as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 10 February 1987, as follows:

Mr Speaker, when we adjourned yesterday, I was trying to indicate in which way a connection or tie-up existed between certain members of the PFP and certain organizations which were attempting to undermine the State and society in South Africa. For the purpose of today’s debate I shall confine myself to one organization only, viz the End Conscription Campaign.

I have here in my possession a document containing an organogram of The World Peace Movement. In this organogram the main organization of The World Peace Movement is the Communist Party of Soviet Russia. Two notches below it is the KGB and various other organisations—including the United States Communist Party, the British Communist Party, the East German Communist Party and the West German Communist Party. In this document, with direct connections to the third line at the top, the following organisations are also mentioned: The South African Communist Party, the ANC, the UDF, Nusas and the End Conscription Campaign. The question which comes to mind is this: What is the connection between the ANC, the PFP and the ECC?

What about the youth organisation of the Broederbond? You must mention that, too. [Interjections.]

Daan, you are a disgrace.

You are a disgrace because you keep quiet. [Interjections.]

The connection with the ANC … Mr Speaker, the hon member for Rissik insists on making his own speech. I hope I can lay claim to your protection.

Order! The hon member for Rissik must please not sit with his back to the Chair like that, so that I cannot hear what he is saying at all. [Interjections.]

The connection between the ANC and the End Conscription Campaign is sufficiently indicated … [Interjections.]

Order! I have just admonished the hon member for Rissik about the way he is interrupting the hon member for Caledon, and now I have to call him to order again. The hon member for Caledon may proceed.

The connection between the ANC and the ECC is sufficiently indicated in a recent speech made by Tambo to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the ANC, in which he specially congratulated three organisations which, according to him, had made their influence very successfully felt on the South African society. One of these three organisations which Tambo congratulated, was the ECC.

Where does the ECC obtain its funds? I content withself with saying that the ECC receives its funds from the same international sources as the ANC.

The ANC and the ECC have the same objectives. I want to quote as follows from a document:

An ANC pamphlet, addressed to the youth of South Africa, has the following to say:

Then follows the unmistakable message:

[Interjections.] The ECC has already been infiltrated by the ANC. Substantive proof of this exists in ANC documents, which the Defence Force acquired two years ago in Gabarone.

The question which now arises is this: What is the connection between the PFP and the ECC?

When was the ECC established?

The hon member must listen carefully now; he must not get hurt at this early stage.

What are the objectives of the ECC? One of their objectives is inter alia to obtain a measure of credibility and respectability in the community. For this reason they cannot affiliate openly with the PFP or the UDF. [Interjections.] Yet, in the ranks of the ECC, there is very great appreciation for the “importance of using all available support groups, particularly those with high political credibility”. [Interjections.] That ECC working document therefore emphasizes the “importance of using affiliated or sympathetic groups”.

With regard to the PFP, the ECC states: “The PFP debate is crucial”. Another ECC document makes the following statement:

Do you believe that rubbish?

In a letter published in the Financial Mail some time ago, the writer stated:

[Interjections.]

*These are the connections. Against this background it was truly a revelation to listen to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens last Friday, who stated “this Government is getting absolutely paranoic about the ANC.”

I want to conclude by telling the hon member for Cape Town Gardens that the approach he and other hon members of the PFP adopt to organisations such as the ECC, EDASA and the Pupils’ Awareness Action Group, displays a dangerous lack of political judgment which can ultimately be disastrous for South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I think it is a pity that the hon member for Caledon has seen fit to make such a speech in this House, for I believe that this kind of smear politics serves no purpose in this country. [Interjections.] We do not wish to deviate from the statement that conscription is a matter which we can debate in a proper and rational manner, but to come to the conclusion that the ECC and the PFP have certain things in common is like saying that because the hon member for Caledon and I both like “potjiekos”, we are both wicked people. [Interjections.] We have also heard some people say, for example, that the synod of the Dutch Reformed Church is a Russian agent, or that the synod’s resolutions are influenced by the moneyed interests. No purpose is served by engaging in such smear politics in this House, and I think it is a great pity that that hon member, who is liked by all of us in this House, has stooped to spreading this kind of rubbish. [Interjections.]

†I want to come back now to the financial debate. In 1984 the then hon Minister of Finance—not this hon Minister—said the following (Hansard: Assembly, 1984, Vol 116, col 531):

He then went on to say the following:

He also had this to say:

We then got a new hon Minister of Finance, who said the following in April 1985 (Hansard: Assembly, 1985, col 4333):

He then went on to say the following:

He also said that he had done a great job in keeping interest rates as low as 25%.

A year later, in February 1986, he said the following about this aspect of interest rates (Hansard: Assembly, 1986, col 588):

He went on to say:

I do not think the Government can honestly believe that to bankrupt many businesses and to crush our farmers under the load of fluctuating interest rates, can really be the kind of price we want to pay. One only has to look at the graphs of interest rates which shot up and down from 1983 to 1987, and at how the Treasury bill rate has rocketed up and down. The reality is that a high price has been exacted and that the Government has not been prepared to pay that price. Now, however, because it wants to refloat the economy, we currently have an entirely artificial situation with regard to our interest rates. How does this affect ordinary people, those people who are going to vote for this hon Minister, those who will remember what effect this jockeying around of interest rates has had?

One pensioner had a small investment in a unit trust. Now, because interest rates are low and people are running to the Stock Exchange with their money, her assets have increased enormously. She is worried, because she is an honest woman, that she will exceed her means test ceiling and lose her pension. She asked me what she could do about it.

Another pensioner who telephoned me occupies a community development flat. She has her little bit of money invested and earning interest. The interest rate is dropping, her income is decreasing and she is in a very difficult situation.

The Government doesn’t care!

That is quite right, they don’t care. [Interjections.]

They are fat cats.

The wealthy individuals and institutions move their money around to where they can get the best return. They know that with an inflation rate of 18% and an interest rate on investments of 11% they are losing all the time, so they move out of cash investments. Most of the people, however, have to sit bewildered and angry as they see their savings eaten by inflation and the interest which they had hoped to earn doing nothing to enrich them. In fact, investment just makes them poorer. I believe that the voters are going to exact recompense from this from the Government because it is only the Government which is to blame.

There seem to be few hon Ministers present this afternoon. Is the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs perhaps here? There are so many of them that one forgets who is who. [Interjections.]

Ron is running!

I believe that the Government should explain to us what is going on at the moment in Ciskei. There are people standing in the rain outside the so-called “borders” of Ciskei, who have been prevented from returning to their homes or have been ejected from their homes on returning from work in East London. We have received telephone calls from people whose employees of more than 15 years have simply been told that they are not allowed to go back to Ciskei. They are now sitting homeless with a hospital van trying to give them first aid and to care for them. I believe we must get some kind of indication from the Government about what is going on those border areas because we just do not know.

I want to come back to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture and the question of the Natal College of Education in Pietermaritzburg. Despite opposition from the council, the staff and ex-students, a widely-supported petition from the citizens of Pietermaritzburg and an interview with the mayor of Pietermaritzburg—a non-political visit—the hon the Minister refused to keep that college of education open. He refused to admit students of all races. Many Indian, Coloured and Black students in Pietermaritzburg would happily attend that college because they either cannot get into local colleges or have to travel to other parts of the country to get an education.

It has to be either White or closed! The hon the Minister’s mind is both White and closed!

It is long-established, viable, well-staffed college, which everybody, including the staff and former students, wants to keep open, but the hon the Minister has stopped first-year students entering it from next year.

Furthermore, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture tells us at the end of his letter that he is keeping his options open. He says that he is for apartheid and looks after White education, but he will keep his options open because he feels he should have a reformist option to fall back on. [Interjections.]

I took him at his word. I wrote to every Minister concerned with education in the House of Representatives, the House of Delegates and in kwaZulu. I told them that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture was prepared to enter into bilateral negotiations with them. I suggested that they try to use the college which has a good staff and tradition. The other day I received a letter from the secretary of the minister of education and culture in kwaZulu. The other Ministers had taken me at my word and approached this hon Minister’s department, and were told, “It is regretted …” All he did was hand them a copy of his statement of 8 December.

I believe that this gives the lie to the hon the Minister’s commitment to reform. The hon member Mr Schutte, who is seeking re-election in Pietermaritzburg North where this college of education stands, should tell us what his attitude is to the use of that college. The people of Petermaritzburg want to know what he is going to do. [Interjections.]

I have seen the Minister twice in the past two weeks about this matter! [Interjections.]

The hon member is a political mole who likes to do all his politics underground, “so tussen die boom en die bas”. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member call another hon member a political mole?

Order! What did the hon member say?

Mr Speaker, I shall withdraw “tussen die boom en die bas” and say “he does it between the bark and the trunk”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member has not been asked to withdraw that. What did he say before he referred to the “boom en die bas”?

Mr Speaker, I said that he would like to be a political mole who conducts his politics underground or to use an Afrikaans idiomatic expression “tussen die boom en die bas”. I then made the point that he must now come out into the open.

Order! I understand that, but the hon member used the English and Afrikaans expressions in the wrong context altogether. He would do us all a favour by withdrawing the reference to the mole and his subsequent remarks. That is all that is required of him.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, grant me the opportunity to say at the outset that I am very privileged to have been nominated as a member of this hon House and I want to express the confidence that I shall be able to make my modest contribution as a member of this House and of this Parliament.

I decided to speak on a subject today which, in my opinion, is in the interests of the country and is a subject with which I have been intimately involved for the past 15 years, viz housing. I want to exchange a few ideas specifically on the role, the purpose and the value of the utility housing corporations in South Africa.

At the Good Hope conference of business leaders which was held on 12 November 1981, the hon the State President, the Prime Minister at the time, announced that a decision had been taken that the then Department of Community Development would take the initiative for the establishment of utility housing corporations in the larger urban centres of our country. In my modest opinion this announcement was one of the greatest and most dynamic decisions ever taken in the search for solutions to the housing problems of our country.

The non-profitable utility housing corporation, or housing utility company as it is also called, makes it possible for the private sector, supported by the State, to make a true and positive contribution in the provision of housing in the long term, particularly for those in the lower and middle income categories. This housing concept is not at all strange to the Western World. Ebenezer Howard, the famous founder of the Garden Cities movement, propagated it as early as 1898. It is interesting too that in a country such as the Netherlands, 80% of all economic and low-cost housing is provided by housing corporations. There are more than 800 such movements in the Netherlands alone.

I cannot lay enough emphasis on the value and importance of this kind of housing corporation today. In all modesty I want to express the hope that the private sector will come forward more and more to make optimal use of this golden formula for the provision of housing. In passing the Housing Amendment Act No 63 of 1983, the State provided big incentives to make it possible and to make it easier for the private sector to become involved, and I want to praise and thank the Government for this today. Obviously the utility housing corporations will not be able to take over the total responsibility of housing, but even if one can succeed only in transferring 10% of the housing demand in this country to them, this in itself will remove a great burden from the State and relieve the housing pressure.

There is a group of people in every community—they will always be there—who are not the immediate responsibility of the Government, but cannot afford a house on the open market and cannot become the proud owners of a home. The utility housing corporations can provide a wonderful service for these people too. A housing principle which will never change is that one needs a house most when one’s income is lowest. Unfortunately it is true that most people are caught up in this kind of situation at a young age as well as at an advanced age.

†As a housing association is exempt from the payment of income tax and is obliged to use all surpluses for the furtherance of its objectives, the residents of its towns enjoy significant financial and social advantages. Apart from modest surpluses accruing from housing activities the housing association can generate extensive additional sources of income by undertaking large-scale developments including town centre complexes and the selling of land for the erection of cinemas, hotels, service stations, offices, shops etc all at market prices. Once a utility housing corporation has generated funds from these sources it can make those funds available to many clubs, societies, and educational and other social bodies in the community. It can even give further assistance in the form of donations of land, cash or interest free loans in order to build up a social environment in that specific community. However, a utility housing corporation can only be successful if it has a dedicated board of directors and a management who believe their task to be the implementing of housing as a social art and not a building or speculative undertaking.

*I exchanged a few ideas about the non-profitable utility housing corporation. It has been proven as a housing principle worldwide that if housing does not become a political football, but a vocation and a task, this kind of housing movement in particular can be successful. I am proud to be able to say today that South Africa has made wonderful progress in the establishment of housing utility companies. Greater progress can and must be made, and I trust that this sphere can be expanded with the continued encouragement and assistance of the State as well as the involvement of the private sector.

I want to conclude with a quotation from Ebenezer Howard’s book Garden Cities of Tomorrow. This quotation is very effective and significant when one keeps in mind that he wrote it in 1898:

And now the important words—

South Africa is a country with an immense potential for development. There will be large urban developments in future. It is my prayer and hope today that the utility housing corporations will contribute their share and prove their value and importance to South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon member Mr van Gend on his maiden speech. I congratulate him on its content and presentation and wish him everything of the best in this House.

It is almost three years now since I, on 20 February 1984, after returning from the mountains, quoted, in a speech I delivered, the remark made by the NP candidate in that contest. At the time Mr Hein Kruger said the following, and the Pretoria News quoted him:

Then I said in this House:

Since then the cookie has not only crumbled; to tell the truth, it has gone completely powdery. Pursuing the image of crumbs, at this stage we have the Randburg crumb, the Innesdal crumb and the Court of St James crumb. In my opinion the Black Angus crumb should be added to this, although there are not many of them here today.

What about the Soutpansberg griddle-cake?

We shall get round to that.

The hon the Minister, who represents Piketberg, is here today, and he is one of the Black Angus crumbs. The crumb of Krugersdorp can be added to this. The hon the Minister of Finance is also a potential crumb, as is the hon the Deputy Minister of Education. There are also the crumbs in the form of the hon members who resigned so quickly. One could also think of the Stellenbosch and the Carlton crumbs. The cookie is definitely crumbling. [Interjections.]

Today I should like to speak about the election that is at hand. We are on the eve of an election, and at this stage the country is in a financial mess. In the country there is a spirit of dejection. The NP is in smithereens. [Interjections.] I think the idiom “Easy come, easy go” was never as fitting as it is today when applied to the NP and its heirs.

I should like to speak about the election agenda, but before doing so, I should like to ask the hon the State President for clarity as far as his own position is concerned. He said he would abide by the result of the election. I now want to know what he means when he says he will abide by the result of the election, because the coming election is not one for all three Chambers.

Let us suppose the election result goes against him and another party gets an absolute majority in this House. [Interjections.] I now want to know from the hon the State President whether he would abide by the result of the election and resign as State President so that this White Chamber, with its majority in the electoral college, can elect another State President. That is the question. Or is he simply going to say he is appointing the Leader of the majority party in this White Chamber to his Cabinet and then going to govern with the assistance of the other two Chambers. That is another way of doing it.

This is a very topical question. Let us suppose that after 6 May not one of the three or four parties has a decisive majority. At that stage, however, he is the State President. With whom would he then conclude a co-operation agreement? Would he conclude such an agreement with the Progs, or with whom? We should like to know that, because it is absolutely essential for the South African electorate, in one of the most fluid situations in South African politics since 1948, to obtain finality about these aspects. [Interjections.]

I also want to ask the hon the State President on whose behalf he is requesting a mandate from the electorate. In the last election he said he was going to the people to ask for a mandate for himself. For whom is he now requesting a mandate? Is he doing so on his own behalf, and if so, for how long is he requesting that mandate. If he is not requesting it on his own behalf, is he perhaps doing so on behalf of the Transvaal leader of the NP, for the hon the Minister for Constitutional Development and Planning or for the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs? On whose behalf is the hon the State President requesting a mandate?

Each one of these hon Ministers I have mentioned has adopted an individual course within the NP and has his own following in the NP, and it seems to me quite likely that the Minister in the NP who inclines the most to the left, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is the one who will be returned. If he is returned, the hon member for Randburg will be back in the NP. Then the qualifications in the hon member for Innesdal’s letter, addressed to his NP leader, fall away. They would then become irrelevant. [Interjections.] Then the hon member for Pretoria Central would probably return as a full Minister in the Cabinet, probably with the portfolio “Songs, Dances and Concomitant Integrated Activities”. [Interjections.] The people want to know where the NP leadership is taking them from here.

We should also like to know what is going to be on the agenda. Naturally we realise that the agenda is going to include reform and power-sharing with Blacks. That is the main heading of the agenda. That is point number one. In his opening address the hon the State President said that he himself would inform the electorate about how this would happen. We listened to him last week, as we did to all his front-bench Ministers. There are so many Ministers by now that one could refer to front-bench, mid-bench and back-bench Ministers.

We listened to all the front-bench Ministers and to all the ex-United Party Ministers and Deputy Ministers and then, too, for hours on end, we listened to ex-United Party non-Ministers and non-Deputy Ministers. Their verbal gymnastics to get round the question of the possibility of accommodating the Blacks, was interesting to observe, because not one of them had anything to say about that. We ask them how they were going to bring about this power-sharing, but one does not get a single word about that from their lips.

During the new attitude we have encountered since yesterday, ie the lamentations of farewell, and the concomitant protestations of loyalty to the NP, from the retiring conservative members of the NP we did not hear a single word of any possible expectation to place before the electorate.

You would do well to make a farewell speech too.

The conclusion is that the NP does not yet have any plan to put before the voters of South Africa.

Did the hon the Minister of National Education say this was my farewell speech?

I said that you would do well to make one too.

Oh, Sir, let me tell the hon the Minister that if that were a future prospect, it would not be an unpleasant one, because then I would not have to sit staring at that disintegrating party. [Interjections.] It is not, however, such a simple possibility, specifically because of the present statements by the hon the Minister which are so very much in agreement with the statements he made exactly three years ago. [Interjections.]

The conclusion is that the NP does not have a plan. They say they are not going to accommodate the Blacks in a fourth chamber, but that they are nevertheless going to allow them to “share in the effective Government of South Africa”. These words I quote from the report of the Federal Congress.

The questions of foreign interference as a danger and the security situation will definitely be on the agenda. The Government begs us please not to politicise this. We must apparently lift this out of the political arena. South Africa should agree on that. Sir, as far as the CP is concerned—I state this categorically—they need not look over their shoulders when it comes to the interests of South Africa involving foreign interference. We criticise this Government for allowing it. That applies equally to national security. This does not mean that we should remain silent when the Government and its hon Ministers are bungling, and specifically blundering and botching things up in this sphere.

I want to tell the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the State President, who do fulminate so against the outside world, who do all that tub-thumping and carry on so on television: “Put your foot where you mouth is!” I want to give the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs one example of what I mean. In South Africa there is the United States Information Service. I challenge the hon the Minister to show us that he has something in him. I challenge him to close down this American Information Service. Then that would be the end of it. The hon the Minister would then show what he means by all his noise and shouting at the Americans.

As far as national security is concerned, the hon the Minister says we really must not drag the security situation into the political arena. On that same television programme, however, he politicised the security situation from A to Z, because he used it in his own favour. On that same day I was attending a military parade. The general who was present there also said that one of the aims of the ANC was to bring the present Government to its knees. Afterwards, while we were drinking tea, I told the general that I wanted to give him one assurance, and that was that the CP guaranteed that it would not allow the ANC to bring the NP Government to its knees; the CP itself would do so. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, in the Klip River constituency there is the Tugela catchment area, from a national point of view probably the single most important area. It is important for two specific reasons: Because of the tourist potential and because it is an important source of water for South Africa.

As far as tourism is concerned, it is interesting to know that there are approximately 1 000 beds offered to tourists and that approximately 75 000 tourists visit that area annually. The holiday resorts are fairly well-known. They are better known by their English names of The Nest, El Mirador, Cathkin Peak, Champagne Castle, Cathedral Peak, Mount-aux-Sources, Royal National Park and Drakensville.

The area is blessed with beautiful natural scenery. There could perhaps be hon members here who spent their honeymoons there. Perhaps they remember that the Bergville area is a flat plateau, richly endowed with vegetation, with the mauve-blue Drakensberg in the background straddling the area like a colossus. It is something to see; I would say one must not die without having seen it.

It is also very important as a water source. The Tugela River carries 24% of Natal’s river water and 9% of the overall South African river water supply. The Tugela is a perennial river, but the catchment area, which is the spongy area, is slowly but surely being damaged by soil erosion.

At the very top end of the Tugela River there are three very large dams—the Driel Dam, the Woodstock Dam and the Spioenkop Dam—and it is from those dams, particularly the first two, from which the Jagersrust pump station is fed. That happens with the aid of canals. Water is pumped over the Drakensberg into the Sterkfontein Dam from which water is supplied to the Transvaal. In this way Natal helps the Transvaal. It is also a fact that electricity is generated by this scheme.

What is alarming, however, is the extent of erosion taking place there. People tell me that fifty years ago, when one stood at Colenso, on the bridge over the Tugela, the water was so clear that one could see the fish swimming on the river bed. Today it is unfortunately a thick, muddy siltstream that washes past there. The reasons for that are that Mount-aux-Sources, which is the highest spot in that mountain range, is approximately 3 300 metres high. Let me also just point out, in passing, that although we have the highest plateau and also the highest peak in South Africa, the political debate there does not also reach the same heights.

The rainfall against the mountain slopes is also very high. One has more than 1 000 mm of rain there annually. In pre-metric terms this means more than 3 inches per month. The slopes are comprised of soft ground, which is already washed out, with delicate, fragile vegetation. Against those slopes we encounter over-population, over-grazing and poor farming methods. In that sensitive area, up against those sensitive slopes there are 100 000 Blacks living with 100 000 heads of livestock and, coincidentally, occupying 100 000 ha of land. So it is easy to remember these statistics. 4,5 tons of soil per ha is washed into the river from that area daily. 500 000 tons of top-soil are washed into the river annually. That is a tremendous amount of top-soil, and when one witnesses the dongas formed as a result of that erosion, it gives cause for intense concern. This will result in the Driel Dam, which has just been built and contains 18 million cubic metres of water, being silted up within 15 years.

There is a capital infrastructure of R600 million in the form of dams, canals and pump stations, and that investment—that important capital investment—is in danger as a result of the erosion and the silting up of the dams. There is no easy solution for the problem, because the Blacks living there belong to two tribes, the Amazizi and the Amangwane, and they clash with each other. The live in enmity. Soil conservation and proper farming techniques are therefore hampered because the two tribes plunder each other’s land. What is more, the area is also divided up into two areas of jurisdiction because kwaZulu has a large portion of that land under its jurisdiction. A further portion consists of trust land, whilst another is White land.

Fortunately there have been some moves— action has been taken—particularly under the auspices of the farmers’ association of Bergville. An Upper-Tugela Catchment Committee has been established. Quite a few bodies are represented on the committee, for example the Bergville Farmers’ Association, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Environment Affairs and the kwaZulu Government. This committee meets again on Thursday and recommendations will be submitted to this House. I do not want to pre-empt any recommendations, but it seems to me of great importance that erosion be combatted by consolidating the people as far as possible, withdrawing livestock and, if necessary, paying the farmers whose livestock is withdrawn. I think that if R6 million per annum is injected for those purposes, bearing in mind that the capital investment involved is one of R600 million, it would be useful expenditure. That money could possibly be collected by way of a levy on the water pumped from Natal to the Transvaal. In this way the Transvaal could then help Natal.

Mr Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the hon member for Klip River on his maiden speech and on the subject he chose for it. I hope he will have a pleasant time in this House and I am sure he will make a worthy contribution to the proceedings here. I shall not wish him a very lengthy stay in this House, but he has my best wishes for as long as he remains here.

†I was impressed by the subject he chose, which was the Tugela Basin. It is one of my pet subjects and I am sure that he, like I, studied the town and regional planning publication on the Tugela Basin published way back in the late forties. Under the guidance of the then Administrator, Mr Douglas Mitchell, they did a magnificent job in planning well into the future for that Tugela Basin. What a tragedy that their Tugela plan was not implemented when this Government came into power in 1948, for that plan would have changed the face of Natal. So many years later, we are still talking of the potential of the area!

In the short time that I have, I want to deal firstly with a charge which the hon the State President made against me when I spoke in the No-confidence Debate. He said that I sounded bitter. No, I am not bitter but saddened, very saddened at the thought of what this Government has done over the years to my country which is so dear to me. If there was any bitterness it was bitter disappointment, disappointment at the fact that the hopes of 1983 had been allowed to die so quickly at the hands of the Government and under the leadership of the hon the State President and the Cabinet.

I am not bitter in myself or personally bitter but I am sad for my country because that is what matters. It is South Africa and its future that matters. I see that future being undermined and frittered away by the acts and the failure to act of the Government currently in power. That is why I spoke as I did.

Then the hon the State President said that he had made me an offer after the referendum. If he had listened to the rest of my speech last week he would have known why I rejected and still reject the offer. I set out then my philosophy and my beliefs in what South Africa should be. However, that is only one of many reasons. The main reason is that I have to face myself in the mirror and look myself in the eye every morning when I shave. Because of the differences in philosophy and approach to politics I could not have faced myself if I had crossed the floor for the sake of political expediency or the possibility of office. I could not justify the things which this Government had done wrong and stand up on a platform and say…

Good for you, Vause!

I cannot justify some of the things which that hon member who is supporting me now has said either. I want to make it clear that it cuts both ways, but I am talking of the Government now. I think of the abject failure it has made in so many fields. It is impossible for me to stand up on a public platform or in this House and justify the actions of the Government which I believe harm South Africa, “goedpraat” it or praise the Ministers when in my heart of hearts I know that they are harming South Africa.

I think the hon the State President and the Cabinet are misreading the political scene which is building up. They are misreading the feelings of their own supporters outside the closed discipline of the caucus and the Whips. [Interjections.] They are not misreading those supporters of whom hon members of the CP are thinking—some of them, yes, have moved that way—but the Government is misreading the intelligentsia, the academic and business leaders who support it and their feelings about the Government itself.

I want to warn the Government that the danger to them is not from the right wing— there will always be rightwingers but not enough of them to become the government or even pose a threat—but from those who look ahead and see the challenges and dangers to South Africa. One talks to them. I do not know whom the Government members talk to socially, but I have over recent weeks talked to many NP supporters who speak with sadness about what their Government is doing— or rather is failing to do. They plead with me to join the NP. I have never heard of a party whose supporters ask an opponent to join it in order to get the party he disagrees with out of its mess. However, they say they need leadership in the NP; they need help because their leaders are failing. I answered another letter today—every day I receive letters from people pleading with me to join and help the NP because they need help desperately.

However, when I look around at those who have fallen for this blandishment and joined the NP in order to change it from within—I do not see any of them here—I wonder. [Interjections.] I wonder how many times the hon member for South Coast has spoken in the NP caucus. How many times has the hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology (Mr G S Bartlett) got up to disagree with a Cabinet Minister in caucus? I wonder how many times the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs has challenged his own Government in caucus on policy.

The temporary Deputy Minister.

The very temporary Deputy Minister! [Interjections.] Now we are asked to vote supply in this Bill before the House. I have seen no change from within. One hon Deputy Minister there, I think, would like to see change. I see he is looking at me very keenly, but I have not seen anyone from Marais Steyn’s time who has gone into the NP and succeeded in changing its philosophy and its attitudes fundamentally. I ask those members who joined it from the NRP and the former UP what they have achieved in bringing about the change they claim to want and which South Africa desperately needs. Now we are being asked to vote supply for a top-heavy, bloated political administration, with 20 Deputy Ministers instead of 10—and 100% inflation!

What are the Deputy Ministers doing? They have not got a job to do as Deputy Ministers. I hear they are acting as unpaid directors-general—interfering with the administration of the departments, trying to run them like office-boys from inside the departments instead of giving political leadership. However, there are far too many of them to give political leadership. So what are they there for? They are there to earn a reward for loyalty to their party.

Yes, that is true.

We are being asked to vote the money to pay those 20 Deputy Ministers. In the meantime, inefficiency continues to grow in the Government, and the interference of the Deputy Ministers in the administration is making it ten times worse. Why do they not look at some of the little tin gods who think that the administration—the executive—is God and the people are its servants; that the people are the slaves of the Government who can be treated with contempt, who can be treated as non-things?

Why do those 20 Deputy Ministers, if they want something to do, not look around at some of the problems in their departments— some of the administrative problems, the delays? Why does it take three months or more for a pensioner to get the first cent of pension after he has filled in his application form if everything is in order? Why does it take months—sometimes years—to get a problem due to a mistake put right? There are cases of pensions that had been stopped incorrectly. It can take up to six or eight months to get it restored. One then gets a letter saying: “We apologise for the inconvenience.” That pensioner then has to eke out a living for eight months just because somebody made a mistake or fed the wrong information into a computer. Let the Deputy Ministers go and look at those things that are happening to people. Let them remember that those people to whom it is happening are going to vote on 6 May. They are going to remember the months without a pension.

Then there are the national servicemen and members of the Permanent Force who have not had pay that is due to them. I have a case now that goes back to 1984. I have had railway cases. In one case the previous Minister, Mr Hendrik Schoeman, eventually put it right, six years after I had raised it as an injustice. He gave ex gratia payments to some of them which was the last thing he did before he retired.

It should not take so much time to put things right. Let the Deputy Ministers make themselves useful instead of strutting around as assistant directors-general. Let that whole gaggle of Deputy Ministers now involved with the economy and finance start doing something about inflation. If one wants to hear people grouse, just listen to them talking about the cost of living and the cost of food and the cost of rent. When one moves around among one’s own people—as I do in my own area regularly—one hears of the hardships and the suffering.

I am not going to make an economic speech now. My time is virtually up. However, I want to say: Let the Government go out and find out what is happening in South Africa instead of looking over their shoulders at a little group of right-wingers, many of whom are going to lose their seats and who will not come back, even as an official opposition. Let the Government forget the right wing and look to the leadership among its own supporters in the academic world and the financial world—the thinkers and the top strata of their supporters. Let them listen to that voice which says: In the name of heaven, let us get on with reform. The time for reform is running out. Let us do it now while there is still time.

That is my message in this debate on voting supply for that Government to continue.

Mr Speaker, I merely want to tell the hon member for Durban Point I am amazed that he, who sat in this House as a member of the once powerful United Party—he therefore had many opportunities in which to deal with the problems of the country—is taking his leave of this Parliament with such an peevish and unpleasant speech. It was a pity to hear him launch an attack on and question the contributions of former members of his party who felt that in the interests of South Africa they should join the NP and make a contribution here. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Durban Point this afternoon, however, he has signed the death certificate of the NRP. [Interjections.] That is what it is all about. I should like to say the following to the hon member for Durban Point, therefore:

[Interjections.] The hon member would do well to remember that as he travels along the road of life. [Interjections.]

I should also like to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon the Minister of Finance on his Part Appropriation.

Yes, boss!

No, it is not a case of “yes boss”. I want to tell the hon the Minister of Finance that the only negative reaction we have received to this Part Appropriation came from the opposition parties in this House. [Interjections.] The reaction of the public at large to this Part Appropriation does the hon the Minister of Finance and all his advisers credit. It gives me an indication of how the public at large, as well as the businessmen to whom the hon member for Durban Point referred this afternoon, are going to vote on 6 May 1987.

I want to say a quick word in respect of the position of the employee in South Africa. When we read the hon the State President’s opening address, we see that this Government is treating the worker in South Africa seriously. An amount of R450 million was spent on employment creation and training programmes in one year. The people in my constituency benefited from that too, and I want to convey my thanks for that this afternoon.

This Government made R1 billion available for housing and community facilities over a period of one year. Just think of that, Sir, it is more than every previous government. An amount of R400 million was contributed to a housing trust, money with which the private sector and the Government are tackling the problems of accommodation together. That is to the credit of this Government, and it is proof to me that the Government is in earnest about the problems of our people in the country who are suffering hardships.

There is further proof that the Government is concerned about our labour force, about our workers, in South Africa. When we look at the Gazette of 19 December 1986, we see that the Labour Relations Amendment Act was promulgated. This Government takes care of the position of the worker. When the workers’ rights are prejudiced in any way, the Government takes that into account and ensures that justice is done.

During the past few days a great deal has been said about the salaries and the total salary package of the employees in the public sector. If I may say something about that this afternoon, I want to say that as far as our country’s economy is concerned, we must not forget the influence the employee can exert on the economy of our country. If we keep in mind that 70% of the world’s gold is produced in South Africa—80% of the world’s platinum, 70% of its vanadium and 11% of its coal is produced in this country—we must not underestimate the contribution of the employee in this process. I want to refer just for a moment, however, to the position with reference to salaries in the public sector.

One will see that immense sums of money are involved in this, but I took a closer look at the position in respect of salaries and remuneration in the public sector. I divided the officials into three groups, viz the low income group, the officials and the management staff, and it was interesting to note that 98% of the employees in the public sector belonged to the first two categories. The first category contains people with an annual income of R10 000 and less, and the second category those with an annual income of R15 000 and less. We must take a closer look at this matter, therefore, and that is why I want to tell the hon the Minister of Finance this afternoon that I appreciate the fact that he did not allow himself to be prescribed to by people who stand outside the Government circle. He does not allow opposition parties to prescribe to him. The fact that an election is imminent did not influence him either. What is important to him, however—and I want to give the hon the Minister of Finance credit for this this afternoon—is that he will ensure that justice prevails where remuneration of the people in the public sector is concerned.

As far as the private sector is concerned, I want to ask this afternoon whether the time has not come for our larger employers—our industries and our larger enterprises—to give attention to the thought that the worker in South Africa should also share in the profits made by those people. Let us ask the private sector to consider that, because in my modest opinion, it can make a large contribution to the productivity in our country.

The private sector can do more in respect of the contribution they make to their employees as far as schooling is concerned. I think too of the promotion of home ownership in South Africa. In this connection I do not have only a cheap house, which can be rented to the worker, in mind. Let us make it possible for that man, by means of housing subsidies and grants, to purchase his own house. I want to say immediately that I have the greatest appreciation for many of our employers who make a positive contribution in respect of the provision of housing. I believe much more can be done, however.

Let us look at the long term; at pensions. The private sector can make a large contribution here too. When we look at the 1982 census figures, we see that there are 8,726 million economically active people in this country, of whom only 5,8 million belong to a pension fund. We must take a look at this, because when those people retire on pension, they are going to suffer. A person who retired from service on a reasonable pension 10 years ago, is leading a miserable existence today. We must take cognisance of this. Do hon members know that 10 years ago a hamper containing 15 basic commodities for two people cost R16. Today it costs R54. If things continue in this way, it will cost R182 in another 10 years’ time, and R615 in 20 years’ time. The private sector can make a greater contribution, therefore, so that these pensions can also be adjusted from time to time. If that does not happen there will be a spiritual and physical bankruptcy, something we must prevent in this country.

A further factor which, in my modest opinion, can contribute to an increased general productivity, is fitness programmes for the employee. I have in mind an increased capacity for work, fewer occupational accidents, fewer doctors’ visits and so on.

It was found in America that 50% of the people absent from their jobs were absent for a period of only one to three days. A survey done by a large insurance company indicated that 66% of all back injuries would probably not have taken place if the employees involved had been physically fit. Research has also been done in South Africa on the physical health of our executive officials, of whom we have a shortage, which gives cause for great concern. We can look at the numerical ratio between manager and worker worldwide. In America, the ratio is one to six; in Japan one to 12; in Australia one to 14; and in South Africa, one to 42. A projection that was made indicates that if we do not train our people, that ratio will be one to 76 in the year 2000. In Germany the average working week is 32 hours; in America, 35 hours; and in South Africa, 50 hours.

Proper contact between employer and employee will make a positive contribution to increased productivity. I am not saying that that employee must go to the manager’s office, but I do want the management to be seen on the floor and in the mine. Contact must be made with the people.

If a dispute arises between employer and employee, it results in the intervention of the trade union leaders, which does not always have the desired effect. We must take cognisance of this.

I want to request, therefore, that we protect the rights of the worker in South Africa. I want to mention a few of these: The right to work; the right to fair remuneration and conditions of service; the right of application, training and retraining; the right to organise; the right to belong to an employees’ organisation; the right to negotiate collectively; and the right to protection of security and health. I can continue in this way. I plead that we shall protect the rights of the worker in South Africa, but it is also important that the worker in South Africa realises at all times that he also has a responsibility towards the employer.

Mr Speaker, in the first place I should like to say something about the speech of the hon member for Witbank. The gist of the speech was that it was such a pity that inflation existed. Inflation is the one figure which puts the entire failure in a nutshell.

When one looks at the budget programme for the year, one can ask a few interesting questions. In the first place I am asking why there is not a full budget for general affairs, because it is after all only the White Ministers’ Council which says it does not have a mandate. Why could the other two Houses, as well as the general administration, not continue with their normal programme for the year? If the hon the State President feels that he does not have a mandate with regard to general affairs, why does he only want to go to the White voters? If one looks at the statements in the other two Houses, it does not look as if the hon the State President has a mandate there. One need only look at this morning’s edition of Die Burger and read Mr Rajbansi’s comments on the Group Areas Act and the presence of the Defence Force in the townships.

The other question one asks is whether this precedent is going to be followed in future. What if the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates feels next year that he does not have a mandate and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives feels that way the year after that, are we all going to have a holiday every year? The hon the State President and the NP are merely proving yet again that the old quarrel in the Afrikaner ranks is all that matters to them. They are saying to the other Houses: Go and have a holiday, the White masters want to play at petty politics. [Interjections.]

I want to talk about decentralisation and say at once that it is difficult to make out a watertight case against it in ten minutes, but fortunately the facts have been doing this for the past 25 years.

The history started with the Tomlinson Report, but it was not accepted by the Verwoerd Government, because they did not want to allow White capital to be invested in Black areas. In 1965 the permanent committee realised that not only Blacks but also Coloureds and Indians were streaming to the cities and consequently there were also decentralisation schemes at places like Upington, George, Verulam and Tongaat. In 1965 the permanent committee also decided that they were not satisfied with the success achieved with the inducements. In 1967 this led to probably the most damaging step in the history of the South African economy, namely the Physical Planning Act. They decided that if the attractions did not work, they would give the cities a purgative so that they could squeeze the Blacks out.

All the success the decentralisation scheme lays claim to, must be adjusted by the destructive effect which the Physical Planning Act has had since 1967. In learned circles— and these are not necessarily left wingers—it is pointed out that in the 20 years between 1960 and 1980 only 150 000 employment opportunities were created at the decentralisation points. On the other hand there were 115 000 new entrants to the labour market in the homelands. What is more, most of the employment opportunities were created in decentralisation points near the large cities. In other words, the original objective was missed by miles. If one were to deduct from this the normal growth which would have taken place in any case in the boom period of the sixties, one can say that only approximately 12 000 employment opportunities can be ascribed to the decentralisation scheme throughout the entire period. But the most bitter pill is that in the decade from 1968 to 1978 alone 100 000 employment opportunities were lost because applications for the expansion of existing industries were refused. A further 220 000 employment opportunities were destroyed because applications for the proclamation of new industrial towns were turned down. An undetermined number of employment opportunities—one does not even know how to calculate this—were lost as a result of capital intensification by industries. Capital which should have been used to create employment opportunities, was used to destroy them.

After that further drastic changes were made to the scheme and consequently it is no wonder that in rational circles—not necessarily left-wing—it is being said that the policy is totally political, economically irrational and in conflict with all economic trends for a young country.

As regards the criteria for success which are used, one reads that the only criterion of the former Minister was the number of applications and the number of people who benefitted from the scheme. This is a real Father Christmas kind of analysis where one simply counts the outstretched hands. There is no cost benefit analysis, no analysis of opportunity costs of capital and no evaluation of ten-ability in the long term. For example, up to 49% of the industries say that they will close as soon as their benefits cease. One is already seeing it happen on a large scale that further benefits must be given as soon as the previous benefits cease. Some industries have been receiving benefits for up to 20 years. This does not encourage good work ethics, but only a beggar’s mentality.

The former Minister wrote in the annual report that every employment opportunity created could be multiplied by 2,3 owing to the associated subsidiary industries. But if we look at research into this kind of industry, we see that this is nonsense. In 1984 it was found that only 17% of the industries received inputs from inside the areas, which only 16% sold their products in the areas. Linkage, which is essential for continued growth, is therefore entirely absent. If the main objective was to spread economic activity throughout South Africa, the only “success” which has been achieved is that one now sees beggars everywhere. It is a testimonial of worthlessness.

I have here a letter written by a despairing adviser to an equally despairing client. This is what he wrote about the former hon Minister:

About the department he wrote:

†I take it that the “foreseeable future” is until the current Minister who looks after that department becomes State President or perhaps assumes an even higher office. [Interjections.]

*In conclusion I want to mention that in left-wing radical circles it is being said that the policy is aimed at the preservation of capitalism. They put it as follows:

That is what the “tame Marxists” say.

†To those people I can only say that the Government’s commitment to the ideology of apartheid has created exactly the climate for a revolution of the working class quite simply because they are not working.

That is why the hon the Minister of Finance dishes out money as if he were the petty cash officer of the NP. [Interjections.] He squanders the wealth of South Africa and he wants to shape it even physically in the shape of apartheid. For him there is no development by means of free enterprise; it has to be Norweto, removals and consolidation—the same old story. Nobody can actually put it better than he did in 1985 when he said, and I quote:

The sad story, however, is that it is also a way of death.

Mr Speaker, we heard from the opposite side of the House in what a sorry state the economy was and how everything had collapsed. There are also quite a number of pamphlets being distributed everywhere to which attention should perhaps also be given.

The hon the Minister made it clear that we were involved in a new growth phase. Now there are many people who suddenly want to force the issue. It has been said that the Government has no economic policy. In this regard I must refer some hon members on the opposite side to the Kleu Report, the De Kock Report and the Margo Report. We hope to make the latter available shortly. It means that our country is working out plans in the monetary, fiscal and industrial spheres, and some of the plans have already been implemented. One only needs to think about the many recommendations in the De Kock Report, which we implemented during the previous parliamentary session.

Last year, however, our growth rate was only 1%, but everything is really not so confused or lost as hon members on the opposite side of the House are alleging. The latest figures pertaining to our reserves show a clear improvement over the last few months, notwithstanding the $3 billion we repaid. Our exchange rate is gradually stabilising again.

The hon the Minister of Finance spoke about the new guidelines which have been laid down for Government expenditure. I can only say that the hon the Minister is assiduously approaching our Government expenditure in terms of revenue and not in terms of expenditure. We can wish him all the best in his efforts—they will be successful.

We can also take a look at the building society loans which were granted last year. The picture looks much better than that of 1985. It is also interesting to take a look at the retail trade. They expect their income in 1987 to be 36% more than in 1986 and their dividends 39% greater. I find it interesting that in 1986 they earned R205,9 million, having paid out R86,6 million in dividends. It does not seem to me that everyone is going bankrupt.

If one considers the number of bankruptcies, one notices that it has decreased by 11% in 1986 as compared to 1985.

There is no one left to go bankrupt!

It is not true that this country is going to wrack and ruin. Since last year we have gradually been recovering and there is an upswing, but planning is necessary. We should not have a “instant boom" after which everything collapses again. People should realise that planning is being done. We hope that the growth rate of 1% for last year becomes 3% for 1987. In this way we are building up gradually and in future we shall improve considerably.

There is much criticism among our people of the interest rates. The man in the street has fears that the high interest rates of 1984 will be repeated next year. In the newspapers there is conjecture about how high the interest rates will rise again. As an ordinary person wanting to borrow money, one does not want to be caught by very high interest rates.

For those who think so, I wish to illustrate the following points. The aims of the De Kock Commission’s Report are being applied. There is better control over Government expenditure. Savings are definitely being effected at our State corporations such as Escom, Iscor and their needs are definitely being greatly curtailed. Interest rates will therefore not rise so disproportionately, although one can explain why it happened in the past. The hon the Minister will agree with me that we can tell our people that the interest rates will fluctuate, because it is normal and we are after all a market-orientated economy. They will, however, fluctuate as the economy develops, without stifling the economy.

I should now like to discuss inflation. It is a popular subject which crops up in all kinds of anonymous pamphlets. Everyone is keen to say that the retail price index has risen by so much. No one, however, mentions the causes of inflation or offers any solution to it. It is easy to shout, but many of the statistics that are quoted, can be disproved with other statistics—the result is not always the same.

Let us take a look at the development of inflation over the past few years. Hon members who are also farmers, know that the maize price in the Western World today has basically hit “rock bottom”.

It is zero!

Yes, it is zero. They know that prices in agriculture have dwindled consistently over the past ten to fifteen years in proportion to capital goods and intermediary products such as chemicals—farmers are constantly speaking about costly inputs. Our primary product prices have consistently declined in comparison with the importation of industrial products. We are not the only ones experiencing that problem. The same applies to Australia which is saddled with equally serious problems. Their exchange rates have also fallen, in fact from 130 cents to 80 cents and even 60 cents. Argentina also has this problem. The export price of our coal has also declined sharply. Structural changes, such as those set out by the hon the Minister, are unfortunately influencing the prices of our primary products. We cannot get away from it.

One can go further. People laugh when we talk about the gold price. Prof Sadie calculated that the decline in the gold price cost us $1,5 billion in one year. That is quite a large amount from a small country’s pocket. That is a vast amount of money.

I have noticed, unfortunately, that hon members of the Opposition also laugh when we talk about the drought. In 1983 a model was worked out for the IMF in which it was calculated that we lost R3,3 billion during that year.

No economy can survive such shocks without having to make adjustments and being hurt. We cannot argue that away.

I know the hon members of the Opposition do not like it, but at the moment a basically healthy trade unionism is developing. Fine, there are extremists and radicals, but those people are negotiating better wages and salaries. If we are ousted as a government today, and those hon members take over, it will make no difference because they will have the same problem to worry about, because they are not going to destroy or ban those trade unions. There is no such possibility because then the country will be plunged into complete chaos.

There has been a redistribution of revenue. I can tell those hon members that if our Black trade unions go on strike and our gold mines produce nothing for 14 days or 3 weeks, then they can calculate how many millions and eventually billions of rands it will cost us. [Interjections.] Are those hon members going to keep those workers there with the help of the police? Are they going to shoot them? Those are questions which those hon members should answer for us. [Interjections.] Those people are asking for improved housing and higher salaries, and we are trying to maintain a healthy equilibrium in this regard.

In addition there has been a large capital outflow from our country. Recently we have paid back $3 billion. Hon members should start totting up now. In one year we suffered a loss of R3,3 billion because of the drought. The drop in the gold price cost us $1,5 billion in one year and we have paid back $3 billion in foreign loans. This money comes from an economy which has a gross domestic product of just over R100 billion. Now we are talking about R165 billion. It has to hit one somewhere.

I should tell hon members that it is a miracle that we have survived the shocks so well and that last year we showed a growth of 1% and that we are now aiming for a growth rate of 3%. Obviously it is not only a miracle, but also the product of good management which is in the process of developing here. [Interjections.]

I now want to turn to the pamphlets which explain how they are going to put an end to inflation. The hon member for Sasolburg’s people are well-known for these pamphlets. How do they say they are going to curb inflation? The inflation rate is at present approximately 18%. If one really wants to curb it and reduce it to nothing …

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

No, I am busy at the moment. The hon member can ask me a question in a moment.

How long did it take Mrs Thatcher to reduce inflation? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, that question I can answer straight away.

Order! If an hon member has said that he does not want to answer a question, the other hon member must not abuse the situation and deliberately interrupt him. The hon Deputy Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In any case, I think I shall answer that question at a later stage.

Today, if one wants to curb inflation, one should firstly tell the public servants that their wages and salaries are going to be frozen; that they are going to be reduced. Furthermore one would have to tell the public that they will have to pay more tax. That is the way to break inflation. Besides those two measures one should try to prevent the exchange rate from weakening further. We shall have to use our reserves and spend them so that the exchange rate can improve. We shall have to ask the Reserve Bank to limit credit particularly where we shall have to make use of Government stock.

What is the result going to be? It will result in an absolutely sick, dead economy. We will be saddled with a number of unemployed in this country—we already have many—that will be impossible to deal with. One cannot have a stable political system if one does not maintain one’s economy. I think those who distribute these pamphlets, should really be asked to tell the truth to those whom they incite in that way.

This Government’s policy is to stimulate economic growth moderately. That is what we are engaged in, in the form of the Part Appropriation and the coming Main Budget. It means that we should accept that there will be a certain measure of inflation in this economy. We are not in Mrs Thatcher’s First World, in which we can put an end to everything within 24 months. In parentheses, a large percentage of those unemployed British workers live on the “dole”, as they say. We do not have that system in South Africa. Here people would starve. It is terribly easy to say that Mrs Thatcher managed to do it, and instead of 2 million Blacks we are going to make 4 million Blacks unemployed. Then I should like to see how one is going to govern this country. [Interjections.]

I want to go deeper into the question of these pamphlets which are being distributed in this manner. There is one with a large Black depicted on it, who is being carried by a small White man. [Interjections.] The White ostensibly pays tax so that the Black man can grow fat. There is nothing further from the truth than what is stated in those pamphlets.

Let us consider certain facts. I asked the Bureau of Market Research at the University of South Africa to furnish me with certain figures. The expenditure on social services for the Whites—that is, education, health matters, the subsidisation of transport, etc—increased from 14,5% of the total Government expenditure in 1980 to 16,5% in 1985. There was therefore no reduction.

Let us go further, and measure that expenditure against the total amount which the Whites paid in taxes, ie income tax, sales tax, licence tax, excise and estate duty—the whole lot put together. One then finds that that expenditure in 1985 constituted 56,3% of the taxes which the Whites paid. In the previous year it was 54%. [Interjections.] It is forgotten, however, that 20% of our taxpayers pay 73% of our tax. If one takes that into account, and makes it apply to the true expenditure, then the largest percentage of our Whites do not pay for their social services, those services are subsidised.

Who pays for them? [Interjections.]

Who does the hon member think pays for them? Those gold mines he does not like. The money barons he criticises so much. [Interjections.]

The “fat cats” pay for them.

Yes, the “fat cats” whom those hon members criticise so much, they pay for them. [Interjections.]

They go further and draw a graph to indicate how the personal tax one pays rises in proportion to company tax. All of this is ostensibly for the Blacks. They mention about four or five companies who apparently are not paying a cent in tax at the moment. Sir, I want to tell you now, that as a percentage of our total tax income, our personal income tax is the lowest in comparison with that of 23 countries in the Western World.

How many countries are there in the Western World?

There are no more than 23. If the hon member could name more, I should be glad.

“Oom Jan” is still “on the ball”. [Interjections.]

As far as company tax is concerned, there are 15 countries—those are the well-known ones—in which company tax is less than that which is paid in our country. The premise in the Western World today is to reduce company tax because companies create employment. I am saying that for the benefit of the hon member for Sasolburg. The Sasols there in his part of the world are capital-intensive. [Interjections.] Those people should be helped to expand so that they can employ the hon member for Sasolburg’s voters.

An interesting fact which the hon member and his people are not yet aware of, is that the tax is levied on individual companies, and not on controlling companies. That means that tax is not paid again on the way up. Of course it is true that we previously followed another system. It was a system according to which companies were helped with their financing by other companies by means of leasing, when the companies involved wanted to undertake large expansions. An example of this, which is mentioned, is that of Pick ’n Pay. The hon member for Sasolburg forgets of course that Pick ’n Pay helped Mondi or Sappi to establish their large factories in Nelspruit. It created employment opportunities in that area, and the hon member for Barberton should of course know about it.

Those hon members must therefore please refrain from furnishing our people with such incorrect and confusing information. [Interjections.] There are flaws in our tax system. We know it. That is why we are looking forward to the Margo Report. We know that there are certain spheres in which tax pressure is felt very heavily. However, we are not the only ones saddled with that problem. At least seven or eight other countries have just appointed commissions to investigate their tax systems. It is simply the case—as I said earlier today in the House of Representatives—that tax is like an itch. As soon as one scratches in one place, it starts itching somewhere else. That is simply the way tax is. If we apply tax relief in one specific area, pressure is again applied somewhere else.

I want to conclude. I am not an expert as far as the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba is concerned. But I do want to say a word or two about finances involved, because it is an aspect which has already been referred to here. It is of course terribly easy—and it applies to both sides—to draw up a constitution within which partition for example or conferences or other grand-sounding names are presented to people. No one, however, calculates what it is going to cost. That is what I find so interesting. No one wants to say how much it is going to cost.

The other day I spoke to one of the kwaZulu-Natal-Indaba people. I put it to him that it was all very well, but that he should tell me what protection that system offered the taxpayer. Then he said: “But surely there is the senate”. That is apparently the body in which the respective language groups are going to be represented. That has, however, nothing to do with the taxes which might be levied. In an indaba document which I have here in my possession, they speak for example of an “economic equalisation policy”. What do they mean by this? They can easily go to the voters of Natal and inform them as to what exactly they mean. The Durban City Council is already uneasy. They are already beginning to itch. [Interjections.] Yes, what is it going to cost them?

Look, Sir, that is “economic equalisation”, and in this document they also speak of “fiscal parity”. Those are apparently the things which will now come about. The men from Durban were rather alarmed about this matter. They then called in a few advisers to work out how much all this would cost. Now it is very interesting that suddenly there is a deathly silence with regard to the report of Du Pisanie and Meintjies. Du Pisanie and Meintjies nevertheless come to the conclusion that when the necessary amount of money had been spent, all the industrialists would move out of Natal to Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Oh yes! The hon member is welcome to go and read what is said in this document about “economic equalisation and fiscal parity”. He should go and inform his voters about what it is going to cost them. He should not try to lead someone up the garden path.

Oscar Ndlomo was asked what he thought about these things now, and I quote his reaction:

Sir, apartheid costs a lot of money. Do those hon members think that this indaba is not going to cost more?

It does not become you, Org!

Does the hon member not think that it is going to cost more? [Interjections.] “Equalisation” on all levels is going to be expensive. They should go and tell the people how much it is going to cost. [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to conclude. Once again I want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Finance with this Part Appropriation. I know how many hours he spent on it. I wish him everything of the best. He is on the right road. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, it seems to me I have to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister because he has, ever so delicately, begun to condone apartheid. Let me tell him that it was a very good subject with which he concluded his speech. He has a great deal of work in that party of his, with all the members who want to accept the indaba and who want to do so after the election. You must now start telling them that it won’t pay, won’t work.

The hon the Deputy Minister has tried to convince us that things are going well with the South African economy. I understand that the pamphlets were written by someone in his department, and I do think they are fairly good little pamphlets, those economic pamphlets, because the relevant person probably knows what is going on in the department. The hon the Deputy Minister tried to tell us that the pamphlets worried him and that they confused the people. Let me, however, quote to him what his Minister said when he crowned the Businesswoman of the Year last year. The hon the Minister said the following:

The heading states: “Suid-Afrika moet visier laer stel.” Can you believe a Minister of Finance of a country telling the citizens of that country that they should work harder so that they could scale down their expectations? So that they can hope for less. “Work harder so that your standard of living can be scaled down and you can earn less.” Can the hon the Deputy Minister believe that that is the view held by the hon the Minister of Finance? Then the hon the Deputy Minister tries to tell us that the pamphlets do not reflect the truth. The hon the Minister tells us to scale down our expectations and our standards if we want reform to succeed. Does the hon the Deputy Minister know what that means? It means that he goes to the electorate and says that if they want reform to succeed they must vote for his party so that things can get worse for them. I invite him to go and tell that to the voters. The Minister is right. It is quite correct, and it is true. The hon the Deputy Minister’s feeble little effort to justify these aspects and say that things are going well for South Africa is a futile endeavour. He is not succeeding. He complains about our talking of inflation and says that if one wants to combat inflation one should limit the credit, and then one would have unemployment. We, however, have both. We have tremendous inflation and we have unemployment in South Africa. They have been speaking about inflation for years, but that of all our trading partners has been combated. Some of them have an inflation rate of less than 1%.

What is the solution?

I shall tell him now what the solution is. If this Government would just do the basic things in the economy correctly, things would go better for South Africa. Firstly it would go better for South Africa if he relinquished the constitutional policy he is adopting at present and returned to what he calls apartheid. He was quite right when he said that. Relinquish the constitutional policy.

Secondly one should relinquish the redistribution of income, as the hon the Minister of Finance said at the crowning of the Businesswoman of the Year. Relinquish the redistribution of income and then job opportunities will be created, South Africa will again move ahead and all this high-level manpower which is leaving the country will no longer need to do so.

I just want to point out how South Africa and the individual have been ruined as a result of the low real increase in the incomes of individuals. And as a result of the sharp increase in personal taxation and the relatively high growth rate of the population, we in South Africa are experiencing the present situation, according to a Volkskas report of November 1986 entitled Die inflasiestryd duur voort. The report mentions that the individual’s personal income still increased by 5,4% in 1980 after taxation. In 1981, however, it decreased by 3,7% and in 1982 the per capita income in South Africa decreased by 3,1%. In 1983 it decreased by 2,4% and in 1984 it increased by 1,2%. In 1985 it decreased by 3,7%. The total decrease is 11,2% from 1980 to 1985.

Your income did not decrease by this percentage.

My real income increased, but it is only the incomes of members of Parliament, those of politicians, which have increased. The real incomes of members of the general public decreased by 11,2% between 1980 and 1985. According to this Volkskas report, in 1986 they decreased by a further 9%. The individual’s real income after tax has therefore decreased by 20% since 1980 as a result of this Government. [Interjections.]

I now want to tell hon members what the reasons for this are.

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

No, Sir, I do not want to answer a question. The hon the Deputy Minister must resume his seat.

Real income decreased by 20% as a result of this Government’s policy, ie the redistribution of income, the wage policy in which productivity is not taken into account and the tremendous overspending by the State. According to the latest newsletter of the Department of Statistics—I refer to page 63—the overspending or the shortfall for the first nine months up to December is already R5,687 billion. That is more than the hon the Minister budgeted for for the entire year. [Interjections.] That is what inflation means, and the only body that can do something about that is the Government.

Who, more than anyone else, is the victim of this situation in South Africa? Inevitably it is the agricultural population. The farming community have been beaten down by the actions and policy of this Government. The hon member for Heilbron, who is a farmer, made a good speech here yesterday on behalf of the maize fanners, but in that speech he passed damning judgement on this Government. When lodging a plea for the farmers, he had to state what the recovery capacity of these maize farmers was. He had to say that 40% of them could recover. The other 60% could never again recover.

[Inaudible.]

He had to indicate the cause underlying this debt with which the farmers are saddled. He said that 46% of the increased debt was due to inflation and 31% to the higher interest rates, whilst only 21% was due to the drought. This means that 77% of this parlous situation in which the farmers find themselves is due to the Government of South Africa. [Interjections.] When that hon member was lodging a plea for the farmers, he could not but state what the causes were. He thereby told us precisely what this Government of South Africa is like.

The hon the Deputy Minister asks what should be done. I shall tell him what should be done. Firstly we must have another Government in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

That is the quickest and best solution. Secondly we must have a constitutional policy other than the reform vehicle which is driving South Africa over the precipice and also wrecking the economy. Thirdly the State’s overspending on unproductive programmes should be combated.

Such as?

I shall tell the hon the Minister.

Such as the song.

Such as the song, and all those luxuries on which they waste money.

Tuynhuys!

Tuynhuys and all those things. They can save on that. They held a Parliamentary session for nothing, and money is being spent on all kinds of unproductive programmes. R1 000 million has already been spent on the creation of job opportunities, but nothing has materialised. The hon the Minister has not brought anything to fruition which can generate new wealth and revenue.

We have studied this Part Appropriation and at least R3 000 million is being budgeted for unproductive items on which one could effect a saving. With such a saving the State would immediately be out of the red again; the Government’s overspending would fall away and there would be a surplus that could be injected into productive programmes. [Interjections.]

Agriculture is one of the first priorities, because it is the foundation-stone of the economy. The first thing the CP would do would be to ensure that agriculture was never again neglected, in the budget, to the extent that the hon the Minister has done. We shall ensure that agriculture enjoys the priority it deserves in the budget. We shall see to that.

The hon the Minister knows what an important role the interest rates have played, and I have spoken to banking people who tell me that we should hold discussions with the banks. They are in favour of farmers, for the next few years, not having to pay more than the prime interest rate. They say that the banks would accept the prime interest rate and that the State should subsidise this by 4% of 5% so that the interest that the farmers effectively pay … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

That hon Minister does not understand. The prime interest rate is now 12% or 12,5% and the State should subsidise this by a further 4% or 5% so that the fanner pays 8% or 8,5%. Then there would be a chance of coming through. If the hon the Minister would relinquish some of these unproductive programmes he is now engaged in and inject money into certain projects, create infrastructure and develop South Africa, he would not have to crawl to countries abroad, apologising for South Africa and appointing a curator to handle our financial affairs. Then South Africa could again become a great and proud nation. We would then again be able to lift our head and look the nations of the world in the eye.

Mr Speaker, I have been away from this House for more or less seven years. I have been sitting here for a few days now, listening to speakers. If there is one hon member who astonishes me and gives me cause for concern, it is the hon member for Lichtenburg. When he and I sat in this House previously, he was a friendly hon member and a man who spoke sensibly. All he does now is look for petty debating points and he is completely negative.

I am more concerned about the hon the Minister.

The hon member need not worry about me.

When he spoke about maize farmers, he was talking to me too, because I have two sons whom I worry about. I should like to keep them established in maize farming. It is irresponsible to accuse this Government of not taking care of its farmers.

That is the truth!

We have just had a report drawn up—upon the request of the State President—and care will be taken of the farmers. Reconstruction will be taken care of. Not only the grain-farmers are involved in this.

The hon the Minister must contradict the report I quoted from!

Order! The hon member for Lichtenburg must contain himself.

I saw another strange thing in this House. Hon members of the CP are verbose about other people’s constituencies, other people’s financial planning. When it comes to constitutional matters, however, all we hear is the word “partition”. We do not know how the policy of partition works, however. We do not know to what extent it will result in unrest. We do not know how the financial affairs are going to be regulated.

I want to tell the hon member for Lichtenburg the time has come for the CP to tell the country in full how they intend to bring about partition and what all the implications of doing so will be.

We do. The hon the Minister must merely listen.

The country will reject the CP.

I really want to reply today to the tirade made against me by the hon member for Rissik in the recent no-confidence debate. He said by implication that I had told an untruth in a speech when I pointed out that the constitutional proposals made by the NP in 1977 contained elements of power-sharing. His first untrue statement was that I had supposedly said it would include Blacks as well. That is not true. Blacks did not come into question at all. The hon member is welcome to read my speech again. In my speech I spelt out clearly why the 1977 proposals contained elements of power-sharing between Whites, Coloureds and Indians. I quote the relevant sections:

1. (a) ’n Kieskollege bestaande uit ’n totaal van 88 lede uit die drie Parlemente kies die Staatspresident, wat verreikende magte sou hê, ook wat wetgewing betref.
2. (b) Die Raad van Kabinette sou bestaan uit die drie Eerste Ministers, ses senior Blanke Ministers, drie Bruin Ministers en twee Indiërministers. Die Raad van Kabinette kon, met die instemming van die onderskeie Parlemente, wetgewing oor gemeenskaplike sake aan één Parlement oordra. Die Raad van Kabinette sou soos ’n gewone Kabinet funksioneer, en sy besluite sou na bespreking deur die voorsitter geformuleer word. Die Raad van Kabinette kon die Presidentsraad, wat gemeng sou wees, versoek om hom—dit wil sê die Raad van Kabinette—van advies te bedien.
3. (c) Wanneer teenstrydige besluite in die komiteestadiums in die onderskeie parlemente ten opsigte van wetgewing oor sake van gemeenskaplike belang geneem word, word daardie sake op aanbeveling van die Raad van Kabinette na ’n gesamentlike advieskomitee van die drie regerings verwys, wat dan voor die Derde Lesing in die onderskeie parlemente uitgestryk moet word.

The 1977 proposals were accepted by the Cabinet, a special caucus of National members of the House of Assembly, Provincial Council members and all provincial congresses, and lastly by the public, on 30 November 1977. As the Minister of the Interior at the time, I had to convert the 1977 proposals into legislation. I explained the concept legislation to NP members on study group level and caucus level and it was accepted. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rissik was present, and he made no objections, despite the fact that in that particular meeting I had said it contained elements of power-sharing. [Interjections.]

That is not true.

You did not say that.

I did.

Order!

That is untrue!

It is untrue.

Order!

I did say that, and if that is what the hon leader is saying now, I tell him he is not telling the truth. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg and the hon member for Rissik will not proceed in this manner. The hon the Minister may continue his speech.

The 1979 draft legislation contained even stronger elements of power-sharing. The council of cabinets, for example, could transfer further legislative powers to the Coloured and Indian Parliaments without the approval of the particular Parliament. That is why I said no Cabinet member or NP MP of that time can deny that he supported power-sharing. This includes all those hon members of the CP.

I did not respond to the late Mr Vorster’s criticism to my speech because I regarded it as undesirable to have a public debate with him at that stage.

You could not do so.

The present hon State President admitted in a radio report that I was right in respect of my standpoint on power-sharing.

In any case, it is not relevant who said what or who wrote what. The proposals speak for themselves: They contained elements of power-sharing—just like the present tricameral system. What was said then is irrelevant, therefore.

I now come to the point. While I was the Minister of the Interior, the hon member for Rissik …

Order! This caucus meeting that is in progress among certain hon members of the PFP is a real nuisance to the Chair. The hon members must either speak softer or pay attention to the speaker, please. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member for Rissik was the chairman of my study group during the more or less two years in which I was the Minister of the Interior. [Interjections.] I showed him the greatest regard. The same applied to various other hon members. I think the hon member for Lichtenburg will remember an occasion on which I showed him particular regard. As far as the hon member for Rissik is concerned, I ensured, despite a great deal of opposition, that he served on the Constitution Commission. What did he do then, however? He and his hon leader went and held a meeting in my home town. My oldest son—he was involved in the NP organisation there—got up and asked the hon member for Waterberg a question about this matter. The hon member for Waterberg replied in a civilized and polite manner. What happened then, however? The hon member for Rissik jumped up. He interfered and screamed at the audience and my son in a theatrical way that I, who was the Vice State President at the time, was a blatant liar.

That is not true.

It is true; the hon member said that.

I was quoting Mr Vorster! [Interjections.]

I am not going to tell the House here today what I think of the hon member for Rissik, because every word I should have to use would be unparliamentary. [Interjections.] Incidentally, I also said the following in that particular speech:

I think that remains a good guideline for today.

Why did the hon member for Rissik and his hon leader react so emotionally? Hon members have seen the reaction again today. The answer is simple. After breaking away from the NP, they became “Omo White” overnight and suddenly had to compete with the “Super Surf” HNP. [Interjections.] Their problem then, like today, was, in the HNP’s judgment, one of contamination. What was particularly shocking, in the HNP’s judgment, were the following two black marks on the CP’s past: In the first place, they had supported Mr Vorster’s mixed sport policy, which was the most important reason for the HNP's breaking away from the NP. [Interjections.] Not only did the HNP break away from Mr Vorster; they also spoke ill of him, just as these hon member spoke ill of the hon the State President before they broke away. [Interjections.]

Secondly, they supported and promoted power-sharing under both the Vorster and Botha governments, and I am convinced that the HNP will haunt them with this. [Interjections.]

†Mr Speaker, during the no-confidence debate I found the holier-than-thou attitude of the Official Opposition in criticizing the Government for not moving fast enough towards meaningful change, extremely obnoxious. I say this because I have an intimate knowledge of that party’s track record.

During July 1979 a parliamentary commission was appointed under my chairmanship to make recommendations in connection with constitutional reform. That party nominated their heavyweights, inter alia, their then wonderboy, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, and their present leader. We convened at regular intervals for nearly a year and gathered a wealth of evidence, including evidence from Inkatha. During May 1980 we signed an interim report in which the majority recommended the establishment of the President’s Council which was opposed by the Official Opposition.

Why?

Apart from agreeing with the majority that a one man, one vote system was not acceptable and that the Senate be abolished, the Official Opposition could not come forward with any definite and positive suggestions for a new constitution—none whatsoever.

You are talking nonsense! [Interjections.]

Well, go and have a look at the report. [Interjections.]

The first President’s Council started work at the beginning of 1981 and held office until the second half of 1984.

Appointed office!

Not only did the Official Opposition not serve on the President’s Council, but it left no stone unturned to ridicule the new institution. [Interjections.]

We are suffering now.

Quite naturally their Press followed suit up to a certain point.

Jobs for pals!

The council was, however, such a resounding success that, at a certain stage, The Argus praised it for its work. That was when the report on demographic growth was brought out.

A party that did nothing positive for five years in properly structured institutions to promote constitutional change is hardly in a position to point an accusing finger. [Interjections.]

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

I do not have the time to answer any questions. [Interjections.]

You haven’t got the answers either!

What deeply distresses me is the following passage in their election brochure, viz:

Hon members will notice that this undertaking is unconditional. Having read this, I respectfully ask the electorate to reject a party which plays with our future with such childish naïvete.

That is a bad election speech. It is full of holes.

Now tell us what you plan to do! [Interjections.]

I must conclude now. During the last few days we have experienced unsavoury attacks on the person of the hon the State President.

They were well-deserved.

I do not want to defend him; he is man enough to do so himself. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member will stop making remarks. He is giving a running commentary which is very irritating.

Mr Speaker, were you addressing me or the hon member behind me who just interjected?

I was addressing the hon member who is on his feet right now.

I still believe, however, that certain old-fashioned virtues apply, such as friendship and loyalty which I want to recommend to the New Nats, Pro-Nats and “Bang Nats”. [Interjections.]

Which one are you?

You are the “Bang Nats”! [Interjections.]

All I am asking for is a chance to speak.

The hon the State President saved the country from a disaster when he took the office of Prime Minister in 1978, and protected us physically by building up a strong defence force and arms industry. To date he has brought about more constitutional renewal in a fearless way than has any leader since we became a Union, and has done more to establish co-operation with the private sector than any former head of state has. [Interjections.] He will not leave his own people in the lurch, and in the process he will also do justice to others. He is the leader who, with energy and faith, will lead us to victory on 6 May.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister in the State President’s Office has made certain allegations against this party. He should know, because he was the chairman of that particular commission, that what resulted was obvious. The major point of the findings of the commission was that the Westminster system as we knew it should no longer continue to exist. When it came to the question of the appointment of a President’s Council, it was to be nominated entirely by the State President. For that reason they felt that some system of election should take place, and that it should not be in the hands of either the Prime Minister or the State President.

[Inaudible.]

The moment the new Constitution came into effect which allowed the opposition to elect its own people we participated in that President’s Council and I think it has been to the benefit of the council.

Finally, there was the issue of the omission of Blacks from that President’s Council. We stated that there would be enormous trouble in this country if Blacks were not given some opportunity to be represented in high offices. The hon the State President himself keeps on talking of allowing them to participate at the highest levels of government but he did not allow them to participate in that council.

I should like to make it quite clear that in my rising to speak, this is not my swansong, nor am I, as in the proverbial story of the old bull elephant, seeking a way to some mythical political graveyard. I enjoy Parliament and would have sought renomination but for the fact that I believe it is imperative that younger men, like persons of the calibre of Douglas Gibson, who have played an important part in political life such as he has, having been an MPC for 16 years, successful in the legal profession, and holding the position of Transvaal chairman of the PFP, should now seek election to this House. I am confident that the PFP and Gibson will be successful in retaining Bezuidenhout and that he will be sitting in this House after 6 May.

I should like to reiterate a statement I issued. I said:

The hon member Dr Odendaal spoke of the effects of sanctions yesterday. What does he know about the effects of sanctions? During the past 10 years I managed through dint of hard work to build up a reasonable export business in South African food products to the United States of America. Let me tell this House that the USA is an extremely difficult market to penetrate, especially as one is in competition with the rest of the world. Yet at one minute past midnight on 2 October 1986 as a result of the policies of that NP on the opposite side of the House resulting in the US Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, my business was summarily closed down. When I visited them, my buyers in the USA stated the following: South Africa produces the best products in the world; South Africa gives the best service of any foreign country in the world; and South Africa is always competitive with the rest of the world. One man said to me: “We have only one regret and that is that you appear to have the worst government in control of the most wonderful country in the world.”

During the forthcoming election the NP will be pointing the finger of blame at various foreign countries including the USA in order to win votes. Let the NP, and the hon member Dr Odendaal in particular, beware of using this tactic. I want to quote a Zulu proverb which is very pertinent to this point, viz: “Never point a finger at someone else, because you will always be pointing three at yourself.” [Interjections.] Let them remember that three fingers of blame point to the NP. [Interjections.]

In a pamphlet issued to American soldiers invading North Africa during World War II giving data about Africa, was a page for Texans. It admonished them: “Do not tell the people of Africa that Texas is bigger than Africa, they know it already.”

*In his speech during the no-confidence debate on Monday, 2 February 1987, the hon the Minister of Finance said that the South African economy was experiencing a number of problems. The growth rate is too low; the inflation rate is too high; unemployment is having a devastating effect; there is a sluggish growth in private consumer spending; low productivity is a source of intense concern; and agriculture has many problems to contend with.

†With reference to the American pamphlet from which I quoted I want to say the following to the hon the Minister: Do not tell the people of South Africa that South Africa has the worst economic problems in the world. They know it already because all South Africans are suffering deeply and daily as a result of the bottlenecks.

The hon the Minister must go because he undertook to overcome these very problems when he was appointed. He succeeded Mr Owen Horwood and soon after his appointment he had a meeting with the Press. I want to quote from what he said at that meeting, as reported in an article in The Argus·.

Two years have passed since he became the Minister of Finance. Exactly what he forecast has happened because he has allowed it to happen and has done nothing about it. The rand from once being of greater value than the US dollar is now worth between 40 and 50 US cents. The price of goods in South Africa today shows how our money is fast becoming worthless. The hon the Minister and the NP Government must go!

At that time he spoke on inflation, and I quote:

Again two years have passed and he has the audacity to say that the inflation rate is still too high. He is absolutely incapable of doing anything about it and therefore he must go and so must the NP.

In the Cape Times of 3 September 1984 there was a headline: “SA inflation may peak by year end—Du Plessis”. By then the exchange rate between the dollar and the rand had already depreciated from 90 US cents to 60 US cents. This useless hon Minister now blandly states that the inflation rate is still too high. Whose fault is it?

At a meeting of business leaders at the Union Buildings in 1984 he outlined certain basic intentions. I want to mention one of these intentions:

This statement was pie in the sky because his promise has never been fulfilled. I now want to quote from a newspaper article after that meeting:

That was hogwash!

I want to tell hon members what The Argus said about the hon the Minister on 10 July 1982:

I want to tell the hon the Minister that he must go. What South Africa desperately needs in his place is a new Minister of Finance in the person of the hon member for Yeoville to lead South Africa into a decent future. If South Africa desires prosperity it is not sufficient that he should only remain the member for Yeoville; there should be a new Government so that he can be the Minister of Finance and South Africa for once can have a capable Minister of Finance.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bezuidenhout, full of bravado, told us how his successor would take his place in the House. I simply want to tell him that the people who will decide that are the voters who will pass their judgment on that on 6 May.

The hon member went on to scold the hon member Dr Odendaal for pointing fingers. He then advised us rather not to do so, but threw his own advice to the wind and right after that went on to blame the Government, pointing a finger at it the whole time. The hon member said something with which I very much agree. He said South Africa was the best country in the whole, and that is true; South Africa is the best country in the world. South Africa also has the best Government this country has ever had. [Interjections.]

I do not want to cross swords with the hon member for Bezuidenhout this afternoon; I should like to exchange a few words with the hon member for Sunnyside. The hon member for Sunnyside moved the following as an amendment to the motion of the hon the Minister of Finances:

I shall skip (a) and (b) to get to (c). It reads:

This is an amazing thing to say; I could not believe it. I went and read the hon member’s unrevised speech in Hansard, because I wanted to see what the motivation behind his motion was. His speech in the unrevised Hansard reads:

This is the hon member’s motivation for his statement explaining why he cannot approve the Part Appropriation Bill on behalf of the CP. For the past two days I have listened to discover whether the hon CP members could possibly come up with a further motivation, but there was no motivation for their statement that they could not pass the Part Appropriation Bill. We have now reached the end of this debate, but there has not yet been any motivation. [Interjections.]

The CP states that it refuses to pass the Part Appropriation Bill, because the Government does not, through the instrument of the State, the security forces—I shall return to this—maintain law and order in this country. Generally this simply is not true, is it?

I say the NP is lax!

Let me tell the hon member directly that that is not true. [Interjections.] The hon member’s assertion that law and order are not being maintained, is devoid of all truth; it simply does not accord with the facts.

On 4 February this year, in this House, I went into detail on the question of crime and the situation of law and order in the country. I do not know if the hon member was here, but I suggest that he goes and reads that speech. Perhaps he will be able to learn something from it. What is the factual evidence on crime and law and order? I provided evidence that the crime rate in South Africa for the period from 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986 did in fact increase by 6,9%. But that is not unusual; crime is increasing dramatically throughout the world. I also provided evidence of the fact that it was extremely difficult to combat it. [Interjections.]

If we also take into account that for the past two years South Africa has been bowed down by a serious revolutionary onslaught, with accompanying unrest and riots, then the abovementioned increase is not unusual. When one takes these facts into account, it is actually low. It is a fact that the unrest situation in the country contributed to an increase in crime, as much of the crime is unrest related. We think of murders, damage to property, arson and so forth.

As a result of this the crime rate is high, but the situation has not got out of hand at all. It is completely under control and the Government, with the finances and labour available to it continues to deal effectively with the situation.

The hon member also referred to uprisings which were apparently not controlled effectively. But what are the facts? There is irrefutable evidence—it was made available to hon members and to everyone in the country—that the so-called uprisings to which the hon member for Sunnyside referred, were effectively brought under control by the security forces and are being kept under control. The security forces of South Africa are responsible for the effective management of crime and uprisings and the maintenance of law and order. I want to make this point very clear to the hon member. Last week we produced evidence showing that visible instances of unrest decreased by close on 80%. Necklace murders have decreased by approximately 70%. Surely this did not happen by itself! Surely someone is responsible for this. It did not after all fall from the sky. For many months the Security Forces in South Africa have laboured with tremendous dedication under very difficult circumstances to be able to obtain these results. [Interjections.] This was accompanied by much personal sacrifice from these people and their families. I want to tell the hon member in all seriousness that all of us in South Africa, also those hon members who moved this amendment, owe them a great deal of thanks. We do not owe them criticism, but thanks in fact. What do we get, however?

We thank them, but you tie their hands!

The hon member says that we are tying their hands! What does the hon member for Sunnyside mean by that?

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister if it is not true that when police tried to maintain the order in the Eastern Cape, a judicial commission was appointed to charge the police and have them brought to trial?

Mr Speaker, I can call the former Minister of Law and Order as a good witness to give this hon member a reply. The fact of the matter is, the hon member surely knows that he is speaking nonsense. He does after all know for what reason that commission was appointed. It was precisely for the sake of clearing the name of the Police of untruths that were broadcast about them. He is just trying to evade the point I am trying to make for his benefit, but I am not going to allow him to get away with this story.

A senior CP frontbencher, their chief spokesman on finance, moves an amendment on behalf of the CP that the part appropriation not be passed because—so says the hon member—the security forces in South Africa are not capable of maintaining law and order …

That is untrue! [Interjections.]

Perhaps I should just make the point again.

That is a blatant untruth you are uttering.

Who is responsible on behalf of the State? …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Rissik says that it is a blatant untruth which the hon the Minister of Law and Order has uttered here. Is that parliamentary?

Order! What did the hon member for Rissik say?

Mr Speaker, I said that the statement made by the hon the Minister is a blatant untruth, ie that the CP does not regard the security forces as being capable of handling our country’s affairs.

Order! The hon member must withdraw the word “blatant”.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Let me give the hon member a good explanation of the matter. [Interjections.] Who is responsible for the security and the maintenance of law and order when there are uprisings in this country? It is the security forces. If the hon member therefore wants to express criticism on this matter, there is no alternative but for it to include the security forces. The hon member now comes along and says he is not going to pay them because he is not going to pass the Part Appropriation as the security forces have not done their work. [Interjections.] Surely that is what it boils down to. The hon member should know that we are not going to allow him to get away with this. He should have left that out of his amendment, then I would have had no fault to find with him. He can talk about anything that he wants to, but he should really not make these kind of suggestions and then sit there without in any way explaining what the motivation for his statements was. That is why I am entitled today to come to the conclusion that the hon member had no motivation for the amendment moved by him. On behalf of the security forces of South Africa I regard it as an insult. I say this on behalf of the thousands of members of the security forces and their families who with great sacrifice have worked for many months to put things to rights in South Africa on which I could give hon members the statistics to show how these kinds of incidents have decreased. The hon member surely knows this. The hon member sees that tranquility, peace and security reigns in the country.

[Inaudible.]

Order! This discussion across the floor of the House may not continue any further.

I strongly object to this utterly unfair accusation against our security forces. I find it reprehensible and reject it with the contempt it deserves.

We realize—let us be fair—that difficult days lie ahead for South Africa in the spheres of security and crime, but we on this side of the House have complete confidence in the members of the security forces in South Africa. They will continue to deal with the situation effectively. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to speak after the hon the Minister. I believe that he dealt very effectively with the statements of the hon member for Sunnyside, where that hon member had expressed himself in those terms, and had then made that kind of proposal.

Arising from what the hon the Minister said, and in the light of the somewhat altered American attitude towards the ANC and the so-called dialogue that people such as members of the PFP now want with the ANC, I should like to quote a few passages from an American document to hon members. If I have any time left after that, I want to say a few words about the Group Areas Act, and then, if my time has still not expired, I wish to make a few remarks about the forthcoming elections.

†I have here an American document entitled The Ninty-seventh Congress Committee Print: Soviet, East German and Cuban Involvement in Fomenting Terrorism in Southern Africa: Report of the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism to the Committee on the Judiciary: United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session: November 1982. The chairman reports as follows to the Committee on the Judiciary:

The record, he goes on to say, will provide a much needed balance to the information now on public record regarding the ANC etc. He concludes his letter by saying:

Among other things, the report states that people were sent to Southern Africa to investigate. On page 3 it says:

On page 15 of this American Senate Committee report, Oliver Tambo is quoted as having said the following to the ANC magazine Sechaba of January 1981:

*The report goes on in this vein—I do not have time to quote everything—with the Americans drawing attention to matters of this nature.

I want just to quote something from page 18 of the report:

Reading these quotations, I believe one should express the hope that the Americans will reconsider the matter, especially in view of their own evidence. Those people in our own country who are so anxious to negotiate with the ANC should also take another look at this evidence.

However, I wish to make a final quotation from this document. On pate 28 we read the following:

Business interrupted in accordance with Rule 45.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

In his report on the appropriation and miscellaneous accounts in respect of the Administration: House of Assembly for 1984-85, the Auditor-General reported unauthorised expenditure totalling R854,36 with regard to Vote 2—“Agriculture and Water Supply”. This amount was obtained irregularly during 1981-82 at an institute of that department by means of fictitious paysheets, for the furnishing of single quarters. The Treasury was not prepared to condone the irregular appropriation of Government money and accordingly reported the amount as unauthorised expenditure. The inclusion of this incident in the report of the Auditor-General was preceded by an investigation by the Directorate: Finance of the Department of Agriculture, in which the following became apparent:

The committee considered the evidence and in its report which was tabled on 20 July 1986, condemned the manner in which the funds had been obtained. Because the State had not suffered any loss, however, the committee recommended the sum of R854.36 for release by the House of Assembly. The consequence of the recommendation of the standing select committee is that the unauthorised expenditure of R854,36 must be authorised by the passing of special legislation by the House of Assembly. Such authorising legislation must be passed by the House of Assembly prior to 31 March 1987 to prevent the Auditor-General reporting it again in his report for the 1985-86 financial year. This Bill now before the House, will carry into effect the recommendation of the standing select committee that the expenditure be authorised.

Mr Chairman, I was a member of the standing committee which considered this situation and we on this side of the House will be supporting the Bill. There is nothing that I can add further to the background which relates to the incident than what the hon the Minister has given us today. However, there are three points that arise from it.

The first point is that the State made no loss, so there was no official who enriched himself. Secondly, the necessary disciplinary measures were taken against the officials involved. Most important of all is that steps have now been instituted in the department to ensure that there is more strict control over the payment of casual labourers in the future.

I only hope that this will serve as a lesson to many other departments that also employ casual labour to implement the necessary control measures to ensure that fictitious labourers do not end up on the payroll.

We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is appearing here today in a different capacity. Departments change, Ministers change, and they come and go. I do not know whether the hon the Minister has been promoted sideways, upward or downward, but we want to wish him everything of the best in this position as the Minister of the Budget and Welfare. May he be very successful and have the best of luck in the position he now fills.

I do not want to talk about the situation for very long. The matter served before the Select Committee on Public Accounts and was entered into thoroughly. One is sorry that members of staff did the things that were done here. Of course it is very clear to me that this man—or rather the two who acted in collusion, as set out in the report—did not do so with the idea of theft and fraud, of inherent corruption, but—as was said—the man thought he could do something good for his club in that way. This merely shows that if one does things honestly, sincerely and correctly, one will have no problems. As the hon member remarked, there was departmental action as well, and through this action an example was set to other departments once a deficiency had been revealed. We are very grateful for that.

We support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I think the whole process followed here in submitting this Bill indicates the sound administration and control of State funds. I want to agree with the hon member for Sunnyside and the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South in their argument that no male fides were involved where the officials were concerned, but that the necessary disciplinary steps were taken nonetheless to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. One gladdening aspect mentioned by the hon the Minister was that the State suffered no losses under any circumstances. It is gladdening that the matter could be dealt with in this way. It is a pleasure for us to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members for their support of this legislation. I also want to express my sincere thanks to the hon member for Sunnyside for his friendly words about my present official duties.

This is really only the last chapter in a long saga. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg-North pointed out that all the steps had been taken already. The matter was investigated, the necessary disciplinary measures were taken and stricter control measures have been instituted. We are simply carrying out the proposal of the standing committee to get the necessary Parliamentary authority for this as well.

I want to thank hon members who served on the standing committee once again.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move: