Mr Chairman, I am very grateful for the privilege of participating in this debate.

I want to make it clear from the outset that the LP of South Africa has on many occasions expressed itself against sanctions. It is therefore clearly on record that the LP will not allow the country to go to rack and ruin.

Yesterday the hon member for Cradock, who is also a Meyer, made a very good speech here. I agree with him 99%, but I disagree with him 1%. Until he is prepared to admit that the Group Areas Act, as well as other discriminatory Acts, are wrong, and asks for them to be abolished, I cannot agree wholeheartedly with him.

During the past few years so much has been expected of the consumer. The consumer has been asked to make sacrifices, while price increases on necessities, such as bread and fuel, have been the order of the day. We have heard that there is a suggestion that fuel prices are going to be increased again.

Where is it going to end? What is happening in this country? The Margo Report elicited great interest through the announcement which was made that tax changes were going to become a reality. It was the taxpayer who again had to foot the bill.

We are on the eve of a general election and I want to make it clear that I am sorry for my hon NP colleagues, because on the one hand there is the CP which will do everything in its power to sell and proclaim its policy of partition to the voters, although it is well aware that it will never get any further with that policy than it has up to now. On the other hand we have the NP which must sell its so-called new reform policy, while many of its hon members have brought reform to a standstill through certain of the statements they make from time to time.

I think South Africa is a wonderful country, although we have a Third World population of 80% here. However, we will very soon have to realise that we are dependent on one another. We cannot get along without one another. In the book Anton Rupert: Pleitbesorger vir Hoop by W P Esterhuyse, Dr Rupert refers to a ladder of development. He says the best way to reach the top is to push up, assist and support one another. He also says that if we pull one another off this ladder it can fall over and everything will collapse.

On page 117 of this book I read that now is the time to talk to one another and it does not matter with whom. In his book Esterhuyse says we must not look first for differences. There are differences, but we must rather sit down and write down those things we have in common and consult one another on these. When we write down these things and try to do this, we must be absolutely honest with one another.

Yesterday the hon member for Cradock made an appeal to hon members, and I want to take this appeal further. Yesterday the hon member Mr Desmond Lockey spoke about swindling. Today I can spell out to hon members what swindling is going on and how we are the people who are getting the short end of the stick.

In the constituency of Ashton I got a so-called Coloured to make an investment. I asked him to purchase the hotel complex there and to build a hotel with other facilities for our people. Let me tell hon members what happened there. The man made the investment. The land alone cost approximately R40 000. The complex was erected at a cost in excess of R1 million. What happened then? The complex consists of a bakery, a supermarket, a butchery, and a ladies’ bar and a men’s bar. Provision was also made for a liquor store for off-sales.

While the complex was being built, a White was allowed to open a liquor store a few yards away. Although that liquor store was built in a White area, the Coloured area in which the hotel complex was built is only a few yards away. What happened then? That Coloured man with that big complex, which at the moment provides work for 36 people, and the number can increase to 60, was refused an off-sales licence, whereas the White a few yards away was allowed to carry on with his business undisturbed, although he only employs two people. Only two! Hon members can now see what dishonesty and swindling is taking place. I also want to tell hon members that if that friend of mine were to close down that complex, 36 people would be without a job.

But surely that is the Liquor Board!

Yes, but that Liquor Board must be abolished if that is the way it carries on. [Interjections.]

I want to continue, and I want to tell hon members that as an MP I am doing everything in my power—the hon Ministers and the hon the Minister of Finance know this—to help to create employment opportunities in my constituency. However, if this sort of thing is going to happen, I do not want to see where it is all going to end.

We must hold consultations, we must trust one another and we must understand one another, but yesterday the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance said something for which he owes our people an apology. I do not know whether he is aware that he offended us profoundly. He looked in our direction and said that we people did not understand. We do not know, and we will not know about the many things which are being done; we will not know if we are being deprived of many of these things.

The hon the Deputy Minister wanted to know whether the decline in the gold price was the NP’s fault. I want to tell him that it is, because it is their policy which caused this.

I want to proceed. A great deal was said here about certain beaches in Port Elizabeth which are now open. Do they want us to say: “Thank you, Master”? It is our democratic right to go to any beach we wish. It is a God-given beach, because in the same way that the Whites believe in God, I believe in God, my family believes in God and my children believe in God. However, I sometimes wonder whether there are not different gods and whether we are not perhaps misunderstanding one another somewhere along the line.

We here in Parliament will do everything in our power to give our voters only the best. Then I want to mention matters such as that hotel complex on which more than R1 million had to be spent. I want to go further because I forgot to tell hon members that that complex has toilets which are used by the public, but the people who buy their liquor at the liquor store use the toilets in the bar. Where is that going to get us?

In my opinion a sound philosophy of life is more important than physical well-being. We must not merely strive to be successful, but we must also be dignified people. That is what we must try to be. The successful man frequently gains something from life if he is prepared to put something back into it.

I also want to say that there is no one better than our hon Minister of Finance to tell us why there are sanctions. There is no one better than our hon Minister of Finance to tell us why people are dissatisfied. He has just been abroad. He knows what the people overseas think of us, but here hon members—our hon brothers in the tricameral Parliament—forget that those of us here in the House of Representatives will do everything in our power to ensure that only the best is given to South Africa.

I have said that I consider South Africa to be a wonderful country. Why are there sanctions then? Why can we not talk to the people we must talk to? Whether it is the ANC, Archbishop Tutu, Dr Boesak or whoever, I feel that we, together with the CP, the ANC, the AWB and everyone who is playing an important role in South Africa, must sit down around a conference table. If I can be of any assistance to South Africa, the country which I also love, to get those discussions going, I will do everything in my power to do so. I am prepared to talk to Archbishop Tutu and Dr Boesak if I know that this is really going to mean something to us in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege to follow the hon member for Robertson. I am very glad that he once again voiced the LP’s opposition to sanctions. I cannot thank him enough for doing so.

I should very much like to touch on two aspects this morning. I firstly want to talk about agricultural aid over the past few years, and secondly I would like to ask how safe the South African farmer and agriculture are in the hands of the NP. [Interjections.] I hope to be able in the course of my speech to reply to some of the accusations which the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central made here yesterday. However, I believe the hon the Minister of Agriculture will be able to reply to him effectively, and therefore I will not take much further notice of him.

There have been three aspects of agricultural aid over the past few disaster-ridden years. Firstly, I should very much like to say thank you for this aid on behalf of South African farmers, especially those in the summer grain areas. Secondly, I ask today what we have achieved. Thirdly, I want to ask where we stand today.

In expressing my thanks, I wish to begin by thanking the hon the State President for his attitude towards agriculture and the aid he has given us over the past few years. We always knew that we had his sympathy. It was our experience throughout that he prepared an atmosphere and set the scene for the assistance that agriculture was afforded at the end of the day. He had the courage of his convictions and he showed it by converting all this into effective decision-making. We shall always remember him as a friend of the farmer. [Interjections.]

I should also very much like to thank our Cabinet, our hon Minister of Finance and our hon Minister of Agriculture for their contributions towards the provision of this aid over the years.

Secondly, I want to ask today what we have achieved by this. Was it worthwhile? Did we waste the money of the taxpayers of this country, or what have we actually achieved thereby?

Firstly I want to say that we have in this way been able to save South African agriculture’s biggest asset, namely the South African farmer himself. I shall quote a brief extract from the issue for a period up to and including the fourth quarter of 1988 of a Directorate of Agriculture publication, Ekonomiese Tendense, to illustrate this particular point.

This refers to certain statements made in the document—

This further indicates that agriculture’s contribution to the GDP could realise a 12% increase.

As far as the farmers themselves are concerned, approximately 25 000 have made use of this aid over these years. Approximately 2 500 farmers were saved from actual bankruptcy and financial disaster, and no significant drop in the number of farmers occurred during this period. This is what we have achieved with regard to our South African farmer.

What did the consumer get out of this? I firstly want to say that in this period after the drought years, the consumer is still getting the cheapest food in the world here, if the situation is compared with similar countries and similar circumstances. Trolley by trolley, therefore, the South African housewife is still getting the best buy from the South African farmer.

This is not all that the consumer got out of this. The direct price advantages which were a result of this aid, were to the advantage of all consumers. When we subsidised bread, who benefited? The consumer reaped the benefit. Nobody had to queue for food anywhere, as we often see on television is happening in other countries. Over the years food has always been available at reasonable prices and the consumer hardly noticed that this country had recently experienced what was perhaps the worst drought in 200 years, definitely the worst in living memory.

However, what did South Africa get out of this? Firstly, I contend that with this aid we saw to it that these strategic food products were available and that during this time the outside world was unable to get us in a corner in this regard and force us to our knees. Look for example at something like white maize, which is the staple diet of a large proportion of our population. This is not something that we can import from abroad—only Zimbabwe sometimes produces a surplus white maize which they can export—but the South African consumer as well as the country could benefit from this throughout this period. The combined subsidies to the maize and wheat industries in 1988, for example, totalled in the region of R506 million. The exchange earnings of wheat alone are worth more than R500 million this year.

Yesterday a lot was said here about the maize industry; the so-called maize scandal. However, what do we expect of our maize exports this year? We will earn a surplus of R1 500 million in foreign exchange with regard to this export. What does the Sunday Times have to say about this? On 2 April the following report was published:

This is the benefit the country has reaped from this. It goes on to quote Volkskas, as follows:

In other words, our maize exports provide us with a cushion of $20 an ounce on our gold exports. This is what South Africa gained from this aid.

Today several incorrect perceptions exist about aid granted to agriculture over the past few years. It is of the utmost importance that the truth and the correct perspective in this regard be conveyed to the electorate. This is what we achieved. This is what we have accomplished in recent times.

My last question is: Where do we stand today with regard to agriculture? By way of summary I merely want to say that all is well in certain agricultural industries. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that the profitability of all our grain industries is declining. In other respects, too, all is not well in the grain industry as a result of rapidly increasing costs and high interest rates. The following quotation is from an information document published by the South African Agricultural Union. It speaks for itself:

All I want to tell the farmers of this country in this regard is that the Government is aware of this and will continue to do everything possible to support these industries. We as the NP will always plead with the Government that agriculture be considered for export incentives. These industries have strategic value and the Government ought to help finance a strategic supply.

The socio-economic role agriculture plays in the country is still not widely realised or appreciated. These are the matters which we will work on, and which we will constantly bring to the attention of the taxpayer and the Government.

We thank the Government today for its foresight. Despite the fact that the CP is doing everything possible to disparage this aid and persuade the South African farmer that it is insignificant, while the DP tries to convince us that there are other, more important priorities, we will constantly try to promote this cause.

The South African farmer has to know two things about the future. He has to know that as long as this Government is in power, and with the relations we have and try to maintain with the outside world, he will always have an export market for his agricultural produce and international markets will be open to him. Moreover we will not read such pronouncements as these I have before me, namely the CP’s statements about the economic warfare they want to conduct with the outside world and the catastrophic consequences that will have for agriculture. When the hon the State President goes into Africa to open doors for us, agriculture is the first to benefit.

In conclusion, everybody will know that for as long as we are in power, every farmer will decide for himself about the ownership of his farm. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not know much about agriculture, but what I do know is that the farmers received R405 million this year, and that the taxpayers will have to pay this off in years to come. Eventually this implies that the taxpayers are going to have to pay back R14 billion for the R450 million which the farmers received. This is what I have to say on that point. [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order! When I call for order, it means that the hon member Mr Douw and the hon member for Heilbron, as well as that hon member at the back, the hon member for Cradock, should also maintain order. I cannot permit this. The hon member is entitled to make his speech before an election on an issue which he considers to be important. The hon member may proceed.

Apparently it hurts when· I say that the R450 million which the farmers will be receiving this year, is going to cost us R14 billion in the long run. I should like this to be refuted.

I am glad the hon the Minister of Law and Order is here today. Two more bodies have been found where we live, in Belhar. I would like to know whether the station strangler has struck again. Could these murders of two children be linked to the station strangler, or does he no longer exist, and is somebody else now committing these murders? Our people in Belhar are concerned, because children disappear and then their bodies are picked up in the bushes. We would like the hon the Minister to devote urgent attention to this. Things cannot continue in this way.

There are certain perceptions in this Parliament I would like to put paid to today. One of the perceptions on the part of the NP is that we should be grateful for being in Parliament. When they get to the podium, many of the hon members here on my right-hand side spin this yarn that we should be grateful for being here.

It is absolute rubbish. [Interjections.] We were born in this country, and according to any standards of civilisation, we are civilised, and we believe it is our right to be part of the general South African public. Therefore, it is also our right to be voters and to stand as representatives of this Parliament. We do not want to be in a separate little cage. It is the perception of the NP that we should come here and sit in a separate little cage as the House of Representatives. We would prefer to be treated as equal citizens, and that is why we have more in common with the DP than we will ever have with the NP.

There is another perception which exists among some reporters, especially those of the English-language Press, that we are now on the gravy train, and that the LP is not going to resign, because then they will no longer be on the gravy train. What about the Whites who have been in Parliament all these years—were they on the gravy train? Why are we suddenly on the gravy train when we come here?

We have chosen the way of negotiation. That is what we arehere for. We have not chosen the way of violence. Apparently one only has to choose the way of violence to be right, but when you choose the way of negotiation, you are suddenly on the gravy train. No, Sir, as South Africans it is our right to be in Parliament, and whether they regard it as the gravy train or not, is their perception of the matter and that perception should be rectified immediately.

The other day I said that some hon members were verbal terrorists. I see there is only one of them left here today. [Interjections.] I call them verbal terrorists because they come here, launch attacks and then run away. Every afternoon they come here to launch attacks and then they run away again. I am referring now to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives. [Interjections.] We too have broken away. I know what I am talking about, but we had good reason. However, that reason no longer exists. They have more debts than principles.

What are the differences in the policy of the LP and the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives? I should now like to know once and for all. There are no differences in principle. There are none!

They are looking for money!

We all know that they have more debts than principles. They should stop snapping at our heels. It is not to our advantage. It is to our disadvantage. I sincerely hope that it will now come to an end.

I should also like to thank the hon member for Vasco for the speech he made yesterday. You see, that is another perception which exists outside Parliament. We are seen as a concubine of the NP. [Interjections.] The hon member put an end to that perception yesterday by attacking the hon member Mr Douw and the hon member Mr Lockey. I am glad that happened, because that indicates to the people outside that we are not the lap-dog of the NP. We have come here to state our own standpoints. When we do so, we do it first of all in the best interests of South Africa.

†That is our first consideration. Whatever we say or do is in the interests of our country. The perception that we are a different group must also go. If one happens to have a White skin—one can be Portuguese, Italian, German or Scandinavian—one is still part and parcel of that so-called group. One’s religion does not matter. We, on the other hand, share the same religion and the same language with the Whites. That is not important. What is important is their White skin and that is why we say that policy based on a group concept based on a White skin is a racist concept that must disappear.

*Here in South Africa we have two groups. There is an English-speaking group and an Afrikaans-speaking group. There are many others that speak other languages. There are many other ways in which we can identify ourselves as a group, but unfortunately the NP’s group concept determines that one should have a White skin. They will have to abandon that concept, because in the long run that concept is going to ruin them. In the first instance we should identify ourselves as South Africans. If we can do that, we will go far together.

I have said before from this podium that we have learnt a lot during the past five years, and I trust that we will be able to put South Africa first when we all return after 6 September. If we have to put South Africa first, then we should get rid of the absurd Acts which are still hampering and hurting us. If we abolish the Group Areas Act today, what is going to happen tomorrow? Absolutely nothing. Bonteheuwel is so overcrowded that nobody else can get in there. Mitchell’s Plain is so overcrowded; nobody else can get in there. Vasco, where the hon member is the representative, is equally overcrowded—nobody else can get in there.

What will therefore happen when the Group Areas Act is abolished? It is when small places are opened up that those places will be inundated, since we need land. If land could be identified in time, and this land could be made available to everybody, the Group Areas Act would no longer mean anything in future.

Those Acts which are still hurtful, should be abolished. What every South African longs for is in the first place to give his child the best opportunity—that is why we have been pleading for one education department for so long—and secondly he wants a job so that he can feed his family. The Government should see to the creation of job opportunities so that every person could get a job according to his own ability. Basically that is what we are pleading for.

As soon as possible after 6 September we should get rid of these other annoying things along the way. I know the NP is going to do absolutely nothing about it now, since an election is coming up, and the partition policy of the CP and the “Black peril” is enjoying prominence. After the sixth the “Black peril” will have ceased to exist for at least five years. Then we should get together to deliberate on these annoying trifles, so that they can be brushed aside and we can make progress as South Africans. Then hon members are going to find that there are not all that many differences between their perception of South Africa and our perception of the future South Africa.

Why should we sustain these politics of conflict by keeping Acts which protect a White skin on the Statute Book? After all, they do not need laws to protect their White skin or their White daughters. When those annoying Acts are abolished they will discover that South Africa is a land in which there is a place in the sun for everybody. South Africa is big enough to accommodate all its inhabitants. The CP need not flee to its own White country. After all, nothing like that exists in South Africa any more. They should realise that they are part of South Africa, and we would like them to remain part of South Africa as well. This country needs their talents as well. Those talents should be used to the advantage of South Africa, not in the interests of some kind of “Boetestaat”. After all, the Great Trek has been something of the past for ages now! [Interjections.] Those hon members should now forget about trekking. All we ask is that they should stay with us, so that all of us in South Africa can grow.

That is why we are closer to the DP and their policy than to the policy of the NP. If we can walk this road together, there will be room for everybody in South Africa. Many hon members on this side of the House are also narrow-minded sometimes, and possibly offend those in rightwing ranks, but that period in our history is also something of the past now. Those hon members who had something on their minds, unburdened themselves of it here. That period is therefore something of the past.

I will tell hon members what is going to happen after 6 September. This side of the House will want to co-operate more and more in the best interests of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not think the previous speaker said much that was new. I think that during the past sitting we have heard the substance of his speech—I express no opinion as to its merit—more than once. I think that if the hon member were to take another look at Hansard, he should just check whether he has not, by a remark he has made, trodden on a sensitive nerve on the other side, instead of displaying sensitivity in respect of his own community and its standpoint, since the sensitivity is not all on one side of this Parliament.

Virtually the entire speech that I want to make replies, directly or indirectly, to the hon member’s speech. At the root of our political differences—there are political differences—lie very important differences in our views on life, the world and religion. I want to say to the hon member who spoke before me that he should get away from the oversimplification of speaking about merely a “skin”.

Where is our homeland?

Order! Let us understand one another from the outset. The hon member for Dysselsdorp must make fewer interjections. We are listening to the pre-election speech of a leader of a party. The hon member may proceed.

In recent years and even in recent weeks, some of those differences have emerged more clearly. One of the primary political premises of the CP is to be found in the diversity of ethnic groups and peoples. Only yesterday the hon member for Houghton put forward the ideal of the so-called “non-racial society”. In contrast, I want to mention the pronouncement by a well-known American who has often been quoted here, namely Prof S P Huntington. He had the following to say about the “non-racial society”:

The author goes on to say that it is to be doubted whether that principle is reconcilable with South African traditions and needs. He states:

He goes on:

It is not an apartheid ideologist who said that, but an observer from America. I agree with this analysis, even though I do not agree with his consociational model which he bases on this.

The CP takes the ethnic and racial diversity very seriously, specifically because our own people are precious to us. I should just have liked to ask the previous speaker whether he takes sufficient account of this aspect of the reality of South Africa, namely the fact that even though he may not have a group consciousness, there are other people who do have a group consciousness or national consciousness (volksbewussyn). If he wants me to have respect for his opinion, he must have respect for a community which originated, developed and is still in existence here as a people. [Interjections.]

It does not bother us at all if specific peoples have a strong national pride, but it sometimes seems as if the Whites’ pride is offensive and a hindrance to some people. The nationalism of a people is a something we take very seriously. Prof J S Malan of the Department of Anthropology of the University of the North has done research among the Black peoples of South Africa, and he points out that such a nationalism is present among all those Black peoples. The difference lies in the fact that they have a group or ethnic consciousness, but the important thing to them is—I appreciate this in the previous speaker—to have a share in the resources of South Africa so that one can live a decent life.

The NP is increasingly tending towards a state nationalism. It recognises groups and minorities, but according to the leader of the party it is not obsessed by them. It believes in a multinational nation. We believe in self-determination. The NP has watered this down until, as an hon member put it here in the Assembly, it means making an input. That, then, is self-determination!

To the DP, with its policy of one man, one vote on a common voters’ roll, there can with all due respect be no political self-determination on an ethnic basis (volksbasis) in South Africa. I think that is the truth. We reject that outright. That is why that party’s policy will never be acceptable to us as an ethnic community (volksgemeenskap).

The CP upholds self-determination for peoples as—to quote a dictionary—“the right to choose your own form of government”, “independence”. That is real self-determination. That is what the NP subscribed to when it was still implementing separate development on the basis of territorial division or partition. It is not a word alien to the NP.

I want to discuss the word “domination”. The NP does not know how to avoid domination. If in a unitary state there is to be any question of the elimination of domination of one group by another, then either all groups must be fused into an identityless mass, or else full-fledged political power must be granted to a people in its own sovereign territory (gesagsgebied).

Power-sharing is the policy of the DP and the NP. The CP insists that if a people has a sovereign parliament with the highest political power in its own hands and it then shares that power with other peoples, it then loses that political power. It thus loses the power and the right to take its final political decisions without intervention or veto by others. That is what was done in terms of the present Constitution. The Whites have been deprived of political power, and what is more, the other participants in the system have not been accorded true self-determination.

Let us discuss democracy. The DP has linked its name to this concept, and all liberals have a great deal to say about democracy. All of us make use of the concept on occasion. The NP is proud of its expansion of democracy. I have no fault to find with helping to establish a democratic political system for each people or community so that each community can designate its political representatives in its own political institutions. I say that without hesitation. However, I want to emphasize that the “people’s democracy” of the Soviets and their fellow-travellers is no true democracy, but the so-called classless, egalitarian, socialistic system of state. Similarly the liberals’ view of democracy is not acceptable since it is merely the expressed will of the majority of individuals in a country, irrespective of nationhood or ethnic links (volksverband).

Let us discuss the need for legislation or regulation. There are those who, like Jeremy Bentham, are allergic to legislation. The slogan is: “Law and government are necessary evils. The lesser thereof, the better.” That is characteristic of the DP, and it is increasingly becoming the emphasis of the NP.

The CP honestly does not wish to stimulate an obsession with regulations and signboards, but we say that legislation and the maintenance of law and order is essential for an ordered society. We say that a community or people has the right to create laws and measures to protect its community life and its rights.

There is something I wish to say as far as the agitation against apartheid or separation is concerned. If there are hon members who have become allergic to the concept of apartheid, I want to say to them here this morning that we have become allergic to this anti-apartheid slogan. What does it mean? Surely the agitation against separation or apartheid is not merely agitation for equal rights and fair treatment. If that had been the point at issue, we would have been in agreement.

After all, this is basically a matter of opposing the claim of a particular community to be itself. It is opposing its right to its own territory. It is aimed against own organisations, structures and community life, and it is opposed to the orderly international society of, say, Western Europe. I venture to say that without the idea of separation, one could not even talk of creation according to the Bible. [Interjections.] Hon members need not groan. I am merely indicating how lacking in substance and simplistic the thinking of some people is.

Surely the demand is essentially that all individuals simply have to bow to the dictatorship of the masses, without protective corporations or essential links. I learnt this political philosophy at the University of Cape Town!

The demand is that all individual character and identity or nationalism must be fused into a form of nonracialism. We say this is the objectionable, revolutionary approach. It is the revolutionary approach which has been shot down since the French Revolution and by Edmund Burke, namely the arithmetical type of approach that it is merely a country and within that country it is a question of so many heads that one counts. That is the revolutionary approach.

This is how the so-called “post-apartheid” is presented to us. I want to tell hon members it is a chimaera and an idle liberalist dream. I ask whether it is the recipe for the so-called new South Africa. We want to know whether this so-called new South Africa is to be built on the graves of the present communities or peoples. Are we on the way to that kind of new Babel in South Africa?

The CP upholds a specific community, for example Boksburg. I mention it specifically. It upholds the right of the White community of Boksburg to, as the hon the State President said on 5 October 1987 in Hansard, col 6676—

He went on to say that the laws of the land must afford groups the assurance that their rights to their own institutions are guaranteed. That is fine NP language that the CP agrees with.

We also speak about negotiation. The CP is as aware as anyone else that negotiation is an everyday phenomenon. It will be necessary to negotiate on many things, and the CP will certainly negotiate. However, negotiation is often like open discussion, for example the open discussion which our archetypal mother Eve conducted in Paradise when she talked us right out of paradise. That is how it goes with some of the open discussions.

One can and must negotiate about markets, arms, land, property, peace, truce, and so forth. However, when one talks about negotiation, it is not a value on its own, as if one need only negotiate for there to be heaven on earth. We say that if one negotiates in such a way that political power is forfeited, the door to domination by others is opened. Therefore one will no longer be able to draw up one’s own budget, call one’s territory one’s own or have one’s own security forces. If this happens it will not have been beneficial negotiation; it will have meant surrender, defeat and loss. That is the road to our downfall and it is in conflict with self-determination.

We have spoken at length about consensus and I need say nothing more about it. If everyone is in agreement then one surely does not have to negotiate consensus. If one is unable to decide without there being consensus among all the parties, then any minority can obstruct decision-making, and one will then lapse into a dictatorship of the minority. If consensus must apply in all instances, then a minority can effectively paralyse the government. We ask where, for example, is the consensus among the three Houses on the Vote of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Where is the consensus about a flag, a national anthem and an official language or official languages, if this were to be objectionable to the majority of a population in one state? How would one determine that?

I wish to say a few words about partition. Judging by the derogatory references to partition or territorial separation, it is either an evil to be exorcized or the folly of foolish dreamers. I must say I am astonished at the frivolity of some, and at all the Aunt Sallies that are being knocked down. For weeks after the map proposed by Prof Carel Boshoff had been published, and after I had publicly pronounced it unacceptable and impractical—the daily papers reported my statements in this regard—frontbenchers and backbenchers of the NP continued to try to hang it around the neck of the CP. That really is not sensible politics. This effort surely cannot have been made out of ignorance; I think it was an attempt to conceal the NP’s lack of a policy.

The NP is now saying that apartheid has failed. They talk about the post-apartheid era. The NP states that partition is a chimaera. We say that it is not apartheid that has failed. Let me tell hon members bluntly that no one will kill apartheid. These hon members of the Labour Party will introduce apartheid between themselves and the Black people, just as at Kleinskool in Port Elizabeth they are asking: Please maintain apartheid between ourselves and the Black people there. [Interjections.]

Don’t look for trouble!

The hon member is right. Those hon members must not look for trouble. It is not apartheid that has failed. It is the NP that has got cold feet and been overwhelmed by the politics of power-sharing. Look at that party now!

They talk about partition and chimaeras, and say that our policy is in conflict with the realities and with interdependence! This is pure nonsensical wilfulness, which the CP attributes to total isolation. It is false and patently cheap politics. The CP accepts the economic interdependence of countries and communities just like any other party. We know, too, that one of the reasons why total sanctions against South Africa will not work, is this very interdependence between the RSA and its Southern African neighbours and even the dependence of Britain and America, to an extent, on South Africa.

The CP believes that the formation of a Southern African economic community market is a viable idea. However, we also support what Mrs Thatcher said about one legislative body for Europe: “Let Britain be Britain, let Spain be Spain…”, and so on. We, too, say: let Lesotho, Swaziland, Transkei, Ciskei, Botswana, Zimbabwe and so on be what they are, namely independent states that co-operate economically with the RSA.

Once again, I want to know since when partition has been a chimaera. The partitioning of Western Europe into independent national states was partition. The founding of the state of Israel in the midst of the Arab world was partition—it was territorial separation.

Here it is Black peril!

The independent Black states, the BSL and TBVC countries, are partitioned states. These states were geographically excised from South Africa. Some of the states were partitioned in such a way that they consist of more than 40 parts. Bophuthatswana, as a result of the way it was partitioned, consists of seven parts.

Six self-governing states with their own territory; this was sustained partition by the NP. There are twenty-three Coloured rural areas. Will hon members tell us whether they want them abolished? Do they want big business to go in there and buy up that land, so that they do not even have rural areas if they accept that? That is partition. There are four large metropolitan areas. This is a form of separation of territory and living space.

The hon the State President said recently that if a state like Luxembourg could be independent, why could Black urban communities near our metropolitan areas not also achieve full autonomy as city states? Why are we not hearing that increasingly from the NP? We ask the NP whether that was an official, considered standpoint of the party. Is it still the standpoint of the NP that large Black metropolitan areas could become autonomous, even independent? On that basis I said that the NP was then coming very close to the thinking of the CP, namely territorial separation and partitioning.

Territorial division and separation is surely nothing but a form of partitioning. Why would the NP consider it? Why? Because it does not wish to be dominated by Black numbers in one political system—there the CP agrees with it—and because next to these Black metropolitan areas it still wanted to maintain White areas. And now? It seems as if it has thrown in the towel.

Much has been done and much has been paid to ensure living space for various non-White communities, and much will and can still be done, but the CP says that we are certainly going to work towards ensuring, developing and protecting the living space of the Whites, alongside that of others. We believe that that is not merely our right; we believe it is our duty.

Mr Chairman, while I sat listening to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, I got the impression that it was true what people said, ie that here was a person who really did have a way with words. There is nothing wrong with that, but I do want to point out that we cannot solve this country’s problems with words alone. I do not want to react in detail to the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. I do want to point out, however, that politics is the science of what is possible. All the fine structures, fine-sounding words and institutions about which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke must be viable in practice. They must be able to work in practical terms. He himself rejects the unachievable—Prof Boshoff s impossible thirstland. This morning, however, he told us very little about the actual practical implementation of the CP’s policy.

This morning the hon member for Border—I see he is still here—mentioned the so-called “station strangler” who was possibly active again. After certain steps taken by the police he ceased his activities for quite some time. My department will see what is going on and I shall let the hon member know what transpires.

The question of negotiation and peace versus violence in South Africa has again generated a great deal of interest recently. In the debate other hon members also referred to that. The view of the South African Police is very clear and precise. We welcome peace and reject violence. This is so because in the performance of our duty we are, without exception, called upon to oppose and to deal with violence. In the process we are frequently the targets and victims of violence. In conditions of peace it would be easier for us to perform our primary task, that of dealing with crime. That is why we eagerly look forward to a situation of peace, and we should do everything possible to promote this.

The major instigator of violence and bloodshed in South Africa is the ANC. This statement is based on factual evidence and is irrefutable. Violence in South Africa will not come to an end before this organisation and its fellow-travellers relinquish violence. They must definitely and tangibly do so, not with the kinds of tricks and propaganda stratagems that are prevalent now.

On the question of the ANC and violence, the hon member for Randburg is shamelessly misleading our country and its people. The confusion that is being sown is a serious matter. I asked the hon member to be here, but apparently he cannot, because I do not see him in the House.

It is time for us to speak about this for a moment, however, because this hon member and other members of the DP are continually posing as the so-called saviours of this country. They profess that the action they are taking is going to free the country from ANC violence. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. It is time the true, hard facts were made known. It is time our country and its people looked squarely at these facts. Then they would see that the hon member for Randburg is an idealistic dreamer who is being surreptitiously misused by the ANC and its Marxist masters. Lenin described such people as “useful idiots”.

I am glad to see that the hon member for Randburg is in the Chamber at the moment. On Friday, 10 February 1989, he said in the House of Assembly (Hansard, cols 391 to 393):

He was referring to Thabo Mbeki—

The hon member has now reiterated this statement and even elaborated on it. [Interjections.] According to reports the hon member said, inter alia:

This is the hon member for Randburg’s scepticism—

I should like to break off here for a moment to say that apparently the hon member is only concerned about attacks on soft targets. I should like to ask him whether he and his party condone attacks on policemen and members of the security forces. [Interjections.] Is that legitimate or justified? [Interjections.]

No!

Did he discuss this with the ANC? [Interjections.]

Yes! [Interjections.]

He and the DP must tell us where they stand on this issue, because the election is at hand. [Interjections.]

Let us examine the facts. During the period 1 November 1987 to the end of April 1988 87 acts of terrorism were committed in South Africa. During this period 15 people were killed and 110 were injured. During the corresponding period—after the hon member had held discussions with the ANC and obtained an assurance from them that they would restrict their activities—101 acts of terrorism were committed from 1 November 1988 to the end of April 1989. This represents an increase of 16%.

What was the nature of those acts of terrorism?

The hon member asks me what the nature of those acts of terrorism was! That is precisely the point! Terrorism is terrorism! That is why I asked him whether acts of terrorism were legitimate or justified. [Interjections.]

No!

Then why does the hon member ask that question? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Randburg will be given another opportunity to make a speech.

In this same period 18 people were killed and 120 were injured. The number of casualties therefore also increased by 10,4%. Nowhere has there been a decrease, only an increase.

In the period 1 November 1987 to the end of April 1988 there were 57 attacks on soft targets. In the same period, from 1988 to 1989, there were 80 such cowardly attacks. This represents an increase of 40%.

Ironically enough, while the hon member was telling us, on 27 April 1989 in Durban, how the ANC was no longer committing acts of terrorism against civilian targets, ANC terrorists blew up a railway line only 100 metres from where he was speaking. The railway line is adjacent to the Esplanade and passengers are also transported on this line. The hon member says, however, he did not believe what the ANC told him. He did not believe that they would manage to stop their acts of terrorism against civilians because, and I quote from Hansard, col 393—

I want to point out that in this way the hon member tried to keep a back door open for the ANC in case there were additional acts of terrorism.

To indicate how they are pulling the wool over his eyes, I should like to make the following factual statement. On Friday, 7 April 1989, after a bomb blast in Durban, the police arrested an alleged ANC terrorist. Apart from the arsenal of terrorist weapons and equipment we found in his flat, he also informed us, amongst other things, that during October 1988 he was recruited by the ANC during a visit to Lusaka to commit so-called spectacular acts of terrorism in South Africa. This included, amongst other things, the placing of car-bombs.

Apart from other prominent members of the ANC, during his visit he was given an interview by Joe Slovo and Thabo Mbeki and recruited there by the ANC, and that was done during the same month in which the hon member for Randburg also spoke to the ANC and they gave him certain assurances. This Joe Slovo is the same man who embraced the hon member for Randburg—we all saw it—and called him “my brother”. He called the hon member his brother.

This last incidence, in October 1988, was not a question of an inability to control their people in the Republic of South Africa. Here was someone who was deliberately recruited and, provided with weapons, cold-bloodedly instructed to return for the purpose of murdering innocent people. That shows the hon member what the ANC really thinks of his efforts. They despise him. They regard him with contempt, because they are exploiting him. Someone one could really trust would surely not exploit a friend in this way.

There is, however, another way in which they want to exploit Parliamentarians. On 8 January of this year Oliver Tambo said, inter alia:

A “people’s parliament” is the same as a “people’s court”, the same as “people’s power” and the same as a “people’s republic”. Over the past four years “people’s courts” and “people’s power” have left an alarming trail of blood across the length and breadth of South Africa. If they were to win, we would have nothing short of government by violence and the prospect of a left-wing radical revolutionary dictatorship.

They want to destroy this Parliament—this Parliament in which we are sitting. I therefore want to predict that this year the ANC, the UDF, Cosatu and their fellow-travellers are going to do everything in their power, as they did in 1983, 1984 and 1987, to disrupt the coming general election. There is going to be intimidation, unrest and threats, as sure as we are gathered here this morning. Even now there are indications of left-wing and right-wing intimidation, and that is something we must tell one another. A peaceful, really democratic election involving five million people does not fit in with the ANC’s present plans for South Africa.

This contemptuous conduct on the part of the ANC, however, is precisely in accordance with its overall plan and strategy for South Africa. It has come to my attention that on 10 April 1989 the ANC made an appeal on Radio Freedom for the struggle to be extended to the White areas. I should like to quote the instruction:

That was after the hon member for Randburg spoke to those people. Those are the instructions they give their members here in South Africa. Their chief representative at the UN, a certain Tebogo Mafole was reported in The Star of 20 April 1989 as having said:

The so-called “armed struggle” to which he referred is nothing short of unscrupulous terror ism perpetrated against defenceless people. They do not have soldiers who come along to fight—they are terrorists—and the “conditions” which the communist perpetrators of violence present as an excuse for their extreme acts of violence have meanwhile changed dramatically, have they not?

In an interview conducted by the correspondent of the New York Times in Lusaka with members of the ANC on 5 May 1989, the following was also said, and I quote:

In spite of these shocking facts, naïve South Africans are still currying favour with these unscrupulous men of violence. Just the other day a group of women, one of whom was the wife of one of the co-leaders of the DP, Mrs Worrall, again paid a visit to the ANC. They described the visit as “an overwhelming success”. It was “an overwhelming success” only for the terrorist alliance. For this power-drunk group these visits serve only one purpose—to get more “useful idiots” into their camp, people they can use here in South Africa.

The fact of the matter is that the ANC is bluffing these people. They openly deceive them and laugh at them behind their backs.

After a visit to Lusaka last year a businessman said, and I quote:

Meanwhile this same “attractive and congenial group” continues to have defenceless, innocent people killed and maimed in South Africa. From the available evidence it is very clear that as yet the ANC has no intention of deviating from its set course of violence. After all, the ANC’s actual plans for South Africa are no secret. They are common knowledge, are they not? They are not old plans either, but new, up-to-date plans they have hatched. With Joe Slovo as their spokesman, they openly make this declaration, and I quote what he said:

That is in line with what I told hon members a moment ago. Let me quote further:

He repeated that in February 1989.

This ideology is unacceptable to the majority of South Africans. We reject it. Socialism has failed in Africa. We have seen that. Throughout the world communism is undergoing unprecedented upheaval and change. It is not a success in Africa either. That is why the ANC has to resort to violence in an attempt to force it on the peace-loving people of South Africa.

The time has come for the ANC to choose between democracy, peace and development on the one hand and violence, chaos, bloodshed and misery on the other. At present the ANC is adopting the latter course. They have not yet deviated from that course, in spite of the discussions the hon member for Randburg held with them.

Even Dr Kaunda now has major problems with the ANC and its communist masters. As it is he is showing them the door. According to a report in today’s The Citizen, his security chief said:

To hide its true character, the ANC presents two faces. On the one hand there is the friendly and congenial group of South Africans yearning to return home. They should do themselves a favour and return to South Africa, as hundreds of them have already done. They must simply renounce violence, returning to help build up a democratic South Africa, free of violence and oppression from unacceptable foreign ideologies. On the other hand there is the face of a group of unscrupulous power-drunk fanatics cold-bloodedly and calculatingly planning the death of defenceless and innocent fellow South Africans.

To those among us who beat a path to Lusaka—there are many among us, because it has now become the in-thing—I want to ask: With what face of the ANC were discussions held? Let me say that those who hold discussions with them can never be certain about that, but there is one thing they can be certain of, and that is that the ANC regards such visitors as mere pawns and makes use of them to realise their objectives for South Africa.

I should like to appeal to the hon member for Randburg and his party to stop their flagrant deception of members of the public by intimating that they have succeeded in getting the ANC to deviate from its course of violence and that the violence has decreased since they held discussions with the ANC, because nothing can be further from the truth.

Mr Chairman, my colleague, the hon member for Randburg, is very well equipped to take care of himself. I know that he will reply to the accusations that have just been made. However, I am not simply going to let the hon the Minister’s speech pass by without responding to it on behalf of the DP.

It has been predictable for a long time that the hon the Minister or one of his colleagues would sooner or later introduce here the speech notes for the election. That is what we have witnessed for the past few minutes. The hon the Minister was using the old proven recipe of sending cold shivers down the spines of the voters with the sole object of making them vote for the NP’s candidates. Now we know for sure that there are no original ideas left. We heard that in the past election and it is the case once again, as we have just heard. Statistics on different forms of attack on different kinds of target are obviously difficult to prove, but whatever the truth may be, there is one fact that cannot be and is never disputed by that side of the House. The ANC is an organisation which a very significant portion of this country’s population look up to as their leaders. To ignore it is simply to say that one does not care what a very large portion of the population of this country thinks. Our party will certainly not give up the intention to talk to all political groups, the right-wing, to which the hon the Minister briefly referred, as well as the left-wing, in an effort to promote the ideal of peaceful, democratic government, built on a basis of personal freedom and free enterprise in the economy.

We shall do it because we believe in that kind of South Africa, and because we want it. In contrast, the hon the Minister, judging by his performance this morning, offers only one solution, and that is to perpetuate the violent suppression of this kind of organisation, so that there can be years of conflict and bloodshed in South Africa. It will be a sorry day for South Africa when it has a Government which is seemingly without political solutions, without economic solutions and without human solutions, but which will stay in power through force, by doing its best to silence its opponents.

This morning’s debate has perhaps been of above average interest. I would like to refer to what the hon member for Winburg said with regard to maize exports and the foreign exchange it could earn. He is correct. One can earn foreign exchange in that way and it is worthwhile to do so. This should, however, be weighed up against the cost to the country of the subsidies—in one form or another—which have to be paid for crops to be grown at a cost that exceeds the price which can be obtained for those crops on the world market. We had an example of this the other day when the Maize Board’s debts were written off to the amount of R460 million. One has to earn a lot on the balance of payments to make this worth doing.

I would like to refer to the speech of the hon member for Border who to my mind put the case of the majority of the South African population against the policy of apartheid, as it is being applied by the Government, in a dignified and impressive manner. He said:

I hope those words penetrated the minds of some hon members on my right, because they have decided on behalf of the hon member for Border that he is a so-called Coloured and that he must be put in a separate cage. Whether they think they are serving the purpose of humanity through this, I do not know. I wish to say, however, that they are insulting this principle and that they are harming possible co-operation in this country by doing so.

Unfortunately I was not in this Chamber yesterday when the hon member for Vasco attacked me. I did not know that he was going to talk about me. This morning I got hold of the hon member’s Hansard and perused it.

†It makes me think of the well-known saying of Mr Dennis Healey when he was attacked by Sir Geoffrey Howe in the House of Commons. He said it was like being savaged by a dead sheep. That is the feeling I have about the hon member’s attacks on me.

He started off by saying that the hon member for Yeoville was so constructive and that I was so negative. The hon member for Yeoville and I have come a very long road together and the hon member for Vasco is going to fish on very dry ground if he starts trying to drive wedges in there.

He then comes along with a sort of fanfare about how I have used wrong figures. He says: “Hy weet mos dit is nie die realistiese syfers nie.” This is based on the estimate of Professor Brian Kantor of Cape Town and certain other people that there may be as much as 30% of additional economic activity which is not recorded by the statistics. I know that that is Professor Kantor’s point of view. It is not a unanimous point of view at all among economists. It may, however, be true and it may not be true. If the hon gentleman, however, has a quarrel with the financial statistics that are presented by the Reserve Bank, let him have that quarrel with his hon Minister. I can hardly take responsibility because the hon member for Vasco thinks that the statistics produced by the Reserve Bank are inaccurate. Let him go and fight his battles where they need to be fought.

I believe the informal sector is capable of making a useful contribution to our economy and I hope that it can come somewhere near what the hon member expects from it. He says he is very pleased with the fact that last year’s growth rate was 3,3%—that is his figure. It was certainly of that order. That is true.

I just happened to be using the report of the National Productivity Institute which only had figures up to 1987. Now again it would have been useful if it had had figures up to 1988 but its 1989 report only has the 1987 statistics. For that he must go and complain to the NPI and not to me. I do not see any reason to withdraw a single word of what I said in my last speech in this Chamber. All those statistics stand firm.

As I stand here today, inflation is climbing to a probable 16% this year; interest rates are in the top teens and twenties; growth is less than the population increase over a period of anything more than one year, thus negative in per capita terms; South Africa is among the world’s most heavily taxed countries; productivity is very low; savings by the people are one quarter of what they were at the start of the decade; the rand is at its lowest for three and a half years; unemployment is frighteningly high; the brain-drain continues and the balance of payments is causing very grave anxiety. The hon the member for Vasco must come and disprove any of these statements. [Interjections.]

Clearly something is rotten in the state of our country. Many things have to be done if South Africa is to be restored to economic health. Two stand out: Government expenditure must be reduced and the growth rate must increase.

*When one puts these conditions to the hon the Minister, he usually answers that he is well aware of both, and that he is really doing everything within his power, but that within the limits set by current circumstances, he really cannot do more than he is already doing. When one sits and listens with some attention, one cannot help but feel full of sympathy towards him, until one asks oneself what these circumstances are that are keeping Government spending so high and which are forcing the growth rate to such a low level. Then one realises that it is the policy of the Government that is causing this.

Let us remember that there are 14 departments of health in South Africa—14 different government structures. Why are there 14? Because this Government is of the opinion that by means of judicious propaganda it can keep itself in power for as long as it is able to play off Whites against other South Africans, while it must surely know that when the day comes for a government to be answerable to all South Africans, the days of this party and its policy will be numbered. Hence the apartheid policy, hence the homelands and hence the concept of own affairs.

All of this is incredibly expensive, but whenever it is necessary to dig deep into the pocket of the taxpayer in order to promote the interests of the NP, this Government will never hesitate.

South Africa cannot afford apartheid. This has, in fact, always been the case, but it has become abundantly clear during the past 10 to 15 years. We have until recently, in a strict economic sense, managed to coexist quite well with apartheid. White voters have lived in relatively comfortable circumstances. They had all the nicest group areas. They had all the best schools and hospitals at their disposal. It could not be anything but attractive.

†It was on this basis that the NP remained firm on its course. Keep the effective vote in the hands of the White people, give them all the best facilities and have plenty of elections—this is good vote-catching, but it is bad economics. It is bad politics, too, unless one wants eternal strife inside South Africa and total isolation in the world.

Formerly, even if South Africa as a whole did not do too well under apartheid, the White voters could tell themselves that they as a group were comfortable and doing quite well. However, we are now getting to the point where even the White man is going to be worse off with apartheid than he would be without it.

The cost of a permanent state of emergency inside South Africa and of sustained economic isolation in the world are becoming too high to bear. Everyone knows how we can end these two circumstances. We can end the state of emergency by applying a democratic policy in this country—perhaps not precisely the policy of the DP, but something along democratic lines nonetheless. As long as the Government refuses to do so, the state of emergency will prevail and the condition to which I have referred, namely that of growing isolation in the world, will be perpetuated.

*The DP is 100% against the use of violence as a political weapon, and is 100% determined to establish and maintain security in our country. We shall therefore, when our opportunity comes, govern in such a way that South Africans are not oppressed and dominated and that the danger of committing violence is excluded as far as possible.

This Government is not doing that. It has been talking about reform for the past 10 years. A Minister Heunis comes and a Minister Heunis goes, and still there is no end to it. Like his predecessors, the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP speaks of reform, but domination by means of force is still the order of the day.

If the Government wants to get rid of internal strife, if it wants to bring an end to the state of emergency, it should do the things that so many South Africans have been pleading for for so long. Let it free the political prisoners and let it launch negotiations with representative leaders. Let it show proof of an intention to really get rid of domination. In this way it could restore internal peace.

What about foreign relations? It should not surprise anybody that the recipe for this is exactly the same as that for internal peace. The outside world simply does not believe that the apartheid policy will work in South Africa, and if the hon the Minister wants to overcome the isolation of South Africa, this is where his answer lies.

†I conclude. The hon the Minister’s plaintive cries about his lack of an international banker will get him no sympathy from our benches. The hon the Minister, for all his carefully cultivated “verligte” image, sits firmly embedded in a Government committed to apartheid and to domination. He is fully co-responsible for the actions which are ruining the economy of which he is supposed to be the chief custodian. He is subordinating the economic interest of all South Africa to the political interests of his party. It is not attractive or admirable behaviour.

Mr Chairman, it is once again a privilege to be here. I came here in a calm mood this morning so that I could speak really well, but the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly made my blood boil. [Interjections.] He honestly makes my blood boil again today. However, before I finally settle his hash this morning—because White South Africa should know what it is faced with—since I am currently an independent candidate I just want to broadcast my policy shortly before the election.

I believe in the following: Active loyalty in respect of all matters of concern to people. I also believe that the rights of the individual are all-important. I further believe in the promotion of human dignity and the socio-economic and cultural prosperity of all South Africans. I reject any sign of racial discrimination, and I believe in the establishment of a national economic policy which will lead to a unified South Africa. I also reject forced labour systems and the exploitation of cheap labour. Group areas must disappear, but I will talk to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly about this later.

Why do I say that group areas must disappear? They cause a rift in churches, they are ungodly and they cause a rift in business enterprises and families. I believe in national education and equal rights in our country.

That is LP policy. [Interjections.]

I have a few pictures here. Usually one only hears about the violence of my people in this country but here, for example, is a newspaper article entitled: “AWB leader in the city talks with Treurnicht”. Another article reads: “AWB-man oor teer en veer aangekla”. Another picture made me think that we are now living in Germany. This is incitement.

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly has just said that there is sensitivity on both sides, but the sensitivity was always on one side only, because the Whites sat here talking about us all by themselves. [Interjections.] Of course, at that time we not here yet. I have already said repeatedly that if they had given us representation in Parliament earlier, we would not have blown off steam so often. The NP is progressing along the road of reform very slowly, but all the same they made it possible for us to be sitting here today.

I have noticed that when they played “cowboys and crooks” in the days of the Voortrekkers, they shot the horses so that the wagons would run backwards. Then the whole affair was wrecked. This is what the CP is doing. I want South Africa’s Whites to know today that the CP is playing into the hands of the communists. The inhuman way they treat us is unacceptable to our people in South Africa.

I understand that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly was or is a clergyman. I now want to know from him whether he recognises us Coloured people as God’s creation. If he does, he must know that we are all only humans and that it is not important whether we are White, Black or Brown. God knew why he wanted to make us different colours, and that is His affair and not man’s.

The CP is afraid that the Group Areas Act will be repealed, and I will give hon members the reason for this. Hon members have probably never thought about it, but the CP is afraid that Whites will buy land from us because it is cheaper there. The Whites will then come and live amongst us and not us amongst them.

That is not true, oom Hansie!

It is true and I will explain to the hon member why I say this. When they wanted to take Epping Forest Estate away, the Whites lodged objections with the Government. Hon members can ask them. They said that those people were their brothers and that they borrowed coffee and sugar from them.

This is, after all, brotherly love and not the kind of things the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly says here about our people. I want the Whites to know that by making this kind of joke in Parliament they will cause our country to fall into the hands of the communists.

I hear the CP is talking about the North. They are afraid of taking the Cape, because they know that we would not help them if war were to break out there. After all, they do not want to give us equal rights in this country. They are afraid of being driven into the sea, and that is why they stay up there in the North. Let them come and live here, then they will be driven into the sea. They know it, because we will not help them if they do not give us the rights demanded by human dignity.

They can prepare themselves for that. Without us they cannot keep the country; not without us! When one looks at a piano, there are white and black keys. One cannot play the black ones without the white ones. I want the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly to understand today that I will not stand by him, because this country belongs to me as much as it does to him.

The NP is now starting to respect the human dignity of the people in our country. I recently told them in the other House that they are on the verge of conversion. The apostle Paul tells them that they are now casting off their sins every day, until the end of the day. God says one does not return to one’s vomit, because by doing so one is more wicked than one was before.

The Official Opposition in the House of Assembly are not the only ones who know the Bible, because I know it too. God says one must not return to one’s vomit, because then one is seven times more wicked. This is what the CP is today. They are after all much more wicked than they were. It is therefore no wonder that they are stirring up violence in our country. They are stirring up violence! [Interjections.] I think the Government shares the guilt for their instigation of violence, because they should have dealt firmly with the CP long ago. When our people merely boycott peacefully, we are thrown in gaol. This must be stopped. People like this—like the CP—must also be thrown in gaol. [Interjections.]

It is an insult to Brown people when the Whites go around with revolvers at their sides. I ask whether this is godliness. I am standing here without a revolver. I never wanted to buy a revolver, but I was the first to be at the receiving end of the bombs. However, I go to sleep with my God and my faith. I will show the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly that I go into the election with faith. If he returns, he will have to thank God, because this is the last time that he will insult Brown people in this way. I am a human being created by God, and I was not created by the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly.

However, I listened to what this hon Leader had to say. He said: “I am the boss and you do as I tell you.” [Interjections.] Yes, I listened to him carefully this morning—that is why I am so vehement. He can deny it, but he did say it. He told Grysie: “Do not talk like that, you must talk the way I tell you to talk.” That kind of dominance, however, is long past. [Interjections.] The clergy say: “Do as I tell you, but don’t do as I do.” A converted person, however, does not say that; he says one should do as God tells one to do.

Let me say to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly this morning he must do what God tells him to do. I am a human being, not his creation. [Interjections.] One day he will have to answer to God in heaven about that. I warn him and the Whites of South Africa that the CP is playing into the hands of the communists. We are opposed to violence, and we are opposed to communism. If the CP acts in such a way that the White, Black and Coloured people of South Africa fall into the hands of the communists, it will be a tragic day for them. I am opposed to communism; I am a true Christian, a reborn child of God, and he is not, because if he were, he would not have talked like that. I love the White people dearly. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must now end his strong attack on the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. It is becoming too personal.

Very well, Sir.

I now come to the hon Minister of Finance. I will, however, not let him walk the red carpet, but I do want to tell him he knows that all the pensioners in the country, not only the Brown pensioners, can no longer get by on their pensions. Nowadays everything is expensive, and therefore I ask him whether he could not reduce general sales tax with regard to pensioners, thereby bringing them relief. Surely they could show their booklets or identity documents when they go shopping. They deserve a little rest in their old age, but they are worried when they get to the shops and buy a few things with their few rands, and sales tax has to be added to that. I appeal to the hon the Minister to pay attention to this matter.

I come to the hon member for Schauderville. I do not know whether he is present, but he said yesterday he was so grateful that he could sit here with the hon member for Houghton. I want to tell him that it is not thanks to any hon member that he can today serve with her in a mixed political party. When the LP came here with the Indians, that Act was still on the Statute Book. The LP broke that Act—it was not that party to which they belong. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Ravensmead spoke so earnestly that at one stage I began to get worried about his blood pressure. I want to say here and now that I do not disparage his earnest approach; everyone in this country is concerned that all the various groups should come to agreement. Thus I am not disparaging what he said; I am merely cautioning him about his blood pressure. [Interjections.]

I find it necessary to react to the harsh and stinging attack on the Maize Board and particularly on the White maize farmers made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central yesterday. It is in fact a pity that he introduced an element of racism in his speech on this very important industry.

Where is he now?

He is not present at the moment, but I just want to say to him that there are not only White maize farmers in South Africa. There are also commercial Black maize farmers who produce maize in terms of the same scheme and sell it in the same way.

This industry entails major benefits for South Africa. My colleague, the hon member for Winberg, referred to this. There are major benefits because at this stage we are exporting one of our biggest harvests in the country, namely more than five million tons. This can earn more than R1 million for us in foreign exchange.

It is R1 billion.

Thank you very much. It can earn R1 billion in foreign exchange.

This entails a loss, and the hon member Dr De Beer referred to this. There is a loss of R120 per ton in the net realisation. Nevertheless these foreign exchange earnings entail a major benefit for South Africa because they make up for a more than $20 drop in the gold price.

The hon member states that the reason for the problem is that the price has been set too high. When we look at the average yield this year of three tons per hectare, hon members will note that in some of the production areas maize is being produced at a loss; for example, in the Eastern Transvaal and the Eastern Free State maize is being produced at a production cost of R250 per ton as against a producer price of R207 per ton. This represents a loss of approximately R60 per ton. The areas that have produced at a profit this year, however, are the more marginal areas. Over the past six to seven years they have had a yield of approximately ½ ton per hectare. We had to provide social assistance to some of these areas.

The fact of the matter is that the government is also providing assistance to the marginal mines, owing to the drastic drop in the gold price recently. I have been informed that the number of marginal mines is increasing. I am further aware that the government is giving guarantees of several hundreds of millions of rands to certain gold mines that are currently incurring losses.

However, millions of rands are being spent in the form of export incentives. Just like the maize industry, the goldmining industry is losing money. Secondly, just like the gold mines, the maize industry of South Africa is a very important employer of Black people as well.

The total agricultural industry in South Africa provides employment to more than a million people. Six million people make their living from agriculture today. I also want to tell hon members that the farmers of South Africa provide school facilities to about 500 000 Black schoolchildren.

The impression is being created that the R460 billion is only being spent to benefit the maize farmers or the maize industry. I want to ask the hon member Dr De Beer—the hon member is no longer present—whether, if the gold price drops further, as is very possible, and the Government has to write off hundreds of millions, as is probable, he will say it is a mining scandal, in the same way as the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said: “It is a scandal.” Will the hon member say, just as he said that this was only for the benefit of the White maize farmers, that the writing off of a few hundred million rands is solely to the benefit of the White mine bosses? I challenge the hon member to say that.

What is the position? The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said one could rather use the R460 million that was written off to build housing for Black people. The hon member went on to say that there are 15 000 maize farmers in South Africa—as if they provide no housing for their own people. If I use the hon member’s own formula—he says there are 10 people per dwelling—and we take it that there are more or less 10 labourers per maize farmer, one would need 150 000 houses for the workers of 15 000 maize farmers. In point of fact, therefore, he is saying in terms of his own formula that 1,5 million people are accommodated by the maize industry. Let me say here and now that if the maize industry were to collapse, not only White maize farmers but also a large number of black labourers would become urbanised.

The R460 000 is not for the benefit of farmers alone. An expert inquiry was carried out in this regard. The government did not simply write off R460 million; an expert inquiry was carried out by the Brand committee under the chairmanship of Dr Simon Brand, a very well-known economist in South Africa. He said:

This deficit in the Stabilisation Fund arose over a fairly lengthy period of 36 years. During this period, however, maize was exported at a profit of approximately R200 million for four consecutive years. In other words, during this period the domestic price was kept lower than the export realisation. This was to the benefit of the consumer, not only because of the price, but also by way of the maintenance of the domestic supply of maize, bearing in mind that maize is an essential staple food in South Africa.

Nowadays maize production is no longer a paying proposition for many farmers. If production in this country were to drop to below 5,5 million tons, South Africa would have to import maize. No developing country in the world would be able to maintain its food supply industry without grain for stock. The landed cost of yellow maize, if it has to be imported, is R400 per ton. That is on the coast, before it has been transported to the consumer areas—for that purpose an additional R60 to R70 per ton must be added. This means a consumer price of R460 per ton as against the current price of R330 per ton—and I am referring to yellow maize.

In the case of white maize—my hon friend referred to that—this cannot be bought on the world market. It is not available. Small quantities are available in states to the north of us, but they are insufficient. It is a very important staple food.

After all, we have imported maize in this country. What has our experience in this regard been as far as the importation of maize is concerned? In the 1983-84 and 1984-85 seasons we imported maize for two years running. It cost the South African taxpayer R207 million.

The producer must accept a drop of 12% as against last year’s price. If he also had to absorb the R460 million this would mean an additional drop of R15 per ton. At this year’s yield of three tons per hectare, this means an additional burden of R45 per ton. This will result in people leaving the industry, if they do not go bankrupt.

The consumer price has not, therefore, risen unduly. For the past two seasons the price of white maize has increased by 10,4% and 3,9%, and this year the figure was 13%. I therefore contend that it is totally untrue that prices are artificially inflated. Food is produced in South Africa in extremely difficult circumstances at reasonable prices, and food is freely available for all consumers in South Africa.

I therefore think that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central made a very irresponsible speech. I think it was unfair to agriculture. I do not think this is the occasion to explain the agricultural influence. For three days we conducted a debate on agriculture. The hon member failed to state his point then; if he had I would have been able to point out to him what the influence on agriculture would be if our maize producers were to leave the maize industry. The maize industry occupies 40% of all agricultural land in South Africa. If this 40% were to turn to the production of other goods, surpluses would be created in other spheres and an imbalance would be created in the utilisation of agricultural resources in South Africa.

I think it was a sound and essential step taken by the Government to write off the R460 million, not only in the interests of the farmers, but also in the interests of South Africa and the consumer.

Mr Chairman, allow me to join my hon colleagues in thanking the hon member for Houghton, Mrs Helen Suzman, for the part and role she has played in Parliament for more than 3½ decades. Her speeches brought comfort to me and many underprivileged people. She was seen as a candle in the storm which could not go out but remained burning, despite the raging storm, especially during the Verwoerd era. We thank her for her contribution.

The hon member for Vasco said that we have not shown friendship towards the hon the Minister for Constitutional Development and Planning, Mr Heunis, because we do not approve of his budget. I would like to inform the hon member that we respect that hon Minister but we fought our case on merit. Straight talk breaks no friendship and politics are politics. What we tried to do, was to show him that we are tired of playing with clay oxen. He should have known this. He should have done so with the CP and not with the LP.

Mr Chairman, I want to come back to my speech. I feel particularly privileged to take part in this debate, especially because finance touches every South African, irrespective of colour. Our tomorrow depends entirely on this Budget. Our lives are basically interwoven and intertwined with the economy of South Africa. Much depends on who manoeuvres the strings from the top.

What is the present economic situation in this country? Does economic growth ensure job opportunities to everybody? South Africa cannot delude itself because disinvestment and sanctions are hurting our country. Time and again the LP have spoken against disinvestment and sanctions because this does not bring liberation or improve situations; on the contrary, it hurts those it is supposed to help. Disinvestment, sanctions and boycotts have brought misery to South Africa. Unemployment has increased. Long queues of job-seekers are the order of the day. Creeping impoverishment, uncertainty about the future, family disharmony, the spiralling cost of living, shocking increases in medical costs all these things are happening because of apartheid. We cannot delude ourselves. Apartheid must go. No country can survive the onslaught of pressures from outside countries.

Who should be blamed for this state of affairs? Surely the hon the Minister of Finance should spell it out. He should tell us where he is leading the country. The man in the street wants to know. We have to explain why bread and butter commodities are beyond the reach of the ordinary man who is wrestling with inflation but without success.

The poor performance of the rand on world markets has had detrimental effects. Personal savings are low, overdrafts increase each month and fraud cases are on the increase all over the country! This is the order of the day. Corruption is on the increase, even high-profile Ministers are guilty of sins of commission. The hon the Minister of Finance has the strings in his hands and he must explain this to everybody.

The Government’s snail’s pace of reform has created an unenviable state of affairs. Whites from the “plattelandse dorpies” feel they are being sold out. Coloureds feel the Government must be realistic and sincere. Blacks feel that the Government of the day has reached the end of its tether and must capitulate. This is the dilemma in which we find ourselves.

The LP is committed to negotiate for change—a new South Africa and a new nation. The old order must change. South Africa must change. The writing is on the wall. Never in the history of South Africa have so many Cabinet Ministers shown such reluctance to contest the general election.

The resignation of some political maestros has come as a shock. This sensitive political erosion is indicative of the Government’s failure to perceive the truth. Many men do not want to go down with a sinking ship. The LP has to come to the Government’s rescue before it is too late. This is the sensible thing to do.

For the sake of emphasis I have to repeat that they should remove group areas, scrap the Population Registration Act and do away with separate amenities. The Government is hurting people of colour by perpetuating this obnoxious, discriminatory, derogatory, offensive, objectionable and dehumanising legislation. Not only do they humiliate and undermine us but they contaminate our dignity and the dignity of the citizens of this country.

Black aspirations for power started in 1910 when Blacks from Natal, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State were excluded from the National Convention. The ANC was born in 1912 as an attempt to nurture those aspirations. On the other hand, the Afrikaner fear can be traced back to 1652 when Jan van Riebeeck landed on these shores. Amongst other things, he was instructed to build a fort at the Cape. Since then many towns have developed around forts, for example Fort Victoria, Fort Beaufort and Burgersfort. This fear has not died, even at the close of the twentieth century.

Holding on to power by ungodly legislation for White preservation will not help South Africa. The aspirations of the people of colour will not die as long as our neighbouring countries have Black majority rule. These are the countries north of the Limpopo. Namibia is on the verge of obtaining majority rule and it is situated next to South Africa. The rest is simple arithmetic.

Hence the answer to our dilemma is immediate constitutional reform. The retiring Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has raised his hands in surrender. The road was too hard and unsavoury because our arithmetic was wrong. Mr Gene Louw will become the next victim caught between two vicious storms—fear of reform and Black aspirations. Credible leaders know that South Africa is playing for time. This cannot go undisputed.

The answer is, firstly, that if hon members believe what I believe, South Africa will be free. This is what I mean: Free Mandela and all political prisoners. Emergency regulations should be lifted before 12 June. Those who have left the country should be given free passage to come back. Bring credible Black leaders to the negotiating table. A national convention will put South Africa back on a new road to success. Only when apartheid is buried and its ashes are perceivable, even to a blind man, will we be able to talk of one South Africa and one nation committed to peace and prosperity.

Mr Chairman, I shall not react directly to the previous hon speaker. However, I shall refer to certain matters during the course of my speech.

In the first place I want to state that the coming general election is going to give every party the opportunity to spell out, for the benefit of its electorate, not only the contents of its policy but the consequences as well. For this reason I should like to appeal to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly and hon members of that party to spell out these contents and consequences, and not merely to rely on criticism and disinformation, as we have become accustomed to hearing from them in the past. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to the new standpoint of the CP. I am referring to a meeting which the hon leader of the CP in the Cape Province, Mr Jan Hoon, addressed on Tuesday night at Kraaifontein. According to Die Burger of 17 May 1989 he said:

The importance of this new CP policy as set out by Mr Hoon is that the borders of White South Africa will not be drawn before an election; they will not be drawn before that party comes to power. The implication is that we shall never know what that White country will look like, what those boundaries will look like, because the CP will never come to power.

The CP’s standpoint of withdrawing from the Constitution is, however, amazing. The consequences of a step like this are incredible because in terms of section 37(2) of the Constitution the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates will govern the country. I want to quote the relevant parts of section 37(2):

1. (a) by reason of a shortfall in the number of its members,…; or
2. (b) by reason of the absence of members,…,

In other words, what CP policy according to Mr Hoon is, is that when they come to power and Dr Treurnicht has become the President they will withdraw from the Constitution and effectively hand over the Government to the remaining two Houses of Parliament.

What will become of White own affairs? Who is going to look after the interests of the Whites? I should like to know whether the CP will be explaining and defending this standpoint everywhere in the country. How do they reconcile this with the standpoint in their party’s constitution that they confirm and uphold the sovereignty of this Parliament? This Parliament was created by the Constitution. How will they try to destroy the Constitution without jeopardising the sovereignty of Parliament? I want to know from the hon leader whether they will be handing over the Government of this country to those two Houses, as Mr Hoon said, or whether they will be handing it over to the AWB as the AWB part of its caucus says?

A further appalling consequence of this viewpoint of the CP is that according to Mr Hoon the hon the leader of the CP will be elected State President first and this will entail his subscribing to an oath in terms of the Constitution, and here I am referring to section 11(1). In this oath he will swear in the presence of God to obey, observe, uphold and maintain the Constitution. The question which now arises is: How can a State President subscribe to such an oath knowing that he will not be obeying, observing, upholding and maintaining the Constitution? What, according to Mr Hoon, will the consequence of this be? I want to quote once again from this article. He said that the mess will be such that the remaining components, the Coloureds and the Indians, will be coming to us to tell us that we were correct.

Never!

No, I think I differ with the hon member. He will be handing over government to the two remaining Houses. They will come to him and say, “Thank you very much for giving us the power. You were correct.”

The problem, however, is this: How can a State President subscribe to this oath knowing, in the words of Mr Hoon, that they intend making a mess of this Constitution? Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Cape leader of that party.

The words of Die Burger!

They are not only the words of Die Burger. Mr Hoon is reported correctly in Die Burger because this was the second occasion on which he expressed this standpoint. I did not get this report from the Patriot. I got it from a newspaper with credibility.

We must draw a comparison between a President who wants to subscribe to an oath and make a mess of the Constitution and a leader such as the leader of the NP who has respect for a country’s constitution and institutions, whose aye is aye and whose nay is nay and who commands respect because he can be trusted with the future of South Africa. The standpoint of the present hon leader is not to withdraw the NP from the Constitution should it win the election and hand over government to the other two Houses. We are here to represent the interests of the White voters as well.

In view of the coming election it is important that the CP should make a few other matters clear to the voters. The White population refuses to accept that they cannot have proprietary rights in this country. The hon leader of the CP should explain to us how he will convince 24 million people to relinquish their possessions in South Africa. The White population group refuses to accept that it cannot be part of a constitutional dispensation in the Republic. The hon leader must explain to the voters how he will persuade Coloured and Indian citizens to renounce their right to citizenship and to send representatives to this Parliament. Since Blacks do not as yet have a say in first-tier government but are still to receive it, he must explain to us how he is going to persuade them to relinquish their South African citizenship and accept that they do not have any political rights in a country in which they have been living for generations. Will the CP explain in detail to the voters how they are going to achieve this ideal?

It can be compared with the CP’s standpoint that they are opposed to mixed sport while all the hon members of the CP watch mixed sport on TV with great enthusiasm, mixed sport in the boxing ring, on the rugby field and on the athletics track. When they are standing on a platform they preach against mixed sport and accuse the Government of integration in sport. The same holds true for amenities on trains and aircraft. Members of the CP use these facilities. There is not a single hon member who can say that he does not fly in an integrated aircraft and then travel to his constituency in his own car. They fly in those same aircraft and, moreover, they sit in lounges at airports which are open to all races. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to the CP candidate in Durban Point who is no longer standing in the election because it was found that the flats in which he owns a share also accommodate people of colour. Those are the double standards of the CP.

The question the CP should ask itself is how to convince people who fought for their rights that their fight was in vain and that they no longer have rights but only obligations. Which hon member in the other Houses is prepared to discuss this and the implementation of partition with the CP?

I also want to refer to one other aspect concerning the standpoint of the hon the leader of the CP on regional services councils. He called them an “objectional form of racially-mixed government”, but at the same time he said, in col 448 of Hansard of 10 February of this year that the CP participated in the system of regional services councils to look after the interests of the Whites and to ensure that justice was done to them. Surely if the system lends itself to ensuring that justice is done to the Whites and that their interests are looked after, the system works. What, then, is the reason for the CP to say in the constituencies in which they want to fight an election that the system of regional services councils must be destroyed because the Whites have virtually no say in these councils? In Parliament, however, they explain that this system is in fact being used to ensure that justice is done to the Whites.

That hon leader, however, is also opposed to consensus politics but he shared the viewpoint of the NP, when he was still a member of the Government, that with its new constitutional dispensation this Government wanted to introduce consensus politics.

Rubbish!

The hon member for Soutpansberg calls this rubbish. Here is a document drawn up by Dr Connie Mulder when Mr Vorster was still Prime Minister. What he envisaged in this document—what the hon member for Soutpansberg also accepted—was consensus politics.

That was the 1977 plan.

He referred specifically to the 1977 plan. At that stage Mr Vorster was still Prime Minister. There was no other plan at the time when Mr Vorster was still Prime Minister. It was the 1977 plan. What he said—and what the hon member for Soutpansberg accepted—was the following:

That is what they envisaged. Now the hon member’s leader is running away from consensus politics. I should also like to discuss the booklet with the hon member. It is a pity that I do not have the time to do so. Dr Connie Mulder said… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to tell the hon member for Vryburg that he need not be concerned. The CP respects the Constitution but it will not tolerate being constricted by a Constitution if it obtains a mandate from the people to amend the Constitution. As the hon the leader of the NP said the other day, this Constitution is inadequate in its present form and as it will still be altered too. In other words, the hon the State President also pledged his loyalty to the Constitution but he intends changing it. This is what we intend doing so I do not know what his problem is.

I want to refer to what was said by the hon member for Vryheid yesterday. I think the hon member for Vryheid reached the very lowest point of political desperation and irresponsibility when he tried to link the CP to reprehensible deeds of lunacy, which currently dominate the leader columns in the Press, as if there had not been Nationalists who had also been sent to the gallows. Let me remind him that we shall be conducting a debate next Tuesday on a sentence imposed by a certain judge upon a man who tortured his victim for two days. The accused is a prominent Nationalist who lives in Levubu. Is it the NP which drove him to such a deed? Can hon members see where such nonsensical statements lead?

Order! The hon member has just said himself that he is breaking the rule of anticipation.

I am not discussing the debate, Sir.

Order! If that is the case, the hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, parliamentary rules prohibit me from expressing my contempt for such a statement fully.

The hon the Minister of Defence and the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence attacked me on the allegations which I made in the debate on the inability of the Government to ensure clean administration, concerning a swimming pool at the hon the Minister of Defence’s home.

I have the minutes of the first report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts of 4 March 1980 in front of me. The heading is “Unauthorised Expenditure” and deals inter alia with certain construction which was carried out and planned at the residence of the Chief of the Defence Force who at that stage was the present hon Minister of Defence. Further excavation of the swimming pool at this residence was planned among other projects. On page 11 Mr Schickerling, who was the Auditor-General at the time, says the following:

An irregularity took place here for which an explanation was demanded and which the then Chief of the Defence Force did not clear up adequately in my opinion in paragraph 52. Hence my assertion that similar incidents fall into a grey area. I still stand by this. The hon the Deputy Minister of Defence can arrange a meeting at Kroonstad, at a venue we can agree upon, and then we can continue debating the matter together.

While I am on the subject of peculiar affairs, and the Ministry of Defence is so sensitive about criticism of them, we should take a closer look at the mysterious visit of Nationalist members of Parliament and members of the President’s Council to Mozambique in December 1988.

On 21 February 1989 the hon the Deputy Minister planted a question in Parliament to himself through the hon member for Durbanville, who apparently knows nothing about this tour and its object, but who went on the tour himself. [Interjections.] Then the hon the Deputy Minister did not reply in full to his own hon member’s question because he omitted to state at whose invitation the visit to Mozambique took place and he told an untruth. He said that the Mozambicans had borne the costs of the visit, except for the tour and the outing which formed part of the visit, while a South African military aircraft was provided at an approximate cost of R5 264. We extracted this information from the hon the Deputy Minister only three months later, on 9 May 1989. The question was put in public in the first place but now we are suddenly told that the names of the privileged Nationalists will be divulged to us in confidence.

After this a further amazing event occurred. The hon the Deputy Minister took a seat in the hon member for Pietersburg’s bench and then tried to furnish him with certain confidential information. We shall not betray this confidence but all we want to say about this is that it makes us more suspicious and prompts us to have the very valid question put on why only selected members of the Government received this invitation. Are there no CPs or DPs who represent voters in the Defence Force? [Interjections.] How can the details of an excursion which was undertaken at Government expense in a military aircraft by Nationalists only suddenly be in the national interest now? [Interjections.] If only Nats go, the NP and not the taxpayer should pay for it. [Interjections.]

We next requested an interpellation debate but it was refused. Why? Because, it was said, it was not in the national interest to discuss such a matter in the House of Assembly in public. A Nationalists’ outing to Mozambique at Government expense, upon which the searchlight was turned by the NP itself, is classified now.

Would you believe it?

What next? It was not done in the national interest; it was done in the interests of the NP! And then they become irritated and cry out to high heaven when the CP treads on their tail which is smouldering with corruption.

I now want to turn to the hon the Minister of Finance. In April he was a guest in Brakpan. I read in a local newspaper that he had the following to say:

The hon the Minister must tell me now whether that was said or not. Did he say that we could ignore the world and live alone? That hon Minister says that we are irresponsible but then he makes such a statement. Which member of the CP has ever said that we can live alone? [Interjections.] I know of somebody who has said something like that. It is none other than the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He said in New York: “Do your damnedest!” That is what he said to the people in New York on behalf of the South African Government: “You can do your damnedest!”

You have got hold of the wrong end of the stick!

I was in Washington myself. He can ask the South African ambassador in Washington what effect the words of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs had overseas. I want to break off at this point to devote a few moments to the hon member for Houghton.

†I wish to say in all sincerity that she will be remembered as a formidable opponent who at all times remained a lady, however robust and devastating the political scrums in this House were. We shall remember her fondly and we wish her well.

*I must proceed. The hon the Minister must tell us now whether it is true that he made this untrue and irresponsible statement in Brakpan. He is the man who attacks us regularly about so-called irresponsible statements which we have made.

There is another matter which I want to take up with the hon the Minister. We have heard for many years that the Government is serious about curbing inflation. Nowadays it is regarded as an achievement if taxes and levies do not rise above the rate of inflation. When the opportunity presents itself, however, to strike a blow against the monster of inflation, the Government is slow to make a move.

I am referring to the report of the President’s Council, that of the Committee for Economic Affairs, which deals with a strategy and action plan to improve productivity in South Africa. The report was debated from 13 March in the President’s Council. The Executive Director of the National Productivity Institute, Dr Jan Visser, was enthusiastic about the recommendations in the report and even suggested that the State President should arrange a conference similar to the Carlton and Good Hope Conferences to introduce this report to the public. So far I have not come across any official Government reaction to this. Perhaps it is because this report condemns Government action so strongly.

The report indicates that the GDP per capita in industrialised countries is three to six times higher than that in South Africa. In the case of countries like Spain, Israel, Argentina and Greece the standard of living is approximately one and a half times to twice as high as that of South Africa. I quote:

I referred to this on 26 April during the discussion of the hon the Acting Minister of Manpower’s Vote. He did not even deign to say something about this. What does the Government intend doing about this? It should also be read in conjunction with the contents of Productivity Focus, which was published in 1989. To complement what the hon indirectly elected member Dr De Beer quoted from this report on Friday, ie that South Africa’s economy recorded only an average growth of 0,7% per annum between 1981 and 1987 and that South Africans became 1,7% poorer per annum between 1981 and 1987, I want to add these alarming statistics. Only 233 000 new posts were created during this period, of which 197 000 were created by the central Government whereas public sector business lost 59 000 posts and manufacturing 67 000.

Then the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance still says that we have not become poorer. His argument comes down to the fact that this is so because we have fewer children now. Our people’s pay packet is smaller, their mortgage and hire purchase instalments greater, but they are richer. That is what the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance is saying. [Interjections.] The man in the street can choke but he will settle the score with the hon the Deputy Minister about this nonsense, which reminds one of Dr Munnik’s ridiculous statement that our old people can live on R20 a month. [Interjections.]

In 1975 the unit labour costs in various countries were 100 but now they are as follows: 152,3 in the USA, an amazing 98,4 in Japan, 236,9 in France and 411,6 in South Africa. How can we compete with other exporting countries? This evidence supports the sustained arguments of the CP that the NP is leading the land to chaos in its obdurate commitment to a unitary state and the attendant division of wealth, which leads irrefutably to an escalating decline in our standard of living. They want to denigrate these arguments with statements about Boksburg, where GST rose by 26% during the time when Nasionale Pers propaganda at its worst was in favour of a boycott of Boksburg. Surely that is nonsense at bottom.

That is not true.

Those are official statistics. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning talks about equal partnership with other people. Surely it is an elementary truth that there can only be an equal partnership when the contribution is equal. How can a contribution of R5 million as against R25 million result in an equal partnership? How can taxation of R35,7 billion, which is paid by 1,4 million Whites, compare with R8,2 billion, which is paid by 668 000 Coloureds, Indians and Blacks combined, result in an equal partnership? That is their contribution but they want to negotiate as equal partners regardless of differences in culture, race, tradition, history and language which exist among people. This is a further scrap of nonsense at bottom.

Mr Chairman, thus far in this debate so little has been said about the economy of South Africa that I really do not want to deprive the hon the Minister of Finance of the pleasure of replying to a few of the lamentations of the hon member for Brakpan. While he was talking, he reminded me of the following words from an old hymn: “Hermon hoor my kerm en kla met die klein gebergtes aan.” [Interjections.] I have seldom witnessed such pessimism in an hon member of the Parliament of South Africa.

We have reached the last day of the last big debate of the present Parliament. If one looks back over the recent session the highlights undoubtedly came from the NP speakers. These were the speeches which excited the electorate’s vision and expectations of the future, and which tried to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

If one looks at the opposition parties in the House of Assembly, not much was offered to the voter from those quarters, except constant criticism of the policy of the Government. One cannot really talk about big shots in the left-wing opposition. Their leaders, particularly recently, can at best be described as three lost souls firing off frequent volleys of bird-shot in order to find one another and the voters.

I want to say one thing to the hon Parliamentary leader of the DP. This morning he referred to the “brain drain” from South Africa. The question he must answer for himself and for hon members of this House is how many of those emigrants left South Africa as a result of the negative propaganda of his erstwhile PFP and its allies. Many of them have returned to South Africa. They have discovered that in spite of everything, and in spite of the dire predictions of the PFP and the left-wing opposition parties, South Africa is still the best country in the world in which to live.

From the right-wing opposition I think we have, specifically in this session, experienced a session of colourless, negative and visionless speeches from both the hon members of the caucus of that party and from their hon leader. Certain points of criticism against the Government were repeated in every big debate, without even once explaining any aspect of CP policy.

Only this morning we heard a number of clichés from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, but we did not hear a thing about methods and plans of action. They talked all around the policy, almost like the old days of the bucket-pump when the pump donkey walked round and round the borehole, treading out a deep circular rut without ever getting to the borehole itself.

Today I want to ask the CP and the right-wingers in South Africa about a certain phenomenon which is coming increasingly to the fore in our present-day politics. This is the matter of violence, violent physical methods, which are being used to an increasing extent, so it would seem, in an effort to intimidate and silence the opponents of right-wing politics.

You are going to disappear from Kuruman.

I am not going to disappear from Kuruman; the CP is going to disappear from Kuruman. I am giving them that assurance. [Interjections.] When we have finished with the CP on 6 September, they will know that they have been in a fight. Last time they also predicted that they were going to win by between 800 and 1200 votes, and then they bit the dust. The CP has never recovered in that constituency.

What happened in October 1988?

I merely want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that the methods he and his party are using to arrive at their policy and to convey their emotional speeches to the public, are the typical methods of all radical parties—parties that deal with emotions and not with a rational policy.

What is that method? The first thing which is done is to identify an enemy. This must be an enemy who is a threat to the voter. Then he is given the perception that if that enemy is not opposed, he and his people will perish.

That is why the non-Whites of South Africa are being depicted as totally unacceptable and as people who, according to the perception of the White voter, must be a Dingaan to all Whites; people who are treacherous and evil. For that purpose murders on Whites by non-Whites are singled out as if this is the rule in South Africa. Then it is also said that one cannot trust them. How many times have we not heard the words “you cannot believe them”. This is usually the concluding sentence of many a conversation of the right-wingers.

In the eyes of the right-wingers the non-Whites are the Philistines. They are the people who are not only heathens but also, as in the time of the Jewish people, the enemies of the Afrikaner people, and that is why one has incidents such as those which have taken place in Brakpan recently. The ordinary voter in right-wing politics is so brainwashed and intimidated that when he is eventually told that even the White government is against him, he has reached breaking-point and he cannot take any more.

As regard the incidents in Welkom I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he has ever condemned that behaviour.

The CP has condemned it!

No, Sir, the leader of the CP in the city council of Welkom condemned it.

It is beneath my leader!

It is beneath his hon leader to condemn that kind of behaviour. I will tell him why he has never condemned that behaviour. He does not dare to do so, because if he does he will lose the support of the right-wing AWB in his party. [Interjections.] That is why he is remaining silent. His silence is tantamount to consent, as they say. [Interjections.]

My hon Minister of Law and Order condemned this behaviour on behalf of my party. Does the leader of the CP in the city council of Welkom now approve or condemn things on behalf of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition? Is that his argument? [Interjections.] It may be a good thing if something like this happen. Then we will have more rational behaviour.

This hon Leader of the Official Opposition has been taken completely in tow by the AWB. They believe in this kind of behaviour. If one considers the remarks made by Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche in this connection, he said that crates of hens were going to arrive in the near future. He approves of this and he envisages further incidents of this kind. The leader of the CP has been taken in tow by the leader of the AWB to such an extent that he cannot decide for himself any longer. He must listen to what big boss Eugène tells him. [Interjections.] That is why we have this state of affairs in South Africa. I submit that right-wing leaders must think when they are making speeches and before they say things. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, South Africa is full of pessimism these days and there is a real danger that all our pessimism will lead us to stagnation and decline, but not so much to the actual breakdown of our development. What are we talking about here? We hear from all quarters that South Africa is faced with a population explosion and a mammoth unemployment problem, that our inflation rate is rising higher and higher and that it is already entirely out of step with the economies of our highly developed trading partners. We hear about a tidal wave of Blacks who are ostensibly threatening to swamp our cities, and the CP is attempting to make as much political capital out of this as possible. From other quarters we hear that our exports are too low, that we are losing foreign markets, that our industrial sector is not competitive and that both the agricultural and mining sectors are faced with declining world markets. Virtually all these statements contain a grain of truth, but every one of them is actually only a half truth, and this is precisely what makes them so dangerous. Let us look at a few examples.

It is true that South Africa’s population is growing at a rapid rate. The average increase, including the Black states, is presently 2,5%, or almost one million, per annum, with the result that we shall have a population of almost 40 million by the end of 1990. It is also true that the White population growth rate is lower than 1% per annum and that the population growth rate of the Coloured and Indian groups during the past two decades has declined dramatically—even though certain prophets of doom among the academics were still asserting in the early seventies that the birth rate of the Coloured people would be among the highest in the world. There is no reason why South Africa’s urban Black population will not reduce the size of its families in a similar manner, particularly if social and economic conditions improve. In fact, there are already indications that this is the case in Soweto, for example.

This brings us to the scope of Black urbanisation. Whereas official figures reflect urbanisation rates of 75% to 92% among the Asians, Coloureds and Whites, according to census figures the Blacks have a rate of only 35% to 38%. The prophets of doom infer from this that the real tide of urbanisation still lies ahead. However, this is a totally incorrect picture.

When we look at the actual settlement in and around our metropolitan and other urban areas—we therefore include all those who are functionally related to the cities and who are consequently urbanised in their life-styles and values—the percentage is already 55%, or perhaps slightly higher. However, then we must also accept that a metropolitan area such as Cape Town already accommodates 700 000 Blacks, and that the total population of the Durban/ Inandi area is probably between 3 million and 4 million.

We can either be shocked by these figures or they can give us confidence. We know from our history that the urbanisation of 300 000 Whites earlier in the century caused certain traumatic problems, but that after a few decades they were able to surmount those problems. We can observe the same process in other highly developed countries, and a similar process is now under way in Latin America and certain parts of Asia.

During the fifties and sixties the urbanisation process of our Coloured people reached its peak. Then the squatter camps of Vleigrond and Modderdam were on everyone’s lips. Now we are in the midst of the high tide of Black urbanisation. Within a few years we ought to achieve a rate of 60%, and thereafter the disruptive effect of further urbanisation will begin to decline, because the majority of the Blacks will by that time already be urbanised.

Even in so far as inflation is concerned, we must view certain things in perspective. Although no one wants a high inflation rate or wishes to deny the problem, an inflation rate of 13% to 16% for a country such as South Africa, which has been on the brink of revolution for the whole of this decade, is by no means a poor performance.

What is the rate in Latin America? It is mostly in excess of 100% per annum. When all is said and done, our inflation mirrors the existing conflict, which is difficult to resolve, between the various interest groups which all want a larger slice of the national cake. When one takes a closer look at the situation, one sees that we have already made progress. It is true that the policy of greater market freedom has caused prices to increase now, but it is also stimulating the supply.

This brings me to our industrial sector—import replacement, exports and the informal sector. Here, too, the prophets of doom for the most part look only superficially at certain trends and problems in the past, without paying enough attention to the changes in progress here and now. Dozens, if not hundreds of concerns are being encouraged by the low value of the rand to look at exports for the first time, and with greater interest than merely getting rid of surplus production.

Many of our industries have expanded rapidly during the past two years owing to the fast-growing Black market, export opportunities or the replacement of certain imports by local production. In so far as the informal sector is concerned, we are slowly beginning to realise its versatility and importance, even if we are not yet able to reliably gauge its contribution to production and job creation.

We can also put it differently. The 2% to 3% growth in our gross domestic product about which all the prophets of doom are speaking, includes all sectors, including those that are stagnating. On the other hand, the industrial sector had a real growth rate last year of approximately 9%, and entirely new sectors, such as the high technology and informal sectors, for example, began to expand ever more rapidly.

In conclusion, South Africa is in the midst of a process which one might almost call a revolution, a revolution towards a new, largely urbanised, multiracial, semi-developed country comparable to Mexico, Venezuela, Greece, Thailand, Malaysia and many others. Only when we cease to crave the apparent success of the already highly developed Western countries, and begin to compare ourselves with more appropriate partners in the development process, will we probably also become less pessimistic and will we more readily accept the challenges.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Wupperthal, who spoke just before the adjournment for lunch, said that we must not be too pessimistic about the country’s economy and act as prophets of doom. In a sense he is right. Basically there is nothing wrong with the economy of South Africa. In terms of its resources, manpower and abilities it is not the economy as such that is creating a problem. The charge we level at the Government is, however, that there are important aspects of government policy that are damaging the economy. There are important aspects of government policy that prevent the ordinary South African citizen from being afforded every opportunity to utilise to the full the possibilities and resources of the economy.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly—some of his colleagues are here—once again neatly spelled out the viewpoint of the CP. On the one hand it was neatly done, but on the other hand it was woolly when it came to its implementation. It was extremely woolly with regard to the implementation of their policy. He was like Dr Verwoerd of old. The only difference is that these hon gentlemen want partition without any sacrifice. The former hon Prime Minister at least said that if one wanted partition one would have to make economic sacrifices. These hon gentlemen want the political advantages and they want to exploit the White approach to the politics of partition without making the sacrifices that will of necessity arise from that.

†The hon member once again—and I think we must try to stop the debate in this regard on the part of both the Government and the opposition—referred to the English phrase “a non-racial society”. There can never be a non-racial population in South Africa. The South African population is racially, ethnically and religiously mixed. What does one mean when one uses the English phrase “a non-racial society” and “a non-racial South Africa”? It means that the society will not be regulated by laws that are based on race. That is fundamental!

The hon gentlemen will not object when we talk about non-racial sport. It does not mean to say that all the athletes have suddenly lost their colour. [Interjections.] It means one does not regulate the sport on the basis of race.

When we talk about a non-racial South Africa, a non-racial democracy and a non-racial society, it does not deny the diversity that there is in South Africa but it says that once and for all we must stop trying to regulate that society on the basis of laws of apartheid and of race. That is what we are talking about.

When Parliament meets again—I presume that will be in September—it is going to meet without two personalities who, each in their own way, have made an impact on this House and on this country’s political history. I am referring to the hon member for Houghton and the hon the State President.

I believe that both these people have understood the institution of Parliament. The hon the State President has understood it as an instrument for wielding power and that is how he has used it. The hon member for Houghton has used it as a platform for opposing, exposing and harassing the Government and for putting alternatives to the status quo. Both are parliamentarians. The hon the State President has devoted his life to building and leading the NP. The hon member for Houghton has devoted her life to campaigning for civil liberties. Both have been campaigners.

I ask the House to forgive me if I say a few more words about the hon member for Houghton. I do so as a friend, a colleague and—it may surprise her when I say this—an admirer and one who has had the difficult task of being her political leader for some 11 out of her 36 years in politics.

I have served with her in Parliament for many years. I helped to hold the fort outside Parliament while she was holding the fort so magnificently during those 13 lonely years of her political career.

As she will remember, she and I travelled together to many distant places—to Senegal, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and, more recently, to the People’s Republic of China. I had the opportunity of seeing her put the case of South Africa from the perspective of someone who is opposed to apartheid. Although she tackled the Government time and time again, her attitude was one of: “How do I put the case of South Africa on the basis of my opposition to apartheid?” That led her to do what no hon members on the Government side could do to fight the case against sanctions against South Africa.

I want to thank her for what she has done for Parliament as an institution. I also want to thank her for what she has done to improve the lives of millions of ordinary South Africans and for what she did to keep alive, even in the darkest of Verwoerdian and Vorsterian days, a faith in a set of values such as individual liberty, human dignity and the rule of law, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society. It is not the extent of one’s possessions or the degree of one’s political power that are the hallmarks of a civilised society; it is the strength of one’s belief and faith in these civilised values.

This lady is a truly remarkable parliamentarian who has set a standard of sustained excellence which we will find difficult to emulate in the future. As she told Parliament yesterday, while she has had many hours and years of frustration during her 36 years in opposition, she at least had the satisfaction of seeing repealed many of the laws that she opposed when they were introduced. Not just Parliament, but South Africa owes this remarkable hon lady a great debt of gratitude.

On the other side of the floor South Africa will remember the present hon State President. They will remember him in particular for the role that he played in his latter years in what has become known as the reform process.

Let me immediately say that when I look at these two personalities, I realise there would have been far less reform away from aspects of apartheid by the hon the State President had there not been years of opposition to apartheid on the part of the hon member for Houghton. The first person who should thank the hon member for Houghton is the hon the State President of South Africa, because during the time he was moving in a different direction, this lady was looking in the direction of fundamental reform away from apartheid. It was, after all, the hon member for Houghton and the old Progressive Party who were calling for reform away from apartheid when most of the hon members on that side were still hell-bent in the direction of apartheid.

Be that as it may, I believe the hon the State President, within the parameters of his own concept of what constitutes reform, has over the past few years been prepared to take some tough decisions. As I know him since we opposed each other—he was the NP organiser in the Cape and I was a key member of the Torch Commando—in the early fifties, for him to repeal the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, for him to move to repeal the pass laws, for him to give back their citizenship to millions of citizens who only had that citizenship taken away in 1976 and 1977, took a certain amount of political courage. In a sense it also lead, inter alia, to the split of his party into the right wing NP and the far-right wing CP.

However, amidst some of the pluses of the Botha era, I believe there have been two overwhelming minuses. The first is the continuous denial of Black South Africans to have any say in the Parliament of the Government which rules over them—a monumental minus! The second is the use of authoritarian emergency powers to silence the voice of protest of the very people who are denied a voice in this Parliament. Those two things hang together. The denial of Black political rights and the suppression of the voice of Black people clamouring for political rights have been major flaws in Government policy over recent years. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I gladly follow the hon member for Sea Point and also notice that our opposition in the House of Representatives is again not present this afternoon.

I deem it a pleasure, and indeed also an historic occasion, to address this joint meeting this afternoon and to convey my community’s financial requirements to the hon the Minister of Finance.

Since the NP came to power in 1948 the so-called non-White has been oppressed to such an extent that my community has stagnated into an underprivileged, backward community and has to a large extent been living in a subculture of poverty. The oppression under the apartheid policy of the past 41 years has hardened my community’s heart in bitterness towards the Afrikaner—he is regarded as the great oppressor.

Hon members experienced this bitterness during the week of 26 to 30 September 1988 when we debated the Group Areas Act and it was also reflected when we could not accept the Vote of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

The LP decided in 1983 to participate in the new constitutional dispensation, not because we accepted it, but because we regarded it as a point of departure to move away from apartheid on the road of reform in the direction of a non-racial democratic dispensation in this country where there is no room for a policy of partition.

We entered this dispensation in good faith because we were convinced that we would be able to contribute to the constitutional reform in this country. In this process a large part of our community rejected us as allies of the great oppressor.

There were personal attacks on us. Hon members have been threatened with death and some of our houses have been bombarded with hand-grenades and petrol bombs. Even Utasa, the teachers’ union which has approximately 25 000 teachers as members, and which can exert a direct influence on approximately 800 000 school-going youths, still rejects our participation in the new constitutional dispensation. This situation is so serious that I, being a registered student at the University of Western Cape, do not dare to set foot on that campus. Incidentally, it is this university that was established by the NP by means of the Universities Amendment Act of 1959.

I just wish to give hon members an indication of the poverty experienced by my community. The Bureau for Market Research at the University of Stellenbosch provides on the basis of the Central Statistical Service the per capita income for 1985 as follows: White—R18 350, non-White—R6 662. We therefore experience a dilemma, namely that we have to convince our people to support our efforts to bring about constitutional reform by means of peaceful negotiation rather than by means of violence. Similarly we should conduct ourselves in Parliament in such a manner as to win the confidence of our electorate, whereby we will eventually acquire more credibility amongst our people. However, before this happens, our people want to see concrete changes and the elimination of the historical socio-economic, educational and political backlogs in a noticeable manner so that total equality is in sight. To eliminate this enormous historical socio-economic backlog, to breach the divisions in my community and to simultaneously eliminate polarisation in this country, much more funds will have to be allocated to our Administration.

In regard to local government we are still experiencing a critical shortage of land and housing, and our people are presently living under terrible conditions. Talking about local government and housing, I wish to put it to the hon the Minister that the South African Government has to a large extent contributed to the poverty of the so-called non-White by taking away land that belonged to our forefathers.

Early in the 19th century the so-called Crown Land was given as a gift by Britain to my ancestors. My great-grandfather owned property in an area in Ceres, which has now been declared a White area. This man died in August 1947 and according to his will his wife had to inherit that land, but in February 1948 a document was added to this man’s will which made it clear that this poor widow was forced to sign away the ownership of that land. The South African Government forbade that poor widow to take transfer of that property willed to her in her husband’s will. That was the fate of thousands of our so-called non-Whites. Land was taken away from my people in this manner and their descendants are still suffering great poverty as a result of that.

In the field of education it is more necessary for the Government to allocate more funds to eliminate these historical backlogs. Even the hon the State President recognised these backlogs when he said the following according to Karet of 1987:

In order to eliminate these backlogs, the hon the Minister of National Education announced a ten-year plan in this Parliament. I quote Die Burger of 17 April 1986 as follows:

He said further:

I wish to tell the hon the Minister of Finance that with the undersupply of funds allocated to our various administrations, he is going to make it very difficult for us to acquire credibility from our voters to participate in this dispensation. I wish to go further and put it to the hon the Minister that with this undersupply of funds he has embarrassed us in our communities. The hon the Minister “dropped” us. What explanation must I now give my voters as to why a school that was built 17 years ago has never been painted because funds are not available?

A school that was opened in January of this year in Ceres has up to now not been able to appoint cleaners and administrative staff. This is not the fault of the House of Representatives. The Commission for Administration has up to now not granted permission for those appointments to be made. How must I explain these things to my voters? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I apologise to the hon member for Bokkeveld for not reacting to his speech. I do, however, want to react to the speech made by the hon member for Brakpan this morning before lunch. Allow me just to say firstly that I find it curious to see how the hon members of the CP are scurrying around covering up their political tracks. It is, of course, the natural consequence for the CP—at the level at which they practise their politics—to divorce themselves further and further from the truth. They no longer know or recognise the truth when they see it, or even when they fall over it. When a party does not have a consistent and viable policy to submit to the electorate of our country, such a party resorts to blatant untruths, disinformation, suspicionmongering, the disparagement of figures of authority in the country, and—viewed as a whole—unbalanced emotional politics.

The tragedy is, however, that in this process, and I say this with regret, those hon members do not care one jot about how they sometimes jeopardise our country’s international image, our national interests, and even our security interests as well.

The speech made by the hon member for Brakpan this morning was a classic example of this. I want to give the hon member some good advice. The hon member will quite probably not accept it, but I mean it as good advice. We and the hon member know that he will no longer represent his constituency here after 6 September. [Interjections.] I suggest that the hon member enters the demolition industry, because he knows everything about breaking down, but he knows nothing about building up.

The hon member dealt mainly with two matters. Firstly he referred once again to the swimming-pool issue at the house of the hon the Minister of Defence, and secondly he referred to the visit by a group of members of Parliament to Mozambique in December of last year.

Firstly I want to address the swimming-pool issue. The hon the Minister himself referred to this during the discussion of his Vote. The hon member would do well to go and reread the speech of the hon member for Newcastle, who dealt fully with this. The hon member brought it up here once again this morning, simply to re-accentuate another untruth. Any right-minded person who reads that speech and who listened to it, will know that the allegations made by the hon member for Brakpan are utter nonsense.

The hon member quoted selectively here today from a report by the Auditor-General which was submitted to the select committee of Parliament—a report dated 4 March 1980, which referred to the 1978-79 financial year. This hon Minister of Defence only became Minister of Defence on 8 October 1980. The hon member for Brakpan said the following in his speech (Hansard, 6 March 1989, col 2157)—

The hon member ought at least to get his dates and facts right. I want to state categorically once again today that in the nine years in which the hon the Minister of Defence has occupied this post, there has been no swimming-pool at his house—his official residence. What is the hon member doing? Does the hon member not know the truth when he sees it? Now the hon member says we must not cry if the CP treads on the “tail that teems with corruption”. Where is there corruption with regard to a swimming-pool at the house of the hon the Minister of Defence if he does not have such a swimming-pool at his house? The hon member really does not know what it is about.

It is the Chief of the Defence Force. [Interjections.]

Do hon members see? Now he is referring to the Chief of the Defence Force. In his speech the hon member referred to the hon the Minister of Defence. Now it is the Chief of the SA Defence Force! What is the hon member doing? [Interjections.] No, we must simply stick to the truth. [interjections.]

The hon member also attempted to create some intrigue which in truth did not exist with regard to the visit to Mozambique. I am pleased that the hon member for Pietersburg is also here. The hon member speaks contemptuously about the public interest whenever we raise the subject of the public interest and confidentiality with regard to certain information. The hon member implied this morning—he and members of his party have said so during the past few days—that they would not allow themselves to be silenced on the subject of national security and the public interest. I want to ask the hon member to please deal cautiously with these matters.

What are the facts? I have already given the facts in answer to certain questions. Such a visit by members of the NP did take place. I never denied that. Neither did I say it was a secret. [Interjections.] The hon member spoke this morning as if I did not know that there were also DPs and CPs in the Defence Force, as if the visit had been arranged by the SA Defence Force.

That is not true. The members of that tour group were not even members of the defence study group. The SA Defence Force was in no way involved in that tour, aside from the fact that they provided the aircraft. That cost a little over R5 200. [Interjections.] There is now a great song and dance about this having come out of the taxpayer’s pocket. However, it is 0,000001% of what the policy of the hon members of the CP has cost the taxpayers of Boksburg to date. [Interjections.] It was a useful exercise for the SADF to take part in that tour.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Deputy Minister prepared to answer a question?

No, Sir, I do not have time to answer questions. I have too little time at my disposal.

I want to ask the hon members of the CP in all earnest today not to speak indiscriminately about confidential matters and matters concerning the public interest. Those hon members must correct this position. I think that we could at least have this ethical code among ourselves, and that whenever we tell hon members something, they should first come and listen to what we have to say. Thereafter they can judge. However, hon members of the CP consistently refuse to come and talk to us about this.

I informed the hon member of something in confidence, and he said that he accepted it. I want to tell the hon member for Brakpan that he has not broken the confidence in relation to this matter this morning. I want to extend an invitation to the CP today on behalf of the hon the Minister of Defence not to disturb relations with regard to such matters. We must talk them out with one another. We must not make a political issue of this.

The CP wishes to place the hon the Minister of Defence and myself under political quarantine. We are also political functionaries. We represent our voters in our constituencies. We shall do our duty in that sphere. I want to assure hon members of that. Our department is administered in accordance with the Defence Act. We know that members of all political parties, races and colours in this country render service in the SADF. We are proud of that.

I want to ask the CP not to disturb the fine relationship that exists by making petty political capital out of certain confidential Defence Force matters which are in the public interest. I repeat my invitation to hon members to discuss this with us in the future.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Law and Order made a speech here earlier which he devoted entirely to me. I am grateful that he is in the House while I react to it. I am also grateful that he invited me to be here when he spoke.

First of all I want to endorse certain sections of the hon the Minister’s speech. In the first place, we accept the SA Police’s rejection of violence and its welcoming of peace. We share this. It is also the standpoint of the DP.

In the second place, as the hon the Minister said, we also endorse the statement that the Police have a duty to oppose violence, and often in the process become the targets and the victims of violence. We have sympathy for them with regard to this situation and we would like to put an end to it so that they do not become the victims of it.

Thirdly, we endorse the statement of the hon the Minister that the task of the Police to prevent crime is easier under conditions of peace than under conditions of violence and strife. [Interjections.] We are also committed to promoting that peace, in the same way as the SA Police, as the hon the Minister explained. For the sake of SA Policemen, this is also the standpoint of the DP.

We also agree with the statement that under present circumstances the ANC is the greatest instigator and perpetrator of violence at the moment. That is also essentially correct. [Interjections.] We also agree whole-heartedly with the following statement, and that is the critical statement that the perpetration of violence will not end in South Africa before the ANC also puts an end to its violence. This is the key point and it seems to me that this is the point which the hon the Minister will not or cannot understand.

The crux of the matter is to put an end to violence, also the violence of the ANC. Let me again make it clear. I have said this on many occasions, and all the hon members of the DP have done so as well. The DP rejects violence as an instrument whereby political change can be brought about—violence of any kind. This does not include only soft targets; it does not include only the sickening dimension of indiscriminate violence—it includes the armed struggle in its original limited sense, namely the symbolic struggle, the infrastructure and the matters to which the hon the Minister referred. We reject that. [Interjections.]

Having said that, I want to once again draw the attention of the hon the Minister to the point which he made when he quoted from Hansard what I had said. He referred to my words: “This sort of incident” and “this sort of violence”, but he omitted to refer to the sort of violence which I described. I made it very clear in my speech, and in fact I referred to the “sickening dimension of violence”, for example the bomb blasts in Amanzimtoti, at Ellispark, in Wimpy Bars, supermarkets, in parking areas at business centres, etc. That is what I meant by the “dimension”. That is the sort of violence to which I referred. When I told this to the hon the Minister in the House, I specifically referred to Thabo Mbeki’s reference to this sort of violence—the indiscriminate use of violence where civilians become the targets, without being sought out. The bombs simply find their own targets. [Interjections.] Of course, we reject all violence. We stand by that.

Qualify that.

No, I will not qualify it. All that I said, was that Mbeki said that this dimension would change. The question is whether or not this is a positive development. It is not the ideal development and it is not the total answer, but it is at least a positive development in that we will not see any more of those bombs. I added that I did not endorse this standpoint. I also said that we would have to see whether it did in fact happen. I challenged the hon the Minister to compare this sort of incident with that in any previous period. The hon the Minister quoted me as having referred to “this sort of incident”. The point which I am trying to make, is that the hon the Minister has still not reacted to that challenge.

That brings me to my second point. That is that we, myself included, have at no stage claimed the credit by saying that I, the DP or earlier the NDM brought this about. We said that we had been a part of these discussions. I distinctly said that there were other discussions as well. On numerous occasions I referred to branches of the UDF and a direct delegation of Cosatu which had held talks. On numerous platforms I referred to pressure from Western governments, specifically the USA and Britain, and discussions which were held there.

It is undoubtedly true that the ANC are acting in their own interests. They do not want this poor image and are worried about it. However, the point is that these discussions have brought this about, and I am not taking all the credit for that. All that I am saying, is that if holding discussions made a contribution and our discussions did so, we will continue to hold them, even if the contribution is merely towards saving one life or preventing one mutilation.

I need not quote anyone other than Dr Mike Hough as a witness whom, in my opinion, the hon the Minister will accept…

Prof Hough.

… Prof Mike Hough—he is also a doctor—the director of the Institute for Strategic Studies at the University of Pretoria. Only last week the SABC radio service broadcast an interview with him in which he specifically referred to this and said that it was clear that there was a tendency away from this sort of violence. He also referred to the fact that this was not only as a result of improved security in general as well as of the elimination of certain cells, but also as a result of the series of discussions which had taken place across a wide spectrum. Prof Hough therefore confirmed this point specifically on the radio.

All the examples of violence which the hon the Minister gave suggest an increasing tendency towards violence in general. This is true, and we share that concern. However, the question which the hon the Minister must ask himself is, what does this prove. The hon the Minister says that the NP Government can offer the voters security, but at the same time there is a rising spiral of violence. Is this not telling a lie? Is it a sign that we are moving into a more safe environment if the incidence of violence increases? I would say that the contrary were true. The track record of the NP suggests that it is unable to achieve the security which it guarantees the voter.

The hon the Minister’s statistics show the contrary. With that I am not saying that the Government is the only guilty party, but I am simply saying that it is unable to address the problem. Why does it not address it? It does not address the problem because it attempts to cope with violence by means of violence. Is the hon the Minister not going to learn from the recent experience with Angola?

That is not true!

Has the hon the Minister not learnt from that that discussions with regard to the withdrawal in Angola and the implementation of Resolution 435 contributed to a decrease in violence? Has the hon the Minister not learnt that, despite Swapo’s actions with regard to the implementation of Resolution 435, discussions once again got the matter underway.

The issue is one of a political debate. I want to emphasise the point. That is what we are dealing with. We shall continue to hold discussions. Unless a political process is started and violence is addressed with political answers, one is not going to achieve peace. It is no use saying that if one talks to people who are your opponents or enemies, you are soft on security. I do not know of people who talk only to friends and then make a contribution towards the ending of hostilities. I have never yet heard of a peace conference between friends. Will the hon the Minister never learn that if one wants peace, one has to talk to the people with whom one is involved in a dispute? [Interjections.] That is the point which we are trying to make, and we shall continue to do so.

The DP’s politics is a brave and daring politics, but it is a type of politics which we can indulge in because we know where we stand with regard to ourselves. [Interjections.] If the hon the Minister does not believe me, the voters will tell him that on 6 September. They will show the hon the Minister where they stand on 6 September. I can look at the young people in particular, because they support the DP, and the DP stands where the future is. That is the direction in which we are moving. [Interjections.]

I want to return to the whole concept that the NP is able to guarantee peace, security and safety. I indicated that the escalation of violence suggested that the contrary was true, namely that the NP could not effectively address the physical violence or threat. The hon the Minister can look at the record of the NP in the light of what is happening to the economy. The hon member for Sea Point and other hon members referred to this earlier in this debate.

It is not that there is something inherently wrong with South Africa; it is just the inability to achieve. The hon the Minister of Finance and Dr Gerhard de Kock are my witnesses with regard to this point. Unless something is done about politics, the economy is not going to succeed.

There is also this feeling of a psychological, emotional insecurity. Are we going to be what we want to be in the future, what we are? Will Afrikaners be able to be Afrikaners? Will they be able to maintain their values? Will their children be educated in their home language? These are the questions that the voter is becoming increasingly concerned and worried about. No hope is forthcoming from the side of the NP or the Government. All this insecurity is the result of the Government’s inability to find political answers from a political point of view, and its floundering about in a position in which it does not know which way to go, or where to make a contribution. It is high time that the NP and the Government stand up, get their bearings and give us a future which I think we all deserve.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Randburg referred to violence. He was not convincing; I think “the lady doth protest too much”. In the first place he said violence had decreased; later he said certain acts of terror had increased. The fact is that his and his party’s obsession with the ANC encourages violence. They are only interested in the ANC because the ANC propagates violence. If the ANC did not propagate violence, they would not have been interested. The ANC knows this. The ANC knows if they do not propagate violence and act aggressively any more, they will not attract the attention of these people and of all the hangers-on of the DP. With their obsession with the ANC, the DP is therefore encouraging violence. It does not help to pay lip service opposing violence on the one hand whilst on the other hand one’s deeds contradict this.

I wish to refer to the election. The election of 6 September will undoubtedly be a very important election. It will determine the face of the nineties to a large extent. Humanly speaking, it will determine whether, under the leadership of the NP and the moderate groups in this House, South Africa will grow in the nineties and experience progress or whether, under the leadership of the radical groups in the House, the CP and its AWB followers or the DP and its extra-parliamentary followers, South Africa will experience setbacks and retrogression.

Many hon members referred today to the economy and complained about the economic situation. It is true that inflation, interest rates and taxes are too high. We agree that that is so, but it should not be seen in isolation. We should ask through what the Government has had to lead this country during the past few years.

If that is taken into consideration, we cannot but concede that there has been an economic war against this Government. If it depended on our country’s enemies, we would have been forced to our knees. There were sanctions, disinvestment, restrictions on South African exports and total suspensions of credit. In addition to that we had floods, which usually occur only every 200 years, as well as droughts. There was the war in Namibia, the price of gold plummeted, we had internal unrest and we had a new constitutional dispensation which definitely cost money.

In spite of this we can say at this stage that under the leadership of the Government we have had a very strong, positive trade balance for some years now. Unemployment has decreased significantly, large payments have been made on our foreign debt, and we are once again experiencing a positive immigration inflow.

The latest steps taken by the Government were taken because the economy was too hot and because at this stage the confidence in the economy was very high. Under the leadership of the hon the Minister of Finance, this country has won the economic war against it convincingly. When the history is written, this will be depicted as one of the country’s major successes.

†People must not say that we have had economic difficulties because of the so-called apartheid policy. We have had many sanction actions against us initiated and encouraged for selfish economic reasons and not for moral or humanitarian reasons. Canada and Australia are very good examples of this. However, if the DP with their so-called open society policy ever comes to power in this country, we will see the biggest capital flight that this country has ever seen. I say this because their naïve policy may work in a First World homogeneous Western society but it has not worked in Africa. It will not work here and it will not bring stability.

I am not going to refer to the statement made by the hon nominated member Dr Zach de Beer a few years ago when he said that he would not invest in South Africa. In support of this contention I want to bring a very reliable witness. I want to refer to the magazine African Business. It is perhaps the most prominent business magazine for the whole of Africa. According to the April edition of this magazine Zimbabwe with its open society policy is experiencing major disinvestment problems to such an extent that the discount on the sale of businesses by foreign companies had to be increased.

At this stage if a foreign company wants to sell a business which is valued at more than $Z10 million then it has to sell it at a discount of 90%. In other words, they can only sell that business at 10% of its net worth. This is the case in an African country where there is no so-called apartheid or sanctions, which gets international aid and assistance, where Western nations encourage investment and where the population make-up is not a tenth as complex as that in South Africa. If that is the case in Zimbabwe with everything going for it, it will be much worse in South Africa under DP rule because DP rule will bring about a Zimbabwean situation in South Africa, except that it will be much worse. [Interjections.]

*The NP Government also made major breakthroughs constitutionally and the foundation has been laid for large-scale developments ahead. It was relatively recently that our country experienced great anxiety internally because of attacks by radical forces, but these attacks have been effectively counteracted. The Government even took the initiative during these attacks to increase representation. I am referring to regional services councils, representation on executive committees, the KwaZulu-Natal Executive Authority, country-wide elections at the third tier and the National Statutory Council which may soon be established.

Order! Hon members who feel they have to converse must please lower their voices. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North may continue.

The words of Psalm 37 occur to me when I look at these matters:

While scoundrels fuelled revolution, sowed discord and murdered people, the Government quietly and determinedly did its work. The Government has taken the only possible course and the Government will continue to take it.

The Government also made major breakthroughs internationally, and laid the foundation for further breakthroughs. I had the privilege in September of being present in the American Senate with various colleagues when sanctions were discussed. Eight of the nine Republican senators who had been in favour of sanctions two years previously, expressed themselves strongly against sanctions at that stage.

Doors are opening under the initiative of this Government. One can only shudder if one thinks of what will happen on the international front if the CP comes into power, because we are already experiencing so many problems locally.

I am proud to be a member of the NP Government, which does not practise short-term emotional politics. In the short term that may be popular, but ultimately it is disastrous. Short-term economic measures are also not in the interests of our country and we cannot enlist support for that. The NP’s new and dynamic leader will take the initiatives of his predecessor even further to build a safe and prosperous South Africa for all our people. I have no doubt about that. We shall soon be going to the electorate to discuss these matters with them. Just as in the past they will make the right decision.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to come into this debate on this important point concerning the future of South Africa.

Allow me to repeat a story often told by the late Martin Luther King. Some hon members will remember that he was an important leader in the civil rights movement in America. Nowadays there is so much talk of churches and last night I heard the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly talking on television about his theological vision for a future South Africa.

In his call to the churches Martin Luther King told the story of Rip van Winkel. Hon members will remember the story written by Washington Irving in which Rip lived in a little town near the Hudson River. He went on his famous mountain walk, somebody gave him something to drink and he fell asleep. The story goes that he slept for twenty years.

However, in the story that Martin Luther King told there was a little inn in the town and on a board outside the inn was a picture of the face of the King of England, King George III. That was because America belonged to the British Empire in those days. However, when Rip returned from his mountain sleep, there was a new face on the board outside the inn: The face of George Washington, the first President of the USA.

The moral that Martin Luther King drew from this analogy was that during those 20 years the War of Independence took place—a revolution took place in his country. In those years of revolution Rip was fast asleep. As he came down that day he sang “God save the King” and they nearly hanged him because his country was not a kingdom anymore, it was a republic.

In South Africa there is a revolution taking place. Too many South Africans of all races are asleep in this time of change. South Africa is changing. The old order is disappearing and a new order is taking its place. The NP even had to react towards that change. That is why they dropped apartheid. That is why they talk about moving away from discrimination.

I remember in the days when apartheid was really at its height, if I visited a White friend and had a “dop” I could only—in terms of the regulations—have it in his house if I poured the “dop” myself. That was the old days of strict apartheid.

*A White could not even pour one a “dop” in his own house if one had a brown skin. The regulations forbade it. He would have been taken to court.

You should have had a meal at my place! I would have given you another “dop” as well.

I remember working at the Lanzerac Hotel in my town as a waiter way back when money was scarce. When I had to have a meal at the hotel with an overseas visitor they had to get a permit to enable me to eat there.

†That is how the NP has changed. It was forced to change because the Afrikaners must take their place in the world community. Of course, we must return to the Olympic Games and we must return to the United Nations as a respected nation in the world situation. This is what we are aiming at. We in the LP know where we want to go and that is why we talk about negotiations.

In passing, before I forget, I would also like to pay tribute to the hon member for Houghton, Mrs Suzman. If there is one person who taught our community how to fight for civil rights, it is that hon member. I think the years she spent in Parliament have added stature to Parliament as an institution. I want to thank her for that.

*In the same breath, I want to thank the hon the State President because he acted courageously in turning his back on what he did in the past.

†I agree of course that the step was not brave enough because Blacks have not been brought into our constitutional dispensation. An atmosphere of reform has been created in South Africa and we must walk this road, whether we like it or not.

*A11 of us have to do it. Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks—all South Africans have to do it. Unfortunately some people are still talking a weird kind of politics. Hon members even use the church to defend a policy. This is based on the Bible. Unfortunately the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly is not present at the moment. He uses the Bible to defend CP policy. Sir, I, too, belong to a Christian church. I always ask myself whether I am primarily a member of the LP or a Christian. Am I primarily a Coloured or am I primarily a Christian? Am I primarily a South African or am I primarily a Christian? If I were to die in an accident today the question put to me would not be whether I am a Coloured, but whether I am a Christian. That is the norm which will determine whether I go to heaven or to hell; my being a South African will not determine this; nor will my Coloured skin. The norm will be my basic Christianity.

I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives please to read the third chapter of the epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians to see what we are talking about. I want to read it to him. It reads:

But what has happened now? Now a nation comes first. Our faith in this country is based on Christianity. If there is something which unites us in South Africa at present it is our faith.

†Look at religion in South Africa. It has never been a divisive factor.

*Now the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly speaks about the Tower of Babel as if there is going to be integration. Let us, however, look at the policy as far as Whites are concerned.

†Is there not a tower of Babel among Whites as well, because a Portuguese is also a White and he is Roman Catholic and cannot speak Afrikaans?

*A Jew, with all due respect, is also a White person! He is also part of the people. Spaniards, Italians and everyone else who has a white skin belong to the people. What, then, is the norm? It is not Afrikanerdom. It is not pride in the Voortrekkers. Everyone is welcome as long as their skins are white. Then they belong to the people. [Interjections.] But not I! I, who am a Christian and speak Afrikaans, am detestable. I am a leper in that people. Why? Because skin colour is the norm. If my skin were white, I would have been all right in South Africa. [Interjections.]

†There is an old saying:

*These people do not form part of the people of South Africa.

I want to come to back to the reason why I am always attacking the CP. The NP knows in which respect our policy differs from their policy. We have debated this matter time and again in this House. The CP, however, says that it is going to govern South Africa. [Interjections.] That is correct! They say that after the election they will be electing a State President and they are talking about a sovereign White Parliament. As far as I am concerned, the logical consequence of that is a Coloured Parliament.

I now want to ask whether the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly will also become the State President of the Coloureds if they win the election on 6 September. [Interjections.] They must answer me. Will he also be the State President of the Coloureds? Yes or no? Now, all those members of the CP are sitting there in complete silence. [Interjections.] I have to go and explain these things to the public outside. This is the policy of the CP.

I have asked the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly repeatedly where my homeland was. I want to know these things because we wonder where our homeland will be if this party comes to power. They must not give me 400 small group areas. They say that they are sincere. They say that they will be partitioning a country for Whites and that only Whites will live there.

A grand place!

Surely then it is logical that only Coloureds should live in the Coloured homeland. [Interjections.] That is the conclusion. Let us now take this logic a little further. What about the portfolios of the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Law and Order? Will one of the hon members of the House of Representatives now become the Minister of Defence for the Cape Corps? [Interjections.] He will have the final say about where they will be fighting.

Koos van der Merwe!

No, that is their policy. Am I speaking the truth? Answer me! Will their Minister of Defence be the Minister of the Coloured soldiers as well after 6 September? Yes or no? [Interjections.] Do hon members see? There they are, with nothing to say. [Interjections.] I am not asking this to make them appear ludicrous, but if this is the logic, we are also talking about a sovereign Parliament where Coloureds, according to law, will have the final say about Coloureds, and in the Police and Defence Force, too. This means that the White Minister of Law and Order cannot arrest a Coloured in a Coloured area. Is that the logic? Is that a correct conclusion? They will not pick up a Black in a Black township if he contravenes the law. They will have to ask his Black State President first. That is why we are opposed to the policy.

I want to take my argument to its logical conclusion. We are now also making a mockery of what they want to do. If one speaks about a Coloured homeland, that homeland is Cape Town. I told hon members that when Jan van Riebeeck came here my ancestors were watching him from the beach. I have Hottentot blood in my veins! Surely that is nothing to be ashamed of. It is good blood.

†God did not create junk.

*He created beautiful people. Surely the Hottentot is part of His creation. For this reason I am proud of my ancestors. Surely this is nothing to be ashamed of. That means, however, that the Western Cape is our homeland. But surely I am talking rubbish now!

Let us look at the economy of my constituency Pniel. Eighty percent of South Africa’s deciduous fruit comes from the Western Cape. Half a million Coloureds and Blacks are employed in that industry. A million people are dependent on that industry. Eighty percent of the fruit is export quality. My people work in that industry from Ceres to Grabouw. Now I have to speak up against sanctions. However, who are the entrepreneurs, who are the farmers and who are the experts?

†Who has the skills in the fruit industry? Our White farmers do.

*Should I now expel them from the Western Cape because they are White?

†Must I do that to the job creators?

*The economy is so integrated that one cannot separate it, just as one cannot separate milk from tea in a cup. However, the CP comes forward with this nonsense. I must now find a homeland exclusively for Coloureds.

We want answers. That is why we discussed meeting around a conference table with the NP. That is what we in South Africa intend to do. We must negotiate to strengthen the economy.

That is the reason why I am opposed to the campaigns of Dr Boesak and Archbishop Tutu abroad. Money is involved. I have to build houses and I am dependent on the hon the Minister of Finance, sitting over there, to acquire loans, to house people. Should the CP come to power, do hon members think that those benches will be open for us in South Africa when they implement a policy of partition? Do hon members think New York, London and Switzerland will lend us millions? Do hon members think they are going to buy our fruit? They will not even play sport with us. Even if the whole world plays jukskei, they will not even play jukskei with us.

†These are important issues which we seriously address in our party.

*I, as a Christian, object to this misrepresentation of my faith. Hon members should not think that we not know the Bible and that this faith is not dear to us. I am living in the time of Christ; I am not living in the time of the Old Testament. I am living in the time of the New Testament and a new commandment was given to me—to confess my weakness and sin in public; the new commandment that we should love one another as He loved us.

†One must love one’s neighbour as oneself. They are Christians. The moment one is baptised one accepts that Christian commandment. When one says: “You must love your neighbour as Christ loves your neighbour”, then it affects one’s politics.

*One’s politics are based on one’s Christian faith. What one believes is the foundation of one’s policy. This party to which they belong…

That is a clergyman’s story!

No, that is not a clergyman’s story; that is logical. Surely a person’s faith is the basis of his politics. What kind of policy is this policy of partition? Will we also have separate homelands in heaven one day? Never!

†There is going to be no Jew or Muslim or Christian in heaven.

*We will all be one people before one Lord. Then these things can also be brought about in South Africa.

†What I am trying to get across is that if we can work together every day in the economy of South Africa, why can we not work together in schools? Why can we not work together in the mines?

*If we can talk together in Parliament, why can we not include a Black here? Did the skies of South Africa fall because I, a Coloured with a coloured skin, am standing here? I am now part of the Government. I am a builder of houses. Hon members can come and see what our department has done with self-help housing.

I would like to tell a short story before my time expires. Last Tuesday I visited Brandvlei. It is pleasant to travel in South Africa. One has to travel for miles to reach Brandvlei. Hon members know how far Calvinia is. To reach Brandvlei one has to travel a further 150 kilometres. A White council and a Coloured management committee were instrumental in the construction of 400 self-help houses for Coloureds there. It was good that the mayor was present as well. He said to me, “Minister, this scheme improved the relationship between our people and Coloureds in this town.” Do hon members see now that we belong together? The mayor of the town celebrated with us. The CP, however, says that it does not want to be the mayor of Coloureds and that the White town clerk should only look after the affairs of Whites. They say Coloureds should do their own thing in their own political structure.

Mr Chairman, partition and separation will serve no purpose. We belong together as South Africans because we dream the same dreams.

†We also have the same value systems. Our value systems are based on Christian principles.

*It is on that basis that I am prepared to be a politician. I want to tell hon members that we need one another. However, I am now tired of people presenting stupid constitutions here, which will never be viable in the real politics of South Africa. How can one have three State Presidents in one country? Who is going to declare war? Only the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly? Please! We are tired of this!

†Mr Chairman, hon members must forgive me if I sound racist, but political shrewdness is not the sole prerogative of White minds.

*We also understand politics. We can debate and govern as well. I hope I will still be here when the new constitution for South Africa is instituted.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Representatives very much for a very positive contribution this afternoon. When he says that the NP has distanced itself from apartheid, he is right; when he says that we are moving away from racial discrimination, he is right; and when he says that the most important common denominator in South Africa is our Christian faith, he is absolutely right.

At some stage or other I want to give the hon member for Johannesburg North the opportunity to clear up something which is bothering me On 12 May the hon member for East London North, in a speech in the House of Assembly, referred to a claim which the hon member for Johannesburg North had made in Parliament on Wednesday, 10 May. He claimed that he was in possession of a letter written by the hon MPs for East London North, King William’s Town and Albany addressed to the Catholic Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The hon member for East London North pointed out that the only two sources from which a copy of that letter could have emanated were the Church itself or the Daily Dispatch in East London. When challenged in the House, the hon member for Johannesburg North waved his copy of the letter around to show it to hon members. The copy he waved on 12 May appeared to be a fax. When he made his speech on 10 May 1989, I believe that the original letter was probably still on its way to the United States, and that the Daily Dispatch had received a copy only at 16h13 on Monday, 8 May. No one else had a copy of that letter.

On 12 May the hon member for East London North advised the hon member for Johannesburg North that he would raise the matter. [Interjections.] I am not jittery! He asked him to bring the letter to the debate with him. The question which remains unanswered is whether the hon member for Johannesburg North was actually in possession of the letter at the time he made his speech, as he led the House to believe, or whether he was not.

After the hon member for East London North had spoken on Friday, he asked for a photostat copy of the document which the hon member for Johannesburg North had exhibited to the House. He was sent a copy which clearly showed certain fax numbers.

However, the main fax information on top of page 1 of the document which should have disclosed the sender, the date and the time of the fax, was for some unknown reason missing. I have the copy before this House. The hon member for Johannesburg North must now disclose to this House the date, the time and perhaps—although that may not be so important—the sender of the fax… [Interjections.] Why? Because the data is important. [Interjections.] It is not only because of that, but because his own credibility is at stake. [Interjections.]

I want to turn to something far more important. The NP has been the dominant actor on the South African political stage for some 41 years.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to suggest that I was misleading the House by not having the letter in my possession on the day that I made the speech? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for King William’s Town is addressing this issue, and I shall listen carefully to the hon member. If there is any contravention of the Rules I shall call the hon member to order. The hon member for King William’s Town may continue.

With respect, Sir, he has already made the allegation and he has indicated that he has come to the end of that part of his speech.

Order! I have no problem with what the hon member for King William’s Town has said so far.

He is not telling the truth, Sir.

Order! The hon member for King William’s Town may continue.

The NP has been the dominant actor on the South African political stage for some 41 years. [Interjections.] There are reasons why this phenomenon has occurred. The single most important reason, however, is that the NP has throughout four decades displayed an ability to produce dynamic leaders. Every time the party is faced with the challenge of electing a new leader, it has throughout its history chosen the right man for his time. Each time that new leader proved to have the credentials to lead his party and South Africa successfully for his term of office. No-one can deny that since 1948 each of the NP Prime Ministers…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for East London North allowed to say that I am corrupt? [Interjections.]

Order! Nobody is permitted to say anything to that effect across the floor of the House.

The hon member for East London North said that I was corrupt.

Order! It just goes to show that hon members should not argue across the floor of the House while another hon member has the floor.

I agree with you, Sir.

Order! The hon member for King William’s Town may continue.

Mr Chairman, may I have a ruling?

He is filibustering, Sir.

Order! The hon member has already heard my ruling. The hon member for King William’s Town may continue.

In recent years we have witnessed…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Must the hon member for East London North not withdraw that?

Order! I did not hear anything to that effect.

He said it!

I guarantee that. I imagine that if the Chair was to ask him, he would confirm that he said it. Many hon members on this side heard him.

Order! If hon members elect to carry on conversations amongst themselves the Chair cannot be expected to give rulings on such conversations during the debate.

With respect, Mr Chairman, I was not carrying on a conversation—I was provoked.

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon member for King William’s Town may continue.

As I was saying, Mr Chairman, in recent years we have witnessed the exceptional leadership of the hon the State President, Mr P W Botha. Here is a statesman who revolutionised our South African Defence Force, who had the foresight…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I am sorry to interrupt the Chair, but it is a long standing rule of Parliament that when unparliamentary language is used in whatever circumstances, the person who does so is ordered to withdraw it by the Chair. The Chair cannot and should not condone unparliamentary language of this sort.

Order! The Chair is not condoning the use of any unparliamentary language. This is a large Chamber and if hon members expect the Chair to give rulings on conversations that go on in the Chamber in the course of the debate and which the Chair cannot hear, it will create an impossible situation. I cannot give rulings on what is alleged to have been said by one hon member to another across the floor of the House which was not part of the debate at all.

Mr Chairman, I am sure that all hon members sympathise with the Chair in this most difficult situation. However, this was not a matter of conversation. It was shouted across the floor of the House. It is normal custom that when that happens, and when the Chair’s attention is drawn to it, then over the years that I have been here the Chair has always enquired and asked the member to withdraw it.

Order! It is a different matter if it is in the form of an interjection or part of the debate.

Mr Chairman, that is what it was.

Order! I did not regard it as such and also did not hear anything to that effect. I cannot give a ruling on what it is now alleged a particular hon member said.

Mr Chairman, on many occasions the presiding officer has not heard a particular remark and has had it drawn to his attention. That is the case in this particular instance. I ask merely that the correct precedent of years gone by be followed. An allegation has been made that the hon member for East London North shouted across the floor that the hon member for Johannesburg North was corrupt. That is palpably unparliamentary and we ask for the the protection of the Chair on this issue.

Order! I want to ask the hon member for Johannesburg North what it is that he objects to?

Mr Chairman, I am an hon member of this House and object to being called corrupt.

Order! Who was it that called the hon member for Johannesburg North corrupt?

Mr Chairman, it was the hon member for East London North.

Order! What did the hon member for East London North say to the hon member for Johannesburg North?

Mr Chairman, I said that the hon member was corrupt.

Order! Did the hon member say that the hon member for Johannesburg North was corrupt?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member must withdraw those words.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw them.

Order! The hon member for King William’s Town may continue.

Mr Chairman, in the short time I have available to me, may I say…

Mr Chairman, is the hon member for King William’s Town prepared to take a question?

Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to take that hon member’s question.

It was the hon the State President who actually changed the direction of politics for his party and for South Africa. He fearlessly introduced the tricameral system, saying when he did so, that this was but the first step down a new road to a just South Africa. In doing what he did, he knew that it was right, that it was his bounden duty to South Africa, that he would lose the support of those Afrikaners who wanted to cling to a policy of racism…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for King William’s Town whether he should not ask the hon member for Johannesburg North to prove that the specific facts he referred to and which were produced last Friday should not be produced to this House to prove that the hon member for Johannesburg North did actually have a copy of the so-called letter that specific Wednesday, because he said so? [Interjections.]

I think that is a good question and it deserves an answer.

Ask me that! [Interjections.]

South Africa and its people are proud of the achievements of the hon the State President, Mr P W Botha, during his illustrious political career.

Throughout the Botha era there was another leader standing by his side, a man of the highest integrity and loyalty; someone who made it constitutionally possible for the hon the State President to bring about reform. That man was the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, Mr Chris Heunis.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for King William’s Town a question?

Mr Chairman, I have no time. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow the time of the hon member for King William’s Town to be wasted.

It is impossible for me to sum up in a few words the myriad of reforms, both major and minor, which that hon Minister has achieved for this country. Time will tell what a gigantic contribution he has made to the reformation of South Africa. His knowledge, wisdom, expertise and depth of experience will be difficult to replace, and hopefully not entirely lost to South Africa after his retirement.

I wish to say in reference to the speech of the hon the Minister on Friday, 5 May in this House that that speech will be used as a manual for future constitutional negotiation in South Africa.

Wide publicity was given to the prospect of a single Parliament in the Press. The policy of the NP implies in principle that in a new constitutional dispensation there will have to be a central legislative body for general affairs. It will have to be representative of all groups, including Blacks. Most important, there will have to be some built-in safeguards against domination by any one group over others.

The hon the Minister said one could call it what one liked—a congress, a Parliament, an assembly or whatever—but such a constitutional instrument for matters of common concern to all South Africans will be essential and inevitable. It will also be right, because it passes the test of justice for all.

I now wish to return to the question of leadership. Today the NP of the Cape unanimously elected the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation as the new leader in the Cape. Cometh the hour, cometh the man! The NP has again been called on to make a National leadership decision, and out of four candidates, any one of whom could fill the office with distinction, the NP has chosen the hon the Minister of National Education as its new leader.

Immediately after his election, the hon the Minister provided South Africa with his vision of a new South Africa. In his first speech to Parliament thereafter he committed the NP to seeking a new constitution, shaped by negotiation and making provision for full political participation by all South Africans. In so doing he has accepted that his great task will be to take the lead in negotiating Black South African participation into the political process of this country.

He said in the House of Assembly on 12 May that it was necessary to have a real breakthrough towards a workable and just system, offering fair opportunities, meaningful participation and security to all the people of this country. That is what we are working for. His fundamental basis is justice for all. We in the NP subscribe fully to his view.

Our leader enjoys our unqualified support for all his new initiatives brought to achieve this goal. No-one can question or doubt his bona fides, his integrity or his determination. This stands in stark contrast to the uncertainty which reigns in the DP camp: Indecision over leadership, indecision over membership, indecision over policy and indecision over constituency allocations. Today the DP stands significantly left of where the old PFP was. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I can identify the ultimate objective, the ideal that all well-disposed, well-meaning and balanced South Africans should seriously strive for, as follows, viz that all South Africans should be able to live, work and relax in our country in health, peace, friendship, security, freedom and justice.

This was the introduction to the speech I had prepared to make here today in order to suggest methods, with reference to the conflict that existed between Afrikaans and English-speaking people, and the dissension we overcame while retaining our identity, in order to overcome the dispute and dissension that exists between, let us say, the Whites and the Coloureds. We must overcome this. It is urgently essential for peaceful coexistence in this country to do so.

Another urgent matter, something that is happening in my constituency—I can almost call it a state of emergency—has compelled me to change my speech, however. The ultimate objective and ideal I stated here, of a happy, healthy life in peace, friendship, security, freedom and justice, still applies to what I am going to say now.

The other subject that I am going to discuss concerns the preservation of the Abraham Kriel Children’s Home and the community which is its home and serves as an essential cultural, social and religious milieu for that institution. The continued existence of this children’s home is being seriously threatened.

On 8 May of this year the hon member Mr S Abram said from this very podium, and I quote from his unrevised Hansard:

†I want to fight for that children’s home and that community which I represent.

*The Abraham Kriel Children’s Home was founded in 1902 on the ashes of the Anglo-Boer War as it were. It is the oldest Afrikaner children’s home in the Transvaal, and over the years it has rendered the Afrikaner community and the NG Church an invaluable service. It resides in the heart and soul of every Afrikaner. At the moment this service is still rendered by the church, the community and the Government to approximately 350 Afrikaner boys and girls, poor Afrikaner children in need. In fact, numerous children are turned away annually because we do not have room for them. For socioeconomic, scientific, historic and many other reasons, the children’s home belongs exactly where it is now. This has nothing to do with apartheid or colour. Scientifically and socioeconomically, it is a fact that one cannot put that children’s home in White Houghton. Nor can one put it in Soweto or in Lenasia. Obviously this has nothing to do with apartheid.

That children’s home is being threatened by two things, one of which is the deterioration of the environment as a result of age, a problem which is being addressed thoroughly. Consequently I need not elaborate on that. The other problem is the sudden and rapid invasion by another community. That is what I want to talk about today. It concerns the Group Areas Act and everything that is related to it.

On 8 May of this year the hon the Deputy Minister of the Budget in the House of Representatives, Mr I Richards, made a speech from this podium. I am going to quote relatively fully from his unrevised Hansard for two reasons. The one reason is that to a great extent I agree with him. Apart from one point, I agree with almost every word he said. The other reason is that that speech made by the hon the Deputy Minister is very relevant here. I quote:

He then went on to describe how the Saracens had gone in and the “terrible, traumatic experience” they had had. I have great sympathy with them, because what that amounted to was misapplication of the Act, and it was very wrong. I quote:

I merely want to add that Homestead Park and Paarlshoop, the area in which the children’s home is, are cut off and are only just large enough to keep that children’s home, the church and the community going.

The hon the Deputy Minister went on to say:

A total distortion of the market, and in part apartheid and the Group Areas Act, have resulted in an immense shortage of land, and the wealthy are buying houses in that cut-off community I am talking about on a large scale. It is illegal at this stage, and they are destroying that community and the future of the children’s home.

Conditions there have become very explosive. People are rebelling. This children’s home is not simply a local constituency campaign, but a significant Afrikaner cause. Large-scale moving in is taking place. Approximately 70 families moved quickly and with a great deal of money into an area where there are 270 residential erven. This was in Homestead Park.

I tried to calm the explosive conditions. I said we should throw Mayfair open as soon as possible, provide a lot of land and protect that community. Recently two houses were sold in Paarlshoop. The hon the Deputy Minister said, and once again I quote him:

We can talk about that. We can discuss the abolition of the Group Areas Act and see what we can do about it, but even if one were to abolish the Group Areas Act completely today, St Joseph’s Home would still be on that island. If we and the hon the Minister do not check matters, the rich people will destroy the Abraham Kriel Children’s Home and that community.

With all the responsibility at my disposal, and I take that responsibility upon myself, I say that no more Indian families will move into Paarlshoop.

I say from this podium that I will ensure that no more people move in there. [Interjections.] I am not threatening anyone; if necessary, we shall take the necessary steps. We shall not permit any more people to move in there. [Interjections.]

I say once again that I am prepared to talk about the abolition of the Group Areas Act. It is common knowledge that I am not very fond of that Act. I want to repeat, however, that it has nothing to do with colour. It is a matter of language, religion, culture and historic aspects. I say in all seriousness that I am not threatening anyone, but my community and I will not permit one single Indian family to move into Paarlshoop. In addition we shall give very serious consideration to taking the same kind of steps in Homestead Park.

Is that what you are going to say after the election as well?

The heart and mind of that hon member have been decayed to such an extent by his political thinking that he cannot realise that I am appealing for the continued existence of a community, which has nothing to do with politics.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for one hon member to say another hon member’s mind is so decayed that he can no longer think clearly, or words to that effect?

Order! That bothered me, but I did not quite hear what the hon member was saying. Was that what he said?

I said his mind was politically decayed. I did not say it was decayed in the ordinary sense.

Order! No, the hon member must withdraw that. If the hon member does not withdraw it, he must leave the podium.

Sir, I withdraw it, but I shall say it to him outside.

On Monday night we shall have a meeting of that community in which CPs, Nationalists, church people and school people serve on the committee. The meeting is being held for the preservation of that community. We established Aksie Bou Langlaagte some time ago, which has nothing to do with politics, nor does it have anything to do with colour.

If I tell other friends of mine that we must talk about the problems and do our best, I cannot say that they must move in first. That has been proven scientifically. If we make Mayfair an open area, and we are going to—it will probably be open within three months—it will be open in theory. Mayfair will be open in theory, and in practice it is going to be an Indian area. [Interjections.] Yes, in theory it is going to be open. We can throw everything open; then St Joseph’s will still be where it is and Abraham Kriel will still be in danger of being destroyed.

I conclude by repeating, with all the responsibility at my disposal, that we shall not permit any more people to move into Paarlshoop. We are seriously considering also preventing them from moving into Homestead Park.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank all hon members who participated in this debate. Before I deal with matters arising from the debate itself I should like, very briefly, to pay a word of tribute to four hon colleagues in the Cabinet who have announced their retirement.

Firstly there is the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, Minister Chris Heunis. One can say what one likes about this colleague but he had—and still has—one predominant love in his life, and that is for our country. One can fire shots at him from any side of the political spectrum, but the fact that he was totally dedicated to finding a solution is something that one can never argue away.

Nor can anyone deny the fact that he was endowed with exceptional gifts of heart and mind and had an exceptionally sharp intellect, and that up to now he has applied them to the best of his ability, and will continue to do so in order to find a solution to our country’s problems. Personally I have very great appreciation for him, and I think this Place is the poorer for his departure.

Then there is my favourite bench-fellow, the hon the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Greyling Wentzel. We are bench-fellows in the Cabinet, and we have often solved all the agricultural problems before there was any need for them to be placed on the table. I shall miss him, and I think he made a very fine contribution.

My hon colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, Mr Danie Steyn, is a person who we are losing from the Cabinet and who has many fine gifts in respect of good administration. He is a person with a very rich experience and a very good background enabling him to do the work that he had to do very well.

We also say farewell to our hon colleague, the Minister of Home Affairs and of Communications, Mr Stoffel Botha, in the knowledge that he did wonderful work. Besides his other portfolio, he is the man who launched the Post Office on the road to privatisation out of the general government sector, a step which necessitated pioneering work in our country.

Our very best wishes accompany these hon Ministers, not only as colleagues in the Cabinet, but also as colleagues in Parliament, as party compatriots and also as ordinary friends.

This has been a very interesting debate in many respects. I listened to the hon member, Dr De Beer.

†He gave us an inventory of what is wrong in this economy to such an extent and with such utter despair that I thought he was on the point of announcing his retirement, not only a retirement from politics but even a retirement from life itself. [Interjections.]

*Surely this country has not been reduced to sackcloth and ashes. Good heavens, we are indeed a country under siege! However, I think there is one thing the general public must understand, and that is that we have with the utmost dedication and the best possible advice during the years that have past since 1985, when we came onto the boycott list in respect of financial matters, protected this country against the course taken by similar countries which do not even have the problems we have.

We have protected the public against a devastating inflation rate. At one stage it was on its way to several dozen when it almost reach 25%. However, we succeeded in reversing that inflation rate. We did not follow the example of other countries that were in comparable difficulties and which, in regard to certain fundamental shortcomings, did not have nearly the number of problems we had owing to the fact that we were unable to obtain international financing. We protected our country against a whole series of other devastations. At least we registered positive economic growth, and even though it is modest, it is at least positive growth.

From that job opportunities arose. The hon member for Bethelsdorp was quite despondent about job opportunities. The simple truth of the matter—I have all the figures here; I do not know whether I am going to have a chance to present them all—is that we have during the past few years reduced certain unemployment figures by several percentage points, sometimes as high as 26%. We need not rend our garments and pour ashes over our heads like Job of old; we have so much to be proud of. Are the sacrifices which the public of South Africa have made all in vain? The answer is plainly no. In a moment I shall mention a few figures on our foreign debt situation which are fresh information and which give all of us reason not only to be grateful, but also to be proud. Listening to all these lamentations from this podium, however, one would have sworn we were standing on the edge of an abyss.

Apart from the fact that the gold price is falling, what difficulty do we have at the moment? I must really tell the hon member for Robertson that it was a terrible thing he said. The hon member would receive all the sympathy in the world if he withdrew his remark. The policy of the NP has nothing to do with the gold price. What can one do about it if the earner of half of the country’s foreign exchange falls, as it is falling at the moment? Nevertheless we grew positively; we brought the inflation rate down, and our interest rates, which are very high in real terms, are not as high as are necessary in some comparable countries to turn their economies around.

Let us see what our people enjoyed. What is our problem? It is one of prosperity and one of a too active economy. Two to three years ago we were castigated by the public because there was not enough growth. The circumstances which caused them to do that was the fact that the economy was not growing. Now the economy is growing too rapidly, and we have the same kind of problem. Where do our problems lie? Look at the number of new cars that are being bought. Who are buying them? Are foreigners buying them or are South Africans buying them?

One record after another in respect of the purchase of cars has been broken recently. The same is happening in regard to refrigerators, video sets and so on. It is said that South Africa is one of the countries with the largest number of video cassette machines per capita in the world. Is this a country that is going to the dogs? Is this a country in which people are dying of hunger without exception? No, Mr Chairman.

It is true that there is still a great deal of poverty in our country, but surely there is poverty everywhere in the world. A great deal has been written about the phenomenon of poverty. Surely there is poverty in the wealthiest parts of America and Europe.

We also have our share of poverty, and within our means we must try to do something about it. However, it is really not necessary for people to come and imply here that this country is going to utter rack and ruin. It is an untruth and it is unfair, and I really think we must rectify that matter. At the moment we have problems with overspending. That is our problem at the moment!

I was astounded at the hon member for Brakpan. Recently, when an hon member referred to me from the podium, the hon member for Brakpan made the interjection: “Yes, and he does not even have a foreign banker!” He revelled in the fact that South Africa does not have a foreign banker! In a time in which South Africa is asking its political leaders to put their shoulders to the wheel to get this wagon through the drift, the hon member for Brakpan is not capable of reserving his personal embitterment and frustrations for himself or his party compatriots. [Interjections.] No, he noises it abroad that he revels in the fact that this country does not have a banker.

I want to look that hon member straight in the eye and tell him that if he thinks there will be someone in this world who will want to have anything to do with us if the CP were to be governing, he is making the biggest mistake of his life.

Gen Smuts said precisely the same thing!

Listen to that! The hon member said Gen Smuts also said it. With the greatest certainty in the world I can tell hon members that if a politically innocent person such as Dr Gerhard de Kock was at one stage not even permitted to enter bank premises, I wonder what the chances of a Boksburg councillor are of borrowing money for Boksburg abroad. I wonder whether he will even be able to obtain a visa. If the CP were to be governing, what chance would a CP Minister of Finance have of even setting foot outside this country? Believe me, he will have to swim across to ask for money, because he will not be able to travel in an aircraft. No aircraft will be able to land anymore. That hon member, if he uses whatever sense he may have, will be able to think that out for himself.

You are worse than Tutu!

In these times in which we are living it is touch and go every time.

Order! I have been listening very explicitly to the very loud interjections from the benches of the hon member Mr Clive Derby-Lewis and the hon members for Bethal and Brakpan. We cannot continue with such a chorus of interjections. The hon member for Potgietersrus has just began to chip in as well. [Interjections.] Hon members must give the hon the Minister a chance to make his speech.

I really think that the public of South Africa must be informed beyond any doubt in this election campaign about what the CP’s chances are of trying to gain a foothold for South Africa internationally.

The DP boasts that it will be able to do so. I reject that with just as much contempt. It will quite simply not happen. It will not happen for the simple reason—I have already said this in public and I am saying it again—that in my contact with businessmen abroad they have often told me that if you are going to go the way of Africa, we are not only going to withhold our money from you, but we shall be at pains to get every cent out of the country as quickly as possible. Like my colleagues here who debated against the DP, I am firmly convinced that that policy of theirs will lead us to that position.

On the other hand it was also very clear in this debate where a CP government would lead us. I shall provide more details in a moment. When it comes to South Africa’s chances of surviving as a viable economy, the CP has a nought behind its name in that test—an absolute nought!

What hurts one as a patriot is the fact that a person who, not so very long ago, was also a member of this party, a person who goes from one platform to another telling people how wonderful their party is and how fond they are of South Africa, can revel in the fact that South Africa at this moment is internationally isolated when it comes to a banker. I think it is a disgrace! I think it is an absolute disgrace! That hon member ought to be ashamed of himself. Now he is sitting there with a sardonic smile on his face.

The people of South Africa must know that the hon member for Brakpan has a sardonic smile on his face while he revels in the fact that South Africa has international problems.

I have many particulars with me which I shall in due course make available to the media. About the course of this Budget, however, I want to say the following. There are several figures I could mention today which indicate very clearly that the course of our State finance in regard to our activity on the capital market, and our potential activity on the capital market is such that we, as matters now stand, are in the course of this financial year for various reasons going to make a contribution to the alleviation of the pressure on the interest rates in the capital market. We were successful and have already earned an amount of R1,7 billion with the sale of Government stock. Our surplus is R200 billion greater.

Then, and I am sorry to say this because we do not want that money—we need that money like we need a hole in the head—we are nevertheless going to receive money from the increase in the surcharge to 15% and the fact that we are not going to allow any exceptions. We do not want that money, but we expect to receive quite a few million rands because not all the people in South Africa are co-operating in order to confine their imports to the minimum at this juncture. As far as exchange is concerned, we have a cash flow problem on our available exchange reserves if the gold price remains where it is at the moment. Parliament and the people of South Africa must know that this is something no one in this country can do anything about, except that we must work carefully with exchange, that imports must be confined to an absolute minimum and that we must export to the maximum extent.

There are quite a number of other aspects in this connection to which I could also refer. There is the possibility of the proceeds from privatisation initiatives, etc. I have no doubt that this Government, with its management of fiscal policy, will definitely not bring about any pressure on the capital market this year.

†Mr Chairman, while I have referred to the question of “buy South African”, I want to say to the hon member for Yeoville and other hon members who through the years have requested that we embark on the “buy South African” campaign that if all goes well, the time is opportune to launch such a campaign now.

Preparations have been under way for some time now but my hon colleague, the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry will in due course say more about this. But this is the opportune time.

I think the appropriate way to do it is not necessarily for the State to spend millions of rand on such a campaign all by itself. After all, what we want South Africans to do is to buy goods manufactured in South Africa, and the manufacturers must also play a part in it.

We have one problem, however, and that is that those exporters who have been trying to get hold of substantial quantities of goods to export, have come across, in so many cases, a simple: “Sorry, we are out of stock”, on account of the fact that we have such a high level of demand inside South Africa and on account of the fact that we are already exporting very substantial volumes.

*I want to present something briefly about our foreign debt position. I should like to stick to my text—I am going to give it to the media as well, but it will also be read in Hansard—because it is a sensitive matter and must be precisely correct. I shall therefore convey it completely and precisely.

We have just received a survey made by the Reserve Bank on the foreign debt position as it was at the end of 1988. These figures illustrate once again how hard South Africa has been working during the past few years to extricate itself from this difficult problem. When the debt-standstill was introduced in 1985 debt totalling $14 billion was caught within the net, while $10 billion was left outside the net. Almost 60% of the total foreign debt was therefore subject to repayment restrictions.

At the end of 1988 the value of the total foreign debt was equal to only $21 billion, of which only $9 billion or only 43% was inside and $12 billion outside the net.

These figures do not reflect the full effect of the debt repayment that has been made since 1985. A net decrease in the exchange rate of the dollar against other currencies over this period increased the dollar value of the non-dollar debt.

Naturally this situation fluctuates from day to day, because we have a whole basket of exchange rates in our foreign debt basket.

If we were to calculate the debt as at the end of 1988 at the exchange rates of September 1985, our total foreign debt burden has declined in real terms from $24 billion in September 1985 to $18,5 billion at the end of 1988. The debt within the net, on that basis, declined from $14 billion to only $8,2 billion at the end of 1988.

In a forum such as this and inside the country this figure may sound like a lot of money, but if one takes it and measures it against the same figure in comparable countries, $8,5 billion is really almost nothing. Nothing! Before we could calculate this low figure more correctly our total foreign debt burden was such that the total foreign debt burden was equal to 85% of our total export earnings, while the average for comparable countries is more than 320%—more or less four times greater than ours.

Over this period South Africa has repaid approximately $2 billion of the debt within the net. The primary reason for the decrease in the confined debt, however, is attributable to the success attained with the so-called optional rescheduling of short-term debt within the net to long-term loans outside the net. This is an extremely important point.

In terms of the Interim Arrangements, foreign creditors acquired the right to convert short-term debt within the net into a long-term loan repayable over a ten-year period—no repayments are made during the first five years and the balance is subsequently redeemed in ten equal half-yearly instalments. Many foreign creditors availed themselves of this option and up to the end of March 1989 the Reserve Bank granted approval for such conversions for a total amount of $3,6 billion. Not all these loans have been disposed of in practice. This is nevertheless the figure, and it was a phenomenal achievement to have succeeded in doing this, and we certainly thank the Debt Standstill Committee, under the direction of Dr Stals, for this from the bottom of our hearts.

The repayment of this amount, which was initially short-term debt—hon members will recall that we had a cash flow problem at that time, and not a volume debt problem, because there was a so-called pile-up of short-term debt—has now been extended over a period which runs into 1999. The largest amount of these repayments in any single year is $700 million.

A further option was conversion via the financial rand, in which case the foreigner had to take a loss, and only $300 million followed the route of that investment.

The latest estimate gives us an idea of how fairly we have been able to negotiate this matter abroad with the creditors. According to the latest estimate drawn up by the Reserve Bank, South Africa’s obligations in regard to debt repayment in 1989 amount to $1,3 billion and in 1990 to $1,9 billion. After that it decreases to $1 billion in 1991 and to even lower figures in subsequent years. Such an estimate of course contains quite a number of presuppositions which are accepted on fair grounds.

The conclusion to be drawn from this is simply that the sacrifices that we made and which led directly to the fact that we could not get past a specified maximum growth rate, the sacrifices which we made to retain our credit standing, the sacrifices we made to negotiate fair circumstances for ourselves, were really worthwhile. We can look forward with confidence to dealing with this matter very satisfactorily in future.

The simple truth is that if one adopts a hard-line attitude in a situation such as this the chances are that the next aircraft that lands in a country, or the next ship that docks, whether you are exporting gold or coal or maize which the farmers are now going to export, will mean a court order for those goods to be seized being obtained the moment they arrive there. That is the simple truth if one does not keep one’s relations with the outside in order, as far as one is able.

This Budget debate, the conclusion of this year’s activities as far as the Budget is concerned, had a number of features. I am thinking, as far as personalities are concerned, of the tribute that we paid to our colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and of how some of the hon members of the House of Representatives said that he would be accorded a place in the history books. They meant this in a positive sense, and I thank them for that.

†Then there are the tributes which were paid to the hon member for Houghton. When she said goodbye to us in her penultimate speech she could not resist the temptation to say: “I told you so.” However, allow me to relate a story about something which happened in Parliament in 1974 when those of us who came to Parliament in 1974 were still wide-eyed and starry-eyed, and everything in this environment was very strange to us.

The former Minister Mr M C Botha was handling his particular vote and the hon member for Houghton was again, as usual, his most enthusiastic opponent. While the Minister at that time was trying his best to reply to her, she was interjecting all the time. The Chairman had the task of his life trying to restrain her. He would say to her every time: “Would the hon member for Houghton please restrain herself.”

She would be quiet for about 20 seconds and then she would be back at him like a fox-terrier—or more like a bull-terrier—and she would agitate him again. While the Minister had initially found it rather rewarding to have elicited this reaction from her, it later got a bit under his skin and he eventually got very upset about it.

On top of it all, his own Chief Whip, Oom Koos Potgieter, rose on a point of order. I will not forget Minister M C Botha on that day. He had grief and drama not only from the hon member for Houghton, but from his own Chief Whip as well. He turned around, and if looks could kill I am sure he would at least have injured Oom Koos. The Minister had to sit down, and then Oom Koos said: “Mr Chairman, is it permissible for this hon Minister to continuously interrupt the hon member for Houghton while she is trying to make her speech?” That, Mr Chairman, silenced her for a while!

I think enough has been said about the hon member. She has had a long term of office and despite the fact that those of us on this side of the House differed with her very sharply on occasion, one cannot help but admire her sheer guts and her sharp intellect.

*Together with other hon members who did this I should also like to thank and pay tribute to retiring senior officials in our department and in Parliament. I am thinking of Dr Joop de Loor. He brought about a fine and total cultural change in the activities of the Auditor-General’s office. I thank him for doing so, and, we wish his successor, Mr Peter Wronsley, everything of the best in continuing that wonderful work. We have already bad farewell to other senior officials.

Another feature of this debate was the unanimity that prevailed here as to the futility and the disadvantages of sanctions.

Another aspect that received a great deal of attention was the need for occupationally oriented education and training, particularly in technical and technological fields. The simple truth of the matter—this became apparent from many speeches—is that even if this had been reserved for Whites only there would in any event not have been enough Whites to do it. In other words, any person who thinks that he can introduce an economy for the Whites only in this country, after more than 300 years’ development, will find that he has to accept a permanently low standard of living, because there are not enough people to do the work.

The positive side of that argument is simply—I am saying this with utter conviction—that we must go out of our way to make it possible for those communities who have up to now not occupied their legitimate position in technological and technical fields of employment to do so, because this will make a contribution, not only to increasing their own standard of living, but also to the general level of activities in South Africa.

†Another feature of this debate was the pleas for decent and constructive co-operation between leaders of the various communities in South Africa. I think of the speeches of the hon member Mr Abram and the hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Delegates. The hon the Minister really made a statesman’s speech. I sat there and listened to him making a speech that was worth noting and yet in the newspapers Bishop Tutu gets reported. What an irony! It is an irony because here is a man who made a contribution despite the fact that he makes no secret of the ways and the extent to which he differs rather fiercely from Government policy in many respects. Yet he concentrates on that which we share, and it is interesting that he does not get reported, not to the same extent anyway.

The growing recognition for the role of the informal sector and the question of incorporating those figures into the official growth figures of South Africa is something we will debate on another occasion. I thank hon members for recognising it.

The importance of urbanisation and the interaction with proper development of infrastructure in the underdeveloped areas were mentioned in many a speech, and also the need for land was mentioned by the members in the Houses of Delegates and Representatives.

*It was mentioned, because the urbanisation process is something one cannot halt. Since this is a fact, one must apply it in order to change the economic growth structure in South Africa. I thank hon members who took cognisance of positive aspects in our economy.

†I thank hon members who took note of and recognised our vigilance and our caution but also our determination to fix this economy as well as we possibly can in these difficult circumstances. What I personally appreciated very much was that more and more comparisons that were advanced by way of argument, even from hon members who differed with us, approached the more scientific and correct way of comparing, namely not to compare South Africa with Japan and other developed countries but to compare South Africa with comparable countries, not our trading partners but our competitors in the markets of our trading partners.

*A matter which ran like a golden thread throughout this debate, from both sides, was the compassionate attitude to the underprivileged. We were asked to consider our social pensioners. The only thing standing in the way of such a decision is money. I can assure hon members that the Government is constantly considering their needs and other needs in this connection.

Another matter which received much attention was the population development programme, and it is a wonderful thing that we are able to discuss this matter so openly, because it is a sensitive matter which until recently was a very great obstacle to discussion because there are cultural differences of opinion on this matter.

†It is a simple fact that if this country produces even a relatively high growth rate in its GDP and we have too high a population growth, then there will be less and less to distribute per capita among the population. It is a simple fact in today’s life. Unless one has fewer children—children one can afford to give a proper education—one will have to accept that one’s children will not be able to find a better way of life than oneself.

*A few interesting sayings resulted from this debate. To my mind a number of pithy statements were made during the course of this debate. I quickly want to tell hon members what they were. The hon member for Turffontein spoke about the illusion of partition, and it is indeed an illusion. We have never heard what the facts in regard to this matter are. Then there is something else which is directly related to that. The hon member for Turffontein also said the CP was doomed without majority occupation. This is a fundamental truth. If the CP cannot guarantee majority occupation, all its stories about partition are just so much nonsense.

Majority occupation and real majority occupation is the only thing that could give any measure of credibility to their policies. The hon member for Turffontein also quoted the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly when he said: “We are not looking for people to demarcate boundaries, we are looking for people to make crosses.” It is clear that they do not have people to demarcate boundaries, because we do not get to see those boundaries. Nevertheless, they want crosses to be made! I hope we can discuss this again later.

The hon member for Ermelo tried to make out a case here. He tried to defend the interaction between the CP and Prof Carel Boshoff. I think this is one of the most pathetic defences he has ever undertaken in his life. I do not think it impressed anyone. We were not moved to tears nor were we convinced. Perhaps we were moved to tears because it was such a weak case. At least he did make a brave effort. We have respect for that at least.

†The hon member for Yeoville said some very true things, which I think must have a bearing on our overall approach to the solution of problems in South Africa. The hon member for Yeoville said that improvement in the economy will facilitate or expedite reform—that is my paraphrase of what he said. This is a fundamental truth, one that has been overlooked by people who perpetrate sanctions against South Africa.

He said a second thing which I whole-heartedly agree with, namely that there is no real freedom without equality in economic opportunity. That is a fundamental truth. If there is no equality in economic opportunity, there can be no question of freedom at all. He also mentioned the fundamental truth that freedom is also an economic concept. It relates to the first point, and it is simple but gripping in its truth and power.

He then said something which, I think, upset us all. He noticed a tendency of escalating violence leading up to the election. If that is a true observation, then we are all very much concerned about it. What happens in these circumstances really has nothing to do with policies. It is mere common thuggery—people masquerading as protectors of so-called lofty values. We must get away from that. If that is what conservatism, or being “behoudend”, means, they can have it.

The hon member for Umlazi said something very interesting:

*In my opinion this is a basic truth which we may as well go and proclaim from one platform to another.

†The CP, in their information pamphlet, say that in Boksburg they showed the world they mean business. The businessmen, however, know that when the CP say they mean business, they really mean no business. That is the truth. We might as well take these things and repeat them from platform to platform to prevent them from making of South Africa what they made of Boksburg and Carletonville.

*The hon member Mr Douw, together with quite a number of other members, tendered his apology for unfortunately being unable to be here. The hon member said one particularly important thing, namely that the Government must remove the sting of race from society. How true that is. He went on to link this up to an extremely important statement. He said:

There is a lot of meaning in those words.

The hon member for Houghton also said “we must translate our intent into practicalities”.

†After the hon member’s long years of service we can take note of that basic truth.

*To this side of the House the hon member Mr Lockey said that all of them there knew apartheid better than we did, because they had all felt it as a personal affront. This was something which shook all of us when we heard it.

The hon member Dr Golden told us a few things of which we would do well to take cognisance again. He said “a person can become what one sees and hears”. The company in which people, who are today standing in the shadow of the gallows, previously found themselves must accept joint responsibility in terms of this fundamental truth which this hon member told us here.

Secondly the hon member said that Parliament, or the political platform, was not the place for theological exegesis (uitleg), for then it becomes human interpretation (inleg), and have we not already had a lot of that in this House! When I think of human interpretation I think of the scorn and ridicule my hon colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, had to endure over what he said in public, namely that a person who had been arraigned, remained his friend. While I sat here listening to these things, I heard a little voice reminding me of something that had been written:

And then the answer came:

It is when a person wears a theological cloak, but is motivated by a diabolic ambition, that that type of thing happens to one. [Interjections.]

The hon member Dr Golden told us one other thing. He said we should be careful of “bloed en bodem” theology. [Interjections.]

I would not react with so much indignation if I were the hon member for Soutpansberg. After all, he was the man who stood up at an auction and said: “You are not to sell to a Nationalist!” [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, he is one of the main boycotters. [Interjections.]

You are talking nonsense!

Then the person who got up there and walked out told me a lie.

Yes.

He is one of the biggest cattle buyers in the Northern Transvaal. He said that that hon member had said that they would rather buy up the cattle themselves before they sold to a Nationalist. I challenge that hon member to stand up in this House and say that it is an untruth.

It is an untruth.

If it is an untruth, and if he can bring me proof of that, I shall go to that person and tell him that that is what the persons concerned say. [Interjections.]

I did not ask for this comment. [Interjections.] Someone came to me and told me. But just look at that hon member’s simulated indignation! Shame! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Germiston said a few excellent things. He said:

He also said something which was true in the economy when he said it:

This is true. It is the political discounting that causes this. In South Africa, with the same quantity of rands, one can enjoy a far higher standard of living than one can enjoy abroad with the same amount of money. There is something to say for that.

The hon member Dr Geldenhuys told us that the election question was who the Official Opposition was going to be. How true that is, Sir! [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly really needs a seat to ensure that he comes back to Parliament! [Interjections.]

†The hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Delegates referred to key words in our economic salvation in this country. He said that we should be self-incentive and self-creative. I think those are key words in unleashing our economic potential.

*The hon member for Winburg said that with this Government at the helm the farmers would always have export markets for their products. When the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs comes to those places where there are so many CP members in the ranks of the maize farmers, he has frequently told them that they will still be voting for the CP but in the end they will have to eat every kernel of maize that they grow themselves, because export markets for the farmers cannot be guaranteed by the CP. One must take cognisance of that.

I come now to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Representatives. I think his speech could be read over and over again—not only for its political content, but also for its content dealing with value systems.

[Inaudible.]

Apparently the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis is making another derogatory remark about that. He should go and read the speech. That hon Minister taught us a lesson today. He said that, in the first place he was a Christian and after that something else. He also said that he objected to the misinterpretation of the Christian faith. There is no one in this House who can remain unaffected by those statements.

I come to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, but first I want to say something to the hon member for Barberton. I know the hon member to be a reasonable person. I really do not know why he went and said something which he could so easily have ascertained the truth of administratively. He has placed something in Hansard that was really unnecessary. I am saying this to him with all due respect, because I have very high regard for his abilities.

What is at issue is the interest which is now being paid on the 10% levy. It is a loan levy. Interest is paid on it. It is not tax. If a company has to pay tax, and it borrows money to do so, then the interest it has to pay on that loan is not deductible.

This, however, is a loan levy, and if money has to be borrowed for the specific purpose of paying it—perhaps one has a cash flow problem or some other kind of problem—that interest will be deductible for tax purposes. It is therefore a purely administrative matter. I am pleased that I was able to set his mind at ease in this regard.

He said the careful man was being penalised without having been guilty of excesses on the part of others, and that households were in serious difficulties. We announced that we were introducing auxiliary measures to help households. There was wonderful co-operation, and many productive, constructive talks took place between the financial sector and our officials of the various departments. [Interjections.]

No, it has not been announced yet. The particulars are still going to be announced, but we have set aside as much as R50 million for assistance, if it should be found necessary in that formula.

What is the truth in regard to home loans? What is the truth in regard to any loan which a person raises? We are living in a time of fluctuating interest rates. Interest rates rise and interest rates fall. There is no way in which any monetary authority can do anything but live with that reality.

The careful man—the hon member spoke about the careful man—ought to ensure that if he borrows money at a low rate he does not borrow up to his full repayment capacity. He must make provision for a possible increase in interest rates.

This is the best advice we can give anyone, but it is said that more than 70% of the home owners in South Africa participate in some form of housing scheme or other, so that they are to a large extent cushioned against this in any case. This is one of the reasons why there is such a time lapse in the effect of interest rate increases on the monetary situation in South Africa. We have however, in spite of what I have just said, devised a wonderful scheme—which will be announced in the near future—to help home owners so they are not ruined in these difficult times.

The hon member repeated a statement, and I do not know why he did so. He looked me straight in the eye and said that the rand was under pressure and there was nothing which we could be proud of when we spoke to the voters of South Africa, or words to that effect. Against what is a country’s economic soundness or otherwise measured? Is it measured only against the exchange rate, or is the exchange rate only a small component? I want to ask the hon member again what I have asked him before in the past. What would the position have been at this stage for the exporters of South Africa if the rand had for example become as strong overnight as it did a few years ago? Surely we would have lost our export markets. The exchange rate reflects a whole number of variables, but it is not the criterion for a healthy economy. I want to mention an example or two to the hon member. What is the situation in Germany and America? On 4 January of last year one needed only 1,5750 German marks to buy one American dollar. Now, on 18 May of this year, one needs 1,9640 marks to buy a dollar. There was therefore a depreciation of the German mark against the American dollar of not less than 24,5% within a question of 16½ months. A quarter of its value has been lost.

What are the circumstances in these two countries? In February 1989 the increase in Germany’s consumer price index stood at 2,6%. Germany’s inflation rate is therefore low. During the fourth quarter of last year its exports rose by 11,5% above those during the same quarter of the previous year. West Germany’s budget deficit as a percentage of the gross national product last year was 1,7%.

Other countries measure their growth rate against the gross national product. What we always hear about here is the gross domestic product, and that is negative. If we take the gross national product our per capita growth over a period, of which I am not certain now, instead of being—1,5%, as the hon member for Lichtenburg said here, it would have been 0,5%. That is a considerable difference of two percentage points. In Germany they also measure their growth against the GNP. Last year their growth rate was 3,5%.

I want to know from the hon member for Barberton and his colleagues why they keep on using the South African exchange rate as a criterion. It suits them. It is a distorted criterion, but they ignore the distortion as long as they are ostensibly able to impress the voters. I did not hear a word from that hon member or his colleagues when the rand appreciated strongly. Did they then walk around boasting about how strong the South African economy was? No, they did not do that. They prefer the distorted criterion which is bad at this moment. Why do they not consider the growth in our exports and our GNP? If I remember correctly, Dr Gerhard de Kock gave us a figure of 5% real growth in the GNP over a reasonable period—I am not certain but I think it was the previous calendar year. No, Sir, I do not know. I despair of these hon members of the CP, one can forget about getting anything into their heads.

Yesterday the hon member for Lichtenburg tackled me across the floor of this House about Untag’s petrol and so on. I sat there and saw immediately that that hon member had taken no trouble whatsoever to telephone, to ask or to find out what the facts of the matter were. He had done nothing. He could have telephoned South West Africa, but he did not. He could have telephoned my office, but he did not. He launched an attack on me across the floor of this House and shouted that I must reply.

The hon member for Losberg jumped up so suddenly that he almost had an apoplectic fit. He shouted at me as if he personally would have to pay every rand of the so-called loss himself. “Answer now!”, he shouted at me. He is a man who figures largely in debates on foreign affairs, who apparently formulates legal standpoints in regard to South West Africa on the basis of constitutional law, and I do not know what the devil else. I could still have suspected the hon member for Lichtenburg of merely making propaganda, but in the hon member for Losberg we have a person who was a professor of law, and he expressed very loud opinions here on various aspects of this matter. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Losberg does not know that the United Nations, in exactly the same way as any diplomats anywhere in the world and also in South Africa, are exempt from various kinds of tax. They are exempted in accordance with international conventions. This should not come as a surprise to him. If he and the hon member for Lichtenburg had had any doubts about the matter, surely he could, before he made a fool of himself, have taken the trouble to make a telephone call.

He pounced on me as though I was personally responsible for the South West African situation being exploited by Untag, and that the South African public—this was the political angle—now had to subsidise Untag. It will not surprise me if the hon member Mr Clive Derby-Lewis agrees with that, because that is the kind of economic point one can expect him to make. [Interjections.]

Just reply in a decent way. Why are you so bitter about it?

I am simply astounded that a highly aggressive attack should have been made on me, as though it were the end of the world. When I reply on the basis that people ought to have known better, then I am called a “bitterbek”. [Interjections.]

The simple truth—anyone who knows anything about these matters and international law ought to know this—is that Untag would not have to pay this kind of tax, including customs and excise duties, anywhere in the world. When Untag came here there were negotiations on this matter and it was naturally agreed, as it is contained in the convention, that they would not pay customs and excise duties, in the same way as diplomats everywhere in the world have certain privileges. It is a simple matter.

It was announced as large as life in the Government Gazette of 17 March, but I was shouted at in this House as though we were doing something secret to benefit Untag. Why did the hon member not simply make enquiries about it? This was merely an attempt to make political capital.

The simple truth is this. All the things that are being sold there would not have been sold if Untag was not here. All those quantities of commodities that are being bought and which were manufactured in South Africa are turnover and profit in South Africa and ultimately benefit the taxpayers of South Africa, because the manufacturers and the suppliers in their turn pay tax on them, but this is too difficult for the CP to understand. I am astounded.

I want to make a few remarks about the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly.

He is not here.

Yes, his hon Whip wrote to me to say that he would not be here this afternoon.

I am astonished at the footwork of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. Everything is in compartments, and one is either ultra-left or ultra-right. If I understood him correctly today, he accused us of moving towards those things the DP advocates. There is no doubt that there are certain similarities between certain aspects of NP policy and certain aspects of DP policy. [Interjections.] Certain basic truths are valid and certain policies and certain points of departure are the same.

Surely it is true that where those hon members struck a snag, and where we also were at a certain stage until we decided that we wanted to make progress and consequently change direction—although we are still striving towards the same objective—is that there is an enormous amount of duplication between our policy and their policy. Why did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly not mention this? One need only read his Hansard.

This reminds me of a paragraph which someone recently brought to my attention. It is interesting to note that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly has also begun to quote N P van Wyk Louw now. In Lojale Verset of 1939 N P van Wyk Louw said the following, and I am merely quoting a small passage from “Waardes bokant die volk”:

This was in 1939—

Here comes the interesting part:

Is that not precisely what is happening today?

The truth is that the NP believed that the full answer lay in separate development, call it partition or anything else for that matter. In our time—it was not so long ago for those of us who came here in 1974 on the basis of that very policy—the NP believed that the full answer lay therein that South Africa, at least as far as its Black peoples were concerned, should be separated out and that the answer was situated entirely in full, separate freedoms with each in his own territory. That is what we came to this place with. I shall never forget how we were given the impression that we would wake up on the West Rand one morning to a sound like thunder, would look out of the window and see clouds of dust as the Blacks migrated out of Soweto, because they were only there temporarily.

That was the NP’s conviction in 1974. Surely that is the truth. That is why all those little houses were temporary, that is why there was no land tenure, and that is why permanent shopping centres were not constructed. Our entire legal system was geared to this being a temporary situation. We did in fact see that a large part of the answer lay therein, but we also saw that the ultimate answer did not lie therein and in fact could never do so, because one cannot permanently bend people, whatever form their behaviour may take—let us assume it is their economic behaviour—or keep them permanently bent. At some stage or another human behaviour in respect of economic desires gains the ascendancy in order to satisfy its needs, ideals and wishes in life.

Hon members should ask the Eastern Bloc and Mr Gorbachev who had more instruments at their disposal to bend the economic will and desires of people permanently or at least, if they did not succeed in bending them permanently, to keep them permanently subservient. Gorbachev and company saw the truth that one can never fully get the basic laws of the economy in respect of need satisfaction on one’s side, whatever the political system one was applying.

The NP saw this and adopted the honourable course, as Dr Piet Koornhof said, of thinking long and hard about this. The NP adopted the democratic course of consulting its congresses. We made an adjustment to our policy without sacrificing our objective of peaceful co-existence in our country.

What happened at that moment? At that moment the NP moved away from partition or total separation being the ultimate answer. We moved away from that and we began to realise that the millions of Black people outside the national states would have to be helped in some other way, and not in the way the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly proposed this morning, namely that there should be absolutely independent totally fiscal and monetary partitioned components by the dozens in South Africa.

The course we chose was that of a say over what was our own, and the sharing of power in regard to what could not be subdivided. That is the adjustment we made to our course. It meant that separation on the basis of full geographic substance and on the basis of sovereignty was no longer the ultimate answer for us, that we had to seek the solution of the remainder of the problem elsewhere, and that we were not going to undo what we had already achieved.

It is a lie if the CP says that. We are not going to undo it, but we are going to seek the remainder of the solution in the direction of the other pole. On the one hand we have the pole which maintains that the ultimate answer lies in group rights, and the CP have become bogged down there. On the other side the DP says that total freedom for the individual is the ultimate answer.

There is no doubt that the answer does not lie in either of these two concepts. Not one of these two concepts or phenomena is in any way large enough to support the total structure. We have achieved what we were able to achieve at the pole of partition, and then we began to see where the remainder of the answer lay. The remainder of the answer lies therein that we cannot give national substance by means of those geographic areas as such, nor can we do so by means of linkage with some homeland or other, whether on a single or multiple basis. We must therefore come closer to the idea of the right of association of the individual, particularly in the Black areas.

Somewhere between these two extremes lies the solution to South Africa’s problems. These two extremes are lying in trenches, as it were, taking potshots at one another. It is the responsibility of the Government of this country to stabilise the situation and in that way bring about peace. The ultimate truth lies neither to the right-hand side, nor to the left-hand side.

However difficult it may be to do, it is therefore absolutely true that the one has to be done without omitting to do the other. One will never be able to have the last word about this, because there is a variable which will move between these two poles.

The moment consensus is obtained in order to solve what is general between us and conflict arises, there will be a movement back to the security of the group idea, but as progress makes co-operation on the basis of the devolution of power possible, so that everything relating to what is one’s own can be devolved in this direction and what remains is common, it will be possible to move in the other direction.

One cannot therefore go away and think up a logical solution, because one has one comparison with two unknowns, which provide an infinity of solutions. That solution will therefore be an emotional one. It is a solution which will have to be found by way of agreement around a negotiating table.

It is that kind of solution, and that is why it is a fallacious argument if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly wants to accuse us of sliding irrevocably towards the DP. We are not sliding towards the DP, nor are we sliding back to where we were when we saw that we did not have the ultimate answer. We are standing four-square in this difficult position—where we are being fired on from the left and the right and it is easy to destroy us.

This is now that sensitive time when one is moving from one dispensation to another. They say that if one wants to kill a snake, one must catch it when it is sloughing its skin. We are in the situation where we are just about at out weakest because we are giving a manifestation to these difficult years in our history, because the answer does not lie with the DP, nor does the answer lie behind us.

The CP can be so arrogant as to think that they can keep people’s behaviour bent forever. This is a road of mounting conflict which I personally do not want to travel, because one will have to have many years of national service to be able to control that situation. People are not voluntarily going to do what the CP wants them to do.

Did we not hear that today in an extremely eloquent way from the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Representatives? Have we not heard it over and over again from that side of the House, from those people who are supposed to accept that solution?

What can the CP show after five years? What can the CP show after five years of living, governing and deliberating together with the people of colour? Here sit the Coloured people, over there the Indians. How much persuasion have they been able to do among the leadership, the elite of the communities that are represented here? What have they done about that? No, they sit there in their little house, they do not even have the courage to draw the boundaries.

How prophetic it is! The hon the leader of the CP says “a few words about partition”. [Interjections.] Yes, that is what we have been getting all these years—“a few words about partition”. About the nucleus of its policy, the concluding speech in the most important debate of this year—we had “a few words about partition”. Is it not time the public of South Africa called the CP to account to report on what progress they have made with our fellow citizens sitting here? I repeat what I said to them in their House. I think it is the greatest single evil before God if one elevates oneself because one has a different skin colour. I think it is evil to be a racist. No one sitting here had an opportunity before he was born of negotiating with God about the colour of his skin. We did not, and neither did they!

And here I am looking at my white skin. What is it a sign of? It is a sign that I was especially blessed and grew up in what could generally be described as Christian-Western conditions of life with living standards which enabled me to be equipped to the best extent possible to reach the highest rung in life today, because today the name of the game is mathematics and the sciences. It is no longer herding cattle or having one’s face painted white in the veld and being circumcised in order to become a man. No, Sir, it is one’s certificate that one hangs against the wall that proves one is a man able to look after one’s family.

Because I was born with a white skin through no fault of my own I am grateful for that, but may Heaven preserve me the day I elevate myself above a person who was born into a different culture. I am thinking in particular here of the Black people with a value system which was good enough for them for centuries in Africa until we came here and transplanted a different value system onto them.

Then the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly says “a few words about partition”. Partition—that is the essence of his policy that must enable the public of South Africa to elect a government that must lead this country, on the House of Assembly side, to a solution of its problems and to a drop in its conflict graph instead of a rise, but what have they achieved with the leaders sitting here? How much have they discussed with them? One of their leading men said today that he rejected not only the unchristian nature of their approach, but also their policy in toto. Will they have the courage to say that to their voters? No, Sir.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly said “negotiation is not a blessing which descends on the earth from above”. But that hon member has become bogged down at the stage at which the NP was thinking that absolute separation was complete bliss that had descended on earth. One need not worry about the economy. One need not worry about this or about that; all one must do is separate. And once one has separated, all the economies will be right. But in the meantime this economy became irretrievably integrated on the day Jan van Riebeeck paid a few of the people he encountered on the beach a few beads to bring fresh water to their ships. It then happened irrevocably. In other words, absolute separation in the political sphere is not attainable.

The answer is this; Separate, yes, where you are able to do so. Separate where you are able to separate without hurting. Separate where you are able to separate and make a contribution to preserve what is fine and good in South Africa, but Heaven preserve you if you try to separate in a way that is going to hurt one’s country and one’s fellow citizens—in regard to those things over which we share responsibility with one another.

“A few words about partition”. We must let this echo from one platform after another. Let us say the few words about partition. We have been waiting for seven years to hear where it was going to take place. Today Prof Carel Boshoff was informed arrogantly from this podium that his partition was not acceptable either. [Interjections.] What is acceptable then? This was the opportunity to demonstrate it.

I see they are calling in their cultural leaders one by one. I see that the Morgenzon men were also here today. They are probably looking for another living area. I wonder whether they will find it in Mier? I wonder whether the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Representatives knows that he is now going to find people taking the road to Mier, because they are no longer welcome in Morgenzon. [Interjections.]

No, “a few words about partition”—this country needs more than a few words on partition. This country needs imaginative leadership. What it needs is for the leaders on both sides of the political divide in our country to tell the people where their hinterland lies and where we can expect to find peace in South Africa.

Debate concluded.

Question put to House of Assembly: That the Appropriation Bill [B 59 and 59A—89 (GA)] be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Question put to House of Representatives: That the Appropriation Bill [B 59 B—89 (GA)] be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Question put to House of Delegates: That the Appropriation Bill [B 59 and 59A—89 (GA)] be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The Joint Meeting adjourned at 17h07.