.

Here we have examples of the CP’s conduct. About Balfour there is a heading in Rapport of 23 April that reads: “Die KP praat net met Blankes”. Surely that is looking for trouble. In this country we must also speak to the other people. In Beeld of 15 May 1989 there is a report under the heading “AWB-lid vas na teer en veer van die burgemeester”. That is the most scandalous situation we have ever had in this country. Do hon members know who those people are? For whom do those people, who tarred and feathered the mayor, vote? They vote for the CP. The CP, after all, are their comrades in arms, their allies. Is it not true that the two leaders of the AWB and the CP had discussions—not an altercation—in the Cape just the other day. They spoke about strategy. I do not know what strategy—probably election strategy, and perhaps they discussed whether they were going to allow the leader of the AWB to stand for election.

They say that in his car one of the individuals had posters of the CP’s barbecue on 29 April. It cannot be disputed that they have ties with one another, because there are CP members sitting in this House—they are sitting there looking at me—but there are also AWB members. They are sitting here in the House. [Interjections.]

How are we going to make any headway with this party? The AWB’s conduct is openly provocative, and we must put a stop to their public acts in respect of violence in this country. I am asking the authorities and the police to start thinking of clamping down on these people. We must put a stop to these random shooting incidents in South Africa.

There is another example I want to mention. They say that in Krugersdorp an arts festival, which has been held for the past 30 years, has now been cancelled. The CP-controlled town council cancelled it because, amongst others, there would be six Black children taking part. That is a blot on South Africa’s name. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, firstly I want to reply to the hon member Mr Lockey. He spoke about the Free Settlement Areas Act. In the President’s Council the LP agreed to this Act, which was signed and passed. Then, however, there was the swimming incident, and it had to be discarded with the rest. The Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill was agreed to in the President’s Council and signed. The hon the Minister also gave evidence before the President’s Council Committee, saying he welcomed this Bill because it would help him to combat poverty and squatting. Then we had the swimming incident and it was also discarded.

Mr Pieter Marais, the LP member in the President’s Council, agreed to the Group Areas Act. In the President’s Council’s report he gave the Reverend and the LP a dressing-down. In the coming election I am going to tell the voters, until they are tired of hearing it, what Mr Marais said at the time about the hon the leader of the LP. Now they are taking to their heels! They are too ashamed for words, because when the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill was discussed, the hon the leader of the LP dissociated himself from his own Minister. Poor show! A messy business! Scandalous! Mr Speaker, the LP members are leaving. There is not a single one left here. Shame, only the poor hon member for Bonteheuwel is still sitting here, but he must take the punishment being meted out. [Interjections.]

He is leaving too. He cannot take it.

It is a pity, because we are having such a nice time here. Let us have a look at the hon member Mr Lockey and his membership. Where did he work? In what constituency did he stand? It cost him R2 in membership fees, and his dowry was to marry into the family. That is all. On whose behalf is the hon member speaking?

I was at Postmasburg. Only yesterday I received a letter from Postmasburg. The hon member for Northern Cape—oh, shame, he is not here—and the hon member Mr Lockey are fighting like cat and dog, because both want to stand in the election. The hon member Mr Lockey is struggling, searching everywhere for a foothold. What is happening now is an extremely poor show. I want to tell the hon member that I have Postmasburg in the palm of my hand.

Now I come to the advertisements. It is a pity those hon members are not here, because I want to tell them from whom we receive our funds for the advertising campaign. We get the funds from their good friends.

I now come to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I want to thank him for everything he has done. At the time, during the referendum, he was the one who wished the LP everything of the best. He was the one who went to Lansdowne to address the LP. The hon the Minister was the one… where can I get a drink of water?

Drink the Rubicon dry.

Oh, my Rubicon is drying up. Where is the hon member Mr Lockey? I hope he is listening to what I am now going to say. He telephoned the hon the Minister at 11 o’clock one Sunday morning after church to enquire about the proclamation of land. I am asking myself whether it was not because his construction company had interests in that land. When it gets dark and the businesses have closed, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is good enough.

I have seen hon members really climbing in when they participate in the debate, but as soon as they encounter the hon the Minister in the passages, they take his hand and tell him they did not really mean it, because it was Pietertjie who told them to say it. [Interjections.] That is the kind of thing that is going on.

That one DRP member can empty the Chamber! Where the LP should have been sitting, there is no one left. That shows how strong that party is. They are conspicuous by their absence, and that because of one little DRP member! [Interjections.] I shall go on giving them a thrashing.

Chew them out!

They are not here, but I do still want to chew them out! [Interjections.] They know that when I tackle them, I make a good job of it! [Interjections.]

I now want to put a straight question to the CP. Do those hon members hate me? I am now asking the CP. Do those hon members hate me?

We do not hate anyone!

Thank you! Do the hon members hate the Black man?

No!

Thank you! They say they hate no one. Hon members must remember that the CP members say they hate no one. They do not hate the Black man. They are fond of the Blacks and the Coloureds. [Interjections.] Watch out, here it comes! [Interjections.]

They did not say that!

If one does not hate someone, one must be fond of him. I am asking hon members of the CP whether I am correct in saying that they are equally fond of the Blacks and the Coloureds. Are those hon members saying yes? [Interjections.] That is correct! [Interjections.]

I now want the hon the Minister of Law and Order to join in for a moment. He must take note of the incitement to racial hatred taking place all around us. This country of ours has already been hurt and is still being hurt. Our country is bleeding to death. Hon members of the CP and the NP must find common ground and stop clashing, so that there can be hope for the Black man, who is on the outside looking in.

They must stop this tricameral system. I do not know how those hon members are going to divide up the Defence Force and the Police. I have never seen a country with three sovereign Parliaments.

†I have never come across a country with three separate sovereign Parliaments! I do not know how one should spell out such sovereignty. Maybe one day the hon the Professor can give us a talk on that.

*I should like to carry on, but I cannot really do so, because those hon members of the LP are not present. It is a pity. [Interjections.] There are just a few things I want to mention about this budget, and I should like to have this on record. Our party is the DRP. Speaking about the DRP reminds me of the DP.

The referendum that caused such an upheaval in 1983 was, for us, a ray of hope on the horizon, an indication that things were happening. What disappointed me was when the PFP voted “no”. I want to know whether the DP still stands by what it said during the referendum in 1983.

Every word!

The hon member still stands by that. At the time he said he did not want that dispensation to be introduced. Today he is forging an alliance with the LP!

†They went so far as to have an alliance with the LP. It is a spectacle, one laughs at it. If people could only read the speeches made by the hon member for Sea Point to see what he propagated at the time!

There was a time we really admired the PFP for taking up the case of the Black and the voiceless.

[Inaudible.]

They have changed. They have changed and they did not even realise that they were busy doing so. Do they realise that the people are starting to doubt them? The people do not know in what direction they are going anymore. I was an admirer of the hon member for Houghton. I used to run to read how debates went when she was challenging the then Minister of Police, Mr Vorster. We used to read those things and we used to admire the PFP. However, the change started when they voted “no” in the referendum.

*They must go back and hold consultations.

They are in a transitional phase!

They probably are. In support of this Bill I want to say that our party is committed to full participation in all Government bodies at all levels which will lead to a better political dispensation for the Coloured, Black and Indian communities. That is why we support the Black forum.

†We will support anything which will bring about change in this country.

*We stand for the removal of all statutory discrimination. We definitely believe in sound labour relations based on independent trade unions and workers’ organisations that strive to achieve acceptable working conditions and fair salaries, and these are aspects we shall encourage. My party also most strongly supports and encourages a free market system. My party also supports the encouragement of home ownership. It is important to make a greater effort to establish a middle class. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bishop Lavis made a very interesting speech. It is also interesting that he was able to place on record this revelation from the side of the hon members of the CP, that they had a particular love of Black people and of people of colour. The hon members of the CP were speaking on behalf of their voters. We also want to place on record for the sake of the supporters of that party that they admitted this here this afternoon. After all, it is their Christian duty, is it not?

We have read in the Press during the past few days about a young man who intentionally shot and killed eight people in cold blood, wounded 16 other people and then appeared in court on charges of murder.

When he was asked why he had done this, one of the reasons which he gave was that he had done it for the preservation of Christianity and the White Boer people.

This was important enough to him for him to commit mass murder and physically maim other people for the rest of their lives. He said that he would do it again if he could, and he was of the opinion that it was the will of God that he should have committed this cold-blooded mass murder.

Where does this unbalanced and extreme view of religion in particular come from, a view which can lead to nothing other than senseless violence?

Of course many reasons can be given. One of them is that one can become what one sees and hears.

This brings me to the point that events such as these place a large responsibility on the shoulders of all leaders in public life, particularly with regard to their statements and standpoints on sensitive matters, such as inter alia the Church, religion and the Bible. Statements and standpoints on these matters can become a problem particularly when politicians express them in a forum which is everything but a place where attempts should be made to settle theological and ecclesiastical disputes with one another.

Of course these things that I have spoken about are important in our lives—the Church, religion and the Bible. However, we must realise that Parliament and the political platform is not a theological lecture hall and that the theologian should not attempt to misuse this political forum by pontifically unleashing a barrage of Bible texts from time to time on the heads of hon members or the audience, who are not trained theologians, if it is not possible to test the real meaning scientifically by means of thorough exegesis. The problem is that too much of this so-called exegesis in this forum eventually appears to be nothing other than interpretation. This can give rise to misconceptions and misunderstandings and the misuse of religion and the Bible for party political objectives, and no one can ever justify that.

In this regard I want to address the CP today, and in particular the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. He has a habit of occasionally dragging the Church and Bible texts or theological personalities into the party political debate. The hon member probably has the right to do so. However, I want to tell him that by doing so he is merely confusing and dividing Christians, as if this has not been done enough already. For example, the hon the leader of the CP said many things in his speech on Friday, 12 February 1988 in the House of Assembly about man’s right to resist.

He referred to the author and poet N P van Wyk Louw and to Dr Verwoerd as support for his argument on resistance. The hon the leader of the CP then referred to resistance in the Church as well. He also spoke about the resistance to his church’s standpoint in Kerk en Samelewing, and about apartheid. With regard to this resistance the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly said the following according to Hansard, 12 February 1988, col 820:

Apart from the fact that I find these words of the hon leader rather presumptuous, I want to say that no fault can be found with the right of the individual to resist. This principle is absolute. The question has to do with what one resists. Luther and Calvin resisted the distortion of the truth of the Gospel and heresy, the false doctrine of the Church to which they belonged at the time.

My question is whether the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly is in opposition to his Church for the same reasons as Luther and Calvin. If the hon leader compares his resistance to that of the two Church reformists, is he then saying in reality that the Church of which he is a member, is distorting the truth of the Gospel and with regard to what he says in Kerk en Samelewing, that his Church is unbiblical or practising false doctrine or heresy?

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly will agree with me if I allege that the fact that the Bible mentions the existence of different peoples and countries, does not mean that it condones or supports a political policy or ideology by the name of apartheid. And then a type of apartheid which elevates one people to a position above that of the other peoples.

We simply cannot allow the Bible to ventriloquise in this forum in this way. If we were to reason in this way, we would truly be engaging in blood-and-thunder theology which must ultimately lead to theological racism, and which in turn is just as reprehensible as the emancipation theology in which concepts such as “people” and “culture” no longer have a place.

Are the hon the leader of the CP and his party also resisting this misuse of the Bible and religion in the blood-and-thunder theology for party political objectives?

Do hon members of the CP also oppose this little newspaper Die Volkstem of April 1989? One does not really want to touch this. When I showed this little newspaper to one of my colleagues he wrote here: “This is a common newspaper for common people.” It is not I who wrote that, but one of my friends. However, I agree with him, because he is correct.

This little newspaper is the best example of vulgar journalism that I have ever seen. It is full of hideous distortions of the Bible, attacks on the new Bible translation and the Church as an institution, as well as on the mission. There is also character assassination of political leaders in the Government. However, it is full of praise for the CP and the AWB and other far right-wing parties and organisations. It links them together—I do not. I want to quote only a few points to support my statement about this idea of resistance. Hon members will see that there is a photograph of the hon the leader of the CP on the front page. This little newspaper states on page 2, and I quote:

Here it is stated that people who are still members of the NG Church, must be rejected. Does the CP agree with this statement; particularly its members of the NG Church? Do they also resist this?

On page 4 we find another example under the heading “Die Bybel en die politiek”. Just listen to what is said about the new translation:

Do the hon members of the CP agree that the new translation of “Die Bybel” is just a book, and not “Die Bybel”, and that it actually has Marxist philosophy as an undercurrent? Do the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party also oppose this? Does he oppose this? Do they oppose an advertisement, which is printed in black with little angels with hearts? On page 4 of this paper the following is written, and I quote:

Does the CP oppose this? And the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who may be called a theologian of standing? Nothing has been placed on record to the effect that hon members of the CP or their leader resist this. I challenge them to publicly dissociate themselves from these people and from this newspaper.

Misuse of religion for party political purposes is irresponsible and dangerous.

If the CP and its leaders do not reject this in public, then they agree with it and the voters will take note of that. The Church will take note of that. If the CP and its leaders misuse religion for party political purposes, they too are irresponsible and an extremely dangerous group of people for the future of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I want to agree with the interjection that the hon member for Macassar made when he said that it was like listening to a Sunday school lesson when the hon member for Bishop Lavis spoke.

It is very surprising to hear the hon member for Bishop Lavis talk about support when his own party does not even support him right now since none of his colleagues is with him. I want to say to the hon member that the decision taken at that time by the LP to swim at King’s Beach was one taken with his consent. The hon member was at that time secretary of the Cape Peninsula region and he and the Cape Peninsula supported that decision.

It is clear to us that the hon member likes to mislead people. Later on I will show hon members where else he went wrong. I do however want to say that the decision taken was correct because right now the Port Elizabeth beaches are open because of a tactic that the LP used.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis also spoke about Peter Marais signing a document about the Group Areas Act. This hon member once again misled this House by saying that Peter Marais was a member of the LP at that time. He was not a member of the LP when he signed that document.

That hon member must be careful because last Monday night I addressed a meeting in his constituency and the place where we had the meeting was packed. Everyone at the meeting supported a vote of no confidence in that hon member.

*That hon member definitely has problems since we are soon going to make sure that he will be so busy in his constituency that he will have his work cut out for him.

†That hon member spoke about the fighting between the hon member Mr D Lockey and the hon member for Northern Cape. That was once again a lie. That hon member was not even present at that public meeting. [Interjections.]

Fewer than 200 people turned up at that public meeting. There are 3 400 voters in that constituency. Fewer than 200 turned up, and he says he has a mandate. [Interjections.]

That is absolute nonsense. When the hon member for Bishop Lavis says that all the people left, hon members must remember that since that hon member and his party voted in the House of Representatives in favour of the Group Areas Act, that hon member has become the polecat in his community. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

*Do hon members know what?

Order! The hon member for Bishop Lavis must make fewer interjections. Secondly I do not think hon members should refer to other hon members as “the polecats of the community”. The hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman, but there are a few people in his constituency who do not want to be seen with him any more, because they do not want to be seen with someone who stabbed his community in the back.

†Even yesterday we, the LP, were attacked for practising boycott politics. A couple of minutes ago it happened again. Let me just say this: The LP and other political organisations have frequently used boycott politics as a weapon in the struggle against apartheid and oppression in this country. By and large boycotting is recognised and accepted by the people as an effective and powerful weapon in our political struggle. Perhaps it is precisely because of its effectiveness and the wide extent to which various organisations use it in their struggle to gain their demands that some people regard boycotting as a matter of principle which must be applied at all times and in all circumstances, irrespective of prevailing conditions.

Mr Chairman, that is a serious mistake. [Interjections.] That hon member must listen to what I have to say before he makes an interjection.

It is a serious mistake to think like that. Boycotting is in no way a matter of principle, but it is a tactical weapon.

In some cases it might be correct to boycott and in other cases it might be dangerous and unwise. Still, in some cases other weapons such as demonstrations and protest marches are used in our political struggle. Supporters of the LP were some of the first people who held a protest march when our leader was locked up in jail.

Let me say that there are other means of boycotting as well. It all depends on the actual conditions at a given time. When boycotting becomes a principle and not a tactical weapon, one will have problems. This is an error. It is a grave error to regard boycotting as a weapon that must be used at all times and under all conditions.

That is why we have entered the system, because boycotting as a principle is used by collaborators. Boycotting as a principle is used only by Government stooges. However, we in the LP have used it as a tactical weapon at given times. We have thereby strengthened the people’s struggle against the policies of this Government. Our decision in favour of participation in the coming parliamentary elections has therefore been correct for various reasons.

Our principal and most urgent task is defeating the apartheid policy. We have succeeded in that. The CP is correct when they say that the NP is moving away from apartheid. Even they are saying that, and the CP cannot accept this. I am not saying that the salvation of the oppressed people depends on the Parliamentary struggle only. It is accepted and recognised that the people of South Africa will win their freedom as a result of the pressure that we are putting on the policies of apartheid.

To boycott this present participation would result in the collaborators and the Uncle Toms returning to this Parliament, and that we will not allow. The Parliamentary forum has been and should continue to be fully exploited to put the case for a democratic and progressive South Africa. The democratic movements must have a voice inside and outside Parliament. This is everyone’s basic human right and we cannot deny that.

We in the LP are involved in the system for the sake of the liberatory struggle for full citizenship for every South African in the country of his or her birth. That is our basic goal—full citizen’s rights for every single person. The facts prove that we have acted correctly. It is because that hon member for Bishop Lavis does not agree with full citizenship for everyone that he is walking out.

The truth of the matter is that South Africa is not—I want to repeat, South Africa is not—truly a democratic society. We all know this. We are governed by a small exclusive class who call themselves “Whites”. This White minority group rules and controls the majority. They are planning and using methods that support and maintain the White power structure and ensure its survival.

We as Blacks—that hon member for Bishop Lavis has very clearly shown us that today—are divided, not on policy but on the question of strategy and tactics. We are divided on what tactics we use. That hon member has made a shame and a mockery of the people that he represents because he has shown people that his fight is with the LP and not with the real enemy in South Africa. This is where many of us are going wrong. Some of these groups are using boycotts not as a tactic but as a principle. We in the LP are using boycott and obstruction policies as a tactic and not as a principle.

In 1948 about 48 000 so-called Coloured persons were on the voters’ roll in the Cape Province. At the time we had the balance of power but the then boycott movement encouraged our people to stay away from the polls because they thought that the revolution would come sooner. The so-called Coloured people have realised their mistakes. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bonteheuwel has made a call on this House for full citizenship for all South African citizens. May I say that I support him 100% in that call. May I also say that our party supports him 100% in that call and may I say that the hon member for Houghton has been fighting for precisely that in this Parliament for the past three and a half decades.

He also mentioned Port Elizabeth beaches and I would like to thank the hon the Administrator for opening the beaches in Port Elizabeth. I actually think he should have done so some considerable time ago. [Interjections.] There is no doubt about the fact that it was done partly as a result of the memorable swim of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives and various other hon members of the House of Representatives at King’s Beach. Let us also not forget that two staunch PFP members, Bobby Stevenson and councillor Graham Richards, actually brought a court case in which the court declared those beaches improperly closed to some race groups. I think we should pay tribute to them today as well because they played a part in reaching that decision. [Interjections.]

I would like to talk about the State President designate of this country, who talks about the fact that he and his party want a just and democratic solution for all South Africa’s peoples, but can we believe this? Can we believe that this is in fact what he wants?

Their actions do not match their words. We have recently had a classic example of this, namely the Maize Board scandal. I want to refer to it because it is a scandal and because South Africans must be aware of what the Government is doing.

It was recently announced that no less than R460 million of taxpayers’ money was going to be used this financial year to write off the debts of Maize Board farmers. I have established that there are 13 600 registered maize farmers and about a further ten percent who have not yet registered. We can therefore reckon that there are 15 000 mealie farmers in South Africa. This means that the taxpayers are giving a present of R30 066 to every mealie farmer in this country. What is worse is that the Government has undertaken to write off R1,4 billion of debt over the next 14 years. This amounts to a present of R93 333 per farmer. That is incredible! It is no wonder that this is called the lollipop election. What a lollipop R93 000 is!

Why does the debt exist? It exists because the Maize Board is keeping the price of maize artificially high and because the normal laws of supply and demand are being totally ignored. Hon members should consider further that if the R460 million were used for sub-economic housing, 46 000 houses at a cost of R10 000 each could be built. On average, ten people live in a house in the Black townships. This means that 460 000 people could have a decent roof over their heads. If the Government spent R1,4 billion on block housing over the next 14 years, 140 000 such houses could be built which would accommodate nearly 1,5 million people.

Why does this happen? The answer is very simple. The Black people do not have a vote while the White maize farmers do. Thus the Nationalist Government has obliterated both justice and democracy with just one blow.

I find this present to the maize farmers of R460 million this year one of the most callous acts of a so-called just and democratic Government that I have yet seen. The fact that this money has been used to keep the price of the staple food of the Black population at an artificially high level makes Marie Antoinette look like a beginner.

I appeal to this Government for the sake of justice and democracy rather to spend the money which we have taken from all the people of South Africa, both Black and White, to improve our living conditions. Think, for example, of the job opportunities which will be created by building 46 000 houses this year. Instead of this, 15 000 White land owners are going to be given a present which adds nothing to the productivity of South Africa.

I also want to talk about reform, as I see this as the most urgent necessity in South Africa today. There are two sorts of reform which are presently urgent, and the first is of course political reform. Unfortunately, this has to be somewhat of a long process. It involves, firstly, the creation of a climate of trust; secondly, the identification of leaders who genuinely represent a section of the population; thirdly, the calling of a great indaba in order to discuss the constitutional future; and finally, the reaching of an agreement on that future and the legislation to bring it into being.

All this takes time, but I believe that it can be accomplished within the lifetime of the next Parliament. However, it concerns me that we appear to be stalled right at the beginning of the creation of a climate of trust. My main intention, however, is to speak on the need for economic reform as, quite frankly, this cannot wait for five years. One has only to read the daily headlines of this week to see what is happening to South Africa economically.

If South Africa declines economically in the next five years as it has in the past five years there will be little left from which one can begin to recover. The Government does not seem to understand this and continually tinkers with the economy with ad hoc measures which are either too late, or self-defeating, while the main problems remain unaddressed.

The main problem, as I see it today, other than of course the political problem, is the tremendous State expenditure on current expenses. In my view this is the direct result of the creation of the tricameral Constitution which triples the bureaucratic nightmare. I checked through the Budget and found that no less than 1 025 State employees earn in excess of R80 000 per annum. This does not include anyone from the Department of Defence, which naturally keeps its figures secret, neither does it include the own affairs department employees or provincial employees.

Incidentally, page XVI of the Budget tells us that only 926 State employees earn more than R65 000 per annum. How this was calculated I have no idea, because it directly contradicts the manpower figures as supplied in the budgets of each departmental Vote.

Do you think that is a lot of money?

I think it is a lot of money by the standards of the vast majority of South Africans, particularly as it is the poor of the country who are having to pay those salaries.

Without a major reduction in current State expenditure the private sector cannot hope to perform properly. I note with interest that the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation has announced that in the foreseeable future a number of State employees are going to be transferred to the private sector. I welcome this, but it is very subsidiary to the main objective, which is not to transfer jobs from one sector to another, but rather to dispense with those jobs altogether. I have no objection to people earning more than R80 000. However, what I am saying is that there are too many of them in the employment of the State.

If I were the incoming State President I would commit myself to identifying, within a period of 12 months of the next election, at least 10% of bureaucratic jobs, that is not doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen, etc, and then, as people retire or resign, reducing the staff numbers by the equivalent percentage.

The main way to achieve this is by identifying those jobs, and they are legion, where the work that is done is actually of such marginal value that it can be dispensed with. That stage could be the beginning of a process which should, over the next five years, reduce the bureaucratic machine by at least 30%. I very much doubt that that 30% can be achieved within a concept of own and general affairs.

I do not believe that the present hon Minister of Finance has the ability to implement a reduction in the current expenditure of Government unless he has the 100% support and backing of the hon the State President who must commit himself to a reduction in current expenditure. This present hon State President was not in my view sufficiently committed—if indeed he was committed at all—to such a programme. Certainly the reality is that his Minister of Constitutional Affairs talked him into a system of government which is leading to the ruination of South Africa.

A democratic government would commit itself to a political process which would lead to South Africa becoming part of the free world once again—and that is what we all want.

Mr Chairman, have hon members read the news headlines? A handshake between the hon the State President, Mr P W Botha, and Mr Nelson Mandela virtually shook Africa and the world. It ended the 75-year conflict. Mr Botha’s significant words were: “Let’s bury the past and open up the future.” The recent unconditional unbanning of political prisoners, the burgeoning sincerity of the NP leadership, the cordial handshakes and warm greetings between the two veteran leaders have paved the way for the normalisation of relations between the two groups of South Africans.

South Africa could find itself in such a laudable situation. Why not? Do we have to dismiss this as building castles in the air? To attain this happy state of affairs the Government must no longer blame the ANC, the SA Communist Party, the UDF, Cosatu, the PAC, Umkhonto We Sizwe, or Archbishop Tutu, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, Reverend Boesak, or any body or bodies, or person or persons.

Perhaps we have contributed in no small measure to the creation of all these organisations.

The unrealistic policy of the Nationalist Government and, of course, previous governments has landed this beautiful country in a state of gloom. I will now enunciate some determinants for a new constitution because this is the crying issue, the crux of the problem and the cause of all the setbacks in this country. I must admit that looking at the Afrikaners positively, I certainly have great admiration for them. The futility of their blunder in not taking the bull by the horns, as it were, and succumbing to a line of least resistance is now being shown up.

If I sound harsh I want hon members to know that I am necessarily harsh this afternoon. Firstly, reform should be accelerated, especially in so far as the Black people are concerned. There is absolute urgency in this regard. It is this urgency that the Afrikaners could not and would not realise. I must warn that things are getting worse by the day. Let us not kid ourselves any longer.

The policy statement by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning concerning a single legislative body for all South Africans—without any domination, of course—has come as a bombshell to a wide spectrum of South Africans. However, that is not the be-all and the end-all of this crucial issue.

I do not know of any system or mechanism worldwide where numbers in favour of a group are not considered. How to scale it down in terms of numbers and yet afford meaningful representation is the question. For that matter the numbers in this tricameral Parliament in relation to the groups are not overlooked. I therefore come to the conclusion—probably the only conclusion—that we cannot ignore numbers altogether.

On any envisaged legislative body the Blacks will have to be represented by a reasonable number in relation to their population. We cannot mould our constitution on the American Senate because the Whites in the United States of America are significant in terms of numbers. To gain legitimacy a new constitution in South Africa on federal principles must have a geographical basis and not to be founded on the basis of groups as implied by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, Mr Chris Heunis. California, for instance, with several million more people than New Hampshire could reconcile itself to having two representatives per State. Another example is the Swiss canton system. These countries have reached a happy settlement.

In this set-up we should not talk too selfishly about First World and Third World categories or use this situation as an excuse for progress. We should rather talk about fellow South Africans. Let us talk about democracy and not a modified democracy based on group ideology. I must state emphatically that to ignore the numbers of the various groups, namely Blacks, Whites, Indians and Coloureds, would be wrong. This may sound bitter to my fellow Afrikaners, but one has to prepare for the day when this reality must be accepted. My fellow Afrikaners dream about the reality of the Blacks and their numbers, but when they are awake they live in a fool’s paradise. A new and acceptable constitution is the answer to our problems, is it not? I am afraid that this issue is not being accorded the importance or the priority it deserves and it is not being treated with sufficient urgency.

If the Government is serious about this issue then we should not lay down conditions.

We must create a climate conducive to negotiation. I must point out that the negotiation with regard to the new constitution is absolutely urgent and the Blacks must be brought to the conference table. The Blacks will not participate in negotiations if the Government sets down conditions. Such a meeting is long overdue.

Let us admit freely and frankly that the Blacks also have legitimate hopes and aspirations which have to be met. It is high time that the Black people talked for themselves. The speeches by Whites, Coloureds and Indians on behalf of Blacks must stop. The sooner this stops the better.

It sounds ridiculous that a small group of people must speak for so large a number of people. The ridiculousness of the entire exercise must bring wisdom to us to do the right thing so that the people can speak for themselves. It must also be conceded that reasonable constitutional proposals must be advanced through the reasonable representation of Blacks and Whites. In other words, when people come up with a reasonable policy in terms of which Blacks and Whites can be accommodated it must not be shelved and discouraged. I would like to mention the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba’s policy of a joint authority as an example.

The reaction on the part of the Government has shocked the Black people in this country in particular and the international world in general. We must resolve that the tricameral Government must be superseded by a new government.

In a new constitution the State President must be stripped of his extraordinary powers. Our present Constitution has made too powerful a person of the State President. In the new dispensation every effort should be made to depoliticise the State President. The Prime Minister should have more powers and the power should be given back to the people who are elected as members of Parliament so that they can reach the consensus which is necessary on behalf of the people.

The State President should not be the referee, and the passing of Bills rejected by Parliament should not go through the President’s Council. I think a mockery is being made of this Parliament, because when two Houses reject a Bill it is passed by the President’s Council. For the purpose of legitimacy the Bills must be passed directly by the elected members—by Parliament—and not by the State President via the President’s Council.

Today I want to warn the White rulers in no uncertain terms—do not be deceived. I exhort them to move on and not to stop before the goal is reached. Africa is not going to sleep any more. No military power is going to keep Blacks back anymore, for the giant is rising to its feet.

Mr Chairman, it gives me pleasure to follow on the hon member for Cavendish, particularly as he finished his speech by saying that the giant is rising. I think it was Roy Campbell who wrote fifty years ago that the African giant would rise. I agree completely. I think he said that we live in a fool’s paradise. He called me a White ruler. I really do not feel like a White ruler. I do know that we do not live in a fool’s paradise, unlike the neo-Victorian liberals as exemplified in the speech of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central.

We are realists and I think that P W Botha led the way for what F W is going to do for this country. I think Julius Caesar paved the way but it was Octavius Caesar that made the Roman Empire as great as it became.

I thought I was going to follow hon members from the CP, but seeing that that is not the case I will start in the middle first and then go to the beginning at the end.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to refer to the hon the State President and an hon Minister by their names?

Order! The hon member is not entitled to do so. He must refer to them in the proper fashion.

I apologise for my lack of courtesy.

The new hon leader of the NP has given us three very clear choices on the political future of this country. We can go the minority route, we can go the majority route or we can go a route that is uniquely South African and we can share power.

Should we swing to the majority route which hon members in the DP and some other Houses in this country believe in, then we must realise that we will have to swing the majorities of a First World and a Third World population along with us. Some of the people in that Third World group are still living in the Stone Age while some of the people in that First World group already live in a nuclear age. We have examples of many of the parties that have taken the populist route—the majority route. All around us we have sub-Saharan Africa which believes in a populist movement, a majority government. I think the LP and the DP also do. I think the DP’s spokesman on finance, the hon member for Yeoville, is a self-confessed social democrat. He believes that majority rule in Africa means the redistribution of wealth. What these issues mean in practical terms…

How do you know what I believe in?

I have listened to the hon member often enough.

In practical terms these issues have already been brought forward in this House. The populists in this House have discussed the farms being shared out among the population. We have heard about the subsidised housing that must be given to seven million people so that they can have formal housing. It has been said in this House that the “people” must receive all the benefits of a First World nation. These include housing, pavements, tarred roads, electricity, sewerage, education, pensions, and the list goes on forever. Then, as we have often heard in this House, this populist government must strive for the teachers, nurses, policemen, lecturers and the public servants in the professions to be paid more. Then the populists say, like the two hon members before me, that we must reduce the Public Service by 30%. We must provide all those services but we must reduce the Public Service by 30% !

When I listen to these populists I get even more confused, because I see the LP’s election platform for the next election. They are going to lower taxes, provide all those services, upgrade the Third World, be a populist government and then they are going to do away with GST altogether. [Interjections.] The whole of southern sub-Saharan Africa has gone the majority route and now only the ashes of their economies are left.

Most of them live at 1977 levels and that is not the finding that I come to, it is the finding that the compilers of the United Nations Third Global Report come to.

The sub-Saharan countries around us are described as debt-distressed. Subsistence farming is now their main industry and according to the United Nations their economic infrastructures are crumbling. Majority rule has therefore not succeeded around us.

As regards the economy, if minority government does not work, we have the solution that the hon leader of the NP offers to the country. He gives us hope. He offers us a compromise, a system of our own which does away with the last vestige of economic power vested in privilege. We mean to build an economy on ability.

Much has already been done. Job reservation has been abolished, trade unions have been legalised, modern housing is being provided, discrimination in salaries has been attacked, city centres have been opened to trade and direct political representation for nearly two-thirds of our people has been achieved in their own states and in various systems. Hon members might not agree with these systems but there are steps which are being taken and slowly we are moving forward to a democracy of our own kind.

The easier things have been done, but every time one does something, one takes away a rice bowl from somebody. We have to take the wealth away from vested interest to an extent but we cannot alienate the people from whom we take the wealth. We need them here in order to create more.

However, we must take another honest look at what our weaknesses are and try to deal with them. One of the things we must stop doing is to say that the country is going to the dogs. We are not doing all that badly. We are going to battle now because we have external pressures on us but we have not done too badly.

Half the countries of the world did not have the GDP increase that we had last year. Amongst those who were not as good as we were, were England, Australia and Switzerland. Our exports increased by 18% last year and manufacturing was up 8%. It does not matter how statistics are manipulated, people earned a little bit more than the inflation rate last year.

The real value of our money is double the external value. This is not my judgement. The United Bank of Switzerland gives the exchange rate of the rand as 0,65 Swiss francs but it talks about a purchasing power parity of 1,37 francs. In other words, inside the country our rand still has good buying power. Switzerland gives the exchange rate against the dollar as 39 American cents but then says that our purchasing power parity is 80 American cents. Inside the country our rand has a value comparable to the currencies of other countries. We are not doing too badly.

I would like to give hon members a brief list of the comparisons. If one compares our food prices to those in Zurich—on a basis of 100—our food prices are only a third as expensive. London’s prices are 57% of Zurich’s prices and Tokyo’s prices are even higher than Zurich’s. Lisbon’s rent is three times ours, London’s four times and Tel Aviv’s twice. Public transport in London is three times as expensive as in Johannesburg. In Sydney it is twice as expensive. Car prices in Nairobi, Harare and Tel Aviv are twice ours.

Some things are difficult to believe. Our teachers earn six times as much as the teachers in Nairobi, seven times as much as those in Rio and twice as much as those in Tel Aviv. A man in South Africa works half as much time as a man in Russia for a loaf of bread and a quarter as much time for a television set.

Our real problem in this country is the runaway population growth. The rich countries of the world have zero population growth. The whole of Africa is breeding itself into poverty. Randall Robertson, in his murderous arrogance, can force his version of freedom on us and even, in all his so-called humility, kill us if he is forced to. However, freedom in a democracy has always gone hand in hand with responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is licence.

Sanctions and disinvestment make it impossible to keep feeding, housing, schooling, employing and caring for the 0,5 million babies that we produce a year. Then the sanctioneers know what they are doing, do they not? I do not know whether hon members know Malthus’s Law. It reads as follows:

Malthus found poverty to be a law of nature and not a result of man-made structures. The only thing to break Malthusian law is technology, and that is what the sanctioneers are withholding from us. If we think that we are being singled out by America and their sanctions against us, we live in a fool’s world.

Sanctions have destroyed Africa, not us. America has lived by deficit budgeting. America is not investing in Africa; they are investing in the Pacific rim. The United Nations finds America guilty of taking foreign exchange out of Africa. The United Nations finds America guilty of impoverishing the whole of Africa by forcing commodity prices down. America has a policy called Reaganomics, which is living on credit. They are now forcing that credit out of the poorest people in the world. The United Nations accuses America, with their deficit budgeting and their kind of economics, of impoverishing the whole of Africa, and not just us.

I do admit there are people who abhor things we did in the past. Those things will change. However, I am sad to say I do not think the economics will change.

The EEC is forming an economic alliance to further the interests of Europe. They will cut us out. They will work against us. Economics in this country is not going to change because of any political actions we take. Overseas they are looking after themselves as far as money goes. Giants like Japan can fight those things. We cannot fight those things on our own. Every developing nation in this world is battling for capital. Every developing nation in this world is battling for foreign exchange, not just us. What the giants do, affects us.

When it comes to the kind of battle which we are involved in, we have to work together. I think the leader we have now will get us together. Perhaps we can lose our problems of the past and finally get together and realise that any solution we make will have to be a solution South Africa makes, and not so much a hand-out from some other country in the world.

Then, if we get to that solution, may the Lord help us if we have a group of people left in this country who still carry on with racial solutions for everything we have, who say they are going to make more states where I am not allowed to stay and where some hon members are not allowed to stay, and we have one group of people here and one group of people there. There is one solution. Those of us who are living together will find some way of living together.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to address the speaker who has just left the podium, because I do not have all that much time at my disposal.

I should very much like to wish the two hon members of the House of Assembly who are about to retire, a well-earned period of rest. May things go well for them, particularly for the hon member for Houghton. According to what we have heard, and according to the Hansard we have read, she has been a champion of human rights ever since coming to Parliament, a fact for which we all take our hats off to her today.

Today we have an opportunity to thank her personally in this manner for the battle she has waged in Parliament during the years she has served here. We shall never forget her as the champion of human rights.

We want to thank the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the father of the tricameral system, very much for his courage and zeal in bringing us this far. We came here to dismantle apartheid further.

At present the economy of our country is not in a favourable position. Pressure is being exerted both from inside and from outside the country, but according to the latest random survey, 90% of Blacks are, in fact, opposed to sanctions and boycotts. Even the rand is declining daily and the inflation rate is sky-rocketing.

This is worrying, because virtually every day there are matric pupils in my constituency who are looking for work. They are simply told curtly that posts have been frozen. It was a real joy for me to learn that the Goudini Spa Farmers’ Association in my constituency was involved in the planning of a bottle factory. We welcome this. I welcome it, because it will result in job opportunities being available for my people who, year in and year out, have had to seek refuge in Worcester and Cape Town.

Despite this, there is a certain Mr Botha in the Goudini district who is intent on opposing it. I ask my colleague in the House of Assembly, the hon member for Worcester, to kindly see to it that that Mr Botha changes his mind, because after all, the farmers in that area cannot accommodate our people on the farms. They cannot retain all our Coloured workers on their farms for a meagre remuneration. For this reason I ask Mr Botha and people like him to desist from this stubbornness and to co-operate with the farming community of Goudini Spa so that this factory may be established. I appeal to the departments concerned, which will be involved with the project, to put it into operation without delay.

Order! The hon member may sit down for a while. There is an hon member here who keeps on saying “fine, fine” and “yes, yes”, whenever I am not looking towards that side. It is very easy to ask the hon member who is saying this, to stand up. We shall now see who the man is who is about to stand up. Very well. That hon member must stop behaving like that. The hon member may proceed.

I ask for the hasty and speedy installation of telephones for people whose names appear on the waiting list, particularly for our aged. Contact with their families and friends is important to our aged, but the most important factor is their safety. Aged persons who have telephones in their houses, can contact the police in time of emergency or whenever they are threatened by the enemy. My earnest appeal is that telephones should be installed more hastily and more quickly, particularly in the case of the aged.

I want to ask the hon the Minister of Finance whether he would not care to reconsider the issue of bonus bonds. In my view, they worked well. There are certain churches that disapprove of them, but their members continue to support the church and they are making their contributions. If a member does not have the necessary funds, he cannot make his contribution. My appeal is therefore that bonus bonds should be reconsidered.

A matter which is very near to my heart, is that of the Athlone College, and the PTC in Paarl. Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly whether the large sports complex of the Paarl Training College which is being given to the SAP, will be fully utilised by them, or whether some thought and deliberation could not take place with regard to whether the Athlone College for Coloureds, which does not have a sports complex, could not also make use of those sporting facilities. There is one dividing wall between the Athlone College and the PTC. What prevents that dividing wall from being removed so that the Athlone College may come closer to the PTC and so that our students may make use of those sporting facilities? My appeal to the Cabinet is that they should reconsider that matter and that they should ensure that, just like the White colleges, the Athlone College will also receive its rightful share.

We, as representatives of the Paarl constituencies, must reply to the “yeses” and “whys” of our voters. Is it true, then, that the House of Assembly turns a deaf ear whenever the Coloured community makes an appeal with regard to deficiencies in their communities? We came here to negotiate. We are here to negotiate. We should very much like to negotiate with the Government with regard to the Athlone College and the PTC in Paarl.

Mr Chairman, allow me to make just a single reference to the hon member for Vryheid. I think that any possibility of confusion which might have arisen owing to the fact that we have the same surname, was finally dispelled today. Such an insolent, false accusation to the effect that we ostensibly hate all other people,…

Order! I think it is unparliamentary to accuse an hon member of a false accusation. The use of the word “false” is not correct. The hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman. The hon member accused us wrongly, and this stands in contrast to the very real hatred towards his own people which he very clearly demonstrated here today. We are going to have an election on 6 September. We are going to say the following on one platform after another. We are going to say that the NP stands for White domination in a future Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] We are going to say that. All sorts of denials are being received from the other side of the House. That is understandable. [Interjections.] Of course the hon member will say that. However, I shall explain why we are going to say this. We are going to say it because in our opinion the ultimate objective which the Government is striving towards, namely an undivided South Africa, with power-sharing—with justice, of course—and without group domination, is quite simply not viable. It is impracticable. For this reason we say that at the end of that period they will still be faced with precisely the same situation as today, namely White domination. If we argue like this, we know that it is a fallacious argument, and it is understandable that the NP should react so vehemently today.

If you say that, who do you expect to vote for your party?

Yes, it is a fallacious argument, but that is precisely how the NP argues. Last Friday the leader of the NP stood up in this Parhament and said that the CP stood for White domination. He began by adopting a subjective standpoint and arguing that because, in their subjective view, our policy was not viable, we therefore stood for White domination. That is precisely the argument which, when I quote it, hon members before me today wish to denounce as deceitful. The leader of a party that enters an election with this type of deception will receive precisely what he wished to dish out to us.

Are you in favour of a divided “volkstaat”?

Order! I am hearing the hon member for Jeppe’s voice too often. The hon member may continue.

A great deal has been said in recent times about the CP and the standpoint of Prof Carel Boshoff. Speculation has taken place and sometimes wild statements have also been made. Let us just make an overview of what the position is. However, I do not wish to comment on his choice of area for what he has in mind, but merely wish to address the principles.

Firstly, we say that the CP’s policy is one of partition, and that we propose it as the only alternative to a policy which will lead either to total conflict in this country or to the selling out of the Whites. Partition is not only advocated as a solution by us. A great deal of authority, particularly from overseas, which also advocates it, is clearly discernible. We think of the great historian, Toynbee, who advocates it as a solution for South Africa. We consider the wellknown American sociologist, Tiryakian, and the German experts Blenck and Van der Ropp, who say that partition is the answer. If the reports are correct, then the same De Crespigny, the coarchitect of the system which prevails here today, is also apparently saying now that the only solution in the Republic of South Africa will, in truth, be partition.

We say that when we come to power we shall divide up South Africa. That is the principle of self-determination which we consider non-negotiable. We say that a portion of the land in this country belongs to us. Furthermore, we say that that right, as well as the fact that it belongs to us, and the right to govern that land ourselves, are not negotiable. We consider the issue of a portion of this land being ours and of our claiming the sole right to govern it, to be totally non-negotiable. On the other hand, we say that we are prepared to negotiate with regard to territory and border adjustments. This appears in writing as part of our policy.

However, there are people in the Republic of South Africa, such as Prof Boshoff and others, who are of the opinion that the present NP Government with its present policy of political power-sharing in a unitary state, whereby mixing takes place in all spheres, has already progressed to such an extent that it is difficult, and is becoming virtually impossible to implement the policy of a partitioned state. Therefore, he says, only one alternative remains, and that is secession from the rest of South Africa.

We differ with Prof Boshoff, as in our opinion that stage has not yet been reached. We say that as long as the territory of the Republic of South Africa remains under White control and in the possession of Whites, and to the extent to which it still exists today, partition is still viable. [Interjections.] In this sense we therefore differ with Prof Boshoff. For this reason, however, it is also understandable that he should still promote the cause of the CP.

I want all hon members in this House to take cognisance of Prof Boshoffs standpoint. The Afrikaner is accused of racism when he strives to continue to exist as a people. He is accused of exploiting people. He is accused of “baasskap” and selfishness. He is accused of domination and discrimination. In the past, we have also had to listen to our forefathers being belittled in this House. To those who have engaged in such outpours of virulence, we just want to say that we have taken note of it.

What is Prof Boshoffs message, of which hon members must take cognisance? He sets great store by the freedom of his people. He is telling the world, everyone, even those who have not yet tasted the wonderful experience of nationhood and who will therefore probably not know what he is talking about, that he is prepared to take as his own that which is regarded by everyone as an arid, barren part of the country, a small portion of the territory of the Republic of South Africa, if this will ensure the continued existence of his people.

I now want to ask: Does this not ring the final death-knell for the argument of everyone who says that the Afrikaner and the Afrikaner people are racists? Does it not ring the death-knell for the allegation that we are selfish, that we are exploiters and that we wish to dominate? [Interjections.] Will hon members take cognisance of the mere fact of our nationhood, and of the high premium which is placed on it, and will they finally desist from the accusations against the people of which I am a member? [Interjections.]

We say that we agree with Prof Boshoff, and with Langenhoven, when he said the following:

Moses!

We find support for our standpoint from Weaver. We have no doubt about the accuracy and correctness of it. On the other hand, that which the NP is advocating by way of its policy stands in contrast to what the world philosopher Richard Weaver said in his famous book The Visions of Order:

I shall content myself with that.

Mr Chairman, we have just seen an illustration of the Biblical words: “It is Jacob’s voice but Esau’s hands”. [Interjections.] The CP stood here, but it was Prof Boshoff’s voice. This is by no means strange, because the hon member for Ermelo is without any doubt a secessionist. He is undoubtedly an adherent of the idea of an Afrikaner “volkstaat”, which is being propagated very pertinently and strongly by Prof Boshoff. [Interjections.] Our problem with the CP is precisely that they do not wish to do what Prof Boshoff had attempted to persuade them to do. In fact, Prof Boshoff’s standpoint does make theoretical sense, but our problem is that they wish to apply partition on the very basis that has been rejected by Prof Boshoff in the strongest terms. In fact, Prof Boshoff said that the way in which the CP wished to apply partition was devoid of a moral foundation. However, I am not going to elaborate on that. [Interjections.] I do not believe the hon member for Ermelo when he says that they are going to tell the voters that the NP is in favour of White domination. He is going to do exactly the opposite. He is going to go from house to house, telling people that the NP is selling out the Whites, which is untrue. [Interjections.] It is untrue.

During yesterday’s debate the hon member for Pietersburg blamed the hon the Minister of Finance for price increases. I should very much like to know from the hon member for Pietersburg, who has just walked out, and the CP, whether they really believe that prices will drop when the CP comes to power. Do they really think that the inflation rate will drop if the CP comes to power? Do they really think that interest rates will drop? Do they think the value of the rand will rise? Do they think the gold price will rise?

If their answers to this are positive, they must tell us why they think so. They must motivate it. There is ample opportunity to do so during the course of this debate. It does no good merely to criticise the NP. The CP must also say why they think this country will be better off economically and financially if they come to power.

The hon member for Lichtenburg also said here that we should demonstrate how we were going to persuade the LP to accept group formation as a basis of a constitutional dispensation. We see our way clear to doing this, but I think the hon member for Lichtenburg ought to demonstrate how he would persuade the LP to accept the concept of partition.

On 6 September we must go and vote. One can say many things against the NP, but one cannot accuse it of not affording the opposition parties an opportunity ad nauseum of proving their mettle at the polls. I do not know of another democracy in the world that has afforded opposition parties the opportunity of going to the polls three years in succession.

It seems to me that all this going to the polls has already become an embarrassment to the opposition parties. I read about a Russian who was uncontested in the recent election and who nevertheless dropped out. [Interjections.] In my view, the opposition parties in South Africa are in more or less the same position. The measure of a successful opposition party is not the extent to which it can criticise the government, but the extent to which it can present itself as an alternative government. With that as the yardstick, we have the weakest opposition parties in the world. The boldest expectations of both opposition parties is that there will, at most, be a hung Parliament after 6 September. Surely that is the objective of one of the leaders of the DP.

†He has no intention of becoming the alternative Government.

*He foresees a hung Parliament, and do you know, Sir, who agrees with him? Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche, the cultural leader who goes along with the CP, agrees with him.

There is not going to be any hung Parliament here, even if the right-wing and left-wing ranks are agreed on this. It really is quite strange how the left-wing and the right-wing can unite whenever there is a struggle against the NP. I seldom experience the extreme left-wing attacking the extreme right-wing. This is because the extreme left-wing does not think that the extreme rightwing is a factor, and the extreme right-wing does not attack the extreme left-wing either, because it does not think the extreme left-wing is a factor. This proves that the only factor to contend with, is the NP.

The election question will not be who is to govern the country, but who is to become the official opposition. I wish those two parties all the best in that regard.

The failures of these two opposition parties are of a two-fold nature. In the case of the DP it is because their policy is totally unacceptable to the White voters.

†If one settles for a universal franchise based on a one-man-one-vote system within a unitary state, then Black majority rule is unavoidable.

*That is an unacceptable.

One of the new leaders said after the election in 1987 that the mistake which the Progressive Federal Party had made was to spell out its policy clearly. He said that one ought to be a little vague. It was one of the new leaders who said that. He also said that one should spell out the broad principles of liberalism. These are acceptable to the voting public. It makes no difference how vague they are going to be, because the voters will realise that the DP’s ultimate objective is a Black majority government.

The inability of the CP as an opposition party lies in the very fact that their policy is impracticable. That is precisely the remark to which the hon member for Ermelo also referred.

The other dilemma is that the CP does not know at this stage what policy it should present to the voters. Should it present the idea of secession or that of partition? The CP will have to give clarity on this before 6 September. It also owes this to the AWB and Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche, because Mr Terre’Blanche has said that his people must vote for the CP so that after polling day they can ask the CP to separate the Transvaal. Therefore, the CP must tell us now whether, if the impossible happens and they come to power after 6 September, they will hand over the Transvaal, as the AWB are going to ask them to do. If separation or secession is the CP’s policy, it must tell the voters beforehand which parts of South Africa it is going to separate. If secession is not the CP’s policy, it must be partition.

However, the CP also has various expositions of partition. When it speaks about the idea of the thirteen states, this means just one thing. The CP will only be able to establish that portion which will be known as the so-called White RSA through the division of land and the removal of people if it wishes to effect a White majority occupation there. The CP must tell the voters of South Africa before 6 September where it is going to move those people to in order to establish White majority occupation. It must say where it is going to get the R80 000 million from to do this.

However, there are certain people in the ranks of the CP who say that this is not the CP’s conception of partition. They say that everyone will remain just where they are; that no one will be removed, and that the Blacks in the RSA will be coupled politically to their homelands. The coupling idea, too, was unable to stand the test of time because the presumption upon which it was based never materialised.

When Dr Verwoerd envisaged the coupling policy, it was on the assumption that the two million Blacks who would be present in the RSA in 1978, would be here only on a temporary basis. He said that they would be here on a variable family basis, and that on that basis one could couple them to the homelands. In 1978 there were 13 million Blacks here on a permanent basis, and that put paid to the coupling policy. Therefore, this CP interpretation of partition is also impracticable. For this reason the CP as a party will once again lose at the polls on 6 September.

The only real solution is that of the NP. If one cannot divide up the land, and if it is true that there are various population groups in the country who all lay claim to South African citizenship and who all insist that South Africa is their fatherland, then surely there is no other method open to one than to give these people a say in the government of the day.

Fundamental to this is the basis on which one wants to do it. The basis which the NP proposes, is that there will be sound own affairs government institutions for the various population groups. This is not a perpetuation of apartheid. It is, in fact, a condition for meaningful joint responsibility, power-sharing or joint decision-making. Representatives from these own government institutions of the various population groups will be sent to a joint legislative assembly, and decisions will be made on the basis on which they are made at the moment in this Parliament.

Numbers per se do not play a role in the legislative process of this Parliament. We already have proof of the fact that at the level of the RSCs, too, decisions are being made jointly on a basis in accordance with which one group cannot dominate another.

There is no basket which one can go and stand next to and from which one can fish out various political options according to one’s choice. One is forced into certain political options by circumstances and realities. The option which the NP has chosen, is the only viable and practicable solution that will afford everyone in South Africa a place in the sun.

Mr Chairman, we were shocked to learn of the bomb attack on the home of the previous speaker, the hon member Dr Geldenhuys. I want to tell him that I think it is an abominable and cowardly deed. My party and I reject violence. We do not believe in the use of violence to achieve political aims. It is definitely not the answer for South Africa; on the contrary, it merely exacerbates our problems. The hon member spoke about certain constitutional matters and I shall refer to them in the course of my speech.

†As a relatively new caucus colleague of the hon member for Houghton I wish to take this opportunity to publicly pay tribute to this fine lady. I have followed her fearless fight for justice since I was a young schoolboy. Never did I imagine that one day I would be sitting in the same caucus with her. For decades she has been and is still held in high esteem throughout the Black community. I wish her well in her retirement.

In the light of the “give F W de Klerk a chance” syndrome I took the trouble to have another look at the speech made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Assembly and leader-in-chief of the NP on 8 February. I also had a look at the speech he made during the discussion on the Vote of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council last Friday. I read these speeches basically to find out whether there have been any changes in the NP philosophy. Sad to say, there has been no fundamental change whatsoever. Stripped of all the semantics, very little seems to have changed.

In both speeches the hon the leader of the NP uses certain words and concepts which on the surface seem very exciting. These are concepts with which I and millions of other people can readily identify. The rhetoric that is used could create unjustified expectations.

This is what the NP has been doing for years now and this is what has caused deep frustration as well. The rhetoric does not match the deed. The intentions are not translated into action; this is the simple fact of the matter. I believe this to be a dangerous practice. To create expectations which in the end remain unfulfilled can lead to intense frustration and could even contribute to violence.

For example, in his speech on 8 February the leader of the NP had this to say:

I can readily identify with that intention. It is, to my mind, a noble intention and one which all reasonable people will be able to identify with. I also want to accept that all of us who are in this Parliament want peace, security and prosperity for our country. Yes, even the CP—I will grant them that. My problem, however, is that after the pronouncement of that noble intention which in terms of my interpretation promises an apartheid-free society came the qualifications to the intention. Then it is “own affairs” and “own community life and living areas”—all the euphemisms for apartheid as we know it. The NP must state quite unambiguously whether the race classification provisions of the Population Registration Act will remain as the basis for the constitutional development of South Africa or not.

In other words, does it still believe in the legal definition of groups—yes or no? If the answer is yes, South Africa is still assured of a racist future under the NP. That is the simple fact of the matter.

Hon members of the NP are so fond of pointing to the plural nature of other communities in other parts of the world. Yesterday again the hon member for Turffontein used Switzerland as an example. The fact of the matter is that, unlike any other country with ethnic conflict, South Africa imposes group membership from without.

In divided societies elsewhere, individuals voluntarily identify themselves with their ethnic groups. In this country by contrast, self-identification is not allowed. This is the difference between South Africa and other countries in the international community. Here groups are defined on the basis of skin colour. If a group identity is not self-chosen, why should the members of that group want to preserve it?

The Afrikaners, for example, have chosen to be a group. There is no law which legally defines them as a group and there is no need for such a law. I believe that they have the right to exist as a cultural group, as long as they do not expect public protection as a White group.

The imposition of an identity from the top inevitably leads to its rejection. An imposed identity is a stigma and not a source of pride. The reality is therefore that any system that imposes identities cannot expect approval even if it guarantees equal rights. If the formation of that group is considered an affront to its alleged members, the principle of group rights becomes meaningless.

The imposed group membership of the so-called Coloured people, for example, is even more despised because that group does not differ culturally from those who decide on their label. For so-called “Brown Afrikaners” with a history, language and religion identical to those of White Afrikaners, no discernible ethnic criteria exist.

The problem is that the Government assumes that these categories of people, that the NP has legally defined into groups, demand guarantees on their future and insist on control over their own affairs. First the Government defines me as a Coloured and then it tells me what is good for me. This is the truth of the matter and I want to tell hon members that I totally reject this.

It is precisely because the so-called Coloured people have little interest in their artificially defined group affairs that the percentage polls in the 1984 elections were so low.

I want to tell the hon leader of the NP that any future South African constitutional system of group rights that is not based on self-association will not be acceptable even if the group members enjoy equal franchise, equal state allocations and equal power and rights.

In any event I do not think that any constitutional system has any chance of success if it is imposed without any negotiation between the conflicting parties; and by negotiation I do not mean consultation.

I want to tell hon members that I have my doubts as to whether this Government understands the real meaning of negotiations. To consult with the compliant leadership in a Black Forum is not negotiation.

How did you get here?

Negotiations must be entered into with those organisations who command a sizeable constituency in South Africa.

Did you come by way of consultation or by way of negotiation?

No, “konsultasie”. You had already defined the structures and then you consulted us.

Negotiations must be entered into even with those organisations who command a sizeable majority but who are not visible by virtue of the fact they have been proscribed in terms of South African law.

The Government’s criminalisation of organisations with popular Black support is in itself part of the problem and not part of the solution. On the one hand the Government says that for the first time in our history the door is wide open to the achievement through negotiation of a constitutional future in South Africa which could satisfy the political aspirations of all the country’s communities, but on the other hand they design the structures in which their kind of negotiation must take place.

That is what I want to tell the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. That is exactly what happened in 1982. The structures were devised, constitutional proposals were put before the other parties and all that happened in reality was consultation. One could not change the basis of the proposals. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not know why the hon the Whips always arrange that the tallest man has to speak after the shortest man in the House.

The hon member for Schauderville must excuse me for not reacting directly to his speech. I just want to tell him that with regard to his remark that it was a privilege for him to serve in the same caucus as the hon member for Houghton, he has the reform policy of the NP to thank for that privilege, and for many other things to which he referred this afternoon.

On 6 September we are going to hold an election with the most polarised society with regard to White politics in the history of the Republic of South Africa. With regard to the House of Assembly, we are dealing with two radical elements on either side of the NP which are both making an emotional appeal to the voters of South Africa. These appeals can have disastrous consequences for the continued existence of our country and for that reason I trust that the White electorate of South Africa will make a choice for moderation, because only moderates in all three Houses of this Parliament are in a position to solve the problems of this country by means of law and justice for everyone. We know that to all intents and purposes it is correct to allege that in South Africa a reservoir of goodwill exists, and I make so bold as to say that this tricameral Parliament and the fact that we in this House have been able to enter into debate with one another, has made an enormous contribution, particularly during this session, towards developing understanding for the issues with which we are all grappling both together and separately.

On the one hand we have the CP-AWB alliance, which lives in an impractical dreamworld and the solutions which it seeks lie in dividing the country into 13 regions a lá Hoon and a lá Hartzenberg formulae, the borders of which have still not been spelt out. I believe that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has a duty towards the voters of South Africa to put just that one little matter right and spell out the borders of the 13 regions before 6 September, so that the voter will know what he is voting for.

I suspect that where there was a lack of clarity as far as they were concerned, there will now be greater clarity after the recent discussions between the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly and his extraparliamentary partners, Mr Eugène Terre’ Blanche and Prof Carel Boshoff. [Interjections.] While the hon member is being so rowdy at the moment, he should perhaps make it clear whether or not Mr Terre’Blanche came to talk about the seat which he was going to acquire. [Interjections.]

I said that our society was polarised in a way which has not been known in the history of South Africa, where, after the last 20 years, relations between people have reached a peak of relaxation thanks to the efforts of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. There is no better example of the tension which exists at present in this decade than the conviction of a Wit Wolf for murder in the Supreme Court in Pretoria, to which the hon member Dr Golden also referred.

One often asks oneself what gives rise to such barbaric behaviour by a man who speaks one’s language and apparently grew up with the same cultural background as most of the hon Afrikaans-speaking members of this House. According to this own testimony, that man did what was right. He acted out of hatred of people of another colour, because he saw them as a threat to the Whites of this country. It is being asked what influence the brainwashing of right-wing and, I want to add, also left-wing radical politics had on his way of thinking and his ideals.

Order! That matter has not yet been disposed of in the Supreme Court, and the hon member may therefore not refer to it.

There he falls flat!

I think the hon member is lying flat in his seat.

In a speech on occasion in the Other Place I referred to the hatred with which a motorist, also a member of one of the right-wing radical movements, reacted when I came across him after he had killed a cyclist near Lydenburg. [Interjections.]

It is this type of behaviour which constitutes a powder-keg in South Africa, where good human relations and moderation are our strongest and perhaps our only weapon in finding a viable solution to our country’s problems. In this regard the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly has an obligation to take the nation into his confidence with regard to his relationship with the leader of the AWB.

In a book entitled Die Opmars van die AWB, which appeared recently, this relationship is beautifully spelt out by Adv Chris Beyers and Dr P J Kotze. I would like to quote a single paragraph so that the House can take note of it. They say:

I just want to read this next little sentence and thereby conclude the quotation:

On this note I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly—I see he is not here—whether he did not show his solidarity with his co-leader of this people’s movement when he shared a platform with him on the occasion of the Great Trek Festival at Donkerhoek. It was on that occasion that Mr Terre’Blanche said that the well-known rock in SWA—hon members will know it—which was known as the Finger of God, collapsed on the day on which the Brazzaville protocol was signed by South Africa, Cuba and Angola, as a reprimand from the Creator.

The hon the leader is a man with exceptional training in theology and I do not want to enter into a debate with him in that regard. However, I would like to know whether or not he dissociated himself from that blasphemous statement and whether he spoke to Mr Terre’blanche about it. If he does not do so and associates himself with the AWB’s standpoint, I believe that he will probably have to answer for it to fellow theologians.

Perhaps I should not be debating this point with the hon the leader here from the back benches. Perhaps I should turn my attention to the other theologians in that party. I see the hon member for Witbank is also present. No doubt they were also present at that great and emotional festival. Perhaps they would want to react to that, because we and the electorate are eagerly awaiting their reaction.

The other extreme pole in the House of Assembly is probably the hon member for Claremont. I see that he and his kindred spirits in the new Proggocratic Party are not here. That hon member was accepted with warmth and love in the ranks of the new three-headed party. I remember the time, I believe it was 1987, when he had to leave that party precisely because of his left-wing radical attitude. That attitude of the hon member has not changed; on the contrary, his radicalism has increased, if one has to judge from statements which he has made in this House.

Has the new Proggocratic party now moved further towards the left, in order to be able to accommodate people such as that hon member, or has the hon member changed his principles overnight in order to be their candidate in Claremont? I remember a speech which the hon member for Yeoville made shortly after the hon member for Claremont took refuge in an independent bench in this House. It was probably one of the most blatant attacks which an hon member in this House has made on a colleague. Are the political principles of the DP so flexible—they must reply to us—that they are able to accommodate people who are definitely not their kindred spirits?

The question which the voters are asking, is whether they must vote for the principles of the hon member for Yeoville, the hon member for Claremont, the hon member for Greytown or for one of the three leaders. However, what the voters know is that if they vote for that party, they will be voting for a party of surrender—a party which offers no solutions to the particular problems of the country—but whose policy is playing directly into the hands of the ANC and its hanger-on, the UDF.

This party is very sensitive about the fact that they are “soft on security”. However, what are the facts? The hon member for Claremont referred in this House to the ANC as a freedom movement, with the suggestion that the ANC was going to overthrow the system here in the name of so-called freedom, and with violence at that. Since then there has been a deathly silence among hon members, as well as the three leaders of that party, which can mean nothing other than that they subscribe to the statements of the hon member for Claremont.

In the field of security, the polarisation of the South African community is being experienced in a way which holds the greatest threat to peace in this country. On the one hand the right-wing alliance is asking that the war in South West Africa should be continued by casting aspersions on the actions of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence, and by questioning the powers of the Security Forces by saying that they were caught unawares on the northern border, while the hon member for Claremont, on the other hand, is trying to discredit the Security Forces with regard to alleged action against a so-called freedom movement.

With reference to the White voters, they will have to choose between three things when they vote on 6 September; war on the side of the right-wingers, surrender on the side of the left-wingers, or the solution of the NP.

Mr Chairman, following on the hon member for Germiston District I want to say that from what I have heard from him and from hon members of the NP as well as the CP in this House, it seems to me as though there is already an election campaign on the go, and their eyes are set on 6 September.

Be that as it may, I have also this afternoon heard terms like vitriolic, assiduous and uncalled for when words like violation and violence were uttered. Those who are obsessed with violence speak of violence. Let us bring this word ‘violence’ to an end. Let us look at the word ‘negotiation’. Let us look at coming together on issues. I think that only by using these words which are clothed in courtesy, will we have courtesy which begets courtesy.

An hon member spoke about the expenditure on arms, the army and the SADF and he brought the Police in as well. Whether a country is at war or at peace with its neighbours or with anybody else, there is always the need for a well-maintained, well-trained army. There is always the need for law-keepers in a country.

A perfect example is Switzerland. Switzerland did not take part in the First World War, or in the Second World War, but it had a perfect army which could look after the people and the country in case of need. A very recent case in point is Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan, though they were fighters, never had an organised, regimented army, as there should be in any country. Therefore Russia stepped in and there was no counter-action from the people of Afghanistan. However, democracy always prevails and Russia has met what one could call its Vietnam in Afghanistan.

I have heard hon members from the three sides of the House of Assembly argue in favour of and against partition. On the one hand, members of the NP spoke against a boerestaat and have condemned it. On the other hand, members of the CP have argued for their homeland, a boerestaat. Does this not give us a reason to say that the NP should abandon the laws that discriminate against people in this country on the basis of colour? One of the many is the Group Areas Act. If one opposes partition, as has been expounded by the CP, why have group areas? Group areas are also a form of partition. Therefore I say that the argument against partition should also apply against the Group Areas Act.

Coming to the hon the Minister’s Vote, some of us have forgotten the essence of the Votes before us.

We have indulged in politics and in the attacking of one another’s policy. However, what are taxes and taxation really? With due respect, taxation is finding the money for the expenditure for the running of the country. This is the arduous and difficult task that this hon Minister has in his hands, particularly in the circumstances that South Africa is in. One needs to consider a vital factor, namely the demographic trends in this country. We should be applying our minds to the population. The population growth particularly in the Black community is to my mind a factor which very largely takes away the funds that are available to the State.

We who are blessed to be here and to be speaking of our country and our people have a responsibility in the field of human endeavour. Our responsibility is to share what we have with the less fortunate. I think that in this direction our Government is not lacking.

When I speak like this, I do not want to be called a perpetrator of apartheid or discrimination—the hon member for Reservoir Hills sometimes calls me “the junior partner of the NP Government” and “a perpetrator of apartheid.” I am being realistic and pragmatic. I am looking at the interests of all the people of South Africa.

It has been said that this is politics but I want to criticise an hon member who said that the hon the State President did not look at the policy of the economic growth of this country. I want to say, far from it. When the hon the State President was the Prime Minister of this country and as State President of this country, he has always borne in mind the growth of the economy of South Africa.

What else were the Carlton and Good Hope conferences about but to bring as many people as possible into the economy of this country so that all of us—in whatever manner we possibly can—may contribute to this economy? I believe it is time for us to stop wasting words and to get involved with our own entrepreneurs to boost our economy and increase our industrial activities so that we can create jobs. To a great extent we can create a self-reliant South Africa and live as South Africans.

I am not blind to the fact that we have done everything possible for our people. We may not quite have a utopia here, but that is only possible if the population itself has the incentive and the creativity to bring about an economy for the people. Let us not lose sight of the fact that anything unacceptable to the outside world will have an adverse effect on the economy of South Africa. As international partners we have to supply goods as well as bring goods into the country. South Africa is not an island unto itself and if we do not do that, we will not be able to survive as a peaceful community. That is what this whole debate has been about.

This may be my very last speech in this august assembly and I make an appeal to hon members.

Let us put our heads together. Let us forget the past. Let us build a future. Let us be positive in our approach. To the hon members of the CP: Those hon members have academics amongst them. They have brilliant men amongst them. They must please use their God-given gifts for the benefit of South Africa. The hon member Dr Zach de Beer, one of the leaders of the DP, said in his opening speech in this Parliament—and I cannot remember the exact words—that he and his party will help South Africa as long as the Government dismantles the hurtful laws and sets out on the road of progress. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a privilege to follow on the hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Delegates. I would like to thank him for the positive remarks that he made. Although we differ on some of those remarks, at least they were positive. This is important. If we can build on a positive attitude in this country, I believe we have a future.

*I would like to return to the Budget, because we have here a Minister who will truly have to find the funds in South Africa to service a country which is asking more of him than he can afford in reality. Unless we are going to reform the economy of the country, we will not be able to bring about political reform.

I had a look at what was happening in South Africa at the moment. I found that the State was, in the first place, a job creator, and in the second place that the State was a benefactor and in the third place that the State was also the entrepreneur. If that does not border on a social welfare state or on socialism, then I do not know what does. With regard to job creation, I found the evidence for this in Sanlam’s latest synopsis in which they say that between 1980 and September 1988 as many as 317 400 job opportunities were created in South Africa. That is the net figure in the non-agricultural formal sector.

However, what is cause for concern is that 82% of these job opportunities were created by the State. There is an increase in job opportunities in commerce and mining while those in industry and construction show a decrease, and this despite large contributions which the State has made as a result of its decentralisation policy. For this year provision is made in the budget for R710 million for decentralisation aid, and R1044 million was budgeted for export incentives. The conclusion which I have to come to, is that despite the fact that our industries are expanding and that there are greater outputs, this is being achieved at the expense of manpower and in favour of capital inputs. For this reason I want to make a very strong appeal to the effect that we should begin to reverse this concept.

If we look at the State as benefactor, we see that in the present budget provision is made for an amount of about R31 billion for social services, training and services which are linked to the social side and R12,4 billion with regard to protection. If we take this as a percentage, it is nearly two thirds of the total budget.

As entrepreneur, over the years the State has established Iscor, Sasol, Foskor, the Transport Services, the Postal Services, Escom, etc. This is something which the State cannot be criticised for today, but which has led to a situation in which the State plays a more than important role in the South African economy.

We want to allege that despite efforts which have been made and good marketing which has already been done, privatisation is not progressing quickly enough, because no person will be interested in buying a business from the State unless he will be able to make a profit from it. Furthermore, we see that many of these industries are so large that they require large capital sums.

Furthermore, if we look at the employment seekers in South Africa, we will find that from 1960 to 1970, with a growth rate of 5,8% in the GDP, there was an increase of 4,2% in the number of people employed. In the following decade, between 1970 and 1980, there was an average growth rate of 3,8%, but a growth rate of 0,7% in the number of people employed. I have already attempted to indicate that at the moment there is almost no increase in the formal sector.

We concede that during the past few years a considerable number of employment opportunities have been found in the informal sector, and this seems to be the area in which most developments could take place.

We are therefore entering a situation in which an increasingly poorly trained labour force is emerging in the country. As I have already shown, we are moving in the direction of capital intensive activities which do not utilise our manpower potential.

Figures also indicate that by the turn of the century there will be approximately 8 million unemployed people in the urbanised areas, and in the meantime 8 million new babies will be added to the population. This is destabilising and places a tremendous burden on the State.

What should we do? Firstly, I think it is the task of the policy-maker to effect a reversal. The confidence in the economy will therefore have to recover, and this can only be achieved with the co-operation of the private sector. We shall have to stick to our budget, and there every MP will have to play his role in supporting the hon the Minister. Every department will have to play its role, because unfortunately it is true that the successes of each political functionary are measured in terms of the success which he achieved by the building of monuments in his constituency. We must move away from that and rather build a monument which I, as the representative of my voters, will be able to say helped to save the taxpayer’s money and give the private sector greater opportunity in the South African economy.

I want to tell hon members that it is high time that we concentrate less on politics when it comes to the decision-making process in this country, and allow the economy to play a greater role. There must be less government in this country. The Treasury must issue a message which will encourage us to save within departments—not when we come to the end of a financial year, but to curtail useless expenditure for the sake of the following year’s budget.

I want to come to a more important aspect, and that is the large number of unemployed in South Africa who will have to become partners in the new South Africa. They will have to see a new era of new opportunities in South Africa. I would like to ask today that the Blacks in South Africa should learn a lesson from the history of the Afrikaner. In the early 1930s the country experienced the end of a period of drought. There was a depression, conditions were difficult and we were struggling with the question of the poor Whites. What did the Afrikaners do at that stage? They joined forces and carried out a rescue operation.

Has the time not perhaps come—and here I want to link up with people like Aggrey Klaaste and others—for us to carry out a rescue operation for the Black people in this country? Black nationalism must be based on economic independence and not on hand-outs. I want to appeal that we should move away from the mistake which we made by preventing Whites from investing in Black areas. We must find partners on a 50/50 basis and appeal to all cultural organisations, commercial organisations, churches and so on to build bridges. We must guard against exercising our political ideologies in isolation within a kraal wall.

We must form co-operation structures and work positively towards a better future for everyone. This will mean that everyone will have to have access to business and capital enterprises.

This will bring about partnerships which will promote involvement, and bring about training and productivity. It will even mean that adults will have to receive training. However, what is most important is that when we enter such a system, we will have to obtain people’s commitment to a population development programme so that we will be able to bring the population growth within affordable limits.

We will have to reach a point at which land ownership—the tribal ownership system—will have to be amended, because the advantage and growth of each emergent people will lie in agriculture and in the possession of property. For that reason I am saying that an important change will have to be brought about in self-governing and independent states as well. I want to make an appeal that where land is transferred to self-governing and independent states, this land will only be transferred if it is to be privately owned and ownership is to be given to those owners.

We must continue with our deregulation in order to reach a point as quickly as possible at which we will be able to utilise the saving which we will have achieved with Public Service curtailment in order to inject further funds into education and training and the population development programme. Our privatisation process will have to move towards a point at which the Development Bank and the SBDC will obtain greater sums of money from the privatisation process to establish this ownership, entrepreneurship and partnerships.

Furthermore, I support the idea that we must look at a very strong labour intensive industrial system in this country, and that we should not stop short at the low level of productivity which exists at the moment, but that we should rather attempt to transform it by means of training and better motivation into a positive image of and contribution towards the economy of this country.

The Joint Meeting adjourned at 18h37.