as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Education, dated 18 June 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, one subject which has come up time and again over the past few days—in fact since the beginning of the session—has been the issue of partition. The purport of remarks made about this matter has varied; sometimes it has been very derogatory, particularly when reference was being made to hon members on this side of the House. When one hears and reads the statements made by people on the NP side, however, it is very clear that there is a dissension in the statements of hon members on the Government side. In the first place we find among those hon members those who regard it as an ideal model. I do not believe there is anyone who would find fault when we say that it is indeed an ideal model. The question is whether one wants to pursue the ideal or whether one simply wishes to acknowledge it in passing, say it is not feasible and then simply forget about it.

In the second place there are those who say that it is not the whole solution. By that is meant that it may be part of the solution, but that another part of the solution to the question of regulating relationships among the various peoples in this Southernland of ours is to be found in a different sphere than the dividing up of territory.

Then, thirdly, there are those who say without further ado that partition is outdated. They add that it is simply ridiculous. We encounter that approach, too, in this House; the approach that it is ridiculous and outdated and that we would do better to forget about it. These people contend that we should now move in the direction of a unitary state. Within that unitary state there will, it is true, be an occasional subdivision of territory, but there will be only one government with a joint decision-making process up to the highest level in one undivided South Africa.

Then there are those who adopt a somewhat more moderate approach and say that it was a good thing up to a certain stage but that in fact we persisted with it for five years too long. Here I shall just quote the odd sentence from a propaganda document distributed by the NP in the Eastern Cape. It is only a photostated document. Here reference is made to the right-wing groups of the CP and the HNP “with their reverse-gear policy”. They go on to say:

I think it is fair to ask a few questions and make a few statements in this regard.

The first is: What has the NP done in this connection? The NP cannot make out that it does not want to accept responsibility for what it has done for decades in this regard. The NP, and not only the NP but also other governments before it, are responsible for the fact that certain territories were set aside and demarcated under their own administrations for the Coloureds, with the effect that 100 000 hectares became Coloured group areas. In addition there is 2 million morgen—probably that would be approximately 1,7 million ha— in the rural areas that is the property of the Coloureds. It was set aside for them. It is under their management, and the NP supports increasingly higher forms of management for those territories.

That is partition. It is a form of partition. I do not think anyone can dispute that; it is so. I do not believe that that side of the House is prepared to go back on these steps they have taken, annul the delimitation of those areas and simply leave the Coloureds at the mercy of the whole of South Africa again, in a situation where each of them individually would have to fight for a piece of land.

Moreover, it is true that under NP policy four Black peoples have become independent, with their own territory as a basis. That is partition. That is the delimitation of territory, and on that territory is a specific people whose territory it is. Of course, I find it regrettable—I do not wish to digress too far— that the NP consented to the loss of the name of a specific people linked to a specific national state, and consented only to talk about certain territories. It is true that in the territories as they have been delimited, specific ethnic groups have been established, but I do think that this is a movement away from the course that the NP has followed thus far, namely to establish a specific territory for a specific people.

Moreover it is true that six Black peoples have accepted self-government. The self-government was a political function or power that they did not exercise in a vacuum. They exercised that political self-determination within a specific territory, and that is partition. It is apartheid. What I mean to say with these words is that I am not one of those who approves of everything done in the name of apartheid, but on the other hand I do not condemn apartheid either, because in terms of the policy of separate development or apartheid, as some people see it, much has been done in South Africa and much of it was good, so much so that last year the president of a Black people said that it was a good policy. He praised the NP for it, because it had brought freedom to him and his people.

There is another statement I want to make. The NP still respects its own work. Those who say that it is ridiculous; that it is past; that it has no further meaning, or whatever, forget that the NP today still respects that work that it has done. Surely it still respects the existence of four independent peoples within their own territories. Surely it still recognises and respects the existence of six self-governing states within their own territories. It has always respected partition. Surely there is no doubt on that score. We are not squabbling about that. After all, it will not take the group areas, the 100 000 hectares, away from the Coloured people. Surely it would prefer, like this party, to enlarge those territories meaningfully, to make a more meaningful Coloured community life possible. Therefore, within the structure and system of partition it will think as we do and move in that direction.

I shall make a third statement, and it is that if it is being suggested that the NP persisted with this policy five years too long, then that is in conflict with practice. It is in conflict with what the NP itself did and has done up to now.

What has the NP, and the Government that preceded it, paid for the purchases and consolidation of land for the homelands over fifty years? I ascertained the amount from the department, and it is R1 219 418 000. In terms of the liberation of a people and the fact that one has therewith not only created for specific peoples their own geographic basis for political expression, but also paid a price for a geographic basis for White self-determination, then that is a small price to pay for it.

That price and what we have achieved with it comprised part of partition, and it did not stop five years ago when it began to be said that separate development and national states were not the entire policy. On 31 December 1986 that was the amount that had been spent in the course of 50 years.

That is part of the price for the self-determination of Black peoples and orderly coexistence, and not friction-creating intermingling. It also is part of the price of White self-determination. The process has of necessity not run its course; naturally it may continue. If that side of the House gives us an indication that they are prepared to think further along those lines—a great deal of thinking will still be necessary—they may be assured of the unambiguous support of this side of the House in that regard when it comes to the safeguarding of White self-determination in their own territory.

Surely partition is not so alien to the NP’s present-day practice. I am not arguing against the hon the Minister of Finance, but let me quote from this year’s Budget for partitioned Black states. I hope I am quoting correctly, since I am not entirely au fait with financial matters, but I think I am quoting a few very simple figures correctly. This Budget reflects an amount of R1,372 billion in respect of independent states, apart from the R620 million guarantee for loans. I think I am correct in putting it that way. The amount of R2,488 billion is budgeted for development aid to six national states. That is more than double what we paid over 50 years in respect of land purchases for the consolidation of Black states. Under Foreign Affairs R1,875 billion is being budgeted for transfer payments.

As far as the Department of Development Planning is concerned, the transfer payments amount to R843,563 million. The total amount, which only includes a few amounts— this is my own arithmetic; I hope it is correct—is R7,199 billion. This is what the Government spent on the basis of recognition of partitioned Black states. Therefore it does not make sense for hon members on that side of the House to speak about partition as outdated and to say that there is no longer any sense in it.

I want to go a little further. The NP also promises independence. It is not only that it gives self-governing states this assistance; it also promises them independence. Here the NP has the full support of this side of the House; we are not in dispute with one another on that score. We just want that side of the House to stop writing off partition, as a principle and an ideal, as ridiculous.

Partition is still so important to the NP that less than two years ago the hon the State President said in Bloemfontein:

We are in accord with that. The sovereignty of these states is certainly not in dispute. It is therefore maintaining what it has brought into being in practice in accordance with the principle of partition.

However, there are a few statements in this regard that create problems for me. Within the structure of partition the question of citizenship and political expression is relevant and we on this side of the House of course have problems in this regard. After the hon the State President said, “I wish to state emphatically that the sovereignty of these states is not in dispute whatsoever”, he was reported as follows:

Then he said:

Hon members must note that this is not negotiation in regard to the members of a specific ethnic group for whom a homeland, a national state, has been created, although they reside outside that state; no, it is the “inhabitants of these countries”, in other words the citizens of Bophuthatswana living within Bophuthatswana, Xhosas living inside Transkei and Ciskei and Vendas residing in Venda. I quote further:

within—

We have problems in that regard. We do not have any difficulties about the fact that the NP has come a long way in the implementation of partition, but we do have problems with the introduction, at this juncture, of this dual citizenship. There is citizenship of four states that the NP has made independent, and when South African citizenship is again granted to them we say that we have problems in that regard. The issue here is the granting of South African citizenship to citizens of independent states.

The CP wishes to ask a few questions in this regard. The first question concerns the political content of this dual citizenship. Does citizenship, in the case of an independent state, mean that the citizen living there exercises full political rights there, namely the right to vote and to possess land there and, under the term “citizenship”, enjoy all the rights of an ordinary citizen, but when it comes to South Africa it means something else? What other meaning does it have?

My second question is whether this is merely concerned with travel documents. I had the privilege of serving in the Cabinet. I participated in discussion groups in which we discussed citizenship and the need of the citizens of the Black states to travel abroad. We then discussed whether we could accommodate those people in some way by way of travel documents, etc.

Now I ask again: Is this what the hon the State President envisages here? Is it purely a matter of travel documents? What is the political significance of the concept of “citizenship” that it also wishes to grant to the inhabitants of the independent Black states? To me, citizenship implies political rights, the franchise, the right, if the people want me, to sit in this House, and at present I enjoy that privilege. However that is not what it could mean to a Black man from Venda or Transkei. If it cannot mean that to him, then what we have is a confusion of concepts. Then what we have is dissension in regard to the content of a specific and very important political concept.

Then there is a further question: If the current meaning or content of the political concept of citizenship is that one may exercise political rights, vote and even take one’s place as a representative in the highest debating chamber of that country as the representative of voters, then surely it goes without saying that if that is the meaning I may attach to it, then one will be arousing specific expectations among Black citizens if one tells them that one is promising them citizenship of the RSA and one grants it to them. I contend that it would not be remarkable if that were a factor contributing towards unrest and dissatisfaction among Blacks.

I want to go further. I want to know what is the meaning of the independence of the Republic of South Africa, the meaning of our independence, if the citizens of a neighbouring state may also be citizens of the Republic of South Africa, with or without a political say. If they have no political say, then the Government must say so. If they are going to have a political say then I want to know what is the meaning of the independence and the sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa, and, of course, of that of the Black states, unless it is not going to be a case of “one Black, one vote”, but rather “one Black, two votes”! Then it would mean that he would have a vote in an independent Black state and that he would be able to vote here as well. We want some clarity in that regard.

I also wish to ask whether it is far-fetched to argue that such a general South African citizenship could form the basis for an envisaged federation of South African states. I am not speaking about a confederation now, which is a loose association of independent states; I am speaking about a federation with a common citizenship. The separate states are, it is true, geographically separate to a degree, with a kind of second-level autonomy of their own, but there is an overall state machinery; an overall government.

That is Prog policy.

I want to ask: Does this not give rise to ideas of an overall federal Parliament and Cabinet? Did someone say that that is already the policy?

No, it was said that that is Prog policy.

Let me say why I asked such a question. Just in passing: The NP did make a few very clear statements about citizenship at an earlier stage. Let me just remind them of those statements. I want to quote from this pamphlet I have before me; I think my hon friends in the NP know the colour of the pamphlet:

Those are NP promises.

Very well, hon members may say that that was NP policy. [Interjections.]

Order! It has already been decided that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is in a special situation when he is making policy speeches. Hon members must limit their interjections. The hon the Leader may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Actually they were not troubling me too much, but it is for the Chair to decide. I now wish to quote from a 1972 document. It is true that this was quite a long time ago, but we may as well refresh some memories:

I could continue in this vein.

I want to come back to the question I asked. Here is a statement made in the NP policy document NP Policy—The Facts! to which I referred earlier this year. However, it seems to me that this is meaningful and that one should take a closer look at statements such as these. I want to refer specifically to questions 12 and 13 in this policy document. Question 12 reads as follows:

Then comes the answer, and I quote the second section:

That is to say, the homelands—

My submission is when one speaks about “an overall framework”, one is speaking about a unitary state. [Interjections.]

I base my argument further on the reply to the next question, which reads as follows:

The answer to that is:

[Interjections.] Then it goes on:

I think there are very serious questions that could be asked in this regard. Reference is made to co-operation among all the different entities—including independent states— within the same overall framework. [Interjections.] This is not a confederation, Sir, but if this is indeed what is intended then the NP must tell us so.

Note that the governments of independent national states are also to be involved in the functions of the National Statutory Council. The National Statutory Council will, among other things, concern itself with a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa. Therefore, people are made independent on the basis of a constitution of their own. They enjoy independence and their own sovereignty. Now they are being brought back, and told: “Come and sit with me around a conference table, and help me determine my own constitution.” Surely that is ridiculous, Sir. One then has a kind of partition, but one makes a farce of the sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa.

The NP states that its point of departure is one undivided state. I refer to the speech of the hon the State President. The NP states that its standpoint is one nation. It goes on to say that this is everyone’s country of birth. That is the statement we have had from this source. I now wish to ask whether this means that ’Nkosi Buthelezi, as he contends, has the right to say: “The whole of Natal is Chaka’s country”? Is he right?

Does this mean that that claim is justified? In other words, the NP will have to tell us how far the authority of that indaba extends. How far does the authority of ’Nkosi Buthelezi extend in respect of the whole of Natal, or will he simply become the Prime Minister of the whole of Natal? The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the Government was fully satisfied with the Natal Indaba and that it wanted to see such an indaba for the whole of South Africa.

Does this mean that Dr Phatudi and Prof Ntsanwisi have equal claim to the Northern Transvaal? I ask this because it is a practical question. Do Dr Phatudi and Prof Ntsanwisi have an equal claim to the territory of Waterberg? Must I go and tell my people that?

Morgenzon!

The hon the Deputy Minister must not be ridiculous. He must reply to this question. [Interjections.]

Do they have an equal claim to the Northern Transvaal, to Johannesburg, to Pretoria, to Vereniging and the Vaal Triangle? This is a practical question. It is not a question the answer to which can remain indeterminate. I ask whether Chief Minister Mopeli has an equal claim to the whole of the Free State? I also ask whether Pres Matanzima and Pres Sebe have an equal claim to East London, not only Mdantsane, but King William’s Town, Queenstown, Port Elizabeth, Piketberg, Parow, Bellville and Goodwood, Helderberg and Graaff-Reinet as well? Do they have an equal claim to these areas? [Interjections.] I believe the answer is obvious. Surely that cannot be the case. [Interjections.] The hon member for Parow need only listen. [Interjections.] No, the hon member need only think about this question. Do Pres Matanzima and Pres Sebe have an equal claim, with the hon member, to the territory of Parow?

Are you going to make Parow a homeland?

No, the hon member must not try to answer my question with another question. He is in a fix. [Interjections.] This is a practical question. Do the farm labourers of Piketberg or of Waterberg have an equal say over the territory of that farmer on whose farm he works? Do they have an equal claim? If not, how then does one justify this story, namely that it is the country of their birth and that they therefore have an equal claim to the entire country? How then does one justify the story of the joint government of these people over this White territory and over White South Africa?

The NP spokesmen repeatedly say that partition is not feasible and cannot be implemented. Why then did the NP persist for so long in that regard and why is it still maintaining it? The NP is still maintaining the product of partition.

I think our memories are rather short, but how feasible was the establishment of the self-governing state of Bophuthatswana in 1958, for example? In 1913 they had 1,3 million hectares of land, and that territory was divided up into 50 blocks. In 1936 it was 36 blocks, and then it was further consolidated to 7 blocks in 1967, and in 1977 it became an independent state.

If we say something is not feasible, for whom is it not feasible? We know that for the hon the leader of the PFP or the hon member for Houghton, for example, it will not be feasible. However, certain things were feasible for the NP because they had the vision and the perseverance, and they utilised the voters’ money to make that ideal possible. [Interjections.] The NP states that something is not feasible.

I want to quote from the election manifesto of the NP in the recent election. On page 12 the following appears: “Full autonomy and even independence for metropolitan areas will not be refused.” This means a few things. It means that the NP is prepared to effect further border adjustments between White and non-White. It means a further experiment with partition. This means that Black communities may exercise the right of constitutional association. However they do not mention whether the Whites have the right to dissociate or associate. The Black peoples can decide whether they want a metropolitan area to be made an independent state, and the NP says that they will not refuse. If, on the other hand, the White man calls for the right to contract out of a multiracial state, those hon members laugh. The NP applies double standards.

I further wish to state that if this is put into effect, a considerable increase in the number of states is imminent. This implies even longer international borders, and this is one of the major objections hurled at us by that side of the House. It means that an expedient is being sought to relieve Black political pressure on White political institutions. Or is that not the case? Alleviating Black pressure on White political institutions will surely be the result if those people contract out and apply to become independent states. Surely that could point to an endeavour to have White majority occupation of their own territory. If that idea is not consciously held by those hon members, it is nevertheless squarely in line with what the CP stands for, namely a majority of Whites in our own fatherland. The NP sees an open door in that direction for Black communities to apply the policy of the CP as it were.

Surely this means that the NP sees its way clear to granting independence on the Cape Flats. The NP also sees its way clear to granting independence to Soweto and to Tembisa or wherever. This means that the NP sees its way clear to excising the PWV metropolitan area from White South Africa, even if those areas remain interlinked, economically and otherwise, with the White area surrounding it. Surely that is the implication. It also means that the NP is prepared to open the door to the approximately four million Black people living in those metropolitan areas, enabling them to contract out and get out of White South Africa. If that happens then the NP is on the CP’s political trail.

This will mean that the NP is prepared to open the door to 70% of the Black people in Transvaal and to say: “Contract out of a unitary system, obtain your independence”. But what about us, the rest? We say that if the NP is prepared to do that then it has very substantially reduced its own spectre of numbers. It will be nothing like the dire phenomenon the hon members have been describing.

To make one’s own people a mere minority group in a multiracial nation is to declare one’s own people forfeit, deliberately and consciously. This side of the House is not prepared to declare our people forfeit in our own fatherland. However, if that side of the House is thinking along the lines of protection of White self-determination, as they are applying it in practice, then they have the support of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, for half an hour now the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has been putting questions on partition to us. The conclusion we on this side of the House were forced to arrive at was that the hon Leader and his party were themselves in great trouble with partition. They do not know how they are going to implement what they propagate as their policy. [Interjections.] Let me take the Western Cape as a practical example. Can the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tell me whether it is the CP’s standpoint that a partitioned state should be created here for the Coloureds in South Africa?

We are asking for a separate state for each people.

Consequently it is their standpoint that there should be a separate state for the Coloured people in this country.

Let me tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that their standpoint contains conflict potential which cannot but plunge this country into a bloodbath. [Interjections.] He and his party did not consult a single recognised Coloured leader or the Coloured community on the CP’s unilateral standpoint which simply has to be acceptable to all. This is the problem we have with them. [Interjections.] They want to force their views on everyone unilaterally and do not care a rap how other peoples, groups or communities feel about them. If that is not confrontation politics, I do not know what is.

The other day the hon member for Soutpansberg waxed lyrical here when he spoke about the political rights of the White. He said South Africa belonged to the Whites. He explained the concept of White South Africa and said we had obtained South Africa through conquest, treaties and negotiation, and so South Africa legally belonged to us. That was why, according to the hon member for Soutpansberg, we had the right to speak about White South Africa in terms of all international rules. I now want to ask those hon members about one simple rule. There is an internationally recognised rule that a person is a citizen of the country in which one was born. Does that international rule carry weight with the CP too? [Interjections.] If that international rule that someone is a citizen of the land of his birth—a rule recognised by the entire world—also holds good among the CP, it leads to the immediate demise of this folly of a White South Africa proclaimed by the CP and we find ourselves faced with a completely different dilemma on citizenship to the one they now postulate.

Let us now concentrate on the question of citizenship. At the insistence of Black people we amended the existing legislation on citizenship in last year’s session and came forward with new legislation on the restoration of citizenship to Black people who had been unilaterally deprived of it in terms of a policy of political partition.

Did the Blacks ask for this?

Every person with eyes to see and ears to hear knew what enormous pressure was exerted in regard to citizenship. My reply to the hon member for Barberton is therefore that Black people certainly did ask for this. If the Government had therefore closed its ears to this, it would have been rash and foolish. We restored their citizenship to Black people by means of legislation. Hon CP members speak so lightly about a people in a certain area but it is not as simple as that at all. Not all the people living in Transkei for example are Xhosas; hundreds of thousands of Sothos live there too. If the CP therefore interprets the concept of people and region as narrowly as they obviously do, they are wide of the mark. They need only look at the northern areas of our Black states. Shangaans also live in Venda whereas people from Venda live in the Shangaan area. They need only take a look themselves.

But whose country is that?

They can also examine the case of Bophuthatswana. Hundreds of thousands of people who are not Tswanas live there, people who are at present being manoeuvred out by President Mangope and his people—very unjustly in many respects to my mind. I now put it to hon CP members that we are dealing here with people born in a specific place. They were in Bophuthatswana for example when that land became independent so they acquired their citizenship there but were subsequently kicked out. What on earth are we to do now in South Africa as Christian, just and reasonable people? That is why we on this side of the House state that, whereas we are broadly in favour of citizenship for people in Black states in cases where they desire this, we nevertheless admit that there are also large numbers of people who cannot be dealt with according to this simple concept of the exercise of citizenship in accordance with the people to which one belongs. Large numbers of people—and they are increasing—are being born in Soweto, on the East Rand and in the area adjacent to Pretoria. I say any government in South Africa which tells those people it is depriving them of their citizenship unilaterally and orders them to become citizens of Transkei because they speak Xhosa, is a foolish, rash and irresponsible Government. There is extensive intermarriage between people in urban areas. If a Xhosa man marries a Zulu woman, I challenge hon CP members to try to apply their ethnic concept regarding Black people to such persons in an absolutistic way. We are dealing with a new situation which we have to deal with in a commonsensical way.

You fare much better when you speak about the ANC!

Frighten people with figures!

Mr Chairman, would the hon member for Innesdal please inform the House whether he agrees with the statement made last year by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs that the NP’s new policy would inevitably lead to a Black State President. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I think one can reply to questions which are relevant to the subject under disucssion—as in the case of interjections—but this is a senseless question which has nothing to do with what is being discussed here now. [Interjections.]

Let us glance briefly at the CP’s standpoint on partition. I want to put it to them categorically that it is in no way possible for any government to make partition work in an absolutistic way in South Africa—even if it has all the money in the world.

What is meant by “absolutistic”?

In hon members’ language it means “to the maximum extent, as far as possible”.

We are dealing with economic realities which cause hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people to work in certain places owing to the presence of raw materials. Let us take the PWV area as a good example. Mines origin ated there and there is no way in which partitioning can remove the Tswanas working in the PWV area to the Northern Transvaal; they work where the raw materials occur.

This brings us to a project at Mossel Bay and only a fool and a person totally ignorant of constitutional and economic forces would think a person could develop that Mossel Bay project by saying that only Coloureds, Xhosas or Zulus would be allowed to go to Mossel Bay and that one would apply a policy to link them permanently to their Black states.

Constitutionally we are faced with a new game in South Africa in which we shall have to accept the components of independent and self-governing national states as part of a further development but in which we also have to consider large groups of people outside the national states in the old so-called White area. I wish to mention that those words “White area” are so emotive that the CP would do well to see what Black newspapers and Black leaders have to say about the words “White area”.

I believe the time has come to speak about South Africa. Legislation on the restoration of citizenship and South Africa’s own laws on citizenship implies we are speaking about citizens of South Africa. [Interjections.] We say that the citizens of South Africa are divided into groups. One can call them racial groups on a specific basis; one can call them ethnic groups in other contexts, but we also maintain that geographic groups are arising. We shall have to plan our constitutional future in the light of those few realities as they develop. Not a single hon member of this House, nor any constitutional expert in the whole of South Africa, is able to come forward with a blueprint today and say: Here it is; it will work with precision.

We as the Government Party say that our right to a joint say in the politics of this country is non-negotiable. We on this side of the House maintain that we have not stolen political rights from anyone else at any stage of our history. As Whites we maintain that in all circumstances during the history of this country we have formed part of the political process; that is why we regard it as non-negotiable that we should form part of future political processes.

At the same time we also maintain that all other people in South Africa have a right to form part of the political processes in this country. Our hon State President said this should be the case to the highest level, which means that we are not only speaking of local authorities and regional services councils but also of legislative bodies and executive authorities. [Interjections.] We shall find a basis for mutual co-operation this country in future.

There is a fundamental difference between our arguments on constitutional matters and the CP standpoint. We on this side of the House do not regard the Black, Coloured or Indian people of South Africa as our enemies. [Interjections.] We see them as fellow South African citizens. We do not fear them and they need not fear us, because with mutual appreciation of human dignity and the elementary concept understood by everyone in this House—do unto others as you would have them do unto you—I believe that Whites and Blacks will learn to co-operate in South Africa.

We have found increasingly in recent years that more and more eminent Blacks, leaders in church, political and academic spheres, are coming forward and telling us as Government representatives that they have hope; they say they see a future. There are obviously radicals who wish to seize absolute power but I believe those people, the ANC and the PAC who say bluntly “We want to seize power”, will ultimately lose because the majority of Black and White people, as well as the majority of the other population groups in South Africa do not wish to face a future of violence in this country.

We live in a diminishing world and we can do nothing in South Africa which does not enlist a wide reaction throughout that world, and vice versa. I can cite an elementary example to which I have referred before. If steps are taken against Lech Walesa in Poland, every South African in this House and in the entire country is immediately on Lech Walesa’s side owing to our concept of equity and justice. In this way too South Africa is often in many respects judged unfairly throughout the world; everything said, done or occurring here meets with a positive or negative response to our country. We have an enormous reponsibility in this Chamber and that is why I appeal to the Opposition that we should not try to score political points off one another but that we should think bigger in this dwindling world. We should get away from the entirely outmoded and obsolete idea that one can have a political system based on partition in South Africa, as we hoped and desired in the past.

One could relate many anecdotes. Hon CP members speak of partition. As a youth I was privileged to be the secretary of a commission—Mr Wennie du Plessis was also a member—which enquired into the purchase of land. For years I travelled with that commission to various places where we had to purchase land to consolidate Black states. I cannot recall a single occasion in all those years and at all those hundreds of meetings and the meetings which I subsequently attended as a member of the present commission when people from a farming community came forward spontaneously and offered their land for the sake of partition. It does not work like that because one is dealing with the interests of people.

To me the strangest and most ironical aspect is that the further one goes one finds that the loudest mouths and the foremost advocates against further land purchases when one speaks of partition are CP supporters. When the farmers’ association arrives and says that not another inch of land should be surrendered, these people telephone one at the office and say that regardless of what the farmers’ association has said, they are prepared to make their sacrifice.

When we speak of partition we are dealing with the interests of people and with money which has to be spent to implement partition. What we need in respect of land in South Africa is not to give larger pieces to specific groups for the purpose of their becoming independent, but to put the existing land to better use to enable South Africa to realise the economic growth potential of that land. The entire country will grow because that land is being utilised economically.

In the past we purchased stretches of land. Hon members can take a look at certain Black states where such land has been put to incorrect use. We are not opposed in principle to the addition of more land to Black states and to that land being correctly used; neither are we opposed to the purchase of more land in urban areas for Black and Coloured residential areas.

If we want to be honest with ourselves, we have to admit that the Land Act of 1913, the Trust and Land Act of 1936 and the Group Areas Act were of great advantage of us as a White community and a great disadvantage to other groups in this country.

We should look one another straight in the eye and ask ourselves how we can rectify those matters.

The hon the Minister of Finance presented a splendid Budget but it was shot down by hon members of the Opposition. The Budget is not perfect because we began from a point at which we were in great financial difficulties owing to numerous factors. Let us use this Budget, based on the stimulation of moderate growth, to build a South Africa in which every person may feel at home. Let our basic object be to let every person, White, Black, Brown and Indian, feel he belongs to South Africa, but he should also be able to feel that he has something to lose. There are thousands of people in our country who have nothing whatever to lose; no one is as dangerous as a man who has nothing to lose.

Recently I told a few young Blacks working with me in the business to bring another 11 men to work the next day. Hon members should try it today with White children. The next morning there were 11 young Black people. I asked those who had matriculated to stand to one side; there were two of them. When I put the same request to those who had passed Std 8, there were a further two. I then asked the two who had matriculated when they had written that examination; their reply was 1982. Since 1982 one of them had only had a job once, and only for a short while; the other had found no work at all.

They did not want to work. [Interjections.]

The hon member has just made a totally racist statement. I say to the hon member for Carletonville there are no people in South Africa with matriculation and Std 8 certificates who do not want to work, but there are tens of thousands of them who cannot find a job because the state of the national economy at the moment is such that unemployment is general. We should work on that and get away from these senseless, foolish political debates of attempting to score political points off one another and so creating increasing conflict in our country. I charge the CP with not being in the least interested in helping to build South Arica up; they have only one obsession and that is to get at us on this side. From here on we shall show them how to practise politics in the White arena.

Mr Chairman, we have had two very interesting contributions to this Budget debate, but also two very interesting views of the future of South Africa. It is almost as if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Innesdal were standing together but back to back. There is not very much difference in the starting point of policy of their parties at the moment. However, each of them is locking in a different direction, hoping for a different kind of South Africa in the future. The one is hoping that partition will become “haalbaar” or viable, and the other one believing that in fact people will start finding one another across the colour line in South Africa. The question now is: Who is going to win?

I believe that the hon member for Innesdal has problems because his party is still locked into important elements of the philosophy expressed by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition today. I see no real difference in substance between the concept of an independent city state as announced by the hon the State President as one of the objectives of the NP, and the concept of partition as expressed by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. If therefore the hon member wants his dreams realized in a South Africa of the future, he is going to have to change his own political party. In some fields they have changed already. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was speaking in the idiom of Dr Verwoerd in accordance with the grand philosophy of apartheid or “partisie”. The NP has moved away from it, not because it would not prefer that as a solution, but because it believes it is no longer a reality in South Africa.

*However, it still yearns for some aspects of partition. The current events in connection with KwaNdebele illustrate the attitude of the hon the State President to the concept of partition. The Black city-states are a partition concept and I agree with the hon member that South Africa must move in a different direction. However, it must move faster than the present Government in South Africa is allowing it to do.

†It has to do that. This is a reality. When the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition points to the independent states, the four TBVC countries, even he must concede that is a very qualified independence.

Only yesterday we heard from the hon the Deputy Minister about the financial dependency of those states upon South Africa. He knows they are totally dependent for finance and security on big brother South Africa. Even to the extent that there is a degree of sovereignty for those states, this is a qualified sovereignty, it is a qualified self-determination.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is attempting to express partition and self-determination in absolute terms, yet it is no longer available to any South Africans in absolute terms. Therefore South Africa has to move in the other direction.

I believe that in South Africa we have an integrated economy. We have shared resources. We have a geographic pattern and a demographic movement of people that is bringing them towards South Africa as an entity, rather than driving South Africans apart.

The only elements that are driving South Africans apart are the politicians and those who make race the cornerstone of their political philosophy. If we want a clash between the philosophy of race and the reality of oneness of South Africa, let’s carry on as we are doing. We in these benches, however, back the reality of oneness of South Africa with all the problems that that holds for each of us who wants to live in peace in this society.

I want to come back briefly to the Budget debate. The hon the Minister has been let off for a short while as far as finances are concerned. He knows nevertheless that what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has said and what the hon member for Innesdal has said will each have a different impact on our economy and future budgets in South Africa.

The hon the Minister appears to be pleased with himself and, to an extent, he appears to be pleased with his Budget. It is difficult to describe the Budget in a single phrase. It is not good enough, yet I suppose it is not bad enough to condemn. I would suggest that it is a kind of “marking time” Budget, or to put it differently, a “wait and see” Budget, or a “let’s hope for the best” Budget, or even a “more is nog ’n dag” Budget. In this sense it probably reflects the mood of the Government. Yes, the internal economic situation is marginally better than it was this time a year ago, and the measures that the hon the Minister and the Government announced last year and earlier this year to stimulate the economy have had some effect. That is a reality.

Yet they did not have the effect which the hon the Minister and the Government and the people of South Africa would have hoped for. There is still something fundamentally wrong. Surely the hon the Minister must be worried because there is something that will not get going. The economy is still hesitant. I believe that people involved in our economy have been waiting for something to happen. They have been waiting for an important signal. That important signal they have been waiting for is not primarily in the economic field but on the political front. That is what people have been waiting for and that is why our society is in this state of uneasy tension while it is waiting for something to happen.

Regrettably, instead of the signal that we should have received on the political front indicating a breakthrough towards a new South Africa, the signal that we received on the political front over the past ten days was the reimposition of the state of emergency. That is the signal that has come along with the Budget from the political wing of that party.

Of course, at the cost of civil liberties and of the ordinary freedoms associated with a democratic society, at the cost of further restrictions to the already qualified freedom of our Press and the freedom of ordinary citizens, many of whom endured the traumatic experience of being released after a year and after a couple of hours being incarcerated again, the state of emergency has brought a semblance of stability. The death toll and the level of intimidation are down, but so too is the level of freedom in our country.

The reimposition of the state of emergency conveys a signal. It is a signal of “kragda-digheid” and of determination on the one hand, but it is also a signal to those who are watching the process of politics in South Africa. Those who are concerned have realised that there has been no significant political breakthrough during the past 12 months. That is what the world, South Africans and investors have been looking for: A breakthrough on the political front. The reimposition of the state of emergency indicates that there has been no fundamental structural improvement in the politics of South Africa over the past year. It also indicates that in spite of the awesome powers which the Government has taken and which it says it would like to relinquish at the earliest possible opportunity, the Government has been unable over the past 12 months to resolve any of the elements of instability that were present when the state of emergency was introduced 12 months ago. Yes, there has been a standstill operation for a whole year, while the people of South Africa have been waiting for a breakthrough on the political front.

Never before have the political and the economic fortunes of South Africa been more intertwined. It is the unresolved political issues that are having a critically important effect on the economy of this country and that are reflected in aspects of this Budget. It is the unresolved political issues that have caused the dramatic rise in the costs, both indirect and direct, of security services. The unresolved political issues are playing into the hands of the sanctions lobby. These issues are encouraging an increase in pressure for disinvestment and are creating the climate in which politically motivated confrontation on the labour front must inevitably take place. The unresolved political issues are starting to cause the tensions on the labour front, and continue to sap the confidence, not only of investors abroad who are pulling out, but also of investors in South Africa who are not investing their South African rand in South African productive capacity. That is the reality.

In case the Government thinks I am singling it out for special mention let me say that the more I listen to the hon members of the CP on my right, the more I am convinced that if their policies could ever be put into effect— pray God they cannot be put into effect!— they would be an unmitigated disaster, not only for the physical security of South Africans but also for the economic well-being of all South Africans, Black, White and Brown.

*The CP is playing a dangerous game. Wittingly or unwittingly they are inflaming racial feelings and intensifying racial prejudice, without producing a policy which is able to accommodate those racial feelings and that racial prejudice in a practical political or constitutional dispensation. They are simply causing tension in society without making a positive contribution to reducing that tension. †

†The Government says that it is committed to the principle of powersharing, although there is considerable confusion in Government ranks as to what powersharing really means.

Recently the Government has said emphatically that it is committed to the process of negotiation. We in the PFP are also committed to negotiation. We believe that meaningful negotiation with real leaders is the only process through which we can restore peace and stability. We believe it is a fundamentally important process, and we want it to succeed.

Unfortunately, however, the Government has painted itself into a corner and is now having the utmost difficulty in getting serious negotiations going. It is faced with certain obstacles, largely of its own making, and I want to identify them. The first obstacle in the way of negotiation in South Africa is the obstacle of violence. No group, individual or government can negotiate while a pistol is held at its head.

Violence has to be eliminated or reduced to a level where meaningful negotiations can take place. I would presume that we agree on that across the floor of this House. That, however, is not going to be easy to achieve. Violence in this country has a long history and a long background.

The level of violence we have in this society did not arise overnight. It has a long, chequered history in which all of us are or have been actors over many years. Therefore, it is not going to be eliminated simply because the Government of the day makes a unilateral demand that violence must stop.

Of course people should stop violence but how should one go about it in order to get them to stop? I believe that, rather than by making simplistic unilateral demands, violence will be eliminated by talks and interaction among the various parties concerned. That is an essential prerequisite to formal talks on a new negotiated constitution. As the Government is part of the whole concept of violence in South Africa so it has to be part of the solution to the problem of violence.

The second problem which the Government encounters is that of finding credible leaders with whom to negotiate. On the one hand leaders wil not emerge as long as there is wholesale intimidation. However, equally so, leaders will not emerge while there is a widespread banning of people and organizations and when there is no freedom of mobilization. The Government is caught in this dilemma, because it cannot resolve the dilemma. It will be futile for the Government to negotiate with people who do not have the effective support and loyalty of the people on whose behalf they are purporting to talk. To do this will be an exercise in futility.

Therefore, the Government has to resolve the question of how one identifies the leaders when, on the one hand, one cannot have intimidation and, on the other hand, one cannot have banning and a lack of freedom of political mobilization.

Thirdly, there is the problem of mistrust. This is the greatest problem facing anyone in South Africa who wants to negotiate today. This mistrust is also a product of history and it must be eliminated. Yet, this Government will have difficulty in eliminating this mistrust unless it clarifies or, better still, abandons its stated position on cardinal aspects of policy.

I want to put this point to the hon the Minister. The Government says it wants to get rid of domination. It says it wants South Africans to be represented at the highest levels—executive and legislative. Yet the Government stubbornly refuses to contemplate the idea of Black members of Parliament! They stubbornly refuse to contemplate the possibility that at the highest level there could be a Black person as the State President of South Africa.

That is not the only possible solution!

I want to say that until the Government comes clean on this, until it tells the Black man that he can also aspire to being the State President of South Africa, this Government will lack credibility. It will never get off the ground.

Sir, the hon member for Langlaagte came along with his own explanation but, with all my affection and respect for him, I prefer to hear it either from the hon the Minister of from the hon the State President because I do not want him to have to do a “Pik Botha” and come along at a later stage to apologise for having misstated Government policy. [Interjections.]

Secondly, the Government says it wants to get rid of apartheid and race discrimination. Yet it clings stubbornly to the concept of statutory race classification and compulsory race segregation as the basis of constitutional structures. Nobody is going to believe that they want to get rid of race discrimination in South Africa if they say there has to be statutory race classification and if there are constitutional structures which are based on compulsion. These are the skeletons in the Government’s political cupboard that are undermining the negotiating process and, as a result, holding back the economic development of this country.

Just as we believe that Black South Africans have to be brought into the political structures of this country so that democracy can be strengthened—yes, democracy will be strengthened by including Blacks, and they want to be included in the political structures—so Black South Africans must be brought into the modern money economy to strengthen the free enterprise component of our economy. Those two factors go hand in hand.

Just as the Government lacks the thrust in the political field to bring the Blacks into the structures in the way that it should, so I believe the Government is showing signs of lacking the the guts, the go-gettiveness, of seeing to it that Black people are brought into the economic field in a meaningful way.

The hon the Minister is far too satisfied with the 3% growth. I know he is not totally satisfied…

That is not a true statement.

If one reads his statement, one notes that he is actually pleased with this development. It would…

The statement only expressed satisfaction with…

Well, Mr Chairman, he is far too satisfied with a 3% growth. He should be far from satisfied. He should recall that only a few years ago we accepted 5% as the minimum annual growth rate between 1980 and the end of the century as the objective. Since 1975 the annual growth rate has not even been 3%. There has been an average annual growth rate of about 2%—that is 3% less than the desirable growth rate and 1% less than the population growth rate. As a consequence of this, South Africans have been getting poorer over the past 12 years. We have been unable to provide the jobs and the services for our growing population. I want to ask the hon the Minister at what level of growth he then believes we can get rid of the backlogs in jobs and housing that have developed over the past 12 years. What is his targeted growth rate? Is he satisfied with 4%? With 5%? What is his objective? He said he had a five-year plan. What is his targeted growth rate?

Will we be able to provide the jobs, housing and services for our growing population if we do not have a growth rate that is at least greater than the population growth rate?

Not the growth rate of the Cabinet.

It is absolutely essential. Will we be able to meet the demands of the have-nots for a greater share of the economic cake on something like a 3% growth rate? Will we be able to demonstrate to the Black sector of our population that we can meet their socio-economic needs at this level of growth and on the basis of a free enterprise economy? I do not believe that the hon the Minister can answer yes to that question.

Outside the field of politics I believe the most urgent challenge facing the Government and the business sector of South Africa is to bring Black South African into the free enterprise economy in a meaningful way. If we do not do that at a greater speed than we have done over the past 12 years, or even in terms of this Budget, Black South Africans are going to use their growing political power not to reinforce the free enterprise system, but to attack it and replace it with another system which they believe will be more effective in meeting their needs and aspirations.

So if we want the free enterprise system to survive as the driving force behind production in South Africa, Blacks must be brought in not just as employees or managers but as entrepreneurs and owners and co-owners of businesses. We have to make a dramatic move to bring Blacks in not just as workers but as co-owners and partners in the economy of South Africa.

The Economic Committee of the President’s Council has presented a report on “A Strategy for Employment Creation” and has asked for a White Paper from the Government. Will the hon the Minister tell us if that White Paper is going to be produced?

Does the Government have a comprehensive rural development plan? Are the resources of South Africa, the potential of rural South Africa, especially in view of White South Africans migrating to the cities, being used sufficiently to build up the modern economy?

Below the level of the Small Business Development Corporation—I will call it the little small business—is the Government giving thought to making funds available for expanditure at local community level under the direction of local community councils or local community commitees? Finally, are White businessmen and is the Government doing enough to see to it that Blacks workers can become shareholders in the businesses in which they work? This is absolutely imperative.

Nobody is stopping it.

I am asking if the Government and the business sector are doing something about this. The hon the Minister says “we are not stopping them”, but is he encouraging them? I want to say to the hon the Minister that in collaborating with enlightened businesses I believe he should devise either tax incentive or some other kind of incentive to encourage businesses to see to it that more and more workers of South Africa become co-owners and shareholders in the businesses.

I say this because the PFP is committed to economic freedom. This party sees economic freedom as part of political freedom, and we see political freedom as part of human freedom. We believe the political challenges of the times demand more than just a “wait and see” government.

We have read through the Budget and through the speech of the hon the Minister and we do not believe that he is showing the earnestness, drive, courage and enthusiasm that will see to it that we expand not only political democracy in South Africa but also economic freedom by getting more people into the modern money system.

Mr Speaker, today the hon the Leader of the PFP spoke for the second time in his new capacity as the leader of a minority party in this House. [Interjections.] I do not blame him for trying but what he said here today they have already said over the length and breadth of South Africa—and the voting public rejected them!

I think in his speech today he has distorted what the Government is trying to do. He blamed the Government entirely for the existing state of emergency in South Africa. He blamed the Government entirely and did not utter a single word in regard to the orchestrated efforts from outside the boundaries of South Africa to make this country unstable and to create instability in our labour forces. There was not a single word of that—only the Government was blamed. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, he said that the Government was not prepared to negotiate. That is not true. Whatever the Government has achieved in this country is the result of negotiations. [Interjections.] Then the hon member accused the Government of having issued a unilateral invitation to people to come and talk to the Government.

I want to ask the hon member: When he was the Leader of the Official Opposition what did he do to try to assist the Government to encourage Black people to sit around the negotiation table to reach a deal in South Africa? [Interjections.]

The problem with those hon members is that they have a completely different approach towards finding a solution for South Africa. Their formulae are totally irrelevant and unacceptable in South Africa and that is why they can only make these blanket accusations against the Government.

Of course, that is a party that has been levelled to the ground. Look at their numbers here. What is very worrying is that sitting here next to these benches to my right I hear remarks from time to time from these hon gentlemen saying that this Parliament is irrelevant. They say it does not matter if we are elected to come to this Parliament, because it is irrelevant. [Interjections.] They have said that on many occasions and I want to ask their hon leader whether he has control in his party or if they are going to move out of this Parliament in the very near future to join Van Zyl Slabbert in extra-parliamentary politics. [Interjections.]

Would the hon member take a question?

No, I do not want to answer a question. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to tell those hon members that the PFP could not take the results and then they came along with all sorts of innuendo’s, for instance, in regard to the Hillbrow by-election. They had a recount and the NP won with a bigger majority! [Interjections.]

Talking about Johannesburg, where I come from, the NP improved its position by 100% and the PFP’s support was reduced by 50%. Therefore, it is a totally irrelevant political party. I want to quote the hon member who sat in this bench before—Mr Brian Page from Umhlanga. When I asked him one day what the situation with the New Republic Party was, he said that it was growing and growing and growing…! [Interjections.]

I want to leave the hon member for Sea Point at that because there is a bit of a new ball game in Parliament seeing that we have a new Official Opposition.

*The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis made a number of statements here about the tremendous progress that the CP had made. He said that a comparison had to be drawn and then compared the outcome of the recent election with that of 1977. He added that in fact the CP had had only two seats, namely Waterberg and Soutpansberg. He then tried to juggle with figures in an effort to prove to us that the CP had made progress, particularly in the Waterberg constituency.

What, however, are the facts? He should take a look at what appears in Finansies en Tegniek.

Do you believe it?

Listen to that stupid remark, Sir. May I ask the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis whether it is true that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition obtained 69% of the votes cast in 1983 and only 65% in the recent election? Is that true?

Read the headline.

Of course it is true. In Soutpansberg the CP obtained 53% of the votes in the by-election and 52% in the recent election. Is that true or not? [Interjections.] Those are the facts. The hon member would do well to look at the results of all the by-elections where the CP have stood and compare them with the results of the recent election. The hon member can find all that in this article. I do not want to waste the time of this House by doing so, but I do want to quote something said here by Prof Laurie:

That is how one compares election results. One can juggle with figures but there is no point in it.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition quoted from an NP pamphlet this afternoon, and I suggest that he contact our information office to obtain the new edition, because I do not believe his facts are quite right.

Oh, is there a new policy?

We are now dealing with a new Official Opposition that presents itself as being responsible and is speaking in a new idiom. There are a few new exponents of CP policy here, such as the hon members for Randfontein, Ermelo and Bethal, and then a few rather impetuous backbenchers like the hon members for Losberg, Schweizer-Reneke and Roodepoort.

The standpoints of satellite organisations are being echoed in this House as never before. It is interesting that the hon member for Ermelo specifically said that he was not a member of the AWB. He has been mentioned in rightwing circles as being a member of this organisation because apparently he played quite an active role in the activities of the AWB in Ermelo, attended their meetings and participated in their discussions. [Interjections.] However, I want to ask the hon members for Bethal, Britz and Ventersdorp whether they are indeed members of the AWB and when they are going to confess or dissociate themselves from the AWB. There is a photograph showing the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis being carried shoulder-high by members of the AWB, and he said at Pietersburg that he was the first English-speaking member of the “Boerestaat”. [Interjections.]

There is a new idiom in the discussions in this House, however, and the hon members of the CP should debate it with us. It has to do with negotiation, partition, majority occupation, the White fatherland, Afrikaners and English-speaking Afrikaners and the Southland of the hon member of Randfontein. However, the question is: Where do these standpoints emanate from? Who, in fact, are these new exponents of CP policy?

The hon member for Lichtenburg attacked us former United Party supporters. One would have thought that by this time that belonged to the past. However, he asked where all the old United Party supporters were today. According to him the NP had accommodated all of them, and now they were helping the NP to steal the policy of the PFP. I want to say to the hon member for Lichtenburg that he should look around him. He need only ask the hon member for Barberton how many former United Party supporters are serving on his party executive in his constituency. He should go and ask how many former United Party supporters are serving on the CP’s party executives in Ermelo and Bethal. I must say, Sir, that if that is their argument, the late General Smuts would really be very happy because it would mean that his influence was still being felt in all the political parties in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bethal in particular— who is also a member of the AWB, but who is now, I must say, such a great exponent of CP policy—figures quite prominently in documents from the archives of the old United Party. This dates from donkey’s years ago when he was an active member of the Youth Front of the United Party at the University of Pretoria. Perhaps the hon member for Berea will still remember him. [Interjections.] At the time the hon member for Berea was the national leader of the United Party’s Youth Front. Those were the days when the hon member for Bethal was prominent in the youth programmes of the old United Party. [Interjections.]

Another name, Mr Speaker, that also figured in the history of the old United Party, was that of the hon member for Ermelo. After all he, too, comes from a staunch United Party home, does he not? [Interjections ] Mr Speaker, I really do not know why they are so ashamed of their political past. [Interjections.]

Now that is very interesting. Do you know, Mr Speaker, that the name of the hon member for Barberton also figures in the annals of the old United Party.

Oh please! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Barberton…

No, do not tell a lie now!

The hon member for Barberton would do well to go and speak to Prof Daantjie Kriek of Unisa. He told me that he was acquainted with Cas Uys; after all, he was a member of the old United Party for a long time. [Interjections.]

No, you are not telling the truth. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker… [Interjections.]

André, you are lying and you know it! [Interjections.] I say you are lying and you know it!

Order! No, the hon member for Barberton really ought to know better than to say that.

Mr Speaker, I repeat it. As far as I am concerned, the hon member for Turffontein lied, and he knew it.

Order! The hon member for Barberton knows full well that that is unparliamentary language. He knows that he may not say that. I order him to withdraw those words.

I refuse to withdraw them, Mr Speaker.

Order! I then order the hon member, having disregarded the authority of the Chair, to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

Mr Speaker, permit me to set the record straight. It was conveyed to me by Prof Kriek of Unisa that the hon member for Barberton was a member of the old United Party. Therefore, if I have now offended the hon member I want to say at once that that was not my intention.

Oh, now you are beginning to back down! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I did say it, but now I should just like to know why the hon member is so ashamed of his friends. Does he hold it against the hon member for Ermelo and the hon member for Bethal for being former United Party supporters? [Interjections.] Does be hold that against them? After all, the CP is full of former members of the old United Party. [Interjections.]

Let us take a look at the new exponents of CP policy. It seems to me as if the hon member for Ermelo is now the great fundi in this sphere. In The Argus of 15 June 1987 he answered questions with reference, inter alia, to the CP’s policy of partition. In reply to one of those questions he said:

What does that mean? [Interjections.] I shall tell you what it means, Mr Speaker. Hon members will do well to read this article in The Argus. Reading it, one finds an echo of what he said in the book Witman, waar is jou Tuisland? That, so it appears to me, is the secret plan of the hon member for Ermelo, of which he has apparently not yet informed all the hon members of his party. Several people co-operated to produce this book Witman, waar is jou Tuisland?, of which Dr W J G Lubbe was the main editor. Among them were Adv C de Jager, SC, the present hon member for Bethal, as well as Adv M J Mentz, SC, the present hon member for Ermelo. Is what we have here, perhaps, the secret plan, Mr Speaker?

Let us quote some extracts from this book. It is a very interesting book. It deals inter alia with subjects such as partition, White occupation and a White fatherland. It is subjects of this nature that we find in this book. And this, Mr Speaker, is the work of the new exponents of these things. The hon member for Ermelo will be getting a chance to take part in this debate. Then, or perhaps later, he must tell us whether he still stands by these standpoints which he championed in the days they wrote this book. The foreword of this book was written by Mrs Betsie Verwoerd, and it was published in 1983—not very long ago—by Oranje-Werkers-Promosies, Edms Bpk, Pretoria. Let us read a brief extract from it:

It is not merely the rest of South Africa as we know it today. It is a new homeland that must be created and must from the outset be predominantly White. I want to ask the hon member for Ermelo whether it is Morgenzon.

No, it is Turffontein.

Where is that White homeland? The hon member cannot tell us that it is the present South Africa, with the Black areas excluded. It must be predominantly occupied by Whites from the outset. [Interjections.] The hon member for Brakpan had better go and help the hon member, because I think they are having a hard time providing answers.

Let us quote further:

Then this book goes on, and I suggest that hon members of the CP and hon members of this House read this book again. This appears to be the secret plan that the hon member for Ermelo wants to put into effect. The hon member is shaking his head. Is what I am quoting here correct? Does the hon member stand by these standpoints?

Read, just read it.

Does the hon member stand by these standpoints or does he not stand by them? [Interjections.] The rest of South Africa is labelled as transitional areas, so-called “grey areas” which will initially be controlled by Whites.

Then they say: “Afsonderlike ontwikkeling moet dus omgedraai word”. What does that mean? Separate development has always meant that the Black people have to go to the homelands where the Black people have traditionally lived. Now the hon members say that this must be turned around. Therefore the Whites must go to the homeland that is to be created for them. [Interjections.]

Then areas are totally written off, areas such as East London, areas such as Natal and Durban for the Indians, and areas in the Western Cape for the Coloureds. That, apparently, is the plan that these hon members want to present to us in this country.

I should like to conclude, and in doing so, mention a very interesting point. The CP is so ashamed of the AWB now, but what does Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche say? He said, after saying that he had assisted seven of the CP candidates to come to Parliament, four of whom were successful:

Why do I quote this? I want to quote from what was said by the former member for Kuruman, Mr Jan Hoon. In passing, Sir, I see here that he placed an advertisement in a newspaper, reading:

The word “Blank” then appear in brackets. [Interjections.] What did the former member for Kuruman have to say? I think my time has expired but I just want to conclude with this extract. Mr Jan Hoon, who sat in this Parliament, held a meeting at Nelspruit and said inter alia:

Then Mr Jan Hoon, a very important leader of the CP in the Cape—he has now been appointed to the President’s Council—said the following:

To conclude. I want to refer to this map that we have already shown to the hon members. Previously the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tried to escape by saying that I had not quoted the whole thing. He said that the words “Is dit dalk die antwoord?” appeared here. With all due respect to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, I want to say that he should go and read this book Witman, waar is jou Tuisland? and speak to the exponents of that policy, the hon members for Ermelo and Bethal, and come and tell us what is the secret plan which the hon member for Ermelo says he has, but which cannot be divulged at this stage. [Interjections.] This map, this “Boerestaat” of the AWB, will ultimately become the policy of the CP if one reads their documents and considers the standpoints that they adopted before and during the election.

The CP cannot simply continue to attack the Government. They present themselves as an alternative Government, and we therefore say to them that they owe not only this Parliament but also the people at large an explanation. The hon member for Ermelo is the big shot who must tell us what this is all about.

I want to make one final remark about what the hon member for Ermelo said in The Argus. He said:

Hon members must listen very carefully:

What does that mean? Those areas in the vicinity of the homelands, where 30% of the Black people live, are apparently going to be consolidated with the homelands in terms of their policy. Then only 20% will remain and that is a problem to them. The hon members must tell us where those borders are. That is why I say that if one considers the “Boerestaat” of the AWB, one sees that this is the direction that that party is moving in. They will not get out of it. We want the answers. We want clear answers, because the electorate wants to know who the so-called alternative Government is, and what the secret plan is that they do not wish to divulge to us.

Mr Speaker, the ball has just been kicked very high and I know I as a newcomer should not field it nor invite the tackle because one can also get at a person from the side. You see, Sir, the CP is becoming smaller and smaller and smaller! [Interjections.]

I should like to thank the voters of Delmas this afternoon for their confidence in sending me here. I also wish to take the opportunity to thank and pay tribute to the former Minister who used to be the MP for Delmas, Mr Hendrik Schoeman. He served Delmas with great distinction and he has my heartfelt thanks on behalf of the people of Delmas.

Delmas is an area known for its deep, red soil—excellent for agriculture—its good rainfall and poor weather forecasters. In the east we have also learnt one should play one’s rugby independently of politics and that is why we believe that independent politics have no place in rugby.

The cause of agriculture is very important to me because I am a farmer. Agriculture is indispensable to a sound economy in South Africa yet we find that for the summer grain farmers, insolvencies and poor balance sheets are the order of the day. Negative economic forces adversely affecting agriculture can result in great unemployment so one has to ensure the socioeconomic viability of the rural population. The farmer’s thinking and his decision-making capacity, physical, economic and otherwise, should be expanded in such a complex approach.

Agriculture provides more than a million people with work, contributes generously to the gross domestic product, earns foreign currency, is a market for products and services and provides millions of people with food. At the moment we are faced with a situation of declining demand, overproduction and overinvestment. This situation is expected to continue because the leading agricultural countries in the world, among which South Africa is included, have developed economies and such economies are inclined to over-invest in production capacity.

One fact is indisputable; the farmer is faced with an ever-increasing cost and production spiral which is taking its toll in bankruptcies in summer planting areas in particular. We dare not permit the demise of sound farming enterprises and undertakings such as agricultural co-operatives that were established in a spirit of decentralisation and rural employment, and that are foreign exchange earners to boot. All indications are that profitability in agriculture will be under great pressure in future years. A weakening exchange ratio resulting from high domestic inflation, increasing foreign isolation and the rise in price of the farmer’s product, which does not keep pace with his escalating input costs, will make this position even more critical.

Although the financial position of agricultural producers in summer planting areas has deteriorated over the last decade and a considerable number of bridging measures in the form of interest subsidies, debt consolidation and rescheduling—we are very grateful to the State for these—have kept the wolf of sequestration from the door in many cases, fundamental structural problems have not yet been addressed.

The cultivation of maize predominates in the summer planting area and a debt ratio in excess of 30% is already creating serious cash flow problems in this area at current margins. There is a strong possibility of a catastrophic series of dispersal sales in summer planting areas. Measures are required to combat this and to accommodate those leaving agriculture. The farmer in this country always believes that next year will be the best year ever, but he is also aware that the refinement of his product may be more important than the next year. A vigorous reconstruction programme for agriculture will have to be launched to realise this ideal by permitting agriculture its fair share of the State budget, curbing production cost increases, stimulating the promotion of exports, relating interest rates to the capabilities of agriculture and promoting White resettlement of rural areas.

Various spot checks have been carried out by separate agricultural co-operatives and it appears from the enormous increase in the percentage of producers whose net value will weaken owing to their expected poor income that the margins are the decisive factor. In an effort to combat this and because inflation cannot be curbed the following happened.

The tendency arose to try to compensate for declining margins with turnover. Financial obligations which had to be met were too high. Producers believed that measures would be taken to deal with the situation; they were encouraged to produce and specialise.

At present our agricultural products are in competition with other countries in which certain prices are the lowest in 10 years owing to large-scale subsidies and overproduction. But what happens next? The price of the farmer’s product is adjusted and reduced to reflect so-called market conditions. The question is is what happens to the farmer’s supplier of inputs. He is protected against international markets but the farmer has to pay. It is high time the authorities in question realised that the best recipe to break agriculture financially is a continuation of the current policy in which the prices obtained by the farmer for his product are related to the market, whereas an opposite course is adopted on the input side.

Because input/output price ratios have weakened, margins have fallen, the producers’ ability to absorb failed harvests has decreased and real farming debt has started to climb since 1980. In addition to these economic strictures, agriculture, which is so dependent on nature, has also had to endure a great deal in this sphere over the past number of years. Agriculture is in no way an industry for insolvents or incompetents and it is faced with the challenge of having to feed and clothe millions more people before the turn of the century.

Let us continue to develop agriculture in such a way that we do not deter our young people, but encourage the best among them to seize their opportunities. It is also an indisputable fact that agriculture forms an integral part of the economy as a whole, and cannot isolate or distance itself from it. The producer’s problem is therefore an inability to effect adequate adjustments in rapidly deteriorating circumstances. The unfavourable course of input prices forces farmers to become more conscious of costs and to utilise their inputs better. This demands more scientific management of resources of aid such as cash, information, labour, time, raw materials and technology. Possible adjustments for the producer would be to enter the market refining his product—personally or through his co-operative. The co-operative will have to be given greater room for manoeuvre to succeed in doing this. This is justified because my examination of the sad results shown by many agricultural co-operatives has revealed that the time is long since past when agricultural co-operatives could survive by selling ploughshares and bolts.

Perhaps we are so accustomed to fixing our gaze on overseas markets that we ignore the huge potential market on our doorstep. We should retain foreign links, but also invest in building channels capable of conveying our products to our masses because of these people’s escalating buying power and the rapidly narrowing wage gap. We should process precious raw materials here. The recruiting, training and retention of the farmers’ personnel are equally important. Today it is no longer exceptional to hear concepts such as remuneration administration, motivation and labour relations being referred to in farmers’ conversations. This is only right because the farmer is a manager by definition.

Scope for switching from one agricultural product to another is relatively limited under present conditions. The structural adjustments required not only hold enormous financial implications for the entire agricultural industry but come at a very inconvenient time. These structural changes have to be carried out in such a way that they do not in turn lead to future marketing problems. The farmer will therefore have to realise that he will have to be very much more market-orientated in future in addition to other considerations he has to take into account in planning his production.

I want to conclude by saying that we as farmers wish to retain our faith in our daily round. If we want to avert a national crisis we shall have to address matters such as debt and interest moratoriums, solvency and interest capabilities, liquidity and the right to dignified human existence of the farmer and his labourers in a thorough manner.

Mr Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon member for Delmas on the speech he made here. We know that area fairly well because of the previous member that represented Delmas in this House. We want to say to the hon member that we hope he finds Parliament a very happy and pleasant place and that he will make a contribution that will benefit Delmas, as the member he is succeeding did.

I just want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition a question arising from what the hon member for Turffontein said here. When one looks at the policy of partition and the “volkstaat” policy the CP propagates, does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition not think he is perhaps following the same route as a small group of Afrikaners of a few years ago when in frustration they, too, went to seek another “volkstaat” of their own? They went to look for it in Argentina, and it no longer exists today. I think this is something he should bear in mind.

I found it interesting that he referred to certain figures here. He said he agreed that that money be spent. He said he approved of the R7,199 billion appropriated in this Budget for consolidating the Black states.

Do not add to what I have said, now.

Is that not what he said? Very well, but it is nevertheless interesting that he tried to justify it here. He said it consolidated apartheid and he agreed with it. In public, however, he and his fellow party members complain about this “White man’s money” that is being spent on Black people. We are always hearing that argument in South Africa.

No, your argument is quite wrong.

When he participates in a Budget debate here, however, he tries to justify it.

Furthermore, I want to say I am pleased the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis is here. Some years ago he tried in the same way to become a member of Parliament. During that time he stayed at my house and came to speak to members of the NP here to establish whether they would vote for him so that he could become a nominated member for the NP. I want to tell the hon member that the people who voted against him then are now members of the same party as he is. The hon member should go and ask those people a few questions about why they voted against him then, and used the argument that it was because he was a Catholic.

They had more information than I did.

They also used the argument that the hon member was English-speaking. I now want to tell him to be very careful of those people with whom he has now associated himself.

I now want to turn to the PFP because yesterday the PFP adopted attitudes that astounded me. The hon member for Constantia made a great fuss about “the humble homes in his constituency”. I wonder whether the hon member wants us to believe there are “humble homes” in the Constantia constituency.

The hon member for Bryanston once again attacked the Police here and complained that his vehicle, which he had left in the street overnight, was not safe. One wonders whether we now have to appoint a policeman for every Prog that leaves his car in the street. [Interjections.] Can one work on a budget in that way?

I want to return to the NP policy and the Budget that is being introduced. On 6 May this year White voters of South Africa expressed their opinion of the principles and policies of the various political groups represented in this House today. They charged this hon Minister, because they chose this party, with implementing the policy that was presented to them on 6 May. This is what this Budget is all about. We on this side of the House have once again received a mandate to implement the policy.

In the present economic climate in which the hon the Minister has to implemented the policy, I think he has made sufficient funds available to the various departments, on which we can deliberate during the coming weeks. These will be details to which I believe we shall be able to reply.

In my opinion the policy the NP presented to the electorate during the last election can be implemented together with this Budget in the course of the year. We on this side of the House are therefore well satisfied. We can therefore tell the hon the Minister that the principle is reflected in this Budget—carry on; we are satisfied with it.

Over the past few days we have listened attentively to what opposition spokesmen have been saying, and were disappointed that, against the wishes expressed by the electorate on 6 May, they attacked this policy. After all, the electorate accepted this policy and we have therefore made provision in this Budget to implement it.

I think the PFP and the CP have in particular ignored the mandate. By this time the right-wing and left-wing groups should have accepted that, with the referendum, we received a mandate for a tricameral parliament from the population, and we now have to expand on it.

What the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition discussed here this afternoon therefore becomes irrelevant. It will do him no good to harp on it; the voters have already given us their approval to finalise the Native reserves that survived the colonial period so that we may attend to what remains within the remaining borders of South Africa.

If one analyses the PFP’s criticism one sees they are criticising the Government—I think it was one of the hon members that spoke yesterday—because of the money being spent on the homelands. Now I want to suggest that if the policy advocated by the PFP were to be implemented, the same amount of money would have to be spent because these are development funds for a group of people who have lagged behind in South Africa. In terms of PFP policy, hon members on that side of the House would not have had the opportunity to debate this matter in this Chamber. In terms of their policy of one man, one vote, they would not have been elected to this place. Then they would not be able to complain as they now have the privilege of complaining, about that money which should supposedly not be spent there. Their voice of protest would therefore have disappeared. Those on the right-wing, with their “volks-partisie” policy, would have to make more money available to the various governments. Indeed, this was disclosed here once again this afternoon. They would have to make more money available to the various governments they want to or have to establish.

If the policy the hon member for Turffontein also discussed were to be implemented here in South Africa, larger amounts of money would have to be spent than those involved in the present Budget. If the hon members of the CP think they are going to make people independent by separating them from South Africa or by isolating certain areas in South Africa and making those areas their home, I want to assure them already that they have as much chance of doing that as one would have of sending one’s 18-year-old child into the world without decent training, without decent education and without having taught him to be independent. This example of someone allowing his 18-year old child to leave home unprepared can also be applied to a whole people. When one does not train a people to accept the same systems and norms that one possesses oneself, it is absolutely futile to put that people aside, as the CP wants to do, and simply tell it to continue on its own. That people will keep on coming back to you and will come and live with you again, or will remain dependent on your care in one way or another.

That money will be misspent or misused by Black governments—this was, after all, the CP complaint—is something that could happen with any government. We in this House have already been through similar processes. We have in the past spent money that was allocated to us incorrectly. The hon member for Randfontein will be able to tell us more about that. I think that during this coming week he will be informing us even more comprehensively on the subject. In this regard we need only think back to what happened with The Citizen. We should therefore expect the process of becoming independent in this country to be accompanied by mistakes that will be made.

Because the opposition parties have neglected to measure this Budget against that policy which either the left wing or the right wing advocates as its ideal for this country, I shall take a brief look at this and try, as I have in fact done with my voters, to prove that it is simply not attainable. From an economic point of view, I believe it is too expensive; from a political point of view I believe it is dishonest and impossible to implement the policy of the CP. Moreover, the minority groups will not accept it. It is a recognised fact that the White man in South Africa became urbanised for economic reasons. The hon member for Langlaagte dealt with this in detail yesterday. Nevertheless I want to come back to this point briefly.

The Anglo Boer War—hon members of the CP are so quick to refer to it—gave the strongest economic power in Europe political control in South Africa. We were colonised and we inherited a state from those generations, one which we still have and which we have to try to unravel. We made the so-called Native Reserves, which date from that period, independent and free. However, other parts of South Africa remained. It was for this very reason that we went to the electorate on 6 May this year.

The present generation of Afrikaans-and English-speaking people in this country is not to blame for the fact that we are governing this country alone. We realise this but we intend to give attention to the situation and to change it. This, then, is why we have to scrutinise a Budget such as this one in order to give an indication of the direction we intend to follow with a view to broadening democracy in South Africa.

We did not annex this country and lump everything together to form a unitary state, as the PFP wants, and to continue in that way. Although we became self-governing, we did not inherit the ideal constitutional system. In fact, we had to rely on our own resources to work out, by means of negotiation, a system for the remaining parts of South Africa in which we could bring about a better political dispensation.

Since the Anglo-Boer War and the urbanisation of the Whites we have broadened the economy of this country. We have progressed from an agricultural country to a mining country, and owing to the mining we have developed into an industrial country. We have in the process built up an extremely strong manufacturing sector. While we were broadening the economy, we involved all the groups living in this country. In that process we progressed so far with the economic development that partition is simply not possible any more. I want to discuss this point in greater detail.

We cannot, as the hon member for Soutpansberg said recently in the debate on the Transport Services Appropriation, settle people in an area near a White area with the help of a so-called “bullet train”, and then think that with a transport system such as this we shall be able to unravel the economy of this country. In the first place I want to ask the hon member for Soutpansberg whether he has yet calculated how many trains we would need to transport, for example, only the Black people on the East Rand to work in the mornings and home again in the evenings. I want to tell him that a “bullet train” does not run on the same gauge as the present trains. Therefore, all our railway lines would have to be replaced by wider gauge railway lines, and we would have to build larger and longer trains to transport those people. We would also need yards because when those trains come from the homelands to the East Rand, they will have to be left somewhere because other people cannot be taken back that same morning. They would only be taken back that evening. Those trains would therefore have to be left there.

It should therefore be clear to hon members of the CP how impractical only this one aspect of their homeland policy is. The hon member for Soutpansberg said without reflection that we should transport them by means of a “bullet train”. These are ill-considered principles they are beginning to apply. They whip the people up with emotion and with things the NP has for years been saying are impracticable. That was how they won their seats in this House. We want to tell them, however, that they are going to be found out. They will have to spell out their policy. This afternoon the hon member for Turffontein told the CP that it would have to spell out its constitutional policy. We want to tell the CP that economic facts, too, will have to be made known in order to prove that partition is feasible. In that part of the East Rand that I represent, we told this to the voters, and the voters agreed. They demonstrated their rejection of the CP. In a four-cornered fight it was relatively easy to accomplish this. Even the assistance the CP received from the HNP was of no use to them at all.

This urbanisation to which I referred brought about greater prosperity and comfort. In the process that has taken place since the Anglo-Boer War, the English-speaking people have taken the lead. There is a lesson in this for me. The English-speaking people took the lead because the industrial revolution took place in their country of origin. Therefore it was easy for them. The Afrikaner lagged somewhat behind in that process. Why? It was because he still felt bound to the land, and because he was an administrator. He established himself in the spheres of national administration and agriculture. He therefore did not experience the same prosperity as the English-speaking people during that period.

It is stated in the document from which the hon member for Turffontein quoted that by the year 2000, we would form 10% of the population. Against the background of this process of urbanisation we in South Africa shall have to realise that even the Afrikaner will no longer be able to do certain things; that other population groups will necessarily have to do them. This is the only thing that can happen in a process of urbanisation and industrialisation. One cannot do everything, and therefore those people will also have to be involved. One cannot simply, with a policy of partition, a policy of disentanglement of the areas in which 90% of the Whites have become urbanised, remove the Whites, Coloureds or Indians from those areas, because everyone in this country is going to become urbanised, and this trend will increase all the time. A policy of partition is a political gimmick to catch people at the polls, but it is certainly not a feasible economic policy for South Africa.

I want to turn to another aspect of that policy. The hon members for Delmas and Brakpan come from the East Rand. The hon member for Brakpan must now tell us how partition is to be implemented on the Witwatersrand, and particularly on the East Rand where the tunnels of certain mines run underneath various towns. In my area the tunnels of one mine run under the Coloured township of Reigerpark as well as under the White and Black towns. I want to ask them now whose gold we are extracting from that mine. Does that gold belong to the Coloureds, the Whites or the Blacks?

That is a stupid argument!

It may be a stupid argument, but then give us a stupid answer. Now the hon member is silent.

I now want to ask the hon member for Brakpan whether, if we were to have total partition, those people would have to show their passports every day and are we, for example, going to allow them to refrain from levying GST in their areas? [Interjections.] If they have control over their areas, and they abolish GST in Reigerpark or in Mitchells Plain, what is the CP going to do about that?

It is in terms of your policy that they can become independent!

The hon member for Brakpan is just like his leader. This afternoon the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also tried to tell us by means of questions that they had a policy.

It is your policy!

Order!

We are asking the hon members to tell us what they envisage for the future.

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

No, Sir. The hon member will have an opportunity to speak and he can speak to me then.

The hon member has to use those kinds of arguments because they have to unravel the economic situation on the Witwatersrand or on the East Rand, and tell those people what the CP is going to do with them. They have to tell us—we who grew up there over many decades—what they are going to do with the economy there. For example, if we were to take the Black people, who go down the mine every day, out of Boksburg, the mine would close. Every day the Receiver of Revenue receives approximately R1 million in taxes on the basis of the daily gold output of the mine concerned. I now want to ask those hon members whether a part of that money is not also needed in the Black mineworkers’ homeland or in the areas we have to develop for him. Or is this also White man’s money?

It is facts of this nature that we have to convey to our voters. It is madness to think that all of a sudden we should have to unravel that economic world in which we live, in which we have created prosperity. It is simply not possible. We have to look at a constitutional policy that will satisfy everyone, so that we can develop that prosperity.

In my opinion this Budget is laying down guidelines for us in that direction. I shall let that suffice. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we are grateful for this Budget, and we believe he should continue in this way.

Mr Speaker, it is with all humility that I rise today to take my place in this illustrious House. I am conscious of the honour and of the heavy responsibility that has been placed on me by the hon members on this side of the House to serve the House of Assembly as an indirectly elected member of Parliament. This I promise to do.

Today I am reminded of many things, but mostly of my grandparents who, with their small children, immigrated to this country from Lithuania towards the end of the last century and who, in turn, grew to love and to serve this country of their adoption.

I know that the hon members who know the northern suburbs of Cape Town would have seen the solid slate milestone, boldly carved with a figure 12 on it, which stands on a corner today in front of the Volkskas building in Bellville. In Twilight over the Tygerberg the late J P Duminy wrote that it was on that corner that a large double storey general store cum dwelling house stood that belonged to the Berkowitz family, my grandparents. My mother, Pearl, brought me as an infant from Northern Natal, from Paulpietersburg, to that house on my first visit to the Cape. Sir, my great love affair with the Cape began almost 50 years ago. [Interjections.]

Sir, with Margaret Thatcher’s historical and spectacular victory in mind, and against the background of the summit meeting which took place in Paris a few weeks ago, when the world’s first anti-terrorist meeting of nine industrial nations took place, let the world remember that we are also engaged in our own struggle against terrorism.

At this very moment our society is involved in a genuine effort to adapt, reform and improve our nation, while at the same time defending ourselves from those who practise violence and promote anarchy in the selfish pursuit of power and political gain.

Terrorism is one of the oldest means of expressing violent opposition without direct support of a conventional army. It has rarely achieved more, however, than the nuisance effect of chronic banditry. Today international terrorists are not merely men of the sword, but also of the word. Their mission is as much indoctrination of the civilian population as it is to confront and aggravate the security forces. Terrorist master planners aim to polarise society and to make the Government appear weak and indecisive. Their tactics range from murder and bombings to the fomentation of strikes and demonstrations.

Carlos Marigheli, a Brazilian communist who wrote extensively on urban violence in the sixties, said that all urban unrest of this sort should have a common objective, namely to maximize publicity and the resultant psychological effect thereof. Marigheli unwittingly provides answers to our own dilemma of urban violence. If civil liberties are in part curtailed by the need to combat terrorism, we should make it clear where responsibility for the crisis properly belongs. Equally, we ourselves should make it abundantly clear through available publicity that the perpetrators of violence are the main obstacles to positive change.

Unless all sectors of society are willing to make sacrifices, military success cannot on its own provide the ultimate solution. Terrorist tactics in the Middle East and South America contain salutary lessons indeed for us in South Africa. They demonstrate firstly that our Defence Force should have access to the resources it needs for it to provide the defensive umbrella under which change and reform can take place. In world terms our Defence Force spending is relatively low— only 3,8% of the gross domestic product, compared with 7,9% in Cuba and 24,4% in Israel.

Secondly, because our national service pattern, our military, as in Israel, is part of society, it therefore depends on the active support of all the sections of our community. I appeal today for greater material support and especially emotional support for our security forces in whose hands we place the solemn and responsible task of preserving peace and stability. One of the main objectives of our Defence Force has always been to maintain a high level of sensitivity to the civil and political consequences of its protective role. It is a duty which they perform with skill, tact and dedication. Only by taking firm action, however, and developing a strong military potential, can the South African Defence Force help create a strong defence strategy. As General Geldenhuys himself has said, under such conditions it will be possible to conduct future negotiations in a calm and relaxed atmosphere and thereby gain more time in which future constitutional processes can develop lasting peace and prosperity can be attained in the entire subcontinent.

South African men in uniform have laid down their lives in pursuit of these objectives.

South Africans will continue to die in the defence of our country, our values and all of our people just as Dingaan’s Zulus died and just as our South African Air Force pilots died over Warsaw. We as civilians must also make sacrifices if South Africa is to continue on its path of change. I humbly call upon this House and all of our people to support our security forces and in doing so defeat those who like all international terrorists would frighten us into the so-called Leninist utopia.

At the time of the Munich massacre in 1972, Golda Meir—one of the greatest women statesmen of this century—said:

Mr Speaker, let me say in conclusion that our position in South Africa is no different to that of Israel. We as South Africans have nowhere else to go. We also want all of our people to live in peace.

Mr Speaker, I have pleasure in congratulating the hon member Mrs Chait on her maiden speech. It is quite clear that the hon member has done the necessary research and has the background to speak on the topic of urban terrorism with authority and confidence, which she did. One should perhaps recommend to the hon member Dr Geldenhuys who is the chairman of the NP’s study group on defence that he should make sure that the hon member Mrs Chait serves on his committee. Defence seems to be an area about which she is very knowledgeable. We wish her every success in this Chamber and a stay during which she will contribute to the resolving of the problems of our country.

The speech of what I call “the local village clown” was not as well-researched and did not make a contribution to the debate in this House. I am now referring to an earlier speaker. I call him “the village clown” because he excels in kicking up dust during the period that he speaks but by the time he sits down the dust has already settled and his speech is forgotten insofar as content is concerned—it does not make any contribution to any political debate. I am now referring to the hon member for Turffontein. [Interjections.]

He has become so predictable in that he is pulled into the debate whenever it becomes necessary…

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon member to refer to another hon member as “the local village clown”?

Order! Who said that?

Mr Speaker, I referred to the hon member for Turffontein as a village clown.

Order! I do not think the hon member should proceed along those lines.

The point that I am trying to make is that the hon member seems to be pulled into debates for the purpose of amusement. As a clown would do in a village he is utilised to amuse his own supporters with the content of a speech aimed always at the ridiculous and the personal. For that reason I assume…

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: You have just ruled that the hon member should not proceed along those lines, but he seems to be ignoring your ruling.

Order! I wish to assure the hon member for Boksburg that I have been listening to the hon member for Durban Central very carefully and I do not think that the hon member for Durban Central has misbehaved. The hon member may continue.

Thank you, Sir. The hon member for Turffontein did not, for example, react to the very solid speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition from his point of view. There is no doubt about it—as much as we disagree with that policy and reject it out of hand, as is known—that he advanced an argument today which clearly homed in on the hon members of the NP.

*What he was trying to do was to gain the support of those NP members who actually belong in the CP.

†What he pointed out, was that large aspects of NP policy—as far as one can identify it— actually also amount to partition. Although the NP attacks the CP about partition, they are busy implementing it as well, as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition pointed out. The hon the Minister over there shakes his head. What are they busy doing in KwaNdebele? Can he tell us how the Kwa-Ndebele solution of the NP differs from the policy of partition of the CP? Can he explain to us what the differences are where morality and principle are concerned? We regard the KwaNdebele solution of the NP as much a farce as the CP’s policy. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition pointed out to that party today that they are doing the CP a service in terms of implementing the partition policy which the CP follows. He said that he was trying to woo support from the NP and to drive a wedge into the NP in order to see whether he could not start pulling across the conservative supporters of that party. He is not interested in the New Nats because he is not going to get them. He only wants the conservative ones. He said: “As die NP bereid is om verder te dink in hierdie rigting”—he is referring to partition—“dan kan ons saamwerk.” They are trying to gain support.

They are probably going to get “ondersteuning” on the platteland, because the NP has failed to put its alternative to the voters. The NP has failed to respond to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the points that he made today.

None of the speakers of the NP stated their policy. The hon member for Innesdal tried to tell us love stories. It does not help to say, as he did, that the NP does not regard the Blacks, Indians and Coloureds as the enemy but as friends. It sounds so nice, but that still does not give us the policy. He almost sounded like the oldtime Progs who based their policies and views on love and on being nice to other people. That is not a policy. What we want to find out is what the policy is all about.

We listened to the hon member for Boksburg and he told us that his criticism of the CP policy was that one would have to build wider railway lines, find parking space near Boksburg for all the new trains and build much faster trains. That was his contribution to the debate. No wonder we had the comment yesterday from the hon member for Langlaagte who said, quite rightly, that we sit in this Chamber with air-conditioning, nice and calm, but when one goes outside there is a sharp, cold wind. He is right because when one leaves this Chamber, there is the sharp, cold wind of South African reality. Whilst we debate issues which were topical in this Chamber six or eight years ago, like partition, the real political debate is busy overtaking us outside. The debate outside among the majority of people and which we cannot ignore is not about the bullet train and about whether the railway lines will have to be widened or narrowed to accommodate the people who have to be transported. It is not about partition. The debate is about whether or not post-apartheid South Africa will be democratic or whether it will be some authoritarian, hard socialist system.

That is what the debate is all about. We live in our cloud-cuckooland here where we talk about aspects which have been overhauled, swallowed, digested and spewed out before as not relevant whilst outside the cold wind blows.

The debate that White voters are interested in—I am referring to those who supported the NP despite their disagreements and despite their anxiety about the lack of reform on the part of the NP—is a debate which will try to tackle the realities of South Africa. What has unfortunately happened as a result of the CP becoming the Official Opposition and as a result of the failure and lack of confidence on the part of the NP to state their policy is that we are moving further and further into a vacuum.

I hope the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will participate in this debate and answer the numerous questions so as to give us some indication of where the Government is heading. What was an issue during the election was the question of constitutional change, and the indaba was also mentioned. If the NP is not going to move in the direction of partition, of a constellation of states, then one must assume from discussions that it is thinking of the possibility of a federal system. That is what the hon the Leader of the Opposition referred to as well. Is there scope in the NP’s future scenarios for a federal system? It does not have to be the classical federal system as defined in a textbook but a system in which there will be a devolution of power from a central government to regional authorities which will have greater autonomy…

We have federal elements in our Constitution at the moment.

One cannot deny that there are federal elements but the hon the Minister knows what I am getting at. Will the future planning scenarios allow for a decentralization to regional governments which are elected on a non-racial basis where there will be power-sharing in the true sense of the word? There are more and more indications that the Government is proceeding on a course of co-option rather than extending the franchise and broadening democracy. They are co-opting Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians to help them implement their policy, and whilst this may work in the short term— it may buy another 10, 20 or 30 years in power for this Government—in the end it will result in one almighty clash between those who have been co-opted and those who have always fought for a democracy in which all South Africans can participate.

The co-option course becomes clearer and clearer when one looks at the new provincial administration system. We have now been co-opted to help run provincial matters and those Indians and Coloureds who are serving on the provincial executive councils are co-optees. They have been asked to do the Government’s job in implementing this policy. If this tendency continues without the franchise being brought in and democracy being broadened, must eventually—whether in my time or my children’s—lead to a collision between those who want to hold onto power and those who want to share power.

Mr Speaker, it is my unfortunate fate to have to speak after the hon member for Durban Central. I must say the hon member made a rather rambling speech. Regardless of his warnings to other members he fell into the very trap against which he had warned them—that of failing to state a policy and merely criticising.

I wish to refer to the hon member’s criticism of the hon member for Turffontein. At the same time I want to congratulate the hon member for Turffontein on the excellent political speech he made here today. We all enjoyed it; we all appreciated it and we want to say to the hon member for Turffontein: Carry on in this way! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, as I represent a constituency in which an exceptionally high percentage of the aged live, I wish to take the opportunity today of conveying our thanks to the hon the Minister of Finance for the concessions he has once again made to the aged. I am referring of course to the 15% which the aged can now earn on their investments; I wish to place our gratitude for that on record. This is interest of considerable magnitude which can be earned in the open market today and I can bear witness to the great gratitude dicernible among my voters for this step announced by the hon the Minister.

Certain primitive peoples who were no longer able to migrate with their aged, were said to have abandoned them by the wayside with just sufficient food for a few days. Surely we are not primitives so I believe it is not our intention to abandon our aged by the wayside with food sufficient only for a few days. The NP has a splendid record concerning the care of the aged.

During the past debate we heard a great deal about inflation; I think, however, we should refresh our memories with a few comments on inflation as such, especially in regard to our South African situation. This is so conveniently overlooked when we consider the matter. When we consider the disinvestment campaign, the boycotts against us, our low productivity, the fact that we are engaged in a war, the psychological factor present— which in itself creates inflation—as well as many other factors, we come to the conclusion that we as members of Parliament and also as ordinary voters can do a great deal in South Africa to combat inflation.

Permit me to make a few what may be called philosophical comments on inflation, particularly because we as individuals are so often inclined to seek the causes of inflation outside ourselves. I want to direct some of these remarks at the individual’s attitude towards the economy and inflation. The economy resembles a living entity or an organism of some type or other. It is invisible but not intangible. It forms a concrete part of our everyday existence but to most of us it is a totally abstract topic of conversation of which we understand little. Its duration is practically unlimited. While there are two people left in contact on earth, the possibility of economic activities will remain. The economy reacts to love and care, the rewards of which are abundant. The economy even evinces gratitude but metes out punishment for maltreatment and abuse and nobody can indemnify himself against this. Even posterity will have to assist in paying for wrong steps taken in the economy.

We who are economically involved today as South Africans can have ourselves recorded in our economic history as exploiters who sought short-term benefits at the expense of long-term disadvantages. An exploiter ignores the consequences of parasitism.

I wish to refer to only one particular aspect of the Budget and that is the very large amount allocated to education. If one invests in education, this in itself may be interpreted as an inflationary investment in the short term, an investment in the future which does not produce dividends today but only later. If I read the Budget in the context of reform, I think the hon the Minister of Finance did well to give so much preference and such high priority to education. If we examine our exceptionally flat labour pyramid, which is already a factor in the inflation spiral, I believe we can do no other but invest more and more money in education for the future.

I should also like to make a few comments on the lengthy debate conducted here on partition. I wish to refer to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Waterberg, who spoke earlier today. It was of particular importance to me, coming from the Western Cape, that the hon member state in his policy speech today precisely what the fate of the Western Cape would be according to their policy of partition. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned what partition did not comprise or could possibly be and what it meant or perhaps did not mean to the NP. Nevertheless the hon member did not tell us precisely what they meant.

Now, we are here in the Western Cape, and as the representative of the Cape Flats in this House I should like to know. You see, Sir, the Cape Flats are so often singled out as being pre-eminently the area where a Coloured homeland could be created. We should like to know this now because, over the many years we have known the area, the Cape Flats started at Wynberg and extended almost to the Strand, to Bellville South and also to a point very close to this parliamentary building. This is an very big geographic area.

We want to know whether or not the Cape Flats will form part of the Coloured homeland. If it is to be part of that homeland, all the White areas to be incorporated in that Coloured homeland will be open areas. We may therefore argue that hon CP members, in terms of their policy, have no sympathy toward the Whites living there. We may also argue that every White school located in this area—that is in the area at issue—will be an open school. Consequently I look forward avidly to a little more enlightenment from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition on his own policy here today. On the other hand I did not find it strange that he failed to provide this because for the greater part of the afternoon only about six of the 23 CP members were present so approximately only 25% of them take an interest in what is being discussed here today. [Interjections.]

How many Ministers are sitting here?

The rightists have a ten-point political strategy for destroying the NP. The first point is: Create mistrust, mistrust in NP leaders and also in our political institutions; distract attention from the election mandate the NP received from the voters; help to keep Blacks from the conference table and imply to the voters that Parliament has failed as an instrument of negotiation for the future of this country. The second point: Cultivate hatred toward the NP and its leaders. The third point: Commit political character assassination. We know all about this and the CP involvement in it.

As Chris Rencken did.

We have been informed from reliable sources that the CP keeps a file on every member of the NP containing everything they think they could possibly use against us in future.

The fourth point is: Sow fear among Whites as a parent does when he teaches his child to fear the dark; conceal the realities of South Africa and cultivate a subjective approach among voters.

I should have liked to proceed with this ten-point plan of the rightist Opposition but the Whips are signalling to me that my time has unfortunately expired and I shall therefore continue with it at some later occasion.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to represent Albany on behalf of the NP. Albany is one of the few constituencies in the Republic which has remained virtually unchanged since 1910. In 1910 the then leader of the Unionist Party, Leander Starr Jameson, was elected as the MP for Albany and Cape Town Harbour. It is interesting that he preferred to represent Albany.

Tom Bowler, the MP from 1936 to 1964, had a tremendous influence on Albany. Some of his monuments are still to be seen throughout the constituency. I should like to pay tribute to my three immediate predecessors, who are still playing an important role in public life today.

Bill Deacon represented Albany from 1969 to 1977. His dedication and work capacity as an MP are well-known. At the moment he is the town clerk of Bushman’s River Mouth. He has since come to his senses and is the leader of the NP in that area.

His successor, Jaap Olckers, a popular man, who achieved a great deal in a short time, is a practicing attorney in Grahamstown. Errol Moorcroft was elected as an MP in 1981. He is known as a person who had the interests of Albany at heart and served his voters.

The constituency of Albany stretches from the mouth of the Bushman’s River in the south to East London in the north. It includes the beautiful beaches of Bushman’s River Mouth, Kenton-on-Sea, Kasuka and Port Alfred, where one does one’s shopping by boat. This is one of the few towns in South Africa where one can do this today. From Port Alfred we move to Riet River and Kieinemonde up to the mouth of the Fish River and from there we jump over Ciskei to Chalumna, Kayser’s Beach and Kidd’s Beach up to Sunnyridge in East London. Carlisle Bridge, Riebeek East, where Piet Retief’s house is still standing today, and Alicedale are situated in the west. If we travel from Alicedale to Grahamstown, this takes us through the Highlands area, where the best wool in South Africa is produced. Wool from this area fetches the highest prices every year.

Grahamstown is the cultural and educational capital of the Eastern Cape. It is the only place in South Africa where Parliament held a session outside Cape Town. In 1864 the Old Cape Parliament met here. The cathedral in the centre of the town gives Grahamstown city status. The University of Rhodes is situated here. Albany is the constituency with the most private schools in South Africa. The Master’s Offices are here, and it is the legal centre of the Eastern Cape. It is also the seat of the regional office in the Eastern Cape, the Department of Nature Conservation in the Eastern Cape and the Fisheries and Leather Research Institutes. The museum in Albany is the second largest museum in the Cape.

When we travel from Grahamstown to Bathurst, we drive through pineapple, chicory, cattle and sheep country.

In 1820 the then colonial government settled the British Settlers here to serve as a buffer between the Dutch farmers, as they were known at that stage, and the Xhosas. Piet Retief, who farmed here and also undertook transport work, transported some of the settlers from Algoa Bay to the district of Albany. Here my forefathers, the British and the Fingos fought side by side against the elements and the onslaught of the Xhosas from across the Fish River. Here the residents of Grahamstown presented a Bible to Jacobus Uys, the trek leader, when he trekked north. This was a message of comradeship and good luck to the trekkers. Here we have two different peoples with language and cultural differences, bound together by their common belief in God. We only have two choices in South Africa, namely confrontation or discussion. I have made my choice and it is the course taken by Richard Gush, M T Steyn and P W Botha.

There are a number of problems in Albany which I should like to single out here. There is inter alia the critical financial distress in which the farming sector in the Albany/ Alexandria area finds itself. From a survey undertaken by my hon colleague of Sunday’s River and myself among 119 farmers, it appeared that their debt burden was approximately R39 million. The drought of the past four years, coupled with higher interest rates, has brought many of these farmers to their knees.

There are farmers whose farms have been in their families’ possession since 1820. If these farmers are not given assistance soon enough they will have to leave their farms. Because we already have an unemployment problem in the Eastern Cape a situation is developing in this area which could turn it into a disaster area.

Because this region is an intensive horticultural and livestock area, and consequently a labour intensive area, the result will be unemployment, which could cause tremendous sociological and social problems. I am therefore asking today for a special aid scheme similar to the scheme introduced in the summer grain areas.

I should like to pay tribute to our police officials who stand guard day and night to ensure our safety. These people are accommodated in Grahamstown in offices throughout the town. The condition of some of these offices is so bad that they do not do justice to these people’s profession. Since new police offices are being planned, I want to ask the Department of Public Works to give attention to this as soon as possible.

In conclusion I want to thank the Department of Finance for the promotion of projects in Albany, during the nine years—up to 30 June of last year—that I represented this constituency in the Provincial Council. It is also a privilege for me to congratulate the hon the Minister on his Budget, which places emphasis on sensitive areas such as education and training as well as agriculture. For that reason it is a privilege for me to support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to congratulate the hon member for Albany on his maiden speech. I have also taken note of the fine words he used in referring to the former member for Albany, and I thank him for them. I worked with Mr Moorcroft for a long time and he was, as the hon member said, a very responsible man. I wish the hon member all the best in this Parliament.

†I would like to raise one or two points that have been dealt with by certain hon members during their speeches. An aspect I want to touch on, is one that was raised by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North in his speech last night.

He mentioned the very serious problem that is facing the country in regard to sanctions. I do not want to blindly disregard the impact of sanctions; equally so, I do not think we need to drive ourselves into a panic as to the effect that sanctions are having. One thing is certain, however, and that is that sanctions are not going to do this country any good except from the point of view of possibly stimulating, in the short term, certain of our own industries. In the long term, however, I think the effect of sanctions is something that we are going to have to contend with more and more and from which we have little hope of deriving any consolation.

I would like to say to the hon the Minister that there were aspects of his Budget which I found somewhat disappointing. The one aspect I would like to bring to his attention is that I would have liked to have seen his Budget Speech presented in the context of creating greater confidence in the economy of this country. To me there was a general lack of confidence that prevailed throughout all the aspects of his speech.

We desperately need confidence in the economy because if we do not get confidence in the economy, the temporary upswing that we are experiencing now will not be sustained. We must also look more to the long term because at the present time we are faced with a situation where short-term decisions are being taken to resolve long-term problems.

One of the most worrying factors that we are being confronted with at the moment is the fact that so many professionally qualified young people in this country do not feel that they have a future in the long term. I want to repeat therefore that we should give more priority to that aspect. We must be looking at the long-term recovery of our economy if we are going to sustain growth and regain confidence.

The hon member for Yeoville was quite right when he said that the success of political reform will depend on a sound economy. One wonders too whether one of the problems we are suffering from is an overregulated economy. Too much money is going out of circulation from the economy to feed the demands from the unproductive sectors of government.

What worries us in the opposition benches is that the present system of government is becoming so top heavy and complicated that it is requiring a mass of Ministers and officials to unravel the entangled structures of administration. We could learn from the words of a famous American president who said: “That Government which governs least is the best Government”.

A further aspect of the hon the Minister’s Budget Speech which I found lacking was that it gave no hope or promise of our being able to contain inflation. I must draw attention to the fact that while the Economic Advisory Committee has now been entrusted with the responsibility of investigating inflation, the problems of inflation have been with us for a period of some ten years. The dangers of inflation are becoming so apparent that, again, unless inflation is brought under control, the economy of this country is going to suffer to the extent that the economy of South Africa will be reduced to that of a second-rate state which does not have the economic infrastructure to exploit what we have in this country.

I would like to refer again to one of the problems we in this country are going to have to face and which has already been raised. That is the question of maintaining existing standards. We heard a lot about it yesterday and I think we all realise that it would be highly undesirable if the standards in this country were significantly lowered. What I must point out, however, is that if it is not possible to maintain existing standards politically then there is no way that we will be able to maintain them economically.

In line with this, may I stress that I am concerned about the consumer of this country. I have much sympathy for the problems with which he is confronted because consumers are being taken for a ride on the back of inflation. The consumer is now punch-drunk when it comes to price increases; he accepts them without question. I feel also that consumer organisations themselves must play a very much more active role in challenging the sources of increases and the basis on which increases are merely passed on to the consumer.

It would be as well to take note of some company results that have been announced recently. These are capturing the attention and the imagination of the financial Press as well as the public. One must realise too that many of those results have been achieved in a period of comparative recession. I am not saying that companies do not deserve to make profits but the question that needs to be asked is: Has and is the consumer being exploited; have retail prices been set on a basis of import parity, or have they been fixed on actual costs of production?

Time has caught up with me but I would like to suggest to the hon the Minister that there should be a far closer monitoring of spiralling price increases. Furthermore the Government has a responsibility to protect the consumer. I would like to suggest too that, if necessary, the activities of the Competition Board should be expanded to ensure that consumers, irrespective of what products they consume, are not subjected to unfair exploitation.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Mooi River for agreeing that sanctions do this country no good. I think we all agree on that. I also agree that a sound economy is very important, and I will come back to this issue later during my speech.

*In the first place, allow me to convey my sincere thanks to the voters of Sunnyside who proved by their decision that Sunnyside, like so many other constituencies, was never a CP constituency. [Interjections.] It was temporarily represented by a CP member who, after he had turned his back on the NP, joined the CP.

I also think that the hon the Minister of Finance will share the gratitude of the voters of Sunnyside that the former CP main speaker on finance no longer participates in his debates, because I frequently wondered how the hon the Minister succeeded in replying meaningfully to what he said. Unfortunately the hon the Minister is not rid of that problem, because instead of one member he has to reply to, there are now three hon members of the CP who discuss finance, and I do not think the hon the Minister can really reply meaningfully to any of them. I am referring to the speeches of the hon members for Lichtenburg and Overvaal and the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. Incidentally, I noticed that all the speakers of the Official Opposition who speak mainly about financial matters were not in the House for most of the day.

Where is your Minister? We are dealing with the Appropriation Bill, the most important Bill of this entire session! [Interjections.]

Another unbelievable thing happened. Yesterday the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis alleged here in the House that on 6 May the NP were actually the losers, and that the CP were the winners. Since arithmetic was invented this is the first time I have heard that 123 is less than 22. This is the ability which hon members on that side of the House have to deal with realities. The voters must take cognisance of the fact that this is the kind of logic which is built into many of the arguments they use in this House, and want to hold up to the voters outside.

I also want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Finance, and the team helping him, for achieving what he has achieved in the Budget in these difficult times. We thank him for that.

What is that?

I shall come to that in a moment; just be patient.

There is a misconception in South Africa that the only successes in the field of reform are measured by constitutional processes. But reform is far wider and broader than the constitutional process. There is also reform in the social and socio-economic spheres which is very important. In addition to the mere figures which appear in this Budget, it is also a fact that clear messages arising from this election are being sent out to everyone in South Africa. There is a message for those persons who want to help to develop South Africa. We want to send a clear message to these people and we thank the hon the Minister that he has made ample provision for education, housing and the creation of employment opportunities and that these important matters receive constant attention from the Government.

There is also another message to those persons who want to destroy South Africa. The budget of the security forces and the money voted to them is of such a magnitude that they can deal with anyone who is thinking of trying to destroy South Africa.

When we talk about reform, there are also a few obstacles in the way of reform. These are obstacles which other hon members have already dealt with here, such as intimidation and the view which was widely expressed last year that the possibility existed that this South African Government was on the point of capitulating. The other obstacle is sanctions. We must ask who is placing these obstacles in the way of reform. This side of the House is frequently accused of not making rapid enough progress with reform, of not wanting to continue with it. But there are obstacles which are not being placed in the way of reform by this side of the House, but by the intimidators, the pessimists and those persons who want to impose sanctions on South Africa.

That hon member of the PFP said that insufficient progress had been made and the PFP was also partially to blame for the obstacles in the way of reform. Was it not the PFP and former PFP members who intimated that Parliament, which is the only instrument which can bring about reform in South Africa, was becoming irrelevant? Surely those hon members are also placing obstacles in the way of reform.

When we seek solutions, a permanent solution which can bring peace to this country, it is undeniably true that no solution will ultimately succeed if it does not satisfy the majority of the Whites, as well as the majority of the Blacks and Coloureds in this country. No solution can succeed in South Africa without taking these two groups into consideration.

If this is true, the Official Opposition’s policy for the solution of the problems of this country is irrelevant. They will never get the support of the majority of Black people for their policy. When one listens to the policy of the Official Opposition one struggles to get replies to the questions one puts to them. One of the replies to the questions we put to them, which filters through here and there, is that they are going to move the Black people back to the national states and to their homelands. But the NP tried to do this for many years. We tried by means of negotiation, persuasion and encouragement—we introduced incentives—to get these people back there. But nothing succeeded. The Official Opposition is therefore either not serious when they say this, or they will have to force the people to go back. They say they will not use force, therefore, that argument of theirs is a political lie.

When they are pressurised on that point they argue that they will give the rights to those people living outside their national states by means of linking. The NP also tried for many years to get linking to succeed. Hon CP members who used to be members of the NP, such as the hon members for Waterberg and Lichtenburg, know that studies were undertaken to ascertain how linking could succeed, but this did not work either.

Their so-called policy of partition is not a policy, but a slogan they are holding up to the world. They must spell out to the voters how they are going to get it to work. [Interjections.] The CP can try to work out a better past for this country, but not a better future. A better future can only be worked out by the NP.

The PFP is also irrelevant in the search for a solution, if what I have said about the groups having to agree is true. That is because the PFP will never get the support of the majority of the Whites in this country for their policy. The recent election again proved this.

That is why I say that the NP is the only party which has taken the realities into consideration, and it is the only party which is seeking peace in this country. [Interjections.] Hon members will remember Sharpeville, which left a blood stain on the history of South Africa, and which is what many parts of the outside world remember us for.

Twenty seven years later Sharpeville became the place where the new South Africa of peace took form when the hon the State President received the freedom of those Black communities. That is why I am thanking the hon the Minister of Finance for this Budget and for the clear message it holds for this country. I hope that the response to this hand of friendship which is being extended will not be a clenched fist.

Mr Chairman, as a newcomer it is a very great privilege for me to stand here this afternoon and represent the voters of Cradock. I want to thank them most sincerely for the confidence they have placed in me. I should also like to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Dr Morrison, who left his mark in this House, as he did in Cradock, as a medical doctor, as the mayor and also as a member of the House of Assembly, Deputy Minister and Minister in this House. He was a man who served his people to the best of his ability. We wish him and his wife a pleasant retirement.

I also want to pay tribute to a predecessor who is also part of our constituency today, although he used to be from a neighbouring constituency. I am referring to the former Administrator of the Cape, Oom Andries Vosloo. He is a man who is still rendering a service to his community and making a positive contribution in that area.

In the third place I want to pay tribute to those people who had confidence in the Eastern Cape, and particularly in the Fish River and its development. They are the people who brought water to that area and turned it into one of the more stable farming areas in South Africa. This area is not negative about its future, but believes in possibilities and converts current problems into the opportunities of the future.

This brings me to the problem that over and above the 29 000 or 30 000 hectares under irrigation in that constituency, in the near future a further 13 000 hectares is going to be placed under irrigation in neighbouring constituencies. There is also the potential for a further 7 000 or 8 000 hectares. As we know South African agriculture, it has the ability to produce if it is given encouragement. Give it a market and a price, and the product will be supplied. That is why, I feel, we are also facing a problem here, because what are we going to produce on that additional land? Where is the market to be found?

There must be a balance between production and marketing opportunities. That is why we do not believe in a regulated system, because this places too little responsibility on the person taking the decision. We should like to look at the positive solution which has already to a certain extent been put forward. But we should like to have it confirmed here this afternoon. This solution is that a marketing study should be undertaken in this area, but not only in this constituency.

This constituency is basically an agricultural constituency and because agriculture is so important to the rural areas—the people of Cradock do, after all, make a living in the Eastern Cape, in Region D—the marketing study would concern the potential of Region D as a whole. It will concern the co-operation which will take place across the borders of Ciskei and Transkei. These marketing studies will not only examine production methods, but will also have to examine alternative markets and alternative crops to seek a solution. We see that there is a saturated market in large areas in South Africa, and throughout the world.

It is very important to us that there is a market in Region D which must be developed. These marketing studies will have to point out what potential there is in this region, which accommodates 16% of South Africa’s total population. The market study will also have to point out what potential there is with regard to a market in the national context.

Then we must also ascertain what export opportunities the area offers so that these can also be exploited. Then we are creating an opportunity for the people living in that area and we are creating development potential for the area. The greatest potential we have is our people—that 16% to which I referred.

We can utilise the potential of those people by examining labour intensive development in those irrigation areas. We can also examine the raw materials produced there which can be processed further. Just think of the additional employment opportunities which are created, not only on the farms, but also in the factories where the products are processed. If a person is working, he has money in his pocket with which to purchase things. In the long run that is where the farmer’s market lies. That is the solution to his problem. But we cannot get this to happen if we do not develop the manpower potential.

Consequently training, not only on the farms, but across the entire spectrum of the industry, must take place. The training cannot, however, take place in the RSA only, but the two independent states will also have to commit themselves to a better quality of life in order to establish the buying power everyone wants.

It is not necessary for us to invent the wheel again; the wheel already exists, because instruments have been created which we must utilise and exploit. There is the instrument of decentralisation assistance which is being granted. There are regional development advisory committees in which people from different sectors sit together around a table, respect one another’s interests and understand one another. There we can start to market the different industries, because we cannot ignore the interdependence of industries nowadays.

There are also bodies for liaison between Transkei, Ciskei and the RSA. Those bodies must be utilised. This afternoon we can attest to the fact that this study to which we are referring resulted from the co-operation created by these bodies.

In conclusion I am issuing a warning to the region that we must not tackle projects which are too large. We must tackle feasible projects. We must start with small projects, but we must develop them. We must believe in what we are doing. Then, at the end of the day, we must co-ordinate matters properly, because that is the answer for the future.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House I should like to congratulate the hon member for Cradock on his fine maiden speech. It seems to me that one of the problems experienced by that region, namely marketing, will now be solved with the help of its new MP. We all found his comments on marketing in his region and his contituency most interesting.

†Mr Chairman, before I reply directly to the hon member for Sunnyside and the remarks that he made I just want to make a few introductory remarks concerning constitutional development in South Africa.

I believe one can say that the goal of nearly all members of Parliament is to progress from the present political logjam to a settled situation where every citizen has achieved the fullest expression of his rights. I think nearly all of us can agree on that. Where we differ significantly, however, in this House is how every citizen actually achieves his rights and within which structures he achieves those rights. On the far right the CP say they will in the end—I think they are forced into that position—be the arbiters of the structure. They will decide the structure. There can be no non-racial future for South Africa, even if the vast majority of South Africans want it, if the CP form the White government in power.

We understand that the NP has simultaneously taken up the position that it wishes to enlarge democracy by including Black elected representatives in the highest executive and legislative bodies, called Parliament or not. The NP reflects that the present political system is unsatisfactory and must be changed. I agree with that—it must be changed. They say the tricameral system is merely a transitory animal, but they also reflect that the racial own affairs departments will survive, expand and grow. However, they cannot have both things. They cannot get rid of the tricameral system and keep own affairs.

The NP wrestles with how to come to terms with the political views of those who are not in the NP. The PFP has stood firmly for a non-racial, multi-party democracy in this country, and I think all of us need to emphasise the importance of the multi-party concept. The hon member for Sunnyside said that one of the obstacles placed in the way of reform in this country is that the PFP sometimes says that Parliament is irrelevant. No, the PFP’s position is quite clear. We believe very strongly in a multi-party democracy. We believe in the institution of Parliament in order to change and to bring about political changes in this country. So, we certainly believe that Parliament itself is an extremely relevant body.

However, the multi-party concept allows us to examine the kind of democracy that is being advocated by others. The concept of a multi-party democracy allows parties which believe in it to share and shape their future, knowing that there can be a change of government, and knowing that a party can aspire to become the governing party. However, with the prevention of a multi-party democracy, one inevitably heads for totalitarianism.

I believe that here we must criticise the view of those who aspire to “people’s democracy”. We must condemn them. When we study the views of countries which are “people’s democracies”—whether they are behind the Iron Curtain or scattered like patchwork through the developing countries, for instance Ethiopia, Cuba and Vietnam—we see that they can only lead us to one conclusion. These are not countries which I respect as democracies. They are not what I would like to see in this country as a democracy. It behoves us therefore to beware of the danger of heading down that route. Inevitably it must also lead to the repudiation of those calling for people’s democracy and of those forces which advocate violence and revolution as a prelude to a people’s democracy. We condemn those too.

Any acceptance of a multi-party democracy and its particular emphasis can only benefit the many millions of South Africans who are committed to democracy and who do not want extremists at either end to win the day.

The staggering fact is, however—this is the problem that I have with what the hon member for Sunnyside was saying—that the NP is not a promoter of democracy. It rather chooses the rigid route of racial separation of political structures with no chance of a movement between them. The problem is that as long as that rigidity exists there can be no talk of a multi-party democracy in this country.

Let us continue and talk about talks. Let us tell the NP to get together with those who want a multi-party democracy in this country. What will the NP be talking about? Initially it will be about their own and others’ preconditions.

Does that include the ANC?

If they are committed to multiparty democracy. That is what the Government has to come to terms with.

[Inaudible.]

No, the interesting thing is that the parties on this side of the House are not the Government of this country. That side is the Government and that is the side that has to initiate the talks. [Interjections.]

Are they in favour of that?

One has no doubt that the paraded virtues of the NP’s race separation politics have proved and will prove totally unacceptable to the greater majority of South African political groups. The irony when one views the whole South African political scene is that there is only one other political party of size that is actually close to the NP in its racial policies, and that is the CP. Nobody else accepts them.

Let us therefore talk but let us ensure that the violence stops, not by surrender—nobody wants that—but by committing the security forces to the defence of a coming democracy. Let us also accept—this is a very important point—that many of those so-called radicals, as they may be termed today, many of those who have been in detention and those who have not been in detention, will be the ones to whom the Government is going to have to talk. Some of them will become members of Parliament and some of them will become South African Cabinet Ministers. Hon members have to come to terms with that. That is the turn of history; it is the endless truth of politics. The hon member for Albany talked about Leander Starr Jameson, a previous member for Albany. He went from prison to become Prime Minister of the Cape Colony. There is also Mr Vorster who went from a detention camp to become Prime Minister and State President of this country. Let us therefore not think that it never happens.

I want to go to jail!

We therefore have to come to terms with these facts. The Government one hopes is aware of that very fine dividing line separating defending democracy or the hope of democracy through negotiation, and helping the enemies of democracy by promoting matters which are not democratic in intent or outcome. That dividing line—that is the problem of the vociferous hon member for Parow—is a very fine dividing line. In this party we believe that the individual is the building block of the State. The rights of each individual must be protected in his rights and his duty. If one removes those rights, if one removes the right of freedom of speech, of freedom of association, then one has moved far away from the true multi-party democracy we want.

I am glad the hon member for Umhlatuzana is here. I cannot wait for the rest of the NP to be involved in negotiation. I want it to take place. I want them to come to terms with the fact that they are going to sit down with people whose non-negotiables are even more extreme than theirs. They will have to come to terms with that. They will have to be exposed to the stepchildren of apartheid.

All the views we have heard from a number of speakers in the NP ranks this afternoon have repudiated all the things that the hon member for Houghton has been criticising for 30 years. Influx control, forced removals—all the things they stood for they now reject. [Interjections.] The stepchildren, however, will remember that they are their policies. We say clearly to the NP: It is not this side of the House that has to succeed with negotiations; it is that side of the House. [Interjections.] It is not this side of the House that has to ensure the creation of talks about talks. It is that side of the House.

All of us say: Let the Nationalist Party get on with the job, now! [Interjections.] If the parroting on my left is a significant indicator of their ability to talk, then I have little hope for them. [Interjections.]

Related to the survival of South Africa—and this is directed to the hon the Minister of Finance—is the engine room, the South African economy. In the last minute I have to my disposal, I would like to ask whether he would perhaps give some more attention to public works projects. They occurred last year on a limited basis. Various studies have been done by a number of universities on the ability of public works projects to promote employment, particularly in the rural areas. Obviously the comparisons that have been looked at are those of the poor white works promotion projects of the 1930s. I think it was in 1932 when some 15% of the budget was allocated to public works projects. If that were to occur at the moment, some R5,500 million could be so allocated.

One understands that is an abnormally large figure and could not be considered, but I would like the hon the Minister of Finance to address the possibility of public works projects being used in order to promote employment, particularly where there are dangers of starvation, as one could quite literally call it, in our rural areas.

Mr Chairman, as several new hon members have said, it is a great privilege for me, too, to be able to stand here this afternoon in this House, the highest legislative authority in the country, and address the House as the representative of the North Rand constituency, the White constituency with the highest number of registered voters, viz more than 34 000. As a so-called urban constituency it also covers a very large area which includes parts—and in one case, the whole—of the areas of jurisdiction of the following local authorities—the whole of Midrand and parts of Verwoerd-burg, Kempton Park, Sandton, Bryanston and Randburg.

The most important aspect to bear in mind, however, is the fact that this constituency is probably the area where the greatest growth has taken place over the past few years. The enormous industrial development in the area of Midrand as well as the tremendous housing explosion in areas such as The Reeds and Rooihuiskraal are conclusive proof of this.

Another aspect I can mention as proof of this is the growth in the number of voters. The number of voters increased from 15 000 in 1981 to, as I have already mentioned, 34 000 during the last election. Of course this rapid development creates unique problems, but also great challenges. The voters of the North Rand constituency are, however, prepared to overcome these problems and face these challenges. I, as their representative, am very happy to offer what help I can to assist them as far as possible. Voters from my constituency represent the entire spectrum of society—from people living on farms and smallholdings to people living in densely populated urban areas. Both the Afrikaans and English-speaking language groups are very well represented in this constituency.

In spite of the variety and the differences in interest I still believe that the voters of North Rand have one thing in common, and they share this with a large sector of the population of the rest of the country, namely their love for and enjoyment of the wonderful scenery the Lord has blessed us with. In order to be able to enjoy our nature, it is also important for us to conserve our natural heritage. In our hurried lives our need for open-air recreation is becoming increasingly important, not only because of the recreational aspect, but also for the important health aspect inherent in open-air recreation.

When I say that we must conserve our natural heritage, I must immediately qualify this by saying that we must not only conserve nature to promote the interests of individuals or groups of people but more importantly we must conserve it because the areas qualify for conservation. Personal interests must not play a role when areas are set aside for conservation. By trying to get areas to qualify for conservation or to retain them as conservation areas, in my opinion we are not promoting the interests of conservation. The short-term benefits we may derive from this may not weigh up against the long-term disadvantages.

We must always keep the realities of our time in mind. Our population is growing larger all the time, and progress cannot be halted. South Africa cannot escape from the reality of urbanisation, which is a world-wide phenomenon. The need for more land for housing nearer to the cities is therefore growing. The entire matter of housing must be seen and approached in this light. The provision of adequate housing should never be made subservient to the idea of conservation, no matter how praiseworthy the latter idea may be. A great deal has already been done in this country to conserve our natural heritage, and to provide facilities for its enjoyment and utilisation by the general public.

I should like to refer to one specific aspect of nature conservation, namely the use of hiking trails. In this connection I need only refer to the annual report of the National Hiking Way Board for 1985-86, which gives a good indication of what this body alone has done in this connection. As I have already mentioned, our population is growing daily, and I hope that this aspect will constantly be borne in mind. It is, however, of no avail if we have all the fields at our disposal but our people do not make use of them because they feel unsafe, and because insufficient control and safety measures exist. Incidents such as the one in which two hikers were attacked in the Drakensberg recently and one of them was killed in the attack dampens people’s enthusiasm and must be combated and opposed by all possible means.

We all flee the cities to get away from the noise and the hustle and bustle, as well as from pollution. For that reason it is necessary to introduce measures in this connection too-to prevent pollution of nature.

I find it extremely strange that people carry containers, plastic, tins and bottles for kilometres and simply discard the containers the moment they are empty and make no effort to remove them. If we look at areas like the Fish River Canyon, it is absolutely alarming to see the litter hikers have left behind and how it is changing the entire character of the area. Fellow users of these facilities can and should play an important role as watchdogs. I make so bold as to say that the abuse of these facilities is probably one of the main reasons why so few owners of private land are prepared to make their land available for open-air recreation.

It is, however, of no use for us to have all the facilities if our public does not utilise them properly. There are too many cases where people go on hikes with inadequate equipment or no equipment at all and then find themselves in difficulties. Furthermore, users of facilities must also see to it that they are physically able to meet the requirements of a specific area or route. An unnecessary burden is placed on the State and other organisations to carry out rescues in very dangerous conditions and at great expense in circumstances which arose because of these shortcomings.

I want to make an appeal to everyone involved in nature conservation and utilisation to carry on with the good work. At the same time I want to make an appeal to the users of these facilities to use them with care and not to misuse them. In cases of misuse they must do their civic duty in order to see to it that the culprits are caught and make sure that our beautiful heritage is conserved for our children and our grandchildren. We only have one nature. If we destroy it, we destroy ourselves. Let it not be said of us in the future that by our misuse we brought about our own destruction.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to convey the sincere congratulations of this side of the House to the hon member for North Rand on his maiden speech. I believe I am speaking on behalf of us all when I say that we agree with the ideas he expressed about the conservation of our natural resources. We wish the hon member all the best in his future career in this House. We look forward to hearing further contributions by him in future.

†I would like to pay another compliment this afternoon and I am sure that I have the support of this side of the House in doing so. I would like to compliment my friend, the hon member for Mooi River, on the way in which he congratulated the hon member for Albany on his maiden speech. It was the first time I had heard the hon member speak Afrikaans and, apart from appreciating it very much as I know it was not an easy thing for him to do, it was a pleasure to hear him speaking Afrikaans. I am sure it generated a little warmth in the hearts of the Afrikaans-speaking hon members on this side of the House. I would really like to compliment the hon member for Mooi River.

Hear, hear!

The hon member made a very substantial contribution to the debate—as he always does. I agree with the hon member in urging the hon the Minister to look into the matter of constant price increases, and I think most hon members will agree with him on that.

The hon member for Pinetown’s plea in the speech that he made a while ago was that we should commit the security forces to a coming democracy.

He also said that the building block of the State is the individual. I do not think that we disagree fundamentally with the hon member, but I think that we disagree with his approach. What the hon member does not do, is to tell us to what extent one should infringe individual freedoms in order to protect the freedom of other individuals. The dilemma is the question of absolute freedom. How far can one go with absolute freedom? When one travels along a road, one is not free to go where one wants to go. One has to keep left otherwise one infringes the freedom of other people.

Should people be free to express their political views and stances in terms of necklace murders and violence? If they are not free to do that, then surely the commitment of the security forces in order to contain such actions is in fact a commitment to democracy.

So I cannot agree with the hon member and I do not know how he wants to put this point across. At the moment we certainly have a problem with security. That security has to be controlled and order has to be restored. In order to do that it inevitably follows that one would have to infringe the freedom of some people.

*The extension of the state of emergency met with renewed condemnation on that side of the House, as is usual and as one had expected. It is interesting that the double standard of morality to which South Africa is subjected was once again clearly in evidence.