laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Usury Amendment Bill [B 86—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Finance).
2. (2) Commission for Fresh Produce Markets Amendment Bill [B 87—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Affairs).

announced that in terms of Rule 23 (4) he had referred the following draft Bill which had been submitted to him, together with the memorandum thereon, to the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Draft Bills:

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 17 June 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs, dated 17 June 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Speaker, prior to the adjournment of the House yesterday evening I was dealing with the subject of regional services council levies and the opposition thereto on the part of the chambers of commerce.

Assocom has appealed to the Government to reconsider the method of financing the RSCs by way of levies, since—this is what they claim in their submission—levies represent a grossly inefficient form of collecting finances and will have serious cost-raising consequences. Furthermore, they claim, the amount required has not been properly quantified and such levies will constitute a deterrent to employment. Finally, Assocom claims, RSCs will increase the overall tax burden on businesses.

I believe, Sir, that these are realistic and valid complaints, and consequently I support their plea. I also believe that the levies will have an impact on economic recovery and will dampen hopes of achieving the projected 3% real growth rate for this year. Furthermore one also questions why a levy should be placed on employment, therefore discouraging employment when job creation has been identified as a high priority. A levy on remuneration works precisely contrary to what we have to accomplish in this country viz fuller employment. One also asks why a complex structure has been introduced prior to an evaluation of the recommendations of the Margo Commission on Taxation. Costs of collecting the levies have been estimated at 80% of the total amount to be collected in the first year. One asks why the Government does not abandon the scheme and finance the RSCs from central Government revenues pending a decision on the Margo Commission Report.

Whilst on the subject of the Margo Commission Report, Mr Speaker, one also questions the procedure to be adopted in relation to the execution of its findings. We are told that the report is available but will only be released in August, after the Government has had the opportunity of studying it and of adopting overall guidelines. I believe this is contrary to good administration in that all parties should be allowed to comment prior to any decisions being taken. Interested parties are awaiting publication of the findings of the Margo Commission with bated breath. Such findings need to be evaluated from every quarter prior to the Government taking decisions which it might later regret.It is disappointing that the Government has decided not to follow this route.

Returning to RSCs, Mr Speaker, it has been argued that the levies are low and that they will therefore have little impact on business, that, Sir, despite the fact that businesses making a loss will still be liable for the levy. In addition, those people who can recall that GST commenced life in 1978 as a 4% tax will not be comforted at all by this argument. I believe that politically the racial structure of the regional services councils is unacceptable. Added to this, the apparent difficulty of their funding will merely confirm this non-viability.

The other issue I wish to deal with this afternoon is the question of housing, and the distortion of property values resulting from the implementation of the Group Areas Act. On the question of housing the Standing Committee on Finance has noted with concern the housing shortage. Pending the publication of the President Council’s report on the Group Areas Act, little is known as to what the Government’s intentions are in this regard. Nevertheless, I believe that this Act has caused greater bitterness and interracial friction than probably any other in our country. This afternoon I wish to deal with the economic implications of the Act. That is that it has distorted property values and it is a deterrent to orderly property development and the creation of housing. It represents a millstone around the neck of those who have an earnest desire to resolve the housing crisis.

The first contention one hears among White conservatives is that without this Act, housing standards and values will drop. This is disputed as those who wish to reside in better areas will have the money to do so. Also they will have a vested interest in maintaining the standards that already exist. Trends in unofficial mixed areas have indicated a rise in value where areas have become mixed. There is ample evidence of this, particularly here in Cape Town. The South African Institute of Race Relations brief by Renfrew Christie, which was published in May of this year, was based on a survey of market attitudes in this connection. A persuasive majority of those consulted believe that property values will, in fact, go up in marginal areas should group areas restrictions be lifted and markets opened to all those who can afford to buy their own home.

More importantly though, Mr Speaker, repealing the Act will address the issues of overcrowding in our townships. The problem of low-cost housing will only be adequately addressed when the poor gain access to mass low-cost housing, the construction of which would generate income and enable them to enter the property market. The present racial zoning of land prevents sufficient new urban land from being released for this purpose. By the year 2000 it is agreed that there will be many more South Africans to be housed. The HSRC has estimated that the Black urban population will have increased from 6 million in 1985 to 19 million by the year 2000. This growth will largely occur in Durban, Cape Town and greater Johannesburg, and to house these people it is estimated that 1,5 million houses will have to be built between 1986 and 1990, with an additional half million in each subsequent five year period.

When compares that with what was achieved between 1981 and 1985, namely the completion of 41 000 houses for Blacks, one can see that we are very far short of that target. This presents an enormous challenge to the building industry. The activity of building houses will also create many new jobs which are obviously desperately needed in our country. However, the main problem and stumbling block to this development is the lack of available and suitable land.

In a paper on this subject published by Pauline Morris in August 1986 and entitled Group Areas—An Assessment and Change Implications, the author states:

In summary the limits which the Group Areas Act places on the development of low-cost housing are far more important obstacles to property market growth than their oft-quoted effect on White areas. However, it is clearly not possible to deal with these subjects adequately this afternoon.

Returning to the Budget for 1987-88, I wish to stress that insufficient is being done in these two areas so vital to the future of our country, namely job creation and housing. These basic requirements for an educated, employed and adequately housed population are imperative for future prosperity free of instability and political unrest.

Measured in these terms this Budget fails to address these fundamental issues affecting our country. I therefore support the amendment moved by the hon member for Yeoville. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I listened with interest to the last portion of the hon member for Pinelands’ speech, and there is one point, in particular, on which I want to cross swords with him. Over the past 39 years this Government has done much more to provide housing for people of all groups—White, Black, Coloured and Indian—than has been done in the previous 300 years.

On another point I must admit that he is right. If we want stability in South Africa, I do believe with utter conviction that we must go out of our way to ensure that every person in South Africa owns his own home. I am prepared to admit that he is right, but that is a subject in itself.

This afternoon I should like to react to an argument the chief spokesman for the Official Opposition, the hon member for Barberton, and the hon member for Yeoville advanced yesterday. It involved the increase in expenditure on the TBVC countries, in particular the guaranteeing of loans which are negotiated by those countries and which, according to the hon members, are in fact not reflected in the South African budget. The hon member for Yeoville, in particular, specifically quoted from the evidence furnished on this specific subject to the Standing Committee on Finance by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I do want to say that the hon member—he is not here yet—quoted very selectively. The hon the Minister mentioned many other positive aspects, but of course the hon member conveniently omitted to mention them.

For me, however, it is not so much what the hon members for Yeoville and Barberton said; for me it is the irony of who it is who said it. On the one hand it came from the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition whose policy is one of total partition and for whom the costs involved in making an independent state a viable entity must have been a revelation. One cannot simply cut a people off, tell it that there, it has its independence, and then leave it its fate. It simply cannot work. They have always been a part of us and we have no option but to care for them. One can never force independence on people. One cannot force partition on people; it must be worth their while; there must be something in it for them. They must ask for it.

I have often asked myself on what grounds one grants people independence. It is clear to me that the areas involved must be areas in which the people have traditionally lived. They must be a homogeneous group and have their own language, culture and history. The most important requirement, however, is that they should ask for it. The TBVC states requested it; the others did not. The fact is that it was at a very low level that they had to base their start. As far as I am concerned, that is the gist of the matter. I want to tell hon members today that we have quite simply not helped them enough. Their problem of not being recognised by the world has led to their not being able to obtain help from elsewhere.

Let us take the situation of Lesotho. It obtained its independence from England in precisely the same way that the TBVC countries obtained their independence from South Africa. Lesotho, however, had international recognition. Lesotho can vote in the UN. It can borrow money from the World Bank and the IMF. The weirder its conduct towards South Africa, the more assistance it obtains. The end result of that has been that Lesotho and some of the other self-governing and independent states around us have become beggars.

Someone else who was not happy with the situation was the hon member for Yeoville. I am terribly sorry he is not here, because I enjoy speaking to him. He is the great self-acknowledged social democrat whose noble goal is to give everyone in the country a fair chance. That is a wonderful goal. I am in complete agreement with him about that.

The answer is merely that without the additional assistance, in the form of guarantees, the people in the TBVC countries are simply not being given a fair chance. That is how simple it is.

He accused the hon the Minister of the fact that the budget had been circumvented by way of those guarantees. The reason why the issuing of guarantees is not reflected in the national budget is that a guarantee form is only a potential liability as far as the Exchequer is concerned. After all, it is not yet a tangible demand on State funds. If a borrower, supported by an RSA guarantee, were to neglect to meet his obligations, the guaranteed liabilities would be budgeted for in terms of normal procedures.

The hon member for Yeoville has served on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for years now and is still a serving member. Both of us have been members for a long time. In the Auditor-General’s annual report to that committee all guarantees are set out fully each year. He will see the amount of R778 million in the Auditor-General’s report for the 1986-87 financial year.

The point, however, is that there is now a “Hobson’s choice”. The South African taxpayer could simply not afford it any longer as far as the TBVC countries were concerned. The TBVC countries nevertheless have greater needs which simply must be accommodated. That is why the Development Bank of Southern Africa is investigating the situation and devising requisite plans including, amongst other things—I shall not be going into this in detail—a “Joint Presidential Committee” in Ciskei and financial adjustment committees for the other three countries, the establishment of a five-year plan to start paying interest on capital and approval for the monitoring of expenditure, something I shall be coming back to.

What is interesting is that when Britain granted independence to Lesotho, they continued to keep a watch on the Exchequer. We have gone much further. We have granted the TBVC countries full independence. It is at their insistence that we are now helping to place people in a position to supervise their own Exchequer.

There is also the erroneous impression that the relevant states make no contribution, or virtually no contribution, to the Exchequer. It is completely wrong and unfair to those countries to imply any such thing. By way of income tax, GST, customs and exise, company tax, etc, the individual contributions of these states come to more than 50% of their total annual expenditure. If examples of misspending do occur, which in effect means unnecessary, ill-considered expenditure, such as that to which the hon members for Barberton and Yeoville referred in the standing committee, in particular, half of it is their own money. It is also calculated that the citizens of these four states spend up to R1 billion in GST in South Africa.

South Africa’s Minister of Finance is, in conjunction with the Ministers of Finance of the TBVC countries, giving serious attention to the harmonising of taxation. I am mentioning these aspects to prove to hon members that serious attention is being given to the financial situation in these countries.

There is also something else I should very much like to mention to the hon member. With independence for the TBVC countries, South Africa effectively transferred additional obligations concerning, and responsibility for, six million people to these young, inexperienced governments. It can safely be said that today South Africa would have had to shoulder a much greater financial burden if these people had still been part of South Africa. There would have been millions of additional people streaming into the cities had it not have been for the policy of decentralisation and the creation of job-opportunities and industries in those areas.

What is more, initially it was mistakenly accepted that the revenue bases of these states would at least develop at the same rate as the increase in the expected levels of expenditure. That is unfortunately not the case; new countries will have much greater needs. The result is that the gap between revenue and expenditure simply increased. After a period of ten years in Transkei, and after a five-year period in Ciskei, and so on, I think I can say that our initial calculations of the “school fees” these countries would have to pay, and still have to pay, were in fact inadequate. The self-administration of a country is a tremendous responsibility, and we cannot ever allow those people to be left to their fate, to be thrown to the dogs.

That the independent states would, in time, encounter financial problems was therefore unavoidable. There is no question about that. They could borrow against their own assets, and up to 1 April 1986 they borrowed R2,5 billion on their own initiative. Provision is being made for that money—interest and repayments—in their latest budgets. It has also become necessary, however, for us to help them shoulder their wagons up the incline. During 1986-87 the alternative sources of borrowing for those people were quite simply depleted, and the governments of the TBVC countries were compelled, one after the other, to turn to South Africa and appeal to us for help in an endeavour to maintain their services and the stability they offer.

I have said that loans to the value of R778 million were guaranteed last year. This year the amount is R620 million. The hon member for Yeoville asked how the states arrived at the amounts in their budgets. He wanted to know whether they were simply random amounts laid down by them, or whether South Africa simply had to guarantee the rest if they themselves could not afford to do so.

As part of this five-year plan certain specific guidelines were laid down. I should like to mention a few. The percentage increase in the individual revenues of those countries, excluding loans, must be higher, for example, than the percentage increase in the expenditure plus capital redemption. Secondly, individual sources of revenue, excluding revenue from customs and excise, must be utilised and developed in such a manner that there is, at the very least, an average growth rate of 20% per annum. Thirdly, current expenditure must be restricted to within the limits of a 10% per annum growth rate. So very stringent conditions are now being imposed on these people. A fourth condition is that capital investment must constitute 25% of their total investments.

We made a promise, and that was that the assistance that South Africa would grant these countries would increase by 25% per annum. If we do this we should, within five years, achieve a position of equilibrium and they will no longer have to borrow any money from outside sources.

Against that background let me tell these two hon gentleman that it ought to be clear that the financial problems of the TBVC countries definitely cannot be solved in one year. The situation has, however, very specifically been focused upon with a view to bringing it under control within five years. In the present-day situation it is a question of stability for the sake of maintaining services. If we wish to achieve a situation of equality in those countries, we would need, not R2 billion but R3,2 billion. That is the cost involved.

I have said that we have a choice, a “Hobson’s choice”, between what South Africa can do and what these countries must receive. I want to add that if we did not grant this assistance, the results would be catastrophic, not only for those countries themselves, but also for stability in Southern Africa.

My task in the Department of Foreign Affairs specifically relates to Africa and, even more specifically, to these TBVC countries. In assessing these countries one must look with great realism at South Africa’s position. I have no doubt that South Africa has reached the crossroads. One therefore has to take note of the realities of the country, not shy away from them, not stick one’s head into the sand, as so many people are so prone to do. We shall have to solve South Africa’s problems in a positive manner, with realistic idealism.

The question is whether we can adapt. Can we adapt to present-day realities? There are many days, as I look around me, on which I doubt whether all the hon members can adapt to the realities. South Africa is not only the fatherland of five million White people; South Africa is the fatherland of 30 million people. South Africa’s people, White, Black and Coloured, need one another in this country. South Africa’s economy is completely interdependent. The best way of looking after the White man in this country is to look after the Black man. South Africa is a First-World and a Third-World country. It is a developed and a developing country, and the great test in regard to this problem, when it comes to the TBVC countries, is what would happen if we simply turned off the tap.

We are not going to allow the same thing to happen in South Africa that has happened in the rest of Africa. We are simply not going to allow overall standards to decline and South Africa to become a Third-World country. We are not going to allow South Africa to degenerate into chaos and go up in flames, as has so frequently happened in Africa. Our task in Africa and in Southern Africa is specifically to uplift people, nations and peoples, to increase their standards. That is what it is all about.

I wonder how many hon members who are so critical of the TBVC countries have even taken the trouble to look at what goes on there. I should like to extend the promise today that even before the end of the year I will arrange for hon members to have an opportunity to visit the TBVC countries. These countries form the Third-World component of South Africa; they are the deprived areas of South Africa.

The CP says we must give everyone independence, implement partition and simply let things slide. [Interjections.] The PFP again says we should proceed as in the past. The result is that no one would then invest there and no job opportunities would be created. No new infrastructure would be created there and the difference between the First-World and Third-World components in Southern Africa would simply grow larger.

South Africa’s greatest danger is not communism, Russian imperialism and so on, but rather selfishness and self-righteousness. At least the Government cannot be accused of that. One need only look at the infrastructure created in the TBVC countries, and at the schools, hospitals and dams which have been built there. One needs to have a look at the industrial and agricultural development that has taken place there. One needs to look at who is involved in those projects. [Interjections.]

The other day I was very impressed by one of the numerous factories in Venda. There two Taiwanese had started a jersy manufacturing factory. The factory employs 450 Venda women, people who previously had no jobs.

What does independence have to do with that?

One should take a look at the Black entrepeneurs who have established themselves there and at the development corporations helping to establish a free-market system there. One should take a look at the barren landscapes which have been converted into verdant garden landscapes. Those people would not have been there. Why did they not go there previously? They never were there and would never have gone there either.

On the other hand, let me say that in the TBVC countries there certainly are problems. There are frequently internal ructions among their own ranks, even between brothers. There certainly is misspending and ineptitude, but, Sir, have you ever been to countries in Africa? In the TBVC countries there are wonderful examples of co-operation and aid-rendering activities amongst neighbouring towns and farms. There are examples of the wonderful work that liaison committees are doing in that area. In the TBVC countries I find the reform that we shall also have in South Africa as a whole. It is all-inclusive, balanced reform, not only political or constitutional, but also social, economic and educational.

It is a question of the upliftment of people. Surely that is our task in Africa. Our task in Southern Africa is, after all, one of upliftment and not one of breaking down. Our task is to help people to help themselves, and not with weapons from the East or with food from the West, but with knowledge and advice. There are wonderful success stories about how this country is granting assistance in Africa.

We have many assets in South Africa. One of the most important assets is the diversity of people, and we must make the best use of this. It is the task of all of us to build up positive attitudes towards the other peoples in South Africa. I should like to add this little lesson: Those who want to keep everything in this country for themselves, are going to lose everything. If prosperity could be shared in this country with our independent states, it would lead to greater prosperity. We will only build up an air of confidence if we display an air of confidence. This task in regard to the TBVC countries excites one, because there are fantastic challenges awaiting us, but then we must, with realistic idealism, work in the interests of everyone in this country.

What we are dealing with in South Africa cuts across traditional political boundaries. It involves reasonableness, fairness, justice and humanity. It involves the preservation of fitting and civilised norms. It is, without doubt, preferable to confrontation and chaos. I believe that with this Appropriation, and with its assistance to the TBVC states, we in South Africa are on the right track.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Deputy Minister had many fine things to say about the TBVC countries, but he created the impression that there were members on this side of the House who were opposed to the TBVC countries. I assume that he was not referring to us, because we are completely in favour of that policy.

He also claimed that the CP advocated total partition. I want to ask him where he got that from. Where have we ever spoken or written about complete partition? [Interjections.] He said we wanted to partition everything completely and then simply let matters take their course. These are things he thought up himself; we never said them.

I am not even going to reply to what he said in respect of the hon member for Barberton, since it was clear to me that the hon the Deputy Minister did not understand the hon member for Barberton at all.

The debate we are conducting today is the second occasion we have had after the election to evaluate the Government. We have the opportunity, as we did during the debate on the motion of censure, to ask the Government to put its policy to us and to conduct a debate about it.

What about the CP’s policy?

The hon member said “What about the CP’s policy,” but on this occasion we are the ones who must put questions to the Government and debate with the Government, and the Government must put its policy and answer our questions.

What have we got thus far, however? The censure debate was a non-event, because the tendency among Government speakers was to do one of two things. Either they made jokes attended by pointed personal attacks, or they attacked the CP’s policy. They barely used 5% of the debate on the motion of censure, however, to put their own policy and to answer the questions that were put to them. The smokescreen that was raised over the policy of the Government was wonderful to see. We were unable to debate policy at all. We received no proper replies to questions. Consequently the country and the opposition parties know just as little at this stage about the Government’s true policy as most hon members themselves know about it. [Interjections.]

The one problem we had during that debate was that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs got up here and merely tried to make jokes and personal attacks. What he did in effect, was to try once again to make people laugh as he did in the days when he was still a cheerleader at university. Apparently he is still a cheerleader. [Interjections.]

You simply cannot understand his jokes!

I want to put a specific question to the Government today. I really hope this question will be answered. My question is the following. What is the Government’s real plan with the Whites? The reason for this serious question is that there is uncertainty in the country about the future of the Whites. There has been uncertainty since the Government started its reform, and the fact that the Government does not answer questions about its policy adds to this uncertainty.

I want to claim that the Whites’ position today differs radically from their position five years age. To illustrate this I want to give two examples. The first is the Whites’ right of self-determination, and the second is the so-called own community life.

It is true that as far as the right of self-determination is concerned, the Whites are certainly entitled to that fundamental right, because without self-determination a people is the slave of others.

What are the facts as far as South Africa is concerned? During the past five years the Government has systematically stripped the Whites of their right of self-determination so that today the Whites are in a constitutional prison from which they cannot escape unless they have the permission of both the Indians and the Coloureds. This process of stripping the Whites of self-determination meant firstly that the Whites lost their self-determination over so-called general affairs. When the Government took away the Whites’ right of self-determination over general affairs, it destroyed 90% of the Whites’ right of self-determination. I want to ask today what form of self-determination is still left to the Whites? What form of the right of self-determination do the Whites have when 90% of their decision-making powers have been taken away from them? What form of self-determination does one have when one can no longer decide alone on one’s finance, when one can no longer decide alone on one’s foreign affairs, on one’s defence and one’s police matters? What is that, Sir? Is that self-determination? What right of self-determination does one have when one no longer has even an own fatherland in which one can exercise that right? [Interjections.] What right of self-determination does one have when one can no longer even change one’s own constitution freely? What right of self-determination does one have when one can no longer even dismiss one’s own head of state? That is no form of the right of self-determination. [Interjections. ]

I said there were two important differences between the position of the Whites today and that of five years ago. The one is that they have been stripped of their right of self-determination. The other is the systematic disappearance of an own White community life. The Government has a great deal to say about this, and about the Whites’ right of self-determination. During the recent election we were told regularly that the NP guaranteed an own White community life. I contend, however, that an own White community life has been systematically undermined for the past five years and more.

The Group Areas Act is no longer a guarantee for White self-determination, because the continued existence of the Group Areas Act is hanging in the balance. There are hon members of the NP in this House who want that Act abolished. The hon the State President himself said the Group Areas Act was no longer a sacred cow as far as he was concerned. At his party’s national congress in Durban, the hon the State President said that he would consider abolishing the Group Areas Act where affluent White areas were concerned. The Group Areas Act is no longer being applied consistently. There are areas in Johannesburg being inundated by thousands of people of colour, to the disruption of White community life. What is happening to established White rights? There is a White residential area in Johannesburg called Mayfair. It used to be a proud White residential area. Despite the existence of the Group Areas Act, people of colour have taken over that White area. One can say freely today that the Group Areas Act is no longer a guarantee of separate residential areas. That is why I say an own community life for the Whites is being threatened.

What form of own community life remains for the Whites today in any case? Evidently the Government has an insatiable desire to abolish all separation measures. Inevitably the idea of an own community life goes the same way as the abolition of separation measures. Everything is being thrown open, everything is being abolished: Private schools, universities, technikons, beaches, swimming pools, bus services, parks, pleasure resorts, hotels, restaurants, sport, hospitals, clinics, churches, central business areas, control boards, political parties, regional services councils, executive committees of the provinces, Parliament, the President’s Council, the Cabinet etc. Everything is being abolished or thrown open.

Now I ask what community life the Government is talking about when everything is being thrown open? What exclusive community life remains for the Whites?

Come and visit me.

What community life, I ask that hon member for Langlaagte with the big mouth, remains for the Whites?

Come to me, I shall show you.

I shall go to him and see; then he can show me how many people of colour are living in Mayfair… [Interjections.]

Order!

… because 55% of the residents of Mayfair are people of colour, despite the existence of the Group Areas Act. I think the hon member should keep his mouth shut; then he will not get another hiding. [Interjections.]

The Government is resolutely involved in a process of integration (verstrengelingsproses). The old NP had a programme of disintegration, but this NP of the hon the State President has a deliberate plan of integration (verstrengelingsplan).

The position of the Whites is deteriorating by the day, because this Government has given up the struggle. That is how simple the matter is.

The Government admits today that separate development has failed as far as the areas outside the national states are concerned. That area which we always called White South Africa, and which was called that by the hon the Leader of the House only the other day, is being made an everyman’s land by this Government. The influx of people of colour to this area is taking place legally and at a distressing rate. Squatters are appearing around our cities at an alarming rate. More than 75 000 squatters’ huts have been erected only in the West Rand area alone. This means that there are almost 0,5 million squatters in the West Rand area alone, and the numbers are increasing daily.

The Government talks about orderly urbanisation, but no one ever sees any sign of this orderly urbanisation. We see more and more squatters by the day, and the Whites are being ousted from their own residential areas and community life to an increasing degree.

The crux of the Whites’ problem is that they cannot compete with the numbers of the people of colour, and this is aggravated by the Government opening the flood-gates and permitting people of colour to inundate our areas and to threaten the Whites more and more.

Indeed, the position of the Whites today differs radically from their position five years ago. The future of the Whites is being threatened. I say frankly today that the future of the Whites is being threatened under this Government.

The Whites have virtually been deprived completely of their right of self-determination; their own community life is being undermined; their language, flag and national anthem are being threatened from certain quarters, but the Government is remaining silent and not protecting its people; and they are being subjected to the political authority of others. This is the position of the Whites today, but what will it be in 10 years’ time?

The answer probably lies in what the hon new member for Hillbrow is claimed to have said—he can tell me whether I am quoting him correctly. He said that in 10 years’ time, South Africa would look like Hillbrow does today. If there is no change of government, the hon member is correct, of course. In 10 years’ time, South Africa will be an open community in which there will be no White self-determination and no own community life, while the Whites will be the political slaves of the Blacks. That is the future the Whites can look forward to under the hon the State President and the NP.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said last year that the Government’s new policy would inevitably lead to a Black State President in South Africa. He has not changed his standpoint, and the hon the State President did not really repudiate him, because the hon member for Langlaagte, who was still an indirectly elected member then, said that anyone who contended that the hon the State President had said there would never be a Black president, was putting words into his mouth.

That is a half-truth.

It is not a half-truth. The hon member can go and read his own Hansard—if he can read, that is.

When the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the NP’s policy would inevitably lead to a Black president, I wrote a letter to The Citizen and said: “Pik Botha is bleeding for telling the truth.” The NP’s new policy cannot prevent the advent of a Black president, because inevitably that is what its policy is leading to.

The NP has shifted the emphasis from people to group. There is no longer a separate state for each people; the groups are in one country, and the NP says that minority groups must be protected within that country and no one group may dominate another. We cannot even remember how many times we have asked in this House how they are going to do that. We asked this a number of times during the election and I am asking the same question for the umpteenth time today: How do they want to prevent domination of one people over another in such a country? How are they going to prevent this and guarantee minority rights?

The NP is very quick to delineate the problem every time. That is as far as they get, however, and then they say there will be structures with which we shall prevent one group from dominating another. When one asks what these structures will be, they say they are going to negotiate about the structures. They are similar to someone who says he is going to the moon, and when one asks him how, he says they are building a mooncraft. When one asks the NP how they are going to do so, they say they are going to negotiate. [Interjections.]

I want to put two specific questions to the Government, and I trust that I shall get answers to them. Does the Government envisage that South Africa will be governed by Black State Presidents in future? If the Government says no, it is facing a dilemma, because then I want to know whether or not the Whites are going to keep on dominating the other groups in future. This is a dilemma from which they cannot escape.

I also want to know whether the NP envisages that White or Afrikaner nationalism is going to accept all these new changes.

The Afrikaners and the Whites are demanding full self-determination in their own father-land. The Whites are not prepared to be ousted in their own fatherland and to be governed by strangers. There is growing resistance to the direction the Government is taking, against the enslavement of the Whites and the inclusion of alien political rulers over the Whites. During the recent election, 600 000 Whites voted against this, and this was the first sign of the establishment of a people’s movement (volksbeweging). This movement is going to be bigger than the one that led to South Africa’s becoming a Republic in 1961.

On the basis of nationalism, which is the purest form of motivation, we demand the right of the Whites, viz the right of self-determination in their own fatherland where they will not be jointly governed by others.

The NP will have to contend against their own people and these people’s nationalism, because 600 000 people who voted for the NP in the past have rejected the hon the State President. They do not want him, and they want a return to nationalism. The hon the State President will have to fight a people’s movement which is based on nationalism. That is his task. [Interjections.]

The hon the State President’s task and what he must fight against, was summed up as follows by Dr Malan:

I want to tell the hon the State President today that that is how incapable he will be of stopping the CP. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Overvaal said the State President would have to fight a people’s movement (volksbeweging). I think we should address the matter of what this people’s movement is going to entail right away. I think it is a good thing to look at what the AWB said in respect of their connection with the CP and HNP. [Interjections.] I am referring to what the AWB’s deputy leader said at Excelsior last year, and I quote from Die Burger of 31 May 1986:

He went on to say:

This is an indication of the alliance that exists between the Official Opposition and the AWB. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Overvaal said they did not stand for total partition. I do not know whether or not they stand for partial partition. The fact is that he did not spell out the Official Opposition’s alternative even once.

Let us look at what this alliance, the people’s movement and the CP’s allies, the AWB, said about partition in a brochure:

The AWB therefore also rejects the partition idea of the hon members of the CP. What then does the AWB stand for?

Rather give us your policy.

According to Die Burger, Mr Groenewald said at Excelsior:

[Interjections.] That is their solution. He went on to say:

A Mr Robert van Tonder, the “taalbul”, was on the same platform at this same meeting. Let us hear what he had to say. He said:

This is all part of the AWB’s policy in respect of the Cape. Mr Robert van Tonder went on to say:

At least they are honest, because they are sketching the boundaries of the Boerestaat, saying where they want it to be and what they think should happen to the rest of the country. He continued:

I wonder what my good old benchmate, the hon member for Wellington, is going to say about this section—

[Interjections.] This Mr van Tonder also said:

He ended by saying:

How will that be possible?

That is what the AWB stands for. In respect of their view on English-speaking people, they say:

I want to ask the hon member for Overvaal whether he agrees with these views of the AWB.

He does not even agree with himself. [Interjections.]

Come, come, Koos!

As long as they take the Land Bank along, and the Agricultural Credit Board! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Overvaal can be very talkative when it comes to levelling criticism, but when he has to provide alternatives to solve South Africa’s problems, he does not say a word.

I want to come back to the announcement the hon the Minister of Finance made yesterday about the deferment of the regional services councils levies. On behalf of this side of the House, we welcome it. We believe that regional services councils will play a very important part in the future constitutional development of our country.

When we look at the main objectives of the regional services councils as contained in the Act, we find that in the first place, they were established for effective rendering of service, in the second place for political participation, and in the third place, for the collection and distribution of new additional sources of revenue.

I am also referring inter alia to a guide for levypayers that was distributed by the Western Cape regional services council. I assume that similar guides may also have been distributed by the other regional services councils. I think it provides a great deal of clarity about the levies that are going to be instituted.

We definitely support the idea that the regional services councils are of great importance and that they must succeed in our country, because, as I have said, they will play a very important part in the future constitutional development of our country.

Returning to the Budget, I want to refer to the hon the Minister’s Budget speech in which he said inter alia that the Budget should make a specific contribution. He also said that in the last place—this is extremely important—the Budget should provide the means of preserving law and order amid the hitherto unprecedented escalation in the threat of violence, and take preventative action as far as possible.

I believe that what the hon the Minister was saying was also the view of this side of the House, and that is that we believe that control of conflict is not the final solution to our country’s problems, but that one should endeavour to prevent conflict. The hon the Minister added that without this, efforts in respect of economic development, meaningful development of leadership and meaningful negotiations, also in the constitutional sphere, are doomed to failure or, at most, to progress at an unacceptably slow pace.

The present Budget confirms this philosophy and is directed in the first place at people and efforts to uplift people. If one looks briefly at the composition of the functional classification of the Budget, one will find that in respect of the conflict prevention aspect, 37% of the Budget is being devoted to the social services. The non-distributable services which include aspects such as public debt charges, civil pensions, the improvement of conditions of service and research, which make up 13% of the Budget. The economic services include aspects such as transport, agriculture, energy and electricity and the promotion of trade, and also make up 13% of the Budget. The government services, which include constitutional development and foreign relations, amount to 11%, and the administration of the national economy makes up 3% of the Budget. If one were to add all these components up, one would find that 77% of the Budget was being spent on prevention of conflict.

It is certainly true that economic growth can take place only in a politically stable environment. The country has been and still is weighed down by the unrest caused by organisations such as the ANC, the UDF and others, but law and order has been restored by the declaration of the state of emergency. Under the protective services, we find that a total of 23% of the Budget is going to be spent on the conflict control aspect.

The present Budget is directed at people. The Government renders services to every inhabitant of South Africa, and that is a task that has to be carried out. This is reflected in the Budget as presented by the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, I shall deal with a few aspects of the Budget before reverting to more political matters. Let me state immediately that there are two aspects in which the Budget has disappointed me tremendously. I am referring to the aspects which I regard as the two fundamental problems we have come up against in this country—inflation and unemployment. To my mind the Budget offers no solution or answer to these problems for our region.

I do not wish to discuss inflation except to say that everyone sitting in this House knows what inflation is costing us in terms of the uncertainty it brings in its wake. I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Vasco said to the hon the Minister yesterday, which is that it is essential that steps be taken to curb the inflation rate. If it affects us, how much more must it affect the poor man with a very limited income. It is no use saying we have not placed certain foods beyond his reach; he has to have a bed in which to sleep and all the other commodities which are not exempt. I cannot call to mind two greater factors with the potential for incitement and the development of revolutionary forces than inflation and unemployment. As regards unemployment, I wish to quote from an article in the latest issue of the magazine Publico in which Miss Pullen of the Central Economic Advisory Service said:

That was September 1986—

She was actually referring to the national or self-governing areas. She continued:

I wish to state at once I have reservations on the new definitions of unemployment adopted by the National Statistical Services. Based on those new definitions, it is said inter alia that persons who do not earn an income in the traditional self-sufficient agricultural sector but produce only for their own consumption and profit are also classified as workers in employment. We who are acquainted with circumstances in the self-governing areas and who know what poverty and famine are rampant there, in spite of the fact that these people have a small plot of ground and keep an animal or two, cannot accept this definition of “workers in employment”.

According to this extended definition of “workers in employment”, the following people are also classified as such: Persons who inter alia in consequence of a temporary retrenchment in production are not working but who have a formal employment agreement with an employer.

I really cannot understand how a person who is not working owing to circumstances—his place of work has possibly been closed—can be regarded as not being unemployed. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether this definition of unemployment has any rational defence.

The article does not end there. It continues:

According to the article, estimates indicate that approximately 33 000 of the 1 085 000 Blacks who were unemployed in October were in this state as a result of the slack economy. The writer added that that slackness was also due to cyclical factors.

There was mention of the 220 000 Blacks provided with work by means of the employment programme. That is why I wish to associate myself with the serious criticism expressed here by the hon member for Yeoville and others. He commented on the decrease in the amount in the Budget for the creation of job opportunities. Sir, let us make this very clear: All our estimates indicate that, if we are able to maintain a growth rate of 5% up to the year 2000, we shall have an unemployed population of between 2 million and 3 million, of whom 90% or more will probably be Blacks. If we maintain a growth rate of 3% however—compare this with what happened last year and the year before—we shall have an unemployed population of between 7 million and 9 million in the year 2000. That is revolutionary material.

I want to add immediately that this is why I cannot understand people who appeal for sanctions and disinvestment as supposedly being in the interests of the Black population of South Africa. I wish to say in all sincerity that, if we cannot maintain a growth rate in excess of 5%, we are creating conditions easily exploitable for revolutionary purposes. That is the message I should like to bring home to the hon the Minister of Finance because I see little in this Budget which will really contribute to stimulating the economy in order to enable our growth rate to bridge the increasing gap, which was definitely pointed out to the hon the Minister, between employment possibilities and the growth rate of the population. This is a problem which gives me nightmares as I know what the implications will be if we actually have millions of unemployed people in South Africa.

I hope the hon member for Newcastle will pardon me for not replying directly to his political address. I want to deal with what the hon member for Overvaal said. Let us be honest about this, Sir. The standpoint held by hon members on my right is certainly that of the children and grandchildren of the policy followed by the NP over the past 35 to 40 years. It is the product of this because the ideology followed by the NP over the years is the same—outdated and unrealistic as it may sound—as that subscribed to by those people. There is talk of a community life and of Whites who will become political slaves to others. These are terms still used by my hon friends opposite.

I now ask how the maintenance of community life can be a constitutional objective. Indians had no political rights or political representation years after they had arrived here but this did not affect their community life. The maintenance of a community life and of an identity is something totally different from its affirmation and perpetuation by means of a constitution. I shall come back to this later.

According to the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—the hon the Minister also referred to this in the House yesterday— the fundamental problem is that that structure obviously has to give substance to the so-called realities of South Africa as a matter of course. That is how they refer to this.

The realities to which this Government has chosen to give substance are the ethnic diversities. There are numerous other realities; there are even more of them. There are the realities of political groupings and standpoints, religious and cultural differences. What sanctity attaches to race and colour that we contend that they are the only realities we can use as building blocks in our constitutional structure? Everything else is constructed on this. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning did not supply the answer to that fundamental question the other day. I should like to discuss that question and the other points I raised the other day when his Vote is being dealt with. [Interjections.]

In the interim I should wish to revert to one of the fundamental problems I have with NP policy and which I pointed out in my speech the other day. My problem is the uncertainty on what the NP Government means when it refers to power-sharing. I am as confused as ever after quoting this NP publication in which it is clearly stated:

That is what is stated here.

It states very clearly:

This is said after an earlier statement that Blacks would participate in the common franchise.

I pointed out that in another NP publication, in which there was an obvious contradiction, the Government said it could not believe that —

How one could speak of representation and power-sharing in the highest legislative and executive authorities and then add that power could not be shared in Parliament was the question I put. I had hoped the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare would have replied to it yesterday.

Let me read to the hon the Minister what he said about this in his speech the other day, on 9 June. I wonder whether this will clarify my questions and the obscurity. The hon the Minister first said:

We are still waiting for the “how” but I suppose the hon the Minister will tell us this at a later occasion.

But I told you this morning I was coming with the legislation later…

No, he said he was coming with legislation on the National Council.

[Inaudible.]

All right, I accept that. That legislation will therefore also determine how those people are to be elected.

The hon the Minister continued: “The hon member says that Black communities should be accommodated”. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke then asked the hon the Minister “In Parliament?” to which the hon the Minister replied:

What does this mean? He continued:

Upon this the hon member for Brakpan asked: “In this Parliament?” The hon the Minister’s reply was: “I have just answered that question. Let us not split hairs.” [Interjections.]

On Monday, 15 June, the hon member for Pietersburg put a question to the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare on the question of Black representation in Parliament. The hon the Minister then replied that the hon member should not put words in his mouth. This was after the hon member for Pietersburg had asked him whether there would be Black representation in this Parliament or not. The hon the Minister’s reply ran on:

I now ask in all sincerity and humility: What am I to make of the NP? I put this question to the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs to whom I listened with great respect and with whom I am in complete agreement on the sentiments he expressed on sincerity, justice and fairness, but then we also have to be honest with the Biacks. How can we speak about power-sharing in the highest legislative authority but simultaneously tell them in advance that they are not on any account to equate it with power-sharing in Parliament.

I now ask in all sincerity: Is that right? Are we to tell the Blacks that in speaking of powersharing in the highest legislative authority we do not mean power-sharing in Parliament by this? If we hope to initiate any negotiating process with Black people in that way, we can forget about it.

Mr Chairman, it is interesting to note how quickly the opposite side of the House has stopped discussing the Budget. It appears to be a very good one as the switch to other subjects has been so rapid.

Over the past weekend there was considerable criticism in the Press of a new Bill soon to be introduced in the House in that employers were to be asked to finance arrear interest on Black housing. The American Chamber of Commerce in particular and many others as well said they could not defend it because of the anti-apartheid groups and the pressure on them overseas. I want to tell them this afternoon, however, that there are many possibilities: “Put your money where your mouth is”. I want to ask them why they do not make use of the financial rand to buy houses for their people.

On 1 September 1985, when the hon the Minister of Finance announced the reintroduction of the financial rand, it was done only in respect of quoted shares and investment in manufacturing. On 8 August 1986 the hon the Minister of Finance again laid down new norms according to which the financial rand could be used in cases in which nonresident’s ownership could be attached to a title deed. The hon the Minister added that the financial rand could not be used for any current expenditure. He added that all applications to use the financial rand were to be considered on merit.

The hon the Minister then made a subsequent announcement that, in view of these norms, the financial rand could be used as gifts and donations from non-residents. It continued that the financial rand could be used for fixed assets—“bricks and mortar”. Here we are thinking of training centres, schools, sports centres and clinics. These donations may also be used for equipment which is also regarded under fixed assets. If these people now feel so strongly that as employers this Bill will compel them to finance overdue rentals, why do they not use the financial rand as a donation and buy the houses?

Reports appeared in newspapers that many of the houses cost approximately R1 200. They will only cost them about R800 or R850. Negotiations can always be conducted if those employees wish to repay the money so that it may be held in trust for further housing development provided it does not leave the country again as commercial rands. Consequently I request overseas companies in South Africa to do something now for the Black workers in the country. I invite them to assist the Black youth of South Africa by helping to build sports stadiums and recreational facilities—then we shall see whether they really mean what they are always saying.

I should like to return to the hon member for Lichtenburg. I have listened to him with great interest recently but have not been able to fathom the method he adopts in his speeches here. I have received an answer now, however. The hon member has already destroyed Mr Jaap Marais and is now in the process of demolishing Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche. He has discovered that people leap onto chairs when Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche is talking and he is practising on us to see whether we will jump onto chairs too. He will then know that he is capable of winning when he ultimately tackles Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche for the leadership of the rightist radical group. He speaks so fast, however, that even Time magazine will be unable to beat him as far as disinformation is concerned.

Misinformation.

Yes, misinformation. He said in his speech that the Minister of Finance’s new loans would now comprise 71,2% of net savings. I searched the Reserve Bank bulletins and elsewhere to see where the hon member came by this but the Reserve Bank mentions total domestic savings of R30,3 billion in 1985. The additional loan finance we require now is a mere R2 billion because we have already found the rest. I do not know whether this is how he counts his cattle or maize at Lichtenburg but I cannot reconcile his figures.

He went on to say that Business Day had pointed out that countries that imposed high taxes did not grow. He would do well to examine other publications too. The Economist of 7 April reviewed the 16 OECD countries and said it found no correlation between government expenditure and economic growth. This is just by the way.

I should like to comment on the Official Opposition’s standpoint on socialism. I listened to them attentively but not one of them has told me exactly what they mean by our ostensibly being socialistic. They said we were striving for economic and fiscal equality in education and perhaps also in housing. Then they distorted the picture somewhat. The hon member for Lichtenburg quoted from a letter from the Post Office in which they stated the conditions under which a Black man could buy a house. He then added that this Black man received all those benefits while earning the same salary as Whites. I am very curious to know how many Whites earning the same salary are not offered decent housing benefits. May I ask the Official Opposition what its definition of socialism is. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition questioned aid to Black education during the censure debate and this was also done by various other CP members.

It has nothing to do with socialism when one can improve people’s living conditions. The following is actually of interest, Sir. The hon member for Waterberg and I were neighbours for 11 years. I remember arguing with him one day—we were still in the same party at the time.

[Inaudible.]

Yes. On that occasion I asked him why we did not permit a Black man to buy his own house if we subscribed to a capitalist system in this country. Is that not the first step to capitalism? The hon member differed with me on this, or rather, he did not totally agree with me. The views of hon CP members therefore really come down to the fact that Black people are not welcome to anything. The CP contends this is money taken away from Whites. Its members believe this amounts to a division of income; that is what they call socialism, Sir.

When one examines their statements, however—I said this in the censure debate too— and notes their definition of their own policy, it appears they believe all economic and financial decisions are subject to constitutional decisions. I have already told them this brands them as national socialists.

I shall take this further. The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis stated in an article in the Financial Mail that he was opposed to privatisation. Other CP members have said so too. According to their views privatisation will cause everything to end up in the hands of the private sector again—in the possession of people like the Hochenheimers and the Rothschilds. [Interjections.] The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis went even further. He said on Monitor he would tax them. [Interjections.] Now I ask whether that is not socialism. Or is it perhaps national socialism? I can assure hon members that, if the NP succeeds in its policy aimed at the upliftment of the Black man, it will also succeed in perpetuating and expanding capitalism in this country.

I wish to refer next to a very interesting report of the IMF which has just appeared. When hon members of Opposition parties discuss the Budget, they view it in isolation. South Africa is a developing country and has the problems of such a country. In April of this year the IMF said countries falling into this category had had a hard time economically owing to conditions in world trade, and that this was affecting their fiscal policy and budgets. I furnished statistics in this regard during the censure debate as well. It is shocking that the prices of primary products—those are products we export—fell by 1% in world trade in 1986, whereas the price of manufactured products rose by 18%. Surely this cannot fail to affect our economy.

The IMF report pointed out further that the price ratio of primary products to finished products was at the lowest point since the depression of the ’thirties. This is what we are dealing with. Consequently gross domestic investment declined, not only in South Africa but in all developing countries. What started this decline? In the first place it happened because the most important export products of those countries failed—they were no longer profitable. In those countries a pessimistic attitude to exports developed. As gross domestic investment started to decline, countries like South Africa had to react to keep people in employment. South Africa had to permit its consumption to increase and achieve a balance in order to avoid a total depression. All right, there are two arguments on this subject. One argument holds that an increase in the consumption of a country finds expression in its investments. The other maintains that, when the investments of a country decline, this has to be neutralised to some degree by its consumption. I agree this is not a sound development. Much was said here about inflation and unemployment. If, when the exchange rate plunged from more than 80 American cents to the rand to 32 American cents to the rand, we had permitted that exchange rate to filter through to our economy and had adjusted our money supply—our monetary policy, our consumption—accordingly, we would not have had an unemployment figure of 18% among our Black people but one of 50%.

I think Opposition parties should understand that the conflict is between objectives such as growth, the creation of employment and curbing inflation. At the moment we are battling to get our people employed. It is clear there are conflicting objectives but we take the inflation aspect into account.

Of interest in this IMF report is that it analyses developing countries and in view of the increase in real income per capita, inflation, government expenditure, budget deficits and deficits in the current account of the balance of payments, South Africa blossoms like the rose. As I have said before, we have made mistakes in the four years of recession but we have emerged fantastically at the other end. Now we are forging ahead and I shall come back to that later.

There is another aspect which is not being taken into account either. A budget is not an isolated aspect; it has to be related to the development of the country. We had an Additional Appropriation at the beginning of the year and we have to see the Budget in conjunction with that. If income has declined for four years, it does not immediately percolate through to State revenue; it is doing so now. Government expenditure is not determined in an instant; there is an overflow which takes time to reduce. One also has to be careful, however. It is being said that our Government expenditure is too high. On the one hand it is being said that we have unemployment but we permitted that Government expenditure to rise this year because we had to create employment. We have now come to the point where we have to reverse that flow. We shall have to do this. We shall bring our revenue and expenditure closer together again.

I wish to elaborate on the question of the future. We should guard against developing an over-negative approach. I pointed out that the economy was well managed during difficult conditions. The future lies ahead and does not appear too bleak. It is interesting to note the IMF expects an improvement in excess of 5% in the prices of primary products from next year. Last Friday the Financial Mail published a very interesting article on increased profits among our companies; they amounted to 37% on an annual basis, a 28% increase in dividends. Surely that is a sign that our companies have written off their exchange rate losses. They have written off losses that occurred during the recession; they are getting back on their feet. We should view the future in this light.

A very interesting aspect of our economy is that our gold and foreign currency reserves have almost doubled in the past year. This obviously gives us the strength to make further progress but we have to learn that we are a developing country, that we cannot have everything according to First World standards: Hospitals, roads, theatres, etc. We have to learn to live within our resources; we have to analyse our expenditure. It is easy to say we should prune expenditure but it is not realised that a large percentage of our expenditure cannot be pruned by means of this Budget, because much of it is statutory. It is very difficult because one has to pay interest on one’s loans. One cannot summarily say the CSIR should be closed down; one cannot simply reduce pensions. Statutory expenditure comprises 26,9% of total expenditure. It is not easy to stop transfer payments either; they represent 40% of expenditure. We can economise on 33% of the Budget. They say we have too many public servants but our remuneration to employees is a mere R5,7 billion of the total figure. I think our people should view the Budget realistically; they should look at environmental factors and also at the time when the Budget is introduced.

It is equally important to opposition parties that we have a sound economy because it is of no avail taking over an insolvent estate. Consequently I say: Do not merely criticise, examine our circumstances and assist in developing this country economically. People are leaving our country and we want their assistance in telling others how brilliant our economy actually is because, as in Mrs Thatcher’s words, it is a fantastic economy and she does not intend to destroy it.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister must forgive me for not responding to his comment, but I shall not be able to do so in the time at my disposal. Perhaps I shall do so on another occasion.

†This Budget is obviously a budget drawn up by a party which suffered a very severe setback at the last election—a party of losers who are now so afraid of their approaching defeat at the next election that they have put South Africa’s economic car into neutral, apparently in the vain hope that this will stop or stall the growing move to the right. This move is inevitable, and after a month in this House it becomes quite clear to me why this is so.

Those hon members belong to a party of losers. Not satisfied with having technically bankrupted South Africa—this is obvious to all—they are themselves bankrupt of solutions to the problems of impoverishment of Whites, uncontrolled inflation accompanied by rampant price and tariff increases year after year, an unfair tax burden and a constitutional dispensation which plunges us deeper and deeper into despair.

The people of South Africa are moving across to join the winners.

*The NP reminds one of skimmed milk—the cream is now on this side of the House, and the voters are well aware of that. [Interjections.]

Separator development!

What have we seen in the performances of the NP? Let us look at the results affecting leading members of that party and, in fact, all their candidates in the race for the top spot. I refer here to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who saw his majority slashed from 6 060 in 1977 to a mere 39 in 1987.

That was none of your business.

Wait, hear me out. The hon the Leader of the House had his majority shattered from the strength of an unopposed constituency in 1977 to marginal majority of 1 524.

What happened to you?

Well, I got more votes than most of the people on that side did. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave the best performance of the three. With the full assistance of the powerful SABC television service he saw his majority drop from 7 600 in 1977 to 4 353 in 1987. [Interjections.]

On the other hand we have the successes of our leaders on this side of the House, crowned by the result of our leader, the hon member for Waterberg who, on becoming the leader of the CP, first took from the NP a seat which had been in the hands of that party for 69 years—that happened in 1983—and then increased his majority to a comfortable 2 375 recently. That is why the voters look to us. They are rejecting the losers on that side. [Interjections.]

Let us examine the overall record. The hon the State President addressed the nation after his party’s setbacks on 6 May, and told South Africa that the NP had achieved its greatest majority in 20 years, but how did the situation really evolve under the leadership of the hon the State President? From 1977 when the glorious NP had 134 seats—that was when all of us still belonged to that party—to 1981 when the NP lost its first Cabinet Minister and went down to 131 seats, to 1987 when the number of seats dropped to 123 and another Cabinet Minister and three Deputy Ministers bit the dust, the NP have lost. They can only be considered losers. [Interjections.]

Compare this with all the record-breaking achievements of the CP. Hon members must remember that we only had two seats that we had won in our own right, Waterberg and Soutpansberg. Those hon members kept on saying that we were representing the others fraudulently. So we had two seats before the election. When the dust settled on 6 May we had 22 seats. That is a phenomenal growth, particularly when one considers that it took place within four years of our first victory in 1983. [Interjections.]

The CP takes the status of Official Opposition at its first attempt, in the process becoming the first party in our history to achieve this. No wonder a leading political scientist describes us as the fastest growing political movement in the history of South Africa.

*I want to turn now to an incident that took place during the election campaign. Hon members will recall that the NP issued a series of advertisements about the so-called lies of the CP. Enormous sums of money were spent on saying that the CP was lying. We made one mistake in our full-page advertisement. They seized upon one mistake we made in the whole 16-page pamphlet we published, and said:

That was a mistake, and I apologise for it on behalf of the CP.

You will still be doing a great deal of apologising.

It should have read that the State’s revenue and not its budget was exceeded by that amount in the first six months.

The hon Ministers should listen very carefully to this. In their published NP-advertisements they said: “Die KP sê groot maatskappye, hoofsaaklik goudmyne”—wat ons nie gesê het nie—“betaal min of geen belasting nie.” In their advertisement the NP went on to say:

Last week I obtained figures from the hon the Minister of Finance which show that the income of the entire mining industry, including mining lease, amounted to R2 938 million. The NP therefore met our mistake with one of its own, and so we are “quits”, if I may use the expression. I shall not be like the NP and say they are lying, but I shall say that the advertisement as a whole consisted of nothing but a complete distortion of the facts, and they know that as well as I do.

I want to come back to the amendment of the hon member for Barberton which I should like to support.

†My information has it that in 1985 South Africa sold 22 million fine ounces of gold and a further three million fine ounces of platinum. The figures which I am about to provide, will show why I agree with the people who believe that a small elite is favoured and that the tax burden should be more equitably spread.

Hon members will remember that in 1980 this country was experiencing boom conditions because the price of gold had reached the record mark of R510 an ounce. According to the Chamber of Mines and to figures I have also received from the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, the price of gold in 1980 was an average of R480 per fine ounce and the price of platinum was R531 per fine ounce.

Given the benefit of the doubt I have the following figures to offer for 1986-87. The price of gold has now climbed to an average of R837 per fine ounce and the price of platinum to an average of R1 065 an ounce yet we in this country are in the middle of the most severe recession in our history!

Let us look at our tax income. In 1980-81 the hon the Minister of Finance received, according to the figures he provided me with, R3 006 million in tax and mine-rents and certain revenue in connection with diamonds. I cannot quite remember the details, but it had something to do with diamonds and it was a small amount. When hon members take the escalation in gold and platinum prices alone into consideration, they will join me in my surprise when I say that the total tax income for 1986-87 is a mere R3 450 million—this is an increase of 15%—when in fact the price of gold went up by 75% and the price of platinum by 100%! [Interjections.]

Now hon members will begin to realize why we criticise the Government for unfairly placing the burden of tax on the shoulders of the individual. My estimate of income loss from just the gold and platinum sectors of the mining industry, based on 1985 sales figures, is R3,5 billion. When people speculate about the figures offered by the Margo Commission as regards tax avoidance in South Africa, and figures of R10 000 million are bandied about, one starts thinking that it is quite possible considering the figures I have mentioned. On the other hand we have individual taxation increasing, according to figures contained in a recent report by Econometrics, from R1,945 billion in the tax year ended 1980 to an enormous R10,276 billion in 1987—an increase of more than 500%, while the whole mining sector had an increase of more than 200% over the same period.

No wonder we have a brain drain in this country. These people are fleeing not from the unrest which they know full well our security forces are capable of containing if they are allowed to do so but from the taxflation vampire created by that side of the House. It is draining away their lifeblood of natural talents and of production, because the more they produce and the more income they generate the less benefit they and their families derive from their efforts and from the sacrifices they make in the time they are apart from their families in exercising these talents. This is where tax relief is urgently needed and it is also needed to relieve the burden on the severely overburdened White taxpayer. This is where the Government should be making an investment by encouraging productive people to be more productive and not by plowing large sums into non-productive nightmares like the present constitutional dispensation promoted by the Government. This is their policy after seeking solutions for at least 77 years since Union. The hon member for Vasco kept on harping on what our solutions were. He forgets that the CP has been in existence for five years; we are still building policies while the NP has lost all the policies that they had that meant anything in this country.

I want to refer further to an article in Die Vaderland which quoted the hon the Minister of Finance as referring to a list of companies which we published in our publication. He accused us of using a list of companies most of which were trust companies to show to what extent people are avoiding tax.

That is not true.

I want him to tell us—we know that he has the list—how many of the companies listed are really trust companies and which companies they are. Perhaps he would react to the criticism of aspects of our tax system which has allowed companies to exchange deductible interest for non-taxable dividends. He can perhaps give us an idea of the advantages to those companies as contained in the system in terms of money.

While I am on the subject of companies avoiding tax I just want to quote from an article in Beeld of 24 April. I am sure the hon the Minister will not accuse me of lying when I quote these figures. Unfortunately the hon member for Yeoville is not here and I do not know whether the hon member for Vasco is here either. They keep on talking about the Conservative Party ambush which we set in regard to large companies evading tax.

According to Beeld of 24 April Elandsrand Gold Mine had a profit before tax of R34,624 million. Their provision for tax is R1,133 million. Ergo Gold and Uranium Company had a profit before tax of R29,659 million and a provision for tax of R45 000. This is going on right under the nose of that hon Minister. While he is about it, I would also like a brief explanation from him on the cost implications of the loss of those taxes.

I would also be interested to hear the details surrounding the system of postponed taxation as enjoyed by a company like, for instance, Rand Mines. Is it treated as a loan by the Government and, if so, does it bear interest? Or should I rather table the question to the hon the Minister? This allows a company like Rand Mines to make use of something that they refer to as “uitgestelde belasting”.

*I am referring to a report that appeared on 30 September 1986. It concerned the balance sheet of Rand Mines and it indicated that their deferred taxes increased from R358,2 million in 1985 to R438 million in 1986. I just want to know on what basis this took place and whether they paid interest on it. One has a lot to get off one’s chest after such a short period in this House. The hon member for Primrose admitted openly that he was a “New Nat”. In my opinion that is one of the biggest problems the hon the State President is experiencing on his side of the House. He now has 55 “New Nats”. Some of them, like the hon the Deputy Minister, who is the member for Pretoria East, do not want to admit that they are “New Nats” even though it was reported in an article in Die Vaderland as far back as March 1986 that there were apparently 55 of them. Unfortunately their leader, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is not here at the moment.

There is so much dissension on that side of the House that even the Progs get confused when they have to decide on the policy they want to put to their voters, because the NP has taken over their policy. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the politics of the AWB are well-known and it adopts a well-known attitude towards certain groups in this country.

What about the Broederbond?

I shall get to the Broederbond and the Black State President, and I shall quote them correctly.

I must say that the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, who has just finished speaking, is a well-known AWB personality. It is not just anyone who is carried shoulder-high by Terre’Blanche!

Die Stem, the AWB’s newspaper published large photographs of Nazis and Nazi generals and their exploits. They say that the democracy in which we believe is an English-Jewish kind of democracy and they denounce the Jews. Now I want to put one question to the hon member who has just spoken in this House. He made a fine speech about the contributions of English-language speakers. He mentioned the English-language speakers on this side of the House by name, and when the hon member got to the attractive hon member for Rosettenville he mentioned her name and stopped abruptly. I want to ask the hon member bluntly: Why did he not mention the names of the other two hon members sitting in those two benches, the hon member for Bezuidenhout and the hon member Mrs Chait?

I am putting a very straightforward question to the hon member. The hon member mentioned everyone by name and then stopped abruptly and did not mention the names of those two hon members. We should like an explanation for that.

Nazi-Lewis! [Interjections.] Nasty Lewis!

ANC Nothnagel!

The hon member must withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it.

I do not want to hear another remark like that, because the ANC is a banned organisation. The hon member may proceed.

One has great appreciation for this Parliament and for the House of Assembly in particular. Virtually every hon member who made his maiden speech here, stood up and said that it was a great honour to speak in this House and referred in a commendable way to the dignity of this House. Nevertheless I sometimes feel a little worried.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: An hon member on that side of the House referred to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis as a Nazi.

Order! Which hon member referred to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis as a Nazi?

Mr Chairman, I first said “Nazi-Lewis”, but I then changed it to “nasty Lewis”.

Order! The hon member for Innesdal must withdraw the words “Nazi-Lewis”.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw them. [Interjections.]

We have great appreciation for this House, but sometimes I feel a little worried, and sometimes I even feel very worried. Sometimes we speak for hours in this House to the CP, a party which supports the policy of partition, a policy which is not at all relevant in South African politics. We sit here in this House, a beautiful place, with air-conditioning, but sometimes when one goes outside, a strong South-Easter is blowing and it is cold and wet. Sometimes I get the feeling that this is almost symbolic. I want to issue a serious warning not only to the hon members of this party in Parliament, but also to the hon members of the CP and the other parties. We sit here in Parliament and talk about partition which is of absolutely no importance, while we literally do not know in what direction the wind is blowing outside. [Interjections.] The burning question—perhaps it is also symbolic to talk about a burning question—is the political future of the Black man, and the political future of the Black man simply cannot lie in partition, and consequently it is absolutely irrelevant.

What about the TBVC countries?

At the most it is necessary to refer to partition now and then to indicate how ridiculous it is, but then we must go ahead and tackle the problems.

We held an election, and in that election we asked for a mandate. The hon the State President asked for a mandate to negotiate with Blacks on the basis of a certain policy. We spelled out that policy very clearly, and I want to quote to hon members from our documents on that policy. I have here a document entitled NP Position Paper, which was published in July 1986 and in which we stated that we were in favour of powersharing but not in the transfer of power. What does power sharing mean? I am quoting briefly from the document in which it is explained as follows:

How are you going to do that?

I shall quote further:

An hon member asked by way of an interjection how we were going to do this. We went to the voters. There are 166 seats in this House. The voters of no more than 22 constituencies voted for that party’s partition policy, while the voters of 144 constituencies voted against it. The people were asked who should negotiate on those structures. The people said it could not be the PFP, because the PFP did not need to negotiate; they could simply surrender. People also said that it could not be the CP, because they could not even negotiate with their own people. They could not negotiate with the AWB or the HNP. That is why the people said that the NP was the party which had to negotiate on those rights on behalf of the Whites.

There was a time—it was in 1910—when the South Africa Act was accepted by the British Parliament as the Constitution of this country. At that stage it was accepted throughout the world that Black people need only occasionally have franchise. But the position has changed completely since 1910, particularly after the Second World War. I must point out that in 1910 women did not have franchise either but this changed and after the Second World War it was generally accepted throughout the world that all people had the right to vote, up to the highest level, as is spelt out in this document. The NP has also accepted that basic argument that everyone has the right to vote. We accepted it long ago, at least as early as 1958, when the NP said that its policy was separate development because every person must be able to get to the top.

Of course we emphasised that it had to be separately, but we said that every person had the right to get to the very top. Then we saw that this policy of separate development only worked to a certain extent; it was not the final solution. This did not however change the policy that every person had the right to vote where he lived and worked. Now those structures must be worked out.

If I have the time I shall deal with urbanisation at the end of my speech, because I want to refer to the similarities. In the past, in order to justify separate development or apartheid, we constantly placed emphasis on the differences only—the difference in colour, the difference in the structure of the hair, and heaven knows what else. We did this to prove that our policy was the right one. But we neglected to point out the similarities. I can point out at least one similarity. Consider religion in South Africa. All people of all races in this country have a strong, wonderful Christian faith. What a wonderful similarity!

I now want to get back to the matter of urbanisation by referring to the poor Whites in Johannesburg. In 1886 Paul Kruger declared the diggings open. Then there was an influx of foreigners. Paul Kruger, quite justifiably, saw the foreigners as a threat. He then took the necessary steps.

According to him they could not have franchise because they were a threat to him. I think this was quite justified. But if anyone were to tell me today that those foreigners’ great-grandchildren may not have franchise in South Africa, that they must go back to Holland, Germany and heaven knows where else, I would say that this is ridiculous, as ridiculous as it is to say that the children of those Blacks who were living there in Paul Kruger’s time may not have the franchise. In 1896 there were already 100 000 people living in Johannesburg, 50 000 of whom were Black. Must those Black people’s great-grandchildren now go back to Venda, Mozambique and so on? That is ridiculous!

That is why we support the principle that everyone must have a full franchise. We know that these people are here permanently. They are not only here permanently; they also form the largest percentage of the permanent population here. That is why they must be given full rights. There is not the least doubt about this. [Interjections.] I am still going to discuss the Black State President.

Let me mention just one further more aspect regarding urbanisation. After the Anglo-Boer War the Afrikaner was literally on his knees. The Afrikaner was impoverished. Because he was impoverished in those circumstances, there was a high birth rate among Afrikaners. There were 40 births per 1 000 Afrikaners—one of the highest birth rates ever. There was no work for those people in the rural areas. The rural areas were devastated. The Afrikaners streamed to Johannesburg in large numbers. As early as 1906, just after the Anglo-Boer War, the Transvaal Colonial Government appointed a commission to investigate this problem. Then, in 1916, there was the Cradock Conference. In 1923 there was the Bloemfontein Conference. In 1934 a conference was held in Kimberley. All those people—including Dr Verwoerd, an important figure at that time—said that the people had to go back to the rural areas; that was the solution to the poor White problem.

In 1917 Dr D F Malan published a series of articles in De Burger, which later appeared in brochure form with the title “De achteruitgang van ons volk, de oorzaken daarvan en de redmiddelen”. Dr Malan referred to the urbanisation of the rural Afrikaners as a “agtergang” and a “siekte verskynsel”. He said that the Afrikaners had to move back to the rural areas. Then, 21 years later, in 1938 at Blood River, Dr Malan spoke again. By then he had seen what the realities were. He said:

The solution to the poor White problem had been found. Gen Hertzog played a tremendous role in this regard. The NP also played a big role through industrialisation—Iscor in 1928, etc. This solved the poor White problem. Nowhere in the world is it being suggested that urbanisation can be stopped. Influx control measures are not worth the paper they are written on. [Interjections.] Urbanisation is a fact and nothing and no one in the world will stop it—not even a law.

In the same way that we could not succeed, with the best Afrikaner brains and the best will in the world, in taking the Afrikaners back to the rural areas, we will not succeed in taking the Blacks back to the rural areas. The solution lies in providing employment—in the cities where the Blacks are living—and in orderly urbanisation. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately I only have two minutes left at my disposal. I should like to say a few words about that story of the Black State President which the hon member raked up. I spoke here in the House about what the hon the State President had said to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. During the election the hon members of the CP quoted only one sentence of what I had said here in a pamphlet of theirs. They did not quote everything I had said. They did not quote that I had said that this matter had not yet been discussed by the congresses and that it could not therefore be NP policy. Sir, I stood up in this House and said it was not NP policy for there to be a Black State President, but these people quoted me out of context, and implied that I had said that this was NP policy. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis then came along and said that he would not accuse us of lying, but they lied in the election. I have a pamphlet of theirs here in which it was stated:

They then went on to say;

Sir, they are lying. This is not true.

Order! The hon member cannot simply say that they are lying. I think the last person he referred to was the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. Whom is the hon member accusing of lying?

Sir, I said that the quote I had referred to was a lie, and to my way of thinking that meant they were lying. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also referred to this Broederbond document I have here in my hand. The CP distributed this document everywhere. I want to refer very briefly to it, because I only have a minute left. I shall discuss it again in due course.

The document deals with the basic constitutional conditions for the survival of the Afrikaner. Then an explanation is given of the purpose of the document:

Are you a member?

Certain conditions are then set out, and they are those which appear in the preamble to the Constitution, which we all endorse. They then mention a few other conditions, such as private ownership. They then go on to say:

This is stated as a condition.

Get to the point!

The hon member says I must get to the point, but he does not want the background. They wrested the matter entirely out of context, however, and that was why I wanted to sketch the background.

Are you a “Broeder”?

The document continued:

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal’s interjections are totally irrelevant. The hon member may proceed.

According to the document the principles also transcend language groups. It reads as follows:

It goes on in this vein. Then a very important statement is made. Of course this document can be discussed by anyone with sense—the NP can do it; the CP can do it; anyone can. The following statement is made:

One does not need a BA degree to know this, Sir. Any fool knows that this is true.

Now we come to the actual section. This is where the lie came in. The Broederbond document went on to say:

If those people therefore say that the Broederbond document states that there must be a Black president, I say that they are lying. It is not true.

I have been asked how this will be done. There was a time when it was not possible to put a man on the moon. There was a time when we said that our choice lay between apartheid and total integration. Many new models have developed, and we can develop this by means of a system of devolution of power. We are of the opinion that in a unitary state such as we have now, we cannot have a Black president, because the President still has too much power. It is possible that there will be other systems. This we can, after all, discuss. I can understand that a system may exist, but in the present system, with the State President’s powers as they now are, there cannot be a Black president. That system will have to be worked out by way of negotiation. The people have given us the right and the power to engage in those negotiations, and we shall now do so. We shall not waste our time talking about partition which has now become totally irrelevant.

Mr Chairman, one thing that is evident from the speech of the hon member for Langlaagte is that finally, after 40 years, the NP have realised that the process of urbanisation cannot be stopped by the sort of legislation they have introduced over those 40 years. Perhaps they have learnt something. [Interjections.] They have learnt that the Blacks who have been in the towns for generations are not going to be content to exercise political rights in places like Venda. They want some share of power here in the urban areas.

I do not want to pursue that particular matter any further. I want to continue along a line taken by the hon member for Yeoville yesterday and I want to address myself to the hon Minister of Law and Order. I want to speak about the crime situation in South Africa from the point of view of the average citizen—White or Black; I am talking of both—with particular reference to the tremendous explosion of criminal activity which has nothing at all to do with politics. I am not talking about political matters, I am talking about ordinary crime. I want to look at the role played by authority, particularly by the police, in handling this proliferation of criminal activity. I want to refer to the ordinary crimes which we see so much of today, such as car theft, burglary and muggings that take place on our streets, and I want to put on record what 1 believe the average citizen can expect from the authorities with regard to the protection of both his person and his property.

I think we all know, and it is common cause, that there are just not enough police in South Africa to keep real control of the situation. I think we all understand that in terms of crime prevention, the percentage of police in relation to the population as a whole, is inadequate to the point where, with regard to non-political crime, we are one of the most underpoliced countries in the world. This situation, as the hon Minister well knows, has become far worse in recent months because the attentions of the police have been directed towards the emergency situation, and I believe that the ordinary citizen, White or Black, is not getting the protection against crime to which he is entitled.

I speak with some feeling in that in the past couple of years, my own home in the Bryanston area has been burgled twice, the last time about a week ago; my car has been broken into and my car radio stolen; and, in addition my car, left overnight at a roadside in suburban Bryanston because of a mechanical problem, was vandalised, severely dented and had windows smashed. So I speak with some feeling.

The hon the Minister of Law and Order thinks it is funny!

You are talking rubbish. [Interjections.]

I should be grateful if the hon Minister were to listen.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is talking nonsense and he knows it!

I believe my experiences are typical of similar experiences suffered by tens of thousands of people throughout South Africa who are not being given the protection to which they are entitled. I, of course, live in a relatively affluent area, a White suburb, and I am certainly far better off than the thousands of law-abiding citizens residing in Black townships who are daily subjected to criminal activity on a major scale.

The position has been made much worse by the economic situation and the resultant unemployment which has made more people resort to crime to keep themselves alive. I think this is inevitable in our present political climate. To many sections of the community the situation has become unbearable. I refer to people such as the aged—particularly in heavily populated areas such as Hillbrow. They live in physical fear of being assaulted or robbed 24 hours of the day to the point where life becomes quite insupportable. People who should be able to live in relative security cannot do so. Specifically, those who are not wealthy enough to pay out considerable sums of money to one of the proliferation of security companies which provide services or protective barriers in terms of alarm systems, gates or high walls are at risk. I am afraid that when it comes to crime prevention, it seems hardly to exist anymore unless one can pay for it.

I think it has become urgently necessary to consider what citizens should be entitled to expect from our Police Force. Firstly, in terms of crime prevention, the police should be in evidence but in most cases they are not. I believe the old argument of “the bobby on the beat” should be reassessed. I have certainly been told by police experts that modern police methods do not include this concept.

However, I am afraid that I cannot agree with this. When police are very much in evidence, particularly at potential trouble spots such as major shopping areas, it must have considerable effect. Regular and comprehensive patrols by policemen who know an area and can detect the unusual must also have considerable effect. However, this just does not happen at the present time.

We all know the reason—there are just not enough policemen to do the job—but I believe the situation has reached such serious proportions that major attention must be given to the problem. One is therefore pleased to see that more money will be made available by the Government but I agree with the hon member for Yeoville that it is just not enough and that we need those additional policemen.

Citizens themselves have been forced in various ways to try to give themselves the protection that the police are unable to give them. Various operations such as the night watch are filling the vacuum. There are various such organisations as well as the part-time police volunteers who are assisting at police stations and who are certainly doing a good job. Regrettably, though, it is just not enough and matters get worse and worse by the day.

The first part of the problem to be addressed is the question of numbers of police. I believe we cannot afford to look only at the cost. We live in times of financial stringency and cost is a major consideration but the cost to the community in terms of stolen cars and goods, escalating insurance premiums etc must also be taken into consideration. Crime does not only mean cost to the Government but also cost to the community and to the country as a whole. If we do not employ more police that must be the overriding consideration.

Another aspect of the police is that the quality of the policeman is also vitally important. I believe that adequate and comprehensive training must be given. It is not a bit of use to produce “kitskonstabels” on a massive scale. Lack of training and the use of semi-trained men often bring about additional problems.

Some months ago this was illustrated in a certain incident at a shopping centre in my constituency, where a bottlestore together with a bus terminus attracts huge crowds of Black people. According to one of the shopkeepers who was an eyewitness to events police intervention almost turned what was a relatively minor incident into a major race riot due to the inability of the policemen concerned to handle the problem adequately. They seemed to lack the training and the experience necessary to deal tactfully with problems. Comprehensive training is therefore a vital necessity.

I also believe that everything possible must be done to attract the right kind of man to the Police Force. This can only be done if conditions of employment are further improved so that a young man who is keen to make the Police Force his career is not condemning himself and his family to everlasting poverty. If police pay and conditions are improved then one has the right to set high standards with regard to the calibre of the candidates involved.

One of the things that has struck me in recent months is the inaccessibility of the police to ordinary members of the public who in many instances receive very cavalier treatment when they contact their local police station seeking aid or advice. I hasten to stress that this is not always the case, but it happens far too often for it to be allowed to continue. The ideal police force is part of the community and policemen should identify themselves with the problems and difficulties experienced by members of that community.

I am afraid that my own experience has indicated that many policemen could not care less and are arrogant and rude when dealing with the public. This applies to White affluent areas as well as to Black areas. There are many policemen to whom this does not apply, and some of them are very, very good indeed. However, I am afraid that there are too many who are not good at public relations. I think a lot of this is as a result of overwork and not being able to cope with the volume of work; therefore public relations comes a very poor second.

When it comes to Black areas, the problem of underpolicing becomes very much more difficult. For many years areas such as Soweto were so underpoliced that the crime rate was a national disgrace. Even in times of peace, years ago, the murder rate in Soweto used to run at between 15 and 25 murders per average weekend. Now this was an absolute disgrace. There is no doubt that poverty breeds crime and in poverty-stricken communities adequate police cover is absolutely vital. It was never adequate and the identification of the police with the community that they were policing just did not exist. It does not exist today either. The policeman was not the man you went to if you were in trouble, unless there was absolutely no other alternative. The police were not considered to be the friends of the people.

We saw the results of this in the growth of the self-policing bodies which arbitrarily arrested and punished wrongdoers outside the law. There were many of these bodies. Inevitably such bodies and their kangaroo courts administering their particular brand of justice did not operate to any reasonable standards of justice and were totally unacceptable. However, I must stress that they were filling a vacuum. They developed into the sort of organisations which are today regarded by the authorities and this hon Minister as alternative municipal governments. Today as the hon the Minister of Law and Order and his department crack down on these organisations I think that it should be realised that they are the result of years and years of neglect in terms of adequate police control in the townships.

How one deals with the present situation in the townships, where difficulties have escalated to a position where the average resident has little or no chance of adequate police protection, is another question which we would hope to deal with at another time. Suffice it to say at this stage that police protection is lacking.

In this specific question of police protection I want to deal with one point that I believe is very important. It is the question of eviction as a result of non-payment of rentals. Driving through the streets of Soweto today we see graffiti on the walls such as “You pay rent— we burn” or “Pay rent and die”. These are very real threats and anyone who does pay rent is likely to have extreme action taken against him by the radicals. Until such time as the police are in a position to give absolute protection to people who pay rent I do not believe that the authorities have the right to take action against them. When the payment of rent could result in the death of someone or his family, or at very least the destruction of his home or property, he would be crazy to pay rent. Perhaps I could put a question, which I hope the hon the Minister will answer at some stage: Does the hon the Minister believe that at this stage he can give adequate protection to people who pay their rent? Can he give them the kind of protection of their property and their lives that they should have if they are being forced to do this? In the present circumstances I certainly would not pay rent until I could rely completely on police protection that would enable me to do so with safety. It is grossly unfair to evict people in these circumstances.

In conclusion I want to urge the hon the Minister of Law and Order to use his most persuasive abilities with his Cabinet colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, to ensure that absolute priority is given to the enlargement and improvement of the SA Police. No doubt we cannot afford this, but on the other hand we cannot afford not to do this. The broad South African community, Black and White, must be able to live their daily lives without constant fear for themselves and their property.

Mr Chairman, I want to react immediately to the irresponsible speech made by the hon member for Bryanston. We came to know the hon member years ago as someone who always made speeches of that kind. Even then we had the impression that he always made rancorous speeches (bitterbektoesprake), and this afternoon he has done exactly that.

I want to give him credit for saying that he did not want to make a political football of this matter.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member of this House entitled to call another hon member a “bitterbek”?

Mr Chairman, on the point of order: I did not call the hon member a “bitterbek”, but said he made rancorous speeches.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member spoke about a matter which gives me and my department much more cause for concern than it does him. He will not outbid us with his concern about the crime rate among Whites, Coloureds and Blacks in South Africa. Let me assure him of that immediately. The hon member said, however, that the crime rate in South Africa had risen to unacceptable heights. It is true that crime has increased, but we must see this in perspective. Crime is increasing all over the world. The world-wide increase in crime during the past year was 7%, whereas in South Africa it was 6,7%. The increase in crime is unacceptable to us too, but one cannot contend that the crime rate is increasing only in South Africa. We are doing our best to effect a drop in the crime rate.

We must see it in its correct perspective, however. All the members of the PFP who have so much to say now about the Police Force which is too small, held a different standpoint over the years. Since I have been on this side of the House, the PFP members have always maintained that South Africa was a police state and that there was a policeman on every corner. [Interjections.] Yes, we must not try to bluff one another about this. That was the standpoint of those hon members over the years. The hon member for Houghton who is carrying on to such an extent now, attacked the police day in and day out and said there were too many policemen in South Africa. [Interjections.] We struggled to advocate the cause of the police when we said we had too few policemen in South Africa. [Interjections.] That is still true today; we have too few policemen in South Africa, but not all the blame should be laid on this side of the House. That side of the House has accused us for years of having too many policemen in South Africa.

It is not only history that comes into question here, however. I should have liked to have exchanged a few words with the hon member for Claremont, but apparently he has left. Let me say immediately that we employ the maximum number of policemen permitted by the financial capacity of this country. When, however, we employ special constables who are cheaper, but perform an effective policing function like the real “bobbies on the beat”, who are the first people to disparage them? Those hon members. [Interjections.] The hon member for Claremont tries to get his name into the newspapers every day by disparaging and belittling the work of those people. We must see this whole matter in the correct perspective. I repeat: This Government is trying to get the maximum number of policemen our country can afford on the streets. The PFP members must not merely accuse this side, but must examine their own consciences. They must cease their attacks on the special constables. We are using these cheaper policemen to great effect in the Black residential areas.

The hon member for Bryanston wants to know whether or not I can give the assurance that the people can go and pay their rent. I say we are specifically using the special constables in the Black areas to combat crime, but hon members of the PFP are conducting a campaign against the special constables. [Interjections.] Yes, they are conducting a campaign against the special constables. The hon member for Claremont, who is staring at me now, is in the forefront of this campaign against the special constables. [Interjections.] I want to warn him to cut it out. When hon members of the PFP request that we provide better protection for people—I agree with that; we should try to provide people with better protection—they must cease this campaign they are conducting against the special constables and the police. We simply cannot continue in this way. [Interjections.]

Order! There are certain hon members who are becoming quite carried away. I am certain, however, that since this debate is to continue for some time, hon members will receive proper answers to their questions. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bryanston went on to accuse the police of arrogance.

Some of them!

Yes, he said some of them. I feel I should be fair towards the hon member. He did say some policemen were arrogant. He insinuated, however, that too many of them were arrogant. [Interjections.] I want to say honestly that it is definitely not my standpoint that the Police Force should be arrogant towards people. That is unacceptable. The motto of the police is “We protect and we serve”. We are only human, after all. We make mistakes too. I concede that immediately. Our point of departure, however, is that we protect and serve all the people in this country—the CP, the PFP, the Blacks and the Whites. That is our standpoint. That is our point of departure. We work according to that principle. When we make mistakes in the process, we do not condone them. We take action against people who make mistakes. We are merely asking hon members, however, to be fair. In my opinion the hon member for Bryanston was completely unfair in respect of the SA Police today. I believe he began with a good argument when he said we should try to reduce the incidence of crime in South Africa. I also believe, however, that he did us a disservice by going on to refer to the so-called arrogance of the police which bothers him so much.

In the final instance, Mr Chairman, I want to make an appeal. We do not have sufficient policemen. Every member of the public must accept a responsibility as well. We must accept the responsibility of helping the police. We must help them in various ways. We must keep our eyes peeled. We must try to prevent crime. We must not expect the police to do everything for us. We do not have sufficient policemen. We are living in a country in which, as I have said, the crime rate is increasing. We should like to effect a drop in that rate. I am making an earnest request that we in South Africa should encourage the public to help us. Hon members who are criticising us now, can help us by making that request too. The hon member for Bryanston did not refer to that at all. He merely criticised us. He merely attacked us. The hon member for Claremont wants the special constables to get out of the Black residential areas.

Yes!

The hon member must join me in asking his voters and the people of South Africa to help us by joining the police reservists, by joining Crime Watch organisations, so that all of us can really assist the police. That is what is necessary, Sir, because as I have said, there are too few policemen.

In the final instance we must also be fair. Our criterion should be the success the police attain. Let us look at only one example. The hon member spoke about car theft. This is one kind of crime that has increased tremendously. We are concerned about it. Whereas fewer than 10% of these cases were solved in the past, however, our figure with reference to the crime of car theft is almost 50% at the moment. This attests to training and hard work on the part of the police, with the purpose of looking after the people and the interests of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, after listening to the speech made by the hon the Minister of Law and Order in which I was struck specifically by the capable way in which he deals with his very important post in the Department of Law and Order, I can say that I have great appreciation for his conduct, and particularly for the way in which he has the interests of the SA Police at heart.

In this debate on this year’s Appropriation Bill, we are debating on a wide front the subject of how the State can obtain the necessary finances to meet all its obligations and render the necessary services that have to be rendered in the country, while still paying those who render the services a decent salary without placing too great a burden on the country’s taxpayers.

I am entering into this debate, and since this is the first time that I shall speak in this esteemed House, I stand here in all humility, but also with great gratitude for having the privilege of being able to represent the Aliwal constituency in the House of Assembly.

I hope you will permit me to avail myself of this opportunity to thank my predecessor, Mr Johan Greeff, for the excellent service he rendered to the Aliwal constituency and the dignified way in which he represented his constituency in the House of Assembly.

Hear, hear!

I want to congratulate him on the great heights he reached in the House of Assembly. If I may be so fortunate as to receive even a little of the respect accorded him, I shall be blessed indeed. I want to express my thanks to Mr Greeff for his example and excellent service, and to wish him the best of luck in the responsible task he now has.

In this debate I am going to speak about the financial aspects of one of our agricultural industries, particularly in view of the difficult financial times the farmers in South Africa, and throughout the world, are experiencing. Adjustments will have to be made as far as agriculture is concerned, the problems of this industry can be resolved.

I want to talk about one of the important earners of foreign exchange in agriculture, viz the wool industry, and specifically the merino, the animal which gives us a much sought after, excellent, natural fibre. If one wants to talk about this with authority, one should say something about the history of the merino. The merino sheep originally came from Spain, although some people are of the opinion that the animal was originally taken to Spain from North Africa by the Moors.

One wonders where the name merino comes from. There are various theories about the origin of the name. Some experts believe that the name originated from the Latin word majorinus which, when translated, means “an official who is in charge of pastures”. Others think the name comes from marinus which hints at the origin of the animal. This means “race from across the sea”.

The merino’s country of origin, Spain, had two flocks of merinos. The one was the kind that belonged to the royal house, the church and the nobility of the country. They were called “transhumantes”, which means “the type or the flocks one migrates with”. The owners of the flocks moved them to better pastures regularly and that was where the name came from. The other kind of merino was known as the “estantes” which means “local flocks”. These flocks belonged to the ordinary citizens or farmers in Spain, and were kept mainly to provide their owners with meat. The transhumantes merinos were the progenitors from which most of the merino flocks in the world originated.

An interesting historic item is that in 1879 the king of Spain presented the Dutch government with four merino ewes and two merino rams. The gift was sent by the Dutch government to the military commander-in-chief at the Cape. He was a certain Col Gordon who wanted to start a wool industry here at the Cape. Unfortunately for the wool industry in South Africa, Col Gordon died six years after the arrival of the merinos, and the little flock was sold and shipped to Australia. Some of the first merino sheep were sent there from South Africa, therefore. It is ironical, however, that some of the same merinos were later imported from Australia to South Africa to improve the South African merino flocks.

After the arrival of the British Settlers in 1820, the merino industry was properly established in the Eastern Cape. Some of the most famous merino studs are found in this part of South Africa, some of the largest wool-producing districts are situated there and some of the best processed wool clippings come from that part of the country.

The real development of the merino industry only got off the ground in 1910, firstly because of the positive improvement of the breed in that merino stud breeders from the Eastern Cape imported stud animals from Australia. Proper standards were determined for the selection and classification of the merinos, and here a little mistake slipped in, because—this is my criticism against the original standards—too much emphasis was placed on wool and the quality of wool, and the conformation of the animal was not taken into account. This was rectified later by research on the merino and its wool by institutions such as the agricultural colleges at Grootfontein and Glen.

By determining these proper class standards as well as by good training and extension, farmers and experts in the merino and wool industry developed this industry so that every South African can proudly boast that some of the best merinos in the world are found in our country. South Africa’s wool clippings are a much sought after product among buyers and processers throughout the world because of good classification and the quality of the products in those bales.

All of us, including the country’s taxpayers, have a responsibility to ensure that the high standards of the merino of South Africa are maintained and enhanced, if possible, so that the sought-after wool fibre can earn even more foreign exchange to the benefit of everyone in the country. Besides, it has been medically proven that wool is the most suitable fabric for the human body.

It was a privilege to take part in this debate in support of the Appropriation Bill, and to speak about a fine and sought-after agricultural industry.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to congratulate the hon member for Aliwal on his maiden speech. He has a fine voice which carries well, and he gave us a fine picture of the history of the merino. I believe we all agree that the merino is one of the beautiful animals to be seen on our farms everywhere, and this animal is dear to all of us.

I regard it as a privilege to have been sent to this House by the voters of Witbank and I am only too aware of the responsibility this places on me. When one evaluates the ability and efforts of South Africa’s enemies, one wonders whether or not the task is perhaps too great. My answer is the answer Elisha gave at Dothan:

We are reminded, over and over again, that it is faith that conquers the world, not riches, weapons or ingenuity. Do we not perhaps have too many of the other characteristics and too little faith?

This country is indeed a rich country. Nowhere else in the world has such a small area been endowed with so much wealth under the earth’s crust. We can also cry:

Could Jan van Riebeeck, when he came ashore here in April 1652, ever have dreamt what a treasure of mineral wealth was waiting to be exploited in the beautiful southern part of Africa. The country’s mineral exploitation had a small beginning with the mining of copper in Namaqualand in 1852. Could the man who discovered diamonds in 1886 have thought in his wildest dreams that South Africa would become a colossus in the diamond trade, that foreign sales would rise to R517 million per annum and that the largest of all diamonds, the Cullinan diamond, would be discovered at the southern tip of Africa in 1905? Could the man who discovered gold on the farm Langlaagte in 1886 ever have imagined a Johannesburg, the Gold City of the world?

More than 650 tons of gold is mined per annum, with which the country earned R16 billion of the total foreign exchange revenue of R19 billion in 1984. The RSA’s mineral wealth is directly responsible for 14% of the gross domestic product. No other country has the privilege of having 50 different minerals to export. South Africa is the largest mineral producer in respect of inter alia gold, manganese, ferrochrome, and export diamonds. In addition we are the second largest producer of inter alia vanadium, chrome ore and vermiculite.

I want to hasten to say something about Witbank too. The town owes its origin exclusively to the rich coal-seams which have been mined in the district for many years. Coal is becoming more and more important to South Africa. Since 1864, when the first coal mine was opened in the Eastern Cape, the industry has grown to such an extent that more than 162 million tons of coal are mined per annum. The country’s reserves are estimated at 115 billion tons, of which 58 billion tons can be mined by means of the present techno-economic process. Approximately 123 million tons is for domestic use, whereas approximately 38 million tons is exported.

Witbank is coal country. It has grown from a small coal village to one of the largest towns in the Eastern Transvaal. Witbank is well-known for being the birthplace of the electricity power supply to the Rand. If one looks across the Highveld at the spot where where the constituencies of Bethal, Middelburg and Witbank meet, one can see nine power stations in action. It is correct, therefore, that the MPs of Bethal, Middelburg and Witbank sit next to one another in the House.

More than half the electricity that is generated from coal goes to industry, whereas the rest is used for transport, household use, agriculture and mining. Escom uses coal in particular to supply the country with energy. There are 20 power stations and six are under construction. In addition there is one nuclear power station, three hydro-electric power stations and two gas-turbine stations. Escom has spread a network of lines and cables adding up to more than 156 000 kilometres across the length and breadth of this country.

The SATS plays a big part in exporting the high-grade coal via Richards Bay. Longhaul trains transport 35 million tons of coal to the harbour annually. It is expected that by the end of the century, 80 million tons of coal will reach their destination abroad.

Large machinery is used inter alia for the mining of coal. The value of some of this machinery is approximately R30 million. They remove the surface soil so that up to 10 000 tons of coal can be exposed by one machine per day. The surface soil is displaced in such a way that the top surface consists of fertile soil. Once the mining activities have been completed, the area is restored by establishing cultivated pasture there.

Anyone who approaches Witbank om a cold winter’s morning may be disappointed because the first thing he will see is the dullness and drabness that surrounds the town. Involuntarily one asks oneself whether there can be happy and satisfied people in this town. Often the secret wish of many people is that they will never have to come and live in Witbank. The opposite is true of its people, however. They are men and women who do their task promptly and with dedication, often in difficult conditions such as cold and rain. This is what the residents of Witbank are like.

The coal industry has attracted other industries to the town, and today Witbank is a prosperous community which provides a living for many a young man and young woman, especially people from the Cape interior. In this respect I can make special mention of the steel factory, Highveld Steel, which is one of the largest steel works in South Africa. The other factories which deserve to be mentioned are Ferrometals, Transalloys and Rand Carbide.

The boundaries of the Witbank constituency encompass almost the whole of KwaNdebele. In the direction of Pretoria, there are a number of farmers in the Bronkhorstspruit and Cullinan areas. These are the people I am privileged to represent here. Where they are concerned my motto will always be “At your service”, because to serve them is worth while.

Mr Chairman, to start with I want to congratulate the hon member for Witbank on his maiden speech here in this House today. He spoke about his constituency and he has every right to do so. I believe he represents a good constituency, and we want to wish him everything of the best in the service he must render to his constituency.

In this morning’s Die Burger there was a very enlightening article about the CP. The caption to the article was: “KP behoort sy geheime oor partisie en AWB met kiesers te deel”.

Give us an opportunity to do so.

I want to read a single quote from the article. This concerns the fact that a CP member told the Prog Press that the CP had a definite plan regarding how they were going to apply partition in this country; but they did not want to announce it yet. How can we participate in politics in this country if the CP, which is now the Official Opposition, does not want to submit the secrets of its strategy to the voters!

The Government is keeping its policy a secret too.

The NP’s policy is well known. At this stage I want to address the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, an indirectly elected member. He tried to cast suspicion on the NP, while misrepresentations in the CP ranks are rife. In all their actions and in all the documents they publish, there are halftruths, which do not keep abreast of the realities of South Africa’s problems.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with the NP’s policy?

The sooner that hon member realises that the realities must be addressed and that they must be debated in a factually correct manner, the sooner he will be satisfied with and resigned to his position in this House. It seems to me he is extremely uneasy about his position in this House.

Are you not uneasy about your majority?

Today, the hon member for Overvaal had a lot to say here… [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I am speaking to the hon member for Overvaal…

Order! I am speaking to the hon member for Parys. I am calling for order. This is not going to be allowed. If hon members want to compel me to forbid them to make interjections they must carry on as they are doing now. The hon member for Parys may proceed.

Today the hon member for Overvaal again expressed the fear of the CP and its people about the Blacks in the so-called White areas.

He was virtually in tears.

Yes, he was virtually in tears. Now I want to ask the hon member why the CP members do not set an example to the voters of South Africa by firing all the Blacks at present in their employ. Why do they not fire them, because if the Whites do not give the Blacks work, they, the Blacks, will not be there.

That is not the CP’s policy.

People complain about crowding out by Blacks, particularly in the rural towns. But every Black who is there, is there because a White is giving him work.

In his maiden speech the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke made a wonderful appeal for the upliftment of the Blacks and for the attitude we must adopt towards the Blacks in the rural areas…

What is your point?

… but then the other hon members of the CP come along and complain about the Blacks in those areas.

We do not give them political rights in our areas.

Very well, if one does not want to give them political rights there, the hon member must say whether he wants to control the education to be provided for the children of those Black people. Does the hon member want to exercise control over their townships? What are the hon members omitting to tell us? Hon members of the CP will not give us a reply to this.

They want to make use of the labour of those Black people for their own material advantage…

… and that of the Blacks.

They do not however want to give these people the right to decide their own affairs.

In their own fatherlands, yes! [Interjections.]

We have outgrown that time in South Africa when the Whites acted in a dictatorial manner towards the Blacks, particularly as regards their own affairs, including their education and community life. Hon members of the CP must take cognisance of that. If the CP policy of partition does not make provision for that, the policy of partition cannot work.

As far as I can see it is wonderful to be a CP member. [Interjections.] One can say the most unbelievable things and make all manner of statements and get away with it. One even comes across people who vote for one because one has said such unbelievable things. [Interjections.]

The half-truths being told by the CP are becoming history in this country. In the future they will have to answer to the voters when the voters catch them out.

Nowadays the hon member for Lichtenburg has the habit, which he would seem to have learned from Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche, of sweeping people along with him, by appealing to their emotions. One of the hon speakers has already said that the hon member apparently wants us to leap to our feet and applaud him.

We cannot be popular in South Africa. We must be responsible. I challenge the CP to make responsible statements, particularly regarding the future of the relations between Whites and Blacks in this country.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, when business was suspended for dinner I was saying that it must be wonderful to be irresponsible. The hon members of the CP make statements which hang in the air. They make it seem as if the solutions to this country’s problems are very simple. They say that South Africa need only be divided into thirteen countries; then all the racial problems will be solved. If this costs money, what difference does it make? That is the standpoint they have adopted. Then they go further and ask what difference it makes if the other population groups do not agree with their policy of partition. What does it matter whether or not they work with the AWB? A bloodbath may as well be a part of the solution.

Then the hon member for Lichtenburg stands on a political platform in the Free State and says that the CP will write off the farmers’ debts. He spoke in an unqualified manner about which debts and whose debts would be involved.

They are going to lower taxes too.

They announced that they were also going to lower taxes.

The solution to the problems in agriculture is not that easy to find. Particularly as regards agricultural financing it is very necessary, particularly at this time when the State has voted an additional R400 million to try to keep farmers on their farms, which we on this side of the House greatly appreciate, that this money be used in such a way that the greatest number of efficient farmers possible are kept on the farms. In the good years we experienced, the ’seventies, as they are known, the farmers did not realise what problems could arise if we were to experience a drought or if market prices for their products were to decline.

In South Africa, as in any other part of the world, agriculture has always been the axis around which the economy revolves. In the ’thirties, when we had the depression, agriculture also had to be built up again and use had to be made of State assistance. In those days we established the Famers’ Assistance Board, a Board of Aid, and every kind of board imaginable to keep the farmers on the farms at that stage. We must bear in mind that no government will ever be able to call a halt to financial assistance to agriculture.

Then, particularly people outside agriculture, such as the consumer, ask why this kind of assistance must be given to agriculture. This is surely the best investment any government can make in the interests of the country. It stimulates the economy in the rural areas in particular, but also the economy as a whole. Investments in the undertakings which process agricultural products, which to a great extent still come from private undertakings and the co-operatives, total billions of rands; not millions, but billions of rands. There are employment opportunities for almost two million people in the agricultural sector as well as the agricultural interest groups.

I also want to associate myself with the hon the Minister of Agriculture who said that it is not only the task of the Government to assist the farmers. I want to appeal in particular to commercial banks and other financial institutions to come forward with schemes which will offer real survival possibilities for these people, and not to exploit the farmers’ predicament to enrich themselves in the process. As an example of this I want to mention that there are financial institutions which make credit available which I do not think is justified.

In 1982 one specific amount—an amount of R169 341—was allocated to a farmer. This amount was offered to this man on his farm by this discount company; he did not ask for it. They gave it to him, as they said at that stage, at a very special interest rate. But then came the depression after 1982 and this man could not meet his obligations in respect of this account. By now he has paid off an amount of R122 000 on this loan. But the present balance is still R208 000. If he were to succeed in paying off this amount by the end of September of this year, he would have paid R331 194 on that R169 000. No undertaking could afford this escalation in interest which is added regularly, and still survive and remain liquid.

In another case the initial amount was R21 000. The man has already paid off R18 000, but he owes a further R41 900. These people cannot survive under these schemes.

I now want to refer to commercial banks. I have an example here of an extract from a February statement of this particular person. He came to an agreement with the bank in order to pay off an overdrawn account of R35 000. This person is not a risk; he has no other debts, such as carry-over debts at his co-operatives. He is one of the lucky farmers. In February the overdrawn amount was R32 000. He only wrote out two cheques that month—one for R135 and the other for R276. The interest he had to pay on this was 21%, an amount of R586,20. During this period the prime rate at commercial banks was 12%. In addition to this there were also administrative costs and miscellaneous costs which amounted to R59,98. When one converts this into interest, this man paid 23,5% interest on that overdrawn bank account. Under such circumstances when banks offer this kind of financing, farmers cannot survive.

I feel that we must now see whether we cannot manage to restructure agriculture in phases. The first phase has been announced. This is the phase in which this R400 million is going to be used. It will then still be necessary to offer other forms of assistance to make production and the sale of products possible. Here I am thinking of the possibility of offering the consumers a subsidy on railage so that the product can be sold to the consumer more cheaply. This will result in meat—white or red—being offered to the consumer more cheaply. There are various consumer products which can be sold to the consumer more cheaply as a result of this subsidy, which could lead to a higher consumption. As soon as one has a higher consumption—because it is important to note that one’s domestic market is always the best market—it is easier for the producer to accept a lower price and in this way have a bigger turnover, which will eventually give him the same profit.

There are various methods one can consider under the circumstances, but what I am advocating today is that the restructuring of agriculture, and the State’s involvement in this, should not stop with this R400 million. In the future we shall also have to consider additional measures to make it possible for the farmers to be economically independent again.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parys will forgive me for not following on his speech. I want to take issue with the hon the Minister of Finance.

I should like to remind the House of the hon the Minister’s classic statement in the general election that we should not fight the election on economic issues. [Interjections.] The references in this regard are available. The hon the Minister spoke in the Cape Town Gardens constituency during the election campaign, and made another classic statement. He said we should not complain about inflation because it could be worse, not for a moment accepting that it could be better! [Interjections.]

In most normal countries which are not dominated by the racial debate that we are plagued with in this country, economics would be the thing that governments would stand or fall by because economics is the essence of politics. It is the thing which touches people in their daily lives. I say that if this Government had been judged on its economic track record in this general election, it would not have been the government of South Africa today. [Interjections.]

If a government is not controlling inflation, as this Government has failed to do, then each and every citizen feels the effect in his daily life. How many of us, in our canvassing during this election, did not come across housewives who are battling to stretch the monthly budget—not able to buy the meat they used to be able to buy and not able to provide those special extras for the family that they used to be able to buy? [Interjections.] Those hon members over there can laugh; they are the fat cats who are laughing! [Interjections.] In our constituencies—I include my own constituency which, I will concede, is a relatively privileged one—there were fathers having sleepness nights trying to balance their budgets.

The ordinary family man who in 1970 was earning R9 000 must today earn some R60 000 to be in the same position. How many people are in that position?

That story did not help you!

We will get to that, Sir.

That family man who earned R9 000 in 1970 was paying 19% marginal tax. Today, if he is earning R60 000, he pays 42% marginal tax. [Interjections.] He is going backwards!

The rate is 45%; not 42%.

That’s worse! [Interjections.]

Sir, I do not know how many pensioners the hon the Minister has in his constituency, but in my own constituency I met pensioners ekeing out an existence, desperately concerned about—haunted by fear, in fact—the day they might not be able to afford their humble accommodation any more and the day they would not be able to afford their medical care. They are cutting back on cups of tea, sitting in the dark behind locked doors in the evenings, afraid of muggers and trying to save money by using less electricity. These are victims of this uncaring Government. [Interjections.]

This is a Government that takes the taxpayer’s money and spends it on ideological schemes to entrench themselves, and for their own aggrandizement. [Interjections.] The accusation we lay at the door of this Government is that they have failed completely to curb inflation…

Is that for the ANC?

The hon the Deputy Minister shouts “ANC”, and that is exactly the reaction one gets from that side of the House. Any serious debate on economics is met by the NP with remarks on communism and the ANC, and I still want to talk about communism. [Interjections.] Sir, it is nothing to be proud of that the Government reduces the political debate in South Africa to parrot cries of “ANC” and “communism”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must be given an opportunity to continue with his speech.

Thank you, Sir.

The economic accusations that we lay at the door of this Government, are its complete failure to curb inflation when our major trading partners have curbed it—and by not curbing it we are going backwards in relative terms—and its failure to protect our currency. In August 1985 the hon the State President cost this country millions of rand per second with his Rubicon speech. He gave the disinvestment lobby the biggest boost it had ever had. Thirdly, the Government has failed to keep personal taxation in check, in order to finance their schemes. We are now taxed more than Australia and Britain, traditionally highly-taxed countries, and we get less for it. Fourthly, it has failed to protect the aged and those living on fixed incomes. Fifthly, it has failed to nurture properly that most productive job-creator in the private sector, viz small businesses. Finally, it has failed to curb its own expenditure and the growth of the bureaucracy.

It is being said that the present endemic unrest in South Africa is the result of Black exclusion from the Constitution and their rejection of the tricameral Parliament.

Quite right.

Quite obviously there is Black rage at their exclusion, there is no doubt about that. In addition…

The hon the Minister smiles, he is laughing!

I know the hon the Minister is smiling. He thinks it is all the result of agitators and the communists. [Interjections.]

I want to suggest that the economic mismanagement of this country, particularly during the crucial period 1983-85, part of which falls under this hon Minister, contributed just as much to the present state of national crisis as did the constitutional management of the country. It is clear to me that in 1983 the Government threw aside sound economics to buy votes for the referendum. It overspent on budget, it paid unreasonable increases and then followed with massive overspending. When the hon the Minister was appointed in 1984 his first big act was a disaster. He introduced a panicky and excessive clampdown which cut off credit lines and forced up interest rates, all of which led to a string of business failures and a deep recession in 1985 and 1986.

That had a particularly devastating effect in the Eastern Cape where the unrest was worst. I have no doubt that the unemployment and plummeting business confidence which struck this country as a result of this Government’s economic mismanagement with that hon Minister at the helm, particularly during the period 1983-86, contributed to the unrest. What does a poor Black man do who is already living in poverty, who is close to the breadline with no accumulated savings to fall back on and who is already politically discontented, when he loses his job and finds he cannot feed his family? What better seedbed for political agitation can there be than tens of thousands of discontented people, mostly Blacks who are young with no work and with political grievances?

That is why they steal from me.

My point is that if there are riots and unrest in such circumstances, and the crime rate increases, then the Government must share the blame every bit as much as any effort by the agitators.

I wish I had the time to discuss this matter further, but I should like to come back to this question of communism. This is the parrot-cry that the Government puts forward every time we want to talk seriously about economics. They say: “Reject communism, vote for the NP.” They held themselves up as the big champions against communism. [Interjections.] I want to say right now that I and the PFP are opposed to communism. We are opposed to any totalitarian political system, whether it is to the right or the left. [Interjections.] We are also opposed to communist economics, such as…

Which that party supports.

… the economics of central State control of all the instruments of production, the economics of State ownership of property which denies the individual the right to own property, which denies the individual the right to enterprise for his own account. We reject communist economics, we reject totalitarian systems. The question we put to the NP, however, is: What is it doing to combat communism? [Interjections.] What is it doing to ensure the survival of the free enterprise economic system in this country?

May I ask the hon member a question?

I am sorry, I will not take any questions, I have no time.

There is no doubt in my mind that tough legal and security measures are necessary against communist revolutionaries in certain circumstances and subject to certain provisos.

However, there is also no doubt in my mind that tough is not enough. The challenge of communism must be met in the hearts and minds of the people. It must be overcome by demonstrating the benefits of the free enterprise system. [Interjections.] One has to let these people share in the benefits of the free enterprise system. To be on the side of free enterprise they must taste the fruits of it. How can one win them away from communism if one cannot give them the benefits of free enterprise?

A free man, which the Blacks are not, with his own house, which most of them do not have, and a secure job, which many do not have, and a bank balance is a very poor target for communism. In short, the antidote to communism is freedom, democracy and prosperity. Every day that the Government denies people freedom of association, perpetuates the Group Areas Act and preserves separate amenities on the basis of skin colour, it denies the essence of free enterprise economics.

In 1979 the National Assembly of South West Africa with the approval of this Government passed the Abolition of Racial Discrimination Act, Act 3 of 1979. This was eight years ago. In terms of that Act the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act were scrapped in SWA/Namibia. If it is right for that country why is it not right for this country? The Government must provide the answer to that question. They made those changes there eight years ago, but we are still awaiting the change here.

A final point that I want to raise in this debate is the question of the Chris Ball affair and the First National Bank. I would like to make a direct appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance publicly to put on record that this Government has no quarrel with the institution of the First National Bank—whatever quarrel it may have with the person of the managing director. [Interjections.] It is a matter of national economic importance. The First National Bank is the biggest bank of South Africa and it has served in every corner of the country and in every aspect of the economy. [Interjections.] Businessmen, farmers and other individuals have relied on this bank and they have been served well by this bank. This institution of the economy must not be allowed to be undermined by petty politics. [Interjections.]

Order! There are a few hon members who are continually interrupting the hon member. Would they kindly cease doing so? The hon member may continue.

I appeal to the hon the Minister for the NP to call off its dogs. Where was he when the Benoni town council— probably in direct contravention of the security measures—threatened a boycott against this bank? Where was he as the hon the Minister of Finance when the biggest banking institution in the country was under threat of boycott? I ask the hon the Minister to set the record straight publicly in this debate. We cannot afford a chain reaction of boycotts and counter-boycotts at an economic level throughout the South African economy. I ask him to put the record straight in connection with the First National Bank.

Mr Chairman, on the occasion of my first speech I would like to make use of the opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor in this House, Dr LAPA Munnik.

Hear, hear!

In the Cape he served over a very wide field as a member of the Provincial Council, as member of the Executive Committee, as Administrator of the Cape, as Member of Parliament for Caledon and later Durbanville, as well being a Minister of the Republic of South Africa. One could perhaps have differed with Dr Munnik over many things, for example his political views and statements, but one outstanding aspect of Dr Munnik’s personality which should still be an example to every young politician this evening is the integrity with which he acquitted himself of his task in every post.

Hear, hear!

The constituency which I represent in this House is, in terms of numbers, the largest in the Cape and geographically it includes some of the most finest residential areas in the greater Cape Town metropolitan area. It includes four municipalities, namely Goodwood, Parow, Bellville and Durbanville itself. It is interesting to note that the constituency is situated in those areas which are the natural growth points of these municipalities. Sound planning by the city fathers and the officials of the various city councils, led to this area becoming one of the most sought after residential areas in the northern suburbs. I am therefore very grateful to be able to say tonight that as a result of the favourable circumstances, some of the best and most useful people in the Cape Town metropolitan area are to be found in that constituency. Such people are to be found in every sphere which affects South African society, the business sphere, the educational sphere or any other sphere. An outstanding characteristic of these people is that they have not become so engrossed in their professional lives and in their day-to-day tasks they have to do, that they forget the community and its needs. Tonight I want to pay tribute to the men and women who, despite having a full programme and hard work to do, have applied their energy, their time and their money to rendering those essential services in our society without which our communities would not be able to exist or be able to offer the same quality of life as is at present the case.

Tonight we can consider almost every sphere of life. Even the church—and I say this very respectfully—with its powerful message, is dependent upon the voluntarily service of people in conveying that message further afield. So too our business community in the way in which it is organised into the various commercial associations which exist in society, is dependent upon voluntary service. Our third-tier government is monitored by members of the taxpayers’ associations and other voluntary guardians of the interest of our ordinary people. One can take a look at every sphere in this way. We are sitting in this House tonight as a result of the hard work which is being done by people who voluntarily offered their services to the political parties in which they believe. This evening I want to pay tribute to these people. I also want to appeal to that portion of our society which does have the tendency to criticise from time to time and to pass judgment on the quality of these services which are being given voluntarily, not to stand on the side-fines but to join in and to help in order to give meaningful content to community life in the various communities in South Africa. By rendering those services a great deal of expertise is developed among those people who apply their energies in these organisations. Tonight my plea is that we in South Africa, who are intent upon winning a military, economic and ideological struggle, should encourage this expertise so that populations groups can communicate among themselves and so that sounder attitudes on grassroots level can be brought into existence in our society.

I believe that outside the political arena, where we have to confront one another over rights, economic advantages and the like, we should discuss with one another the well-being of our society, families, our associations, church and culture. We can hold these discussions in a meaningful way and in so doing, also get to know one another in order to render greater service to this country and its people.

During the past 18 years I have had the privilege of being very closely associated with the political party that I represent in this House. In fact, I am still involved with that party. I have held every post that was available in the organisation. I am very grateful that tonight I can stand here as someone who is able to say that he has, over the past 18 years, experienced a small part of the political growth and development of our people.

It is true that from time to time our people are frightened by and become afraid of the things they see around them and that from time to time they ask themselves very critical questions on the direction in which South Africa is headed. However, let our task in this House always be not to sow greater confusion where confusion may exist, not to create uncertainty where uncertainty may exist, and not to sow greater fear where fear may naturally exist. If we fear an ideological onslaught against us and if we fear an economic or a military onslaught against us, I merely want to say there is one thing I fear more, namely that we in South Africa will confine our spirits to such an extent that we will not perceive the challenges of the future.

I am convinced that in the years since the original settlement we have grown and developed by our own strength and our culture has gained a place for itself in Southern Africa and in the world, which we cannot fail to give recognition to without prejudicing the people with whom we have to share this country. I believe the greatest export product we have in this country and the most powerful weapon in our hands is the utilisation of that from which we have grown and which continues to be important and sacred to us, in order to achieve what is written in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, namely the upholding of Christian values and civilised standards. May this be our task and our calling. In that process. I believe, we can build a great and powerful South Africa.

Allow me at the end of my first speech in this House to pay tribute in particular to the hon the State President of the Republic of South Africa. I was privileged to work for many years very closely with him. I learnt a great deal from him and experienced many things with him. One thing I learnt from him was that one should not limit oneself in the face of the onslaught on one’s people because then one kills the power inherent in one’s people. This evening I want to ask that we stimulate and awaken the power which is inherent in South Africa so that we shall confront the future with faith and courage on the road to victory for this country and all its people. Unlike many people, I believe that we can win both the ideological and the military struggle, yet the most important battle we have to win, is the one for the spirit and the goodwill of all South Africa’s people.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a great pleasure to congratulate the hon member for Durbanville on his maiden speech in this House. I trust and believe that the hon member will make very worthwhile contributions here in future and that he will occupy this position in the highest Chamber of our country with dignity. I congratulate him on his speech.

It is my considered opinion that we shall only be able to recover economically in this country once the unrest situation and the threatening Black revolution in the Black residential areas have been rectified. As long as political disorder and chaos prevail in the Black residential areas and are allowed to continue because of ineffective or soft countermeasures, the South African economy will not be able to recover.

That is an outrageous statement!

Mr Chairman, earlier in this debate the hon member for Yeoville said that the economy first had to recover before a political solution could be found for the country. I want to differ with the hon member for Yeoville on this point by maintaining the opposite, namely that political stability and a situation in which law and order are preserved first have to be restored before an economic recovery is feasible in our father-land. As long as the state of lawlessness and chaos is allowed to continue without being effectively destroyed by those in authority, the South African economy cannot possibly recover, since trust in the political stability of every country is an absolute prerequisite for economic growth. [Interjections.]

Under a CP regime action will be taken against the forces of subversion and revolution as well as against communist-inspired agitators and terrorists in the same way as Dr Verwoerd’s NP government did. [Interjections.]

What about John Vorster? Why don’t you refer to John Vorster as well? [Interjections.]

That is why a CP government will negotiate with the leaders of other peoples. We shall not, however, negotiate with them about partition but about the implementation of partition. [Interjections.] We shall negotiate with them about the application of the policy of partition.

You will simply tell them what has to be done, won’t you?

No person of colour in this country will be able to harbour any expectations with regard to power sharing in an undivided fatherland. [Interjections.]

You will issue instructions and they will simply have to carry them out, not so? [Interjections.]

Earlier on in this debate the hon member for Lichtenburg said that the Government had not really counteracted the revolution in its handling of the threatening Black revolution, but had promoted it instead. [Interjections.] I want to join him in saying… [Interjections.]

Order! No, hon members may not like what the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke is saying, but he is nevertheless entitled to say it. He must therefore be given an opportunity to say it. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the fact of the matter is that this Government is offering to negotiate with Blacks on a new constitutional dispensation according to which Blacks together with Whites and other so-called minority groups will share political power in our country. They are doing this while the Blacks are fomenting radical violence and revolution in our fatherland by means of intimidation—after all, that is why we still have a state of emergency in this country today. The Black revolution in fact owes its origin and its continued existence to the fact that Whites for the present occupy the essential position of political power, and that Coloureds and Indians…

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

No, Sir, I do not have time to reply to any questions now. [Interjections.]… and that Coloureds and Indians have been accommodated while they excluded the Blacks from the political dispensation. In this way the Government is playing directly into the hands of the revolutionaries. They are doing so by being prepared to negotiate with Blacks about this very aspect and about relinquishing real political power.

It is constantly being affirmed from this side of the House that no negotiations with any Blacks on any political policy can be meaningful as long as the powers of subversion and revolution in South Africa have not been totally, finally and decisively beaten.

Let us take a look at who the people are with whom the Government is prepared to negotiate. They are even publishing advertisements to that end, while the Government itself still deems it necessary and in the national interest that the state of emergency continue. The hon the State President has repeatedly indicated that he will negotiate new constitutional future for our fatherland with any Black leader of any Black group or organisation that condemns or denounces violence. Any organisation that is playing a part in the present violent situation in the Black residential areas is therefore summarily, as in the case of the ANC, excluded from the negotiating process.

In the recent past certain anomalies have, however, become very apparent in regard to the question of with whom the Government is prepared to negotiate on a new political and constitutional dispensation in which the Blacks will share political power on all levels of government with the Whites. I should like to point out these anomalies very clearly so that the Government will be able to give us and the Whites outside Parliament a clear answer in this regard during the present debate.

In the first place, since the Government has said that it will negotiate with all organisations that denounce violence, and on that basis by implication with the ANC as well, we can draw the conclusion that if the ANC were to denounce violence yet remained in essence a communist-inspired organisation and its leaders remained communists, the Government would negotiate with the ANC. [Interjections.] In other words, would the Government negotiate with communists who ostensibly denounce violence, on a constitutional solution in South Africa? [Interjections.] The Government owes South Africa an answer, a very clear answer, to this question. I hope the Government will give us that answer.

In the second place—this is the second anomaly I want to mention—while the Government maintains that it will only negotiate with organisations that denounce violence, it has recently come to light that the Government has begun to negotiate with the UDF through the President’s Council. I want to refer hon members to a report which appeared in the Pretoria News of 8 June 1987:

Sir, in the debate on the Transport Services Appropriation Bill I said that since the UDF was the public wing of the ANC, the UDF should also be declared illegal by this Government. The hon member for East London North maintained in that debate that I had no proof that the UDF was in fact the public wing of the ANC. In fact he denied it. I was surprised to hear that denial from the opposite side of the House. I should now like to supply him and other members with the proof that the UDF is not only the public wing of the ANC but that it is in fact planning, initiating, and orchestrating the entire Black revolution and Black violence in the Republic of South Africa.

I should like to refer hon members to Aida Parker’s Special Report. [Interjections.]

This is the same Archie Gumede with whom these hon members on the other side of the House are now negotiating via the President’s Council. Let us see who this Archie Gumede is. I quote:

Sir, can there still be any doubt in any hon member’s mind about the direct link which exists between the ANC and the UDF? The question now is: In of its standpoint on violence, why did the Government initiate negotiations with the UDF? Are the Government’s negotiations with the UDF merely a first step towards, or a means of preparing the way for, negotiations with the ANC? That question can quite justifiably be asked this evening. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brakpan has on several occasions tried to provoke other hon members across the floor of this House to the detriment of his own speaker. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke may proceed.

The significance of the recent negotiations which Prof De Lange, the chairman of the Afrikaner Broederbond— many hon members on that side of the House are members of the organisation—held with a representative of the ANC abroad is being intensely enhanced by the fact that the Government is now apparently prepared to negotiate with the UDF. By negotiating with the UDF by means of the President’s Council, the Government has in fact made a mockery of its promise to the White voters before the elections that they would only negotiate with organisations that denounced violence.

The UDF is in the forefront of violence and revolution in South Africa, yet the Government has already begun to negotiate with it. In the same way the Government will in future, break every single promise made and undertaking given to the White voters making a mockery of South Africa. The Government’s promises in this election that the rights of the Whites, as a minority group, would be guaranteed in a new dispensation of power sharing with Blacks is a promise which the Government itself knows is simply not viable in a democratic system; or are they perhaps going to come forward with an undemocratic system?

In his reply on Monday, the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare conceded that there would probably be more Blacks than Whites in the legislative authority and yet, he assured us, the Whites’ self-determination would not be jeopardized. I want to tell hon members that that is as good as saying that the sun will rise in a cloudless sky, but there will not be any light. In any democratic system in which Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks share power within the same political institutions democratically, it is an irrefutable fact that the Blacks, due to the simple reality of their numbers, will and must eventually control full and effective political power, regardless of whatever artificial models the hon members of the NP want to devise for them.

As far as we are concerned it is a cul de sac for the Whites, a dead end, a suicidal course. That is why we on this side of the House say unequivocally that the future of our father-land will be sought and found in each people and ethnic group having its own fatherland, in which the natural forces of nationalism and patriotism will inspire and spur each of them on to full political adulthood and self-determination. Only when each people governs itself in its own fatherland can political stability and law and order be the instigators of economic recovery and growth.

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

No, Sir.

Under the CP regime there will be no doubt, because every person’s political aspirations will be channeled through the processes of government of its own fatherland. Only in this way can the heritage of our fathers continue to be the heritage of our children in this fatherland.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to dwell for very long on the political tirades which the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke has just fired at us like cannon shots here. I should merely like to debate two specific matters with him. He said there could not be any political stability under an NP Government. It seems this is not possible under an NP Government because it is accompanied by unrest in the Black areas, and so on. This evening I should like to know from the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke how he thinks they are ever going to achieve political stability under a CP government if they ignore, negate and refuse to acknowledge the existence of groups in this country. [Interjections.] Surely the hon member does not know what it is all about. He must get to know what it is all about. The hon member is levelling a tremendous accusation at the Government with the following words:

I take it that the hon member is still a newcomer and does not know how the President’s Council functions. In the first place, the President’s Council is not a negotiating body. [Interjections.] The President’s Council is part of the structure of this country’s legislative and executive authority. Allow me to explain this to the hon member, since I was there for two and a half years. The important point is that the President’s Council is an investigative body. That is one of its functions. When the council heard evidence, it evidence as a committee and not as a government. The committee is composed of all the population groups, but also of all the political parties in this country. The CP inter alia is also represented there. [Interjections.] I do not want to deal with the hon member’s statements any further. There are hon members who will do so after I have spoken.

This evening I want to deal with a serious subject in this House. In the time at my disposal I should like to speak specifically on aspects of the revolutionary against the RSA and the direct effect thereof on the economy and the fiscal provision that is being made for it in the Budget. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister of Finance emphasised this aspect specifically, and the hon member for Newcastle has already referred to it this afternoon. I should like to quote it again because it is of cardinal importance.

The hon the Minister of Finance said the following:

In dealing with his appropriation of finances for the coming financial year the hon the Minister said:

In the time allotted to me I can hardly deal with the total revolutionary onslaught on South Africa, yet I want to make the following brief observations. It is ironic that South Africa, the only remaining bastion against communism and terrorism at the foot of Africa has to be sentenced, punished and condemned at a time when the reform process in our country has made and is is making very positive progress. It is a pity that the Western World has become the identified target of worldwide terrorism. Unfortunately not realise that the same enemy that is terrorising it is the enemy South Africa has to contend with.

In the 12 months before America bombed Tripoli, 900 innocent men, women and children were murdered in terrorist activities all over the world. America reacted to this and tried to teach Ghadaffi a lesson. What happened when it did that? There was almost unanimous condemnation by the rest of the Western World. America stood alone with Britain as its only ally among all the Nato countries.

At the beginning of last year America appealed to its European allies to rise as one man against Ghaddafi and take action against him. But the democracies of the Western World said no. Why was that? Among the arguments they used was that it could not be proven beyond all doubt that Ghaddafi was involved in terrorism. They also had trade links with Libya, or were too close to that country. Whatever their reasons may have been everyone found a reason to say no. America went so far as to ask that sanctions be imposed against Libya but this request fell on death ears and it was said that sanctions would not have been practicable in any case.

The important point, however, is that these same countries that were not prepared to act against the greatest terrorists and gang leaders in the world were prepared—and I include America in this—to vote in favour sanctions against South Africa and to apply them without them realising that they were simply playing into the hands of the same enemy that was terrorising them. It should not be forgotten that Ghaddafi has the open support of Russia and all the Warsaw Pact countries of the. They also have the support of the so-called “Arab League of Nations” as well as many other countries in the world.

†It is a pity that more publicity was not given to the international conference on terrorism which was held and sponsored by Ghadaffi in Tripoli in March last year. It would have helped people to realize that the bomb blast in the shopping mall on the Champs Elysées, or the explosion on a routine TWA commercial flight out of Rome, or the gunning down of a top NATO official were not isolated events but part of a concerted attack against Western civilisation. At the top of the agenda of this conference with its gruesome objectives was a full-scale discussion on the forming of a fighting force to promote revolution around the globe, with Libya as its headquarters. That was on the agenda.

According to informed sources, representatives of almost every terrorist and revolutionary movement operative in the noncommunist, non-one-party states were present. Let us have a look to see who were present at this conference on international terrorism. Firstly, there were members of the ANC, SWAPO and the PAC. Others present were the IRA Provisionals, Islamic extremists from Egypt and Lebanon, Italian Red Brigade terrorists, West German pacifists, leaders of the Red Army Faction, Spanish Basques, Corsicans, French Bretons, proindependence militants from France’s overseas possessions in New Caledonia, French Guiana and Réunion, Nicaragua’s Sandinistas, Peru’s Shining Path group, the M19 from Columbia, Muslim rebels from the Philippines, several Kurdish rebel groups, and last but not least several North American Indians.

It should by now be clear to serious observers that Southern Africa and particularly South Africa are prime targets in this campaign against the West. It is sad that the same intense effort being made by the Americans and also the Europeans to put a stop to terrorism on their soil is not made to embrace South Africa for it is in fact their southern front where the same mastermind, the same tactics, the same financing and the same training are at play; the only differences being the actors and the pretext.

*The external onslaught on the RSA is carefully planned, and is a reality which cannot be wished away. To deal effectively with this onslaught we must be economically and militarily prepared. What makes this Budget so unique is that it meets both these requirements.

I want to conclude by telling a short story. In 1977 it was my privilege to pay a visit to Israel. One day I was standing with an ex-Israeli soldier on the border between Israel and the Lebanon. He said to me: “Young man, do you realise that when our enemies lose a war, they lose a few miles of desert. If we lose only one war, we lose our total existence.”

I thank the Government and especially the hon the Minister of Finance who, by being far-sighted, took the necessary steps to ensure that we shall never lose that one, all-important war. It is my prayer that in this country, with its inexhaustible human resources and its inexhaustible source of financial potential, economic well-being and prosperity as well as with safety and security will be granted to all its inhabitants.

Mr Chairman, the constituency of King William’s Town has been represented in this fine place since 1910. The NP won the seat for the first time on 30 November 1977 when Mr H S Coetzer became the successful candidate. Formerly MP for Queenstown, he retired from active politics in January of this year while still the sitting MP for East London North. Mr Coetzer had a forthright approach and was dedicated to the cause of our border region. I wish him and his wife a happy and very healthy retirement.

I also wish to place on record a word of appreciation to my predecessor, Mr Pat Rogers, for his untiring services on behalf of constituents who found it necessary from time to time to call on their MP for assistance. I know he did everything possible to help them.

I find myself standing this evening in this august House representing King William’s Town on behalf of the NP. I am extremely grateful to the voters of my constituency for electing me and I am deeply conscious of the responsibility of this office. I have the feeling that the members of this Parliament will have a very special part to play in the history of South Africa.

Originally a mission station. King William’s Town was established in 1835. It was an important military settlement and this town is steeped in history and tradition. It has the oldest independent registered bank in South Africa, the BK Savings Bank; the historic Grey’s Hospital built by Sir George Grey; and the Kaffrarian Museum with the largest collection of mammals in the southern hemisphere and its unique Xhosa gallery depicting the lifestyle and the customs of the Xhosa nation.

The constituency extends far beyond the municipal boundaries of King William’s Town. It embraces the entire area between the national freeway to East London and the Kei River. It therefore lies strategically between the two independent republics of Ciskei and Transkei. It has a coastline of approximately 100 km and is correctly described as the Border Area.

The municipalities of King William’s Town, Beacon Bay, Gonubie, Kornga, Kei Mouth and Kei Road fall within the constituency. The Divisional Council of Kaffraria serves the rural area.

There is a mix of industry, commerce and agriculture, including sheep, cattle and pineapple farming, as well as tourism. The metropolitan area of East London-Berlin-King William’s Town has been identified as the number one growth point in the RSA for decentralisation and industrial development.

The King William’s Town constituency is therefore in a unique and vital geographic situation. It has a unique and sometimes strategic challenge. The first of these challenges is that of regional relationships.

Regional relationships between the Border Area, Ciskei and Transkei should not only be cordial but must also be developed into a strong bond which will ensure lasting stability and confidence for the whole region. In this regard the appointment of a permanent liason committee for Ciskei, Transkei and the RSA, and of such a respected person as the retired chief of the SA Police, Lieutenant General Johan Coetsee to represent RSA interests, is heartily welcomed by us. King William’s Town has a major role to play in the promoting of good-neighbourliness and cooperation.

The second challenge is to provide work for the masses of unemployed people in and around my constituency, and this must be a priority. It is gratifying to see the successful industrial development in neighbouring Ciskei. However, it is my view that the dormant industrial area of Berlin requires the impetus of a major primary industry. The infrastructure and an abundant source of labour are there for the taking. Only a primary industry with its related secondary industries and commercial interests can create the job opportunities so essntial for the area which has one of the highest population densities in Africa. I urge the relevant hon Minister, and particularly the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and his departmental officials, to give close attention to this particular matter.

To combat unemployment further, deregulation of small businesses and light industries must take place. We must do away with the red tape regulations that hinder the small man in commencing or operating his business or craft. Deregulation will mean more employment, more enterprise and self-generating wealth.

The third challenge to my constituency is that of tourism. With the coastline that we have the potential for tourism is a natural asset. The entire coast is dotted with holiday resorts, each a gem on its own of natural beauty in an unspoilt environment. Half of the coast north of Beacon Bay is serviced by a network of tarred roads, but the remaining half of this coastline has a totally inadequate road system. The magnificent resort of Kei Mouth which shows exceptional growth and lies opposite Transkei suffers from the worst gravel access road in the Cape, if not in South Africa. It is literally a death-trap, a road safety hazard, a nightmare of dust, flying stones and potholes, and a complete deterrent to tourism. No maintenance of the road will be successful. The money spent on maintenance, in my humble opinion, is money wasted. It requires complete reconstruction and a tarred surface. The cost of the existing road in terms of shattered windscreens, ruined tyres, wear and tear, maintenance, motor accidents, human lives and injuries is incalculable. I believe that special budgetary allowance will have to be made for this essential project. A new tarred road from Mooiplaas to Kei Mouth will serve the additional resorts of Haga-Haga and Morgan’s Bay. It will add lustre to tourism and create a whole new spirit of confidence for the commercial and agricultural interests and the hotel industry, and lead to further job creation. It will also unlock to the public of South Africa an untapped source of holiday pleasure and provide ready access to a strategic part of the RSA.

I close with a few thoughts concerning the Budget before us. The hon the Minister of Finance and his experts have for some years now waged a battle against a very subtle enemy, the enemy of inflation. I personally believe that we in South Africa will have this economic woe for some years to come. The best remedy is, of course, increased productivity, but we have a Third World population which is and has been largely unproductive. Until our entire population becomes motivated through education and training, inflation will remain a problem. Accordingly, we will have to learn to curb and control inflation to the best of our ability.

The art of good government is the art of good budgeting, the art of cutting the available cake in the most effective manner. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Gerhard de Kock, speaking at the tenth annual conference of Frankel Kruger Incorporated in Johannesburg on 10 February 1987 said the following, and I quote:

He suggested that to improve the growth rate in the short term, a policy of a moderately expansionary monetary and fiscal policy should be followed.

The hon the Minister of Finance presented his mini-budget in February and this Budget in such a way as to reveal a comprehensive appreciation of the problem of inflation, has exhibited a clear ability not only to control inflation but also to promote growth and to reduce inflation. He has proceeded with moderately expansionary monetary and fiscal policies which will achieve the desired result. He has cut the available cake in a most effective way. I therefore have much pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure to be able to follow upon the hon member for King William’s Town’s maiden speech. We knew him as an honourable member of the provincial council, and I have no doubt that he will be an honourable member of this House as well.

*Earlier in the debate the hon the Minister of Law and Order referred briefly to activities of mine against the “kitskonstabels”. I am not disparaging them. If the hon the Minister would bring himself up to date on the situation, he would find that the “kitskonstabels” were doing this themselves by their conduct and their poor training. In this way they are in actual fact contributing more to disparaging their own image than anyone else could.

You are talking nonsense!

The hon the Minister knows that there are many complaints. He knows what the feelings are, and there is no point in his blaming me for that.

The problem is a “kitsminister”! [Interjections.]

I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to emphasize the fact that there is a constantly increasing necessity for fundamental change in South Africa. A well-informed electorate is an absolute prerequisite for peaceful constitutional change.

Those hon members who are always saying that there can be no reform until there is stability and law and order can be maintained, have the wrong end of the stick. In fact, the opposite is true. The lack of fundamental reform in South Africa and the continuation of apartheid—disguised as own affairs in this case—is the direct cause of the unrest and the lack of maintenance of law and order. Over the years a number of commissions, including the Cillié Commission, have found that the policy of apartheid was the direct cause of the unrest. The hon the Minister is aware of these commissions. In a society of conflict such as the one in South Africa, in which change will have to be applied at an ever-increasing rate, a well-informed electorate is of cardinal importance for our continued existence. In a situation of increasing conflict, the uninformed or misinformed voter will not be able to respond meaningfully to the demand for reform.

One can compare this with the situation in which a doctor keeps the fact that his patient is seriously ill from the patient. One cannot expect that patient to take any medicine if he is not convinced that he is ill. In the same way one cannot expect the voters in South Africa to support fundamental reform if the Government does not tell them that there is something fundamentally wrong with society, and that they will have to use the “medicine” of fundamental change.

Not only will the uninformed voter reject the PFP’s call for reform, as was the case in the general election; he is going to do the same to the NP when he is asked for a mandate for true change. There were signs of this in the recent election in which the CP grew in an alarming way. [Interjections.]

Every time hon members enthusiastically welcome emergency measures, Press censorship, the intimidation of the Press, detention without trial of political opponents, and one-sided propaganda by the SABC, television and other State departments, they are contributing to the formation of an unbalanced and poorly informed electorate. The creation of such an electorate contributes directly to the downfall of a society like ours.

If hon members really supported fundamental change, at this stage they would immediately have launched an intensive information campaign to bring the following facts inter alia to the attention of the White electorate. In the first place, although everything seems peaceful on the surface, the country-wide unrest is continuing unceasingly, and no end is in sight. Secondly, although the number of unrest incidents has decreased, the intensity of the individual incidents has increased. Thirdly, the enthusiastic application of the hated group areas policy is fuelling the fires of unrest daily. Fourthly there is the frightening tendency of radicalisation, as symbolised by an increasing number of Black youths, who regard even the ANC as being too moderate.

These are alarming tendencies, which are kept from the voters. In the fifth place there is a rapid increase in the number of Blacks, young and old, who condone the use of violence against the State. These are alarming facts, Sir, but they are the reality. In the sixth place there is a rapid increase in the number of Blacks who, as a result of the unjustified and reckless use of violence by elements in the security forces, have undermined the position of the security forces and the Police in particular, as protectors of the people, and are continuing to do so daily by their individual conduct.

Can you prove that statement of yours?

Yes, we shall come back to it. [Interjections.]

I wish hon members could have been with me during visits to Bongolethu in Oudtshoorn, Lawaaikamp in George and KTC in Cape Town. On occasion small children of between two and four years old ran away screaming when they saw me, a White man, walking towards them.

I would have run away too! [Interjections.]

Order!

Hon members can laugh if they like, but if they had been there with me, they might have wondered what had happened in the lives of those children to make them run away screaming like that. [Interjections.]

Our Government decided to withhold these truths, truths which will determine the future of each of us, from the electorate. The result is that the White voters are still in the dark today, and are either not informed at all, or are misinformed. To be confronted by an uninformed electorate at this critical stage in our history, when a demand for change is increasing daily, is frightening.

During the past few days, and again today, I have listened to what hon members of the CP have been saying in this House, and I fear for my country when I think of the deadly effect the CP and AWB speakers, such as the hon members for Schweizer-Reneke and Lichtenburg, will have on an audience consisting of uninformed voters. Sir, those voters are sitting ducks when it comes to that kind of propaganda. [Interjections.] The uninformed or selectively informed voter has very little defence against the false logic and compelling simplicity of the CP’s right-wing message.

The NP is not going to curb the CP’s growth by having elections or by using the hon the Minister of National Education to counteract the CP. If the Government does not immediately take all possible measures that will guarantee the free exchange of ideas and the free obtaining of information in South Africa, and if it does not immediately launch a massive national information campaign, not a propaganda campaign, the Government will be preparing South Africa for an inevitable take-over by the right-wingers, of whom the CP and the AWB form a part. An uninformed electorate will support neither the NP nor the PFP on the course of true reform if it does not realise how serious the situation really is and how essential true fundamental change is if we want to continue to exist as a multiracial society. The choice the Government makes will determine not only the future of the NP, but the future of each one of us.

Mr Chairman, no one can differ with the general statement that the electorate should be informed. The worst form of sour grapes is, however, the complaint that the electorate was so badly informed even though the PFP had every opportunity to inform the voters of the facts before 6 May. That is precisely what they did, but the voters did not like the facts. The voters did not like the solution the PFP offered. As far as the PFP is concerned, I believe it would be better for the party if their voters and the other voters in the country were less well informed about their policy.

The hon member for Claremont also said that the unrest in the country was caused by the lack of constitutional movement. That, of course, is not correct. What are the facts? What has happened over the past few years? We have had movement in this country. We held a referendum and we put a new Constitution into operation. Democracy in this country has been broadened. Whether or not hon members agree with the way in which it was done, the fact remains that it has been broadened. More people have a say over their affairs than before. There has been a broadening and it was a great success. It has also been acknowledged as such internationally. After the referendum our Prime Minister was invited to seven overseas countries. That was to a large extent an acknowledgement of the success. I want to suggest that the unrest we are experiencing is precisely as a result of the success we have achieved. The forces of revolution realise that if they allow this Government to proceed with this reform policy it will solve our problems and that they will no longer have a basis upon which to instigate a revolution.

I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Parys, who said earlier this evening that it was very pleasant to be a CP member. One might as well forget the facts as long as one can shout and scream. This evening we have had quite a few examples of that. However, I should like to refer to the speech which the hon member for Lichtenburg made yesterday. I want to add that he made an unsavoury attack on the hon the Minister and that it was one of the most irresponsible speeches I have ever heard in this House, especially if one bears in mind that the hon member was a Cabinet Minister for a number of years. He considered this Budget to be a farce. It is very surprising when one takes into consideration that an opinion poll which was recently held showed that 74% of the leaders in the economy who were asked for their opinion were very excited about the future of our economy in the coming 6 to 12 months. If the Budget is such a mockery and if the “blunders” of this hon Minister are so “grotesque”as he said they were, how is it possible that such a large number of people at present have faith in our economy?

I am convinced that the hon the Minister can withstand these personal attacks. But what are the facts? The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance has already pointed out that certain so-called facts which the hon member for Lichtenburg mentioned are simply not ascertainable able. He said that the Government was financing revolution. What are the facts? The Budget for the Defence Force has risen by 30% after the Defence Force had previously received 14% of the Budget. The Budget for the South African Police has risen by 42,8%. Is that a Government which is financing revolution or is it a Government which wants to counter the revolution more forcefully? No, the attitude is one of “forget the facts; all we’ll do is shout and scream”.

The hon member also spoke of the tremendously high public debt. What are the facts? In 1978 the public debt was 39% of the gross domestic product. In 1986 it was 32%. Consequently there was a considerable decline in a matter of eight years, namely from 39% to 32%. There is a downward trend.

A further accusation which the hon member made was that our economic problems were due to the constitutional policy of the Government. As if sanctions will disappear if a Coloured and an Indian homeland is established—and we do not even know where— and as if sanctions will disappear when a White homeland is established! Once again, we do not know where.

The CP is a shy, secessionary movement; they want to secede (afskei), but they do not want to tell us to where.

What are they secreting (wat skei hulle af)? [Interjections.]

As if the unrest will cease if political development is denied the Blacks outside the homelands! As if the unrest will cease if trade-unions are gagged! As if the Budget will suddenly be balanced when millions of Blacks are relocated! No, let us return to the facts. It is no use shouting; we must discuss the facts.

It is tragic that when a Government fights for the Whites and all the minority groups in the country in order to negotiate a reasonable dispensation for ourselves in which there is no domination—we say this repeatedly—but civilised standards instead, sanctions are applied against us from abroad because of what the Government is trying to do. In the same way there is internal unrest against the Government because of what it is trying to do and that is to maintain the Whites and the minorities inside the country. That is when we are stabbed in the back by the CP with the most unbelievable and irresponsible statements one can possibly make. I very respectfully want to submit that the criticism directed by that side of the House at the Budget is simply a question of superficial gestures without in fact addressing the problems of our situation.

One of the matters about which the hon member for Lichtenburg complained was the lack of growth. One cannot simply view it in isolation; one has to take into consideration that the sanctions against us has caused confidence in us to dwindle, and so has the unrest. One cannot simply view the Budget in isolation. That side of the House did not address this at all.

†I want to refer to the impact of sanctions on our country. It is now nearly two years since a number of major banks refused to roll over their loans to South Africa. In September 1986 the European Economic Community agreed to the prohibition of imports of South African iron and steel. In October 1986 the US Congress overrode the veto imposed by President Reagan on the broadest package of sanctions yet adopted.

It is now almost a year since the introduction of these major sanctions against South Africa and now is perhaps the time to look at the effect of these sanctions and also our counterstrategy.

When we look at our balance of payments, I think we have much reason to be grateful and to be confident. In 1986 the value of our total exports, gold included, was R41 billion or nearly 30% of the GDP. In 1983, that is three years prior to 1986, the value of our total exports was R20 billion or 22% of the GDP. In other words, in monetary terms exports rose by more than 100% in three years. Our total imports in monetary terms went up from R16 billion in 1983 to R26 billion in 1986. It is also significant as far as the volume of our imports is concerned that it dropped during last year to less than 80% of what it was in 1980. The volume of exports on the other hand reduced only marginally from the record high of 1985. This is continuing. When compared to our increase in imports, the increase in our exports was greater in January and February. This augurs very well for the future.

A number of researchers have recently undertaken projects to assess the impact of sanctions on South Africa. The latest of these projects is that of J P Hayes, which was published about two months ago in London by the Trade Policy Research Centre. I think it is very valuable to look at this research mainly because this researcher is an independent person and not a South African. He can look at South Africa from the outside. I assess his main findings, insofar as the impact of sanctions on our country is concerned, to be the following: First of all, he finds that the greatest impact of sanctions so far on South Africa is the cessation of capital inflows. Secondly, he says that it is reasonably probable that even with a continuing capital outflow of between R5 and R6 billion per year South Africa can still avoid a decline in GDP. Thirdly, his finding is that the impact of the current sanctions on exports is fairly small and may only affect 3% of the export earnings. Then he finds that full sanctions could lead to a loss of export earnings only to the extent of about 25% of our present earnings. I may say that Mr Osborne of Nedbank estimated this to be 11,5%. Mr Hayes also accepted the Osborne study which concludes that imports could be cut by up to 45% without serious impairment of our economy. This is made up of 21% inessential goods, and 24% goods replaceable by domestic production with a further 22% which could be replaced in the long term.

A further aspect which he points out, and which I regard as of great importance, is the impact that sanctions had on confidence in this country. He refers to what the South African Foundation said in this regard, which is:

This is in fact the case and has been our experience over the past few months. However, I think that we can gratefully report that this lack of confidence or negativism has now been overcome. Rapport at the weekend referred to an opinion poll among influential leaders by Markinor which indicated that 74% of the people were very optimistic about the 6 to 12 months ahead of us.

More important, however, is the fact that 30% of those interviewed were of the opinion that a withdrawal of foreign companies from South Africa would be to our benefit, 60% said that there would be no change and only 10% said that it would be to our detriment.

The fact that we have regained our confidence is of great importance. However, I feel that there are two further aspects which should be attended to. The first must be attended to by the Government and the second by the man in the street.

According to the Hayes Report our main Achilles heel as far as sanctions were concerned was the cessation of capital inflows. In my opinion this means that industry and Government will have to become less dependent on loans and especially foreign loans. We have always followed a policy of self sufficiency with regard to boycotts and sanctions. This has been to our best advantage. I submit that this should also be done as far as capital is concerned. We cannot allow ourselves to be placed in the same position in which we were in 1985 when the banks refused to roll over their loans to us. What we need for a strong economic revival—especially in the long term, ie a revival with substance—is not to allow our balance of payments or our reserves to come under pressure in the medium to long term. I submit that this can only be done if we do not become dependent upon the inflow of capital or decisions on foreign capital which are taken outside South Africa. Therefore I find it unacceptable that South Africans should be encouraged, at this stage, to take up loans overseas.

Another aspect which I feel very strongly about is that the man in the street in South Africa should be encouraged to buy South African goods. If we want a revival in this country we have to look at support for our own industries. As has been stated, 45% of our imports are either inessential or replaceable from local industry. This shows the great potential that there is for replacing our imports by South African goods. What we now need more than ever before is a strong economic patriotism. Every man in the street can strike a blow for South Africa by giving preference to South African made goods. In so doing we are not only looking after our balance of payments but we are also encouraging local entrepreneurs and businessmen and we are creating employment inside South Africa and not elsewhere.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he can tell this House how things are with Mr Graham McIntosh? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North on an excellent and very informative speech.

Members of my family have been living in the Simon’s Town constituency for over 70 years, and it is a great honour for me to represent that beautiful part of the world in the House of Assembly. The circumstances under which I was elected were, however, for me very sad and traumatic but I know that my friend the late Mr John Wiley would be very happy with the outcome of the May 6 election.

Hear, hear!

It has been very difficult stepping into John’s shoes because he was not only an excellent member of Parliament but also an institution in our part of the world. We have a very complex area, incorporating a rich variety of families and traditions dating back nearly 300 years. The constituency consists of three municipalities, a divisional council, six local areas committees, the main naval base of the SA Navy, an international communications centre at Silvermine, Polls-moor maximum security prison and a large fishing community. I am happy to report that after a very short time, with the assistance of the competent staff that I was able to take over from the late Mr Wiley, we are able to offer the people of our area the same good service he rendered over the years.

I should also like to take this opportunity of thanking my family, friends and the voters in my constituency who rallied round at the eleventh hour to help us in this very important election.

Mr Chairman, I should like to talk about my home town, Simon’s Town. As the third mayor of that town to be elected to Parliament, I am obviously very proud of my town and of the role it has played in the development of South Africa. It is named after Simon van der Stel, who surveyed the bay for the Dutch East India Company in 1687. Because of the difficulty of getting there over the Ou Kaapse Weg—it used to take six to seven days in those times; today I take 35 minutes to cover the distance in my car—they did not use it for a number of years. Our first citizen, Antoni Visser, leased a piece of land from the company in 1724. He built his homestead on the site he occupied there. That homestead is known to all of us today as Admiralty House which, I believe, is world renowned. We in Simon’s Town are particularly proud of Antoni Visser because during the period 1724 to 1743 he and his family had a thriving farm there, and they used to look after the seamen who came round the Cape. If they could not make it to Table Bay, they made it into Simon’s Bay, obviously after many months at sea, and he used to make his farm available to them. He nursed them back to health after which they eventually returned to Holland.

In 1743 Baron Gustaaf van Imhoff sailed into Simon’s Bay on his way to Batavia. He set up the West Dockyard, which is still in use today with stores, quayside, sail loft etc, and the Dutch East India Company’s ships were instructed to use this anchorage during the winter months, particularly from April through to August or September. I think we have just had a touch of winter during the past few days, and when one looks out over Table Bay towards Robben Island one can see that those vessels that used to sail the seas must have found themselves in a really difficult situation at the Cape. Hundreds of ships and their crews were lost in Table Bay. We have records of most of those shipwrecks.

Mr Chairman, it is interesting to note that even today, in this so-called high-tech era, with the massive ships that we have plying our oceans, very large vessels still have to use False Bay in the event of a breakdown during the winter. Ships have to be towed into False Bay for urgent repairs. Fortunately some make it under their own steam. This is so because False Bay is the only really safe anchorage for very large ships along the whole of the South African coast. Over the past 20 years ships of all nationalities have put into False Bay. They have been very happy with our hospitality and shelter, and they have received world-class service from our shipping companies and ship chandlers.

Global conflict and the strategies of super powers are nothing new. Simon’s Town, as the records show, changed hands among the Dutch, the English and the French until it was eventually taken over permanently by the Royal Navy from 1814 until 1957. During those 143 years, and particularly during the years of World War I and World War II, we saw Simon’s Town play its part not only in the development of this country but also in international affairs.

Today the main base of the SA Navy is strategically placed along the major sea route between the East and the West. As one of the most sophisticated dockyards it can maintain and keep at sea submarines and any type of modern ship. We are obviously very proud of that. Whatever overseas politicians have to say, I believe we are still a keypoint in international strategy, and I believe Simon’s Town is known to friend and foe alike. I am also sure that many of our foes would like to have that base.

The Simon’s Town constituency must be one of the most rugged in the world. The South Peninsula mountain chain incorporates the Silvermine Nature Reserve and the Cape Point Nature Reserve. Just for the record, the Cape Point Nature Reserve is one of the biggest tourist attractions in South Africa. It has more than half a million visitors per annum. We also form part of the Cape floral kingdom where some 2 250 different flowering plant species are found. The wetlands of Noordhoek and Glencairn together with Zeekoevlei, Rondevlei and Sandvlei support a large variety of birdlife.

The waves of the massive Atlantic and Indian Oceans pound our shores with the majestic Cape Point dividing the Benguela and the Mozambique currents. False Bay and the Peninsula area is well-known to the world’s scientific community for its currents, its winds and all types of excesses such as temperatures between 8 and 23 degrees. I see that last night we had winds recorded of up to 80 knots just a little to the south of us. Obviously, when Sir Francis Drake sailed past Cape Point it must have been good weather because he called it: “The fairest Cape in all the world”. The poor old Portuguese navigator, Bartholomew Diaz, however, called it: “The Cape of Storms”. It still is a formidable area. To a small boat sailor with modern navigational aids it is very nice to have the help of Slangkop and Cape Point lighthouses to assist one—especially in stormy weather.

False Bay and the seas around the Peninsula support an incredible variety of marine life. Up until about 40 years ago the people thought that the mighty seas could just keep on producing fish. Unfortunately, we just about fished this area out. Through the efforts of the late Mr John Wiley and the Department of Environment Affairs the resources are coming right again. We see this daily looking out over the bay and observing the shoals of pilchards and anchovies. I think that along the South African coastline as a whole the fishing has stabilised. I would like to thank the Department of Environment Affairs for what they have done. They have a tremendous job but I think they have it under control now and we shall continue to support our fishing industry which is most important, not only as an industry but also as a food source and to conserve this magnificent heritage for posterity.

In conclusion, Mr Chairman, I would like to state that we are proud of our history and our forebears, and we believe they helped to make this a great country. We thank our forefathers for the groundwork that they did over the past 300 years. The buoyancy and strength of our economy is a tribute to their hard work and foresight. We have suffered one of the worst droughts in living memory. We have been singled out by our so-called allies and are being economically punished for, I believe, their own selfish political reasons. We have an ongoing terrorist campaign against us which is supposed to be softening us up for eventual Marxist rule. However, I do not think that these people understand South Africans. We will sort out our own problems in our own time, and I believe we have the talent, the goodwill and the resources to further strengthen our economy and upgrade the living standards of all our people. I wholeheartedly support the Budget.

Mr Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon member for Simonstown on his maiden speech. I hope he will have many happy days in this House, and that when he looks back on his time here in years to come, he will be able to look back on a productive career.

Before I come to the aspects I should like to deal with. I want to mention just a few aspects, and I am referring to speeches made by other hon members. I should like to refer to the hon member Mr van Gend. The hon member accused us of absolutely ignoring the existence of different population groups. I also took cognisance of his claim that he had had quite a lot of experience of this in Parliament. This shocked me, however, because he must definitely have confused the two opposition parties when he referred to us and to the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke by name, and said we did not take cognisance of the existence of different political groups.

He then went on to say we could not say we had not negotiated with the UDF, because the President’s Council, which was involved in the negotiations, is a body which also contains CP members. If that is his logic, he might as well say the hon members on the opposite side also negotiated with the ANC, because certain hon members on this side of the PFP had talks with the ANC in Lusaka at a certain stage. With all due respect, that logic does not hold water. [Interjections.] The hon member for Claremont said this unrest had arisen because hon members on the opposite side were still applying the policy of apartheid. Apartheid and separate development are blamed for everything that goes wrong in South Africa. It makes one wonder what was wrong in Angola, Moçambique and Rhodesia. Why did the unrest start there, because after all, the policy of apartheid or separate development has never been applied in those countries? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North indicated that the unrest had not arisen because reform had not taken place, or had taken place too slowly; it arose precisely as a result of reform, because reform—apparently one should expect this—will be accompanied by unrest.

I also want to point out, however, that we must not ignore the fact that the probable chief cause of the unrest in this country resides in that reforms were brought about without involving the Blacks in this country in that reform process from the beginning. When this tricameral Parliament was established, and the Blacks were ignored, it should have been clear to everyone who is serious about reform and about the existence of all the groups in this country, that such a reform measure would of necessity lead to unrest later.

He also referred to the withdrawal of foreign investors. This reminded me of Barclays Bank which indicated that they wanted to withdraw their capital from here. The bank was then taken over by South African interests, and became a South African bank for the first time. I hope that other companies that take that course in future and become full South African companies, will not be struck by the same misfortune as that which has struck Barclays Bank recently.

I should like to refer to what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said during the past weekend’s news reports. He said there were still certain people in this country who thought they were superior because of their white skins. I want to assure you that I am not one of those people who think that because their skins are white, they are better than a Black, Coloured or any other person. [Interjections.] I assure you that our party—our representatives here—do not think that because we have white skins, we are better than other population groups in South Africa. We are always referred to as being the radicals and the people who hate people of colour. That is not true, and hon members who did not know that, should take cognisance that we on this side of the House regard those population groups as being human too, and we do not begrudge them a dignified and full life in South Africa. [Interjections ] Other hon members may regard our view as being wrong, but I want to ask hon members on the opposite side of the House to accept our bonafides, as I accept their bona fides in their search for solutions for the country, and as I accept the bonafides of the opposition on my left-hand side, even though I differ with them, because we are also sincere in our search for a solution in which our people can continue to exist as a people in this country.

If I were interested only in my white skin, I would have joined the PFP, but I am not referring now to the Progressive Federal Party, but to the “Pack for Perth” club. There are a number of Western countries abroad where we and our progeny will be able to remain white, but I cannot remain an Afrikaner and part of my people in any one of those countries we can go to. That is important to us, and that is why we are seeking a solution in this country in terms of which we and our progeny can continue to exist as a people, with our language and our culture as characteristics of that people.

What does Clive say?

I agree wholeheartedly.

In referring to a people. I am also referring to those English-speaking people who form part of our people, just as there were English-speaking people such as Jack Hindon, who fought on the side of the Afrikaner even in the South African war—we prefer not to refer to it as the Boer War. We are proud of them, and they also form part of our people, just as many English-speaking people are part of our people today. I am not even excluding hon members of the PFP in this connection.

What do you say now?

The hon member for Overvaal said earlier that Afrikaner nationalism and nationalism in South Africa could not be stopped. I also want to tell hon members we must take cognisance of the fact that a once dormant Black nationalism is now awakening. We cannot deny that and it will not be stemmed unless we work out a method in this House to bring that nationalism to maturity. The CP believes that this can happen only if we develop the country in such a way that every people in the country will have the opportunity to express its nationalism fully. We believe, therefore, that the solution lies in that every people must inherit part of this fatherland.

Hon members must also take cognisance that there is one people which is already organising a national and a nationalist movement, and that is the Zulus with their Inkatha. The other Black peoples may not have done so yet, but one must take cognisance that this people is developing their own nationalism. We shall not stop the Zulu nationalism and they will not be satisfied unless they become sovereign and govern here as the majority group.

No majority people is prepared submit to a minority group’s right of veto. We in this House are not even prepared to permit the minority of Indians to veto us in the case of certain legislation. That is why a body such as the President’s Council, which can nullify that veto, was established. Yet we expect to be granted a right of veto against a Black majority in future, and we expect that majority to submit to that. [Interjections.] I believe that my friends, the hon members on the opposite side, will try to find a solution by which minority rights can be protected. I want to add that I am convinced that they do not have that recipe as yet.

The hon member for Langlaagte said one would be able to journey to the moon in time.

The NP may discover that recipe at some or other time. They do not have that wisdom today, however. If they did, there would be headlines in Die Burger and every other newspaper tomorrow. Here is the solution! This is South Africa’s salvation! The mere fact that this is not announced, is proof that it does not exist.

There may be hon members who believe that they can find that formula in agreement with the other peoples and that it will be an agreement which the other peoples will adhere to.

We had an agreement quite recently, the Nkomati Accord. Is that agreement being adhered to? Is there any basis, even in ordinary day-to-day life, by which one can keep someone else to a contract? One’s only remedy in the end is the compensation one can claim on the grounds of breach of contract.

Just think, Sir, that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs could not trust Samora Machel, but he trusted him to such an extent that shortly after his death he was deeply moved when he announced that this hero of peace had died in Southern Africa. Only two days later the hon the Minister discovered that this peace-loving leader in Southern Africa had had the plans for an attack on Malawi in his pocket.

In coming back to other aspects, I want to talk about finance. I found it significant that the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance indicated yesterday that a redistribution of wealth was not part of the NP policy, but that a redistribution of opportunities was.

I should appreciate it if the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs would correct me if I misunderstood him, but that was in conflict with what the hon the Deputy Minister said this afternoon. The hon the Deputy Minister said a redistribution of wealth would also be to the great advantage of the TBVC countries.

This is also in conflict with what appears in the brochure published by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning on regional services councils. The brochure says expressly that the intention is to bring about a redistribution of income in this way.

If the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was incorrect when he said that, I think the hon the Minister should rectify the matter quickly. This may effect a redistribution of opportunities so that the other hon members, such as the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the leader of the House, can also share in an equal opportunity of succeeding the State President.

If I may say something about the question of the recovery of the economy, I think one of the problem areas the hon the Minister should attend to is people’s fear or lack of confidence to start participating in the economy once again.

When one asks why they fear this participation in an economy that may be recovering, the reason given is interest rates. John Citizen has learned a lesson as far as interest rates are concerned.

A while ago John Citizen negotiated loans at building societies at an interest rate of 10% or 12%. Through no fault of John Citizen’s, those interest rates were pushed up to 23%. John Citizen went and bought a car on hire purchase at finance charges of say 15%. Under that very same contract, that interest rate was increased to 35%, without his having had any say in the matter. He tried to salvage what he could, and went to the bank to borrow money on his overdraft at 12%, which was the accepted interest rate in 1981, but has since increased to 29%.

The hon member for Parys referred this afternoon to interest rates which have not dropped in accordance with the prime lending rate as one would have expected. He spoke about an interest rate of 21%, and said there were still people who were paying 23%. That is true. I am also aware of cases in which people are still paying up to 26% interest on personal loans. The banks keep them to that, because they say this is what the clients undertook to pay when they negotiated the loans. The banks, therefore, do not apply the same policy of unilateral decreases in interest as it applies unilateral increases in interest in the case of overdrafts.

If the hon the Minister can give us and the public the assurance that one can borrow money without the possibility of a unilateral increase in the interest rates—this burden they impose on themselves—people will once again be prepared to invest money, buy houses, and participate in the motor trade. If they can be safeguarded against the fear that the interest rate will increase to beyond the contract agreement they concluded initially, they will be able to do this again.

Unfortunately my time has expired.

Mr Chairman, Rev Alwyn Roux of the NG-Moedergemeente of Benoni told us at a Rapportryers meeting one night that when he had completed his theological studies, he accepted his first call and went to board with an old woman in the congregation, an active church-goer.

The first Sunday morning, she called him to breakfast. He replied: “That is very kind of you, but I have a problem: I cannot eat before I have to preach. I shall have to come and eat after I have preached my sermon, because I do not preach well if I have eaten first.” She said she could understand that, and they went off to church together. Driving back after the service, she said to him: “You know, Reverend, you might just as well have eaten first.” That is exactly how I feel tonight; I think I should rather have eaten first.

The voters of Benoni have honoured me by electing me as their representative in this House. I truly feel honoured, because Benoni is a beautiful constituency with fine people It is a stable and balanced community. I shouldn’t be here in this highest authority of our country with its wonderful traditions.

It would be a great mistake not to laud and praise my predecessor, Mr Chris Rencken, tonight. He and I worked together very closely as MPC and MP respectively. I do not think many people, particularly in the Benoni constituency, realise how hard that man worked for his country and his constituency. In addition to his task as MP, he was also the information officer of the NP in the Transvaal, and later the chief information officer. I know that he spent many nights working, at the expense of his family, to render a service to his party. I want to pay tribute to him and thank him for the almost 10 years in which he served the community and in Benoni. I hope that I shall be a worthy successor to him.

Mr Chairman, South Africa’s problems are enormous. There are so many problems, and on the surface one looks more important than another, but I want to say that they are equally important. I should like to dwell on one problem, viz housing. We know what the Government does for housing. In the hon the State President’s opening address and in many of his other speeches, he has made constant reference to housing. We know that it is not the task of the State to give everyone a house. It is the responsibility of the individual himself, but it is also true that in our society—among all the population groups—there are needy and lower-income groups who have to be assisted. I believe that if we can truly address the housing problem in our country, we shall resolve 60% to 70% of our country’s other problems. I shall tell hon members why I think so. Ownership provides stability for the owner, his family and his community. We see what housing means to the people in the Black areas in and around my constituency. We also see it in our White, Coloured and Indian communities. The residents of our country, irrespective of race or colour, are greatly indebted to our Government for what is done in respect of housing.

It is a big problem which receives the Government’s constant attention. I am not going to bore hon members with a lot of statistics, but it is significant that despite the terrible condition of the economy, the Government has made an amount of R4 000 available for housing during the past ten years. That is proof of how seriously the Government regards the question of housing for the respective communities; despite the poor economic conditions, it has made that much money available.

In the first place I want to thank the Government for that tonight. Secondly, we must express our sincere thanks to our officials who are involved with housing in various departments. When one discusses the housing problem with them, one is struck by the enthusiasm with which they set about their task. I venture to say that they do not look at things from a Public Service perspective; they look at new ways of bringing cheaper and better housing within reach of the lower-income groups as quickly as possible. They are constantly having discussions with the private sector, and welcome ideas from the private sector. It is necessary to place on record our thanks to those officials, who really work with dedication to address this problem.

I had a look at statistics to determine what our housing requirements are. Actually the statistics were shocking, but they indicate the magnitude of the problem. The present shortage of housing for Whites in South Africa is 19 000 units, for Coloureds 75 000, for Asians 45 000—these figures are all rounded off—and 661 000 for Blacks. The expected shortage in the year 2000 will be 274 000 for the Whites, 215 000 for the Coloureds, 94 000 for the Asians and 2,8 million for our Blacks. This indicates a total housing shortage of 3,4 million. This is a huge problem, which will have to be addressed with the limited finances at the disposal of the Government.

Although my time has almost expired, I want to express my thanks to the private sector, which co-operates very closely with the Government and gives the Government new practical ideas. We are grateful to our developers and our construction companies, who all play their part in relieving the housing shortage in our country. In conclusion I want to add that if we approach all the problems in our country with a positive attitude, I have no doubt that we shall find the solution, because the majority of our country’s residents, irrespective of race or colour, want to pay attention to these problems and approach them with realism and faith. That is why I believe that even if the statistics seem alarming, we can go towards a future which can only be a good future for this country.

Mr Chairman, whether the hon member for Benoni ate or not, I think he made a good maiden speech. He made a very good job of his speech and we wish him a pleasant sojourn in this House. We hope that he will also make a very good contribution in future.

Allow me to tell hon members in the House that the most beautiful cosmos in South Africa grows in the black peaty soil of the Free State. I represent the Sasolburg constituency, which is a workers’, industrial and agricultural constituency. I shall apply the few talents I have been blessed with in an effort to serve this constituency and all its people to the best of my ability.

I also want to pay tribute to a former member of the Sasolburg constituency, Mr Hans Ungerer. He was a very popular man in his community. He was respected, and we honour his memory tonight.

It is quite obvious that there is a deafening silence among the right-wing radical members of the Official Opposition when anyone in the House refers either to partition or to the AWB.

They shut up like clams.

Obviously they have received instructions not to say a word about this. Just look at how few of their members are in the House now. As soon as an hon member of the right-wing radical opposition has completed his speech, they walk out of the House.

That is not true!

The reason is that they want to make sure that they are not sitting in the House and that none of them will say anything out of place when reference is made to the AWB or to partition. It is quite obvious that they are ensuring that the South African voters know as little as possible about the AWB and about partition. They will keep on refusing to say anything about this. The hon members do exactly what their hon leader does these days. As soon as anyone talks about the AWB or about partition, they turn their backs to him or they sit and write, just as the hon member for Overvaal is doing now. It is so obvious that this is a caucus instruction, that it cries to high heaven. This will not prevent us from castigating this right-wing radical Opposition about this matter.

I am sorry that the hon the leader of that party is not here tonight. He asked me to adopt a standpoint on the Afrikaner Broederbond. I want to tell him in his absence—I hope the hon members for Overvaal and Brakpan, who are deliberately walking out, will convey this to him—that the Government listens to the Broederbond, to the Churches, to the businessmen, to the industrialists, to the workers and to the farmers. There is only one body that determines this party’s policy, however, and that is the party’s congresses. [Interjections.] We shall not allow anyone to prescribe to us.

It is important to note that the Broederbond does not advocate violence, but the AWB, which managed to get four members elected to this House, does advocate violence. I asked the hon leader of the right-wing radical Opposition for his standpoint on the AWB, to which he replied that he had no problems with them. His reasons were that in the first place they were not engaged in political activities, secondly, they did not advocate violence as a solution. I want to read to the House a few quotations of what the leader, the big stick of the AWB, Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche, said. I am referring to Die Volksblad of 6 August 1986, which said:

This is the “Boerestaat”, which they shall take back violently.

And there were only 150 listeners!

On 8 May 1986, the same Mr Terre’Blanche said in Carletonville, and I quote from the Natal Mercury:

This is the “Boerestaat”, which they shall take back violently.

Then there was a report in The Star of 1 December 1986 about the meeting at the Paardekraal Monument in Krugersdorp. Hon members will remember that all the reporters were thrown out, but evidently this one reporter remained behind and he wrote:

[Interjections.]

I am referring to Die Volksblad of 30 August 1986, in which there was an article about a meeting that the same Mr Terre’Blanche had held in Bloemfontein.

Koos’s master!

It said:

This is the “Boerestaat”. He goes on to say:

Koos has a “rollie”. [Interjections.]

Order! A few times now I have heard interjections made by hon members among the ranks of the members behind the hon member, in which they referred to the hon member for Overvaal as “Koos”. We do not use Christian names in this House, and it is not at all necessary to provoke an hon member. The hon member may proceed.

Yet the hon leader of the right-wing radical Opposition told us in this House that he had no problem with the AWB. He said he had spoken to Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche, who had told him he did not advocate violence. If one can be that naive, I really do not know what that kind of leader is doing in that kind of party, or what that kind of party is doing with that kind of leader.

The second thing he said in his speech in this House during the debate on the motion of censure, was that the AWB was not engaged in political activities. He said the AWB was not thus occupied, nor would it be, and that is why it was very welcome. If that is not naïvete, I do not know what is. Evidently the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not know that the AWB has officially registered the Volkstaatparty as a political party at the Department of Home Affairs. It is the political wing of the AWB, and the AWB threatened to activate it if the two bickering right-wing parties could not come to an agreement during the election. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said, however, that they were not engaged in political activities.

This same Mr Terre’Blanche, the big stick, acted as the great mediator between the HNP and this party, which is in this House as the Official Opposition today. He failed miserably. He acted as a mediator to effect an election agreement between the two parties, but the horn the Leader of the Official Opposition said that he did not conduct politics!

What is more, after the election Mr S E D Brown, who publishes the SA Observer, the English mouthpiece of the right-wing radical opposition, said:

He said the AWB had supported seven candidates of the right-wing radical party during the recent election, and four had been elected.

They supported everyone.

He went on to say who they were:

[Interjections.] The hon member for Ermelo got up in this House, however, and said he was not a member of the AWB. I accept his word, but I think he should get up and tell Mr S E D Brown that he was lying. The hon member must do that when the time comes. When one looks at statements, another important underlying principle of the AWB emerges in its programme of principles on education, and reads:

The principal task of education, therefore, is in the first place to cultivate self-respect and pride in themselves among the young people. I want to refer to an aspect that received a lot of publicity. This was a statement made by the Gereformeerde Kerk of Lydenburg with reference to a member of the congregation who had asked for a statement on the AWB. It deals specifically with the paragraph in the programme of principles and reads:

I read in this paragraph that the hon member for Brits was the CP spokesman on national education. I do not want to talk about the theological basis of AWB standpoints, but I do want to talk to him as a member of the AWB about their educational basis. Is that what they are going to teach in our schools— national-socialism? When the National Education Vote is discussed, that hon member will have to tell the House, as the CP’s spokesman, where he stands as a member of the AWB.