laid upon the Table:

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

Bill to be read a second time.

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

Bill to be read a second time.

announced that in terms of Standing Order No 15 Mr Speaker had nominated the following members to act as temporary Chairmen of Committees: Dr B L Geldenhuys, Mr G J Malherbe, Dr W A Odendaal, Messrs J Rabie, W J Schoeman, Dr W J Snyman, the Hon P J Swanepoel, Messrs R A F Swart, C Uys and J G van Zyl.

Mr Chairman, when the debate adjourned last night I had just begun to refer to the reproclamation of the state of emergency. The hon member for Sea Point—it is a pity he is not here this morning—referred yesterday to the reproclamation of the state of emergency. He said it was done:

His statement that the state of emergency curtailed people’s freedom was correct. We cannot dispute that. The problem, however, is his frame of reference, and that of other hon members of the PFP, in their judgment of the state of emergency.

†I see the hon member for Sandton is listening. I want to ask what their frame of mind and terms of reference are when they judge the state of emergency. They judge the South African situation according to the Western World where there are highly industrialised societies with a long history of political stability. They do not take into account the dynamics of Africa that we inevitably have to take into consideration in South Africa. The problem I have is that when hon members on that side judge for instance the freedom of the Press, they do not consider what the position is in the rest of Africa. [Interjections.]

What model do you want?

It is an unfortunate fact that the dynamics of Africa apply to South Africa, too. Our country comprises a Third World component and a First World component. The state of emergency, emergency measures and the curtailment of freedoms are unacceptable methods for a democratic government to employ. The Government knows this and it is implementing the state of emergency knowing full well that a state of emergency and the implementation of emergency measures cannot establish long-term stability in South Africa.

The point is this: The freedoms to which the hon member for Sea Point was referring are the fruits of security. If we are not secure we cannot have freedoms. It is not the other way round. This is the mistake the hon member for Greytown is making. Freedoms are the fruits of security and not the other way round.

It is the other way round.

No.

Absolute freedom, and the perception by the left wing of absolute freedom, is the dilemma. The Government does not want to curtail people’s freedoms without further ado. We on this side of the House do not support the state of emergency because we believe it can bring about long-term stability in South Africa. We know it cannot. We know long-term stability in South Africa can be brought about only by means of fundamental political participation by all the people in the country. We know this.

I believe we shall have to accept that, until such time as political participation by Black people has succeeded in bringing about stability in South Africa, action will unfortunately be taken in the country which will curtail freedoms. I believe South Africans will unfortunately have to learn to live with this for the interim period. This unfortunately means a large dose of news control to establish proper order. [Interjections.]

This is not acceptable to the left wing. I can understand why not, because they believe that the UDF, which is a front organisation for the ANC and the other organisations, will bring about the freedoms they are expecting. Unfortunately we have to ask the PFP whether half a loaf is not better than no bread. I am asking this question in view of the fact that civil liberties under a majority system as advocated by the PFP would be ten times less than under the worst NP government.

We shall have to accept that absolute, classical freedom in terms of the Western model will not succeed in solving South Africa’s crisis problems at the present moment. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I had intended replying briefly to the hon member for Turffontein, but unfortunately he is not here today. Allow me, nevertheless to say that I was tempted to reply in the same way he began this debate, but I realised that I would come off second best, because I am not a master in the subject he apparently practises, and in which he is well versed, and that is the use of smear tactics… [Interjections.]… the method with which he went so far as to say on a previous occasion that if the then serving Minister of Defence were to be in control of things in this country, God help South Africa. [Interjections.] That man is the present hon State President, and the hon member for Turffontein is now a frontbencher under that hon State President. [Interjections.] I do not intend replying to him any further, because it is clear to me that this kind of debating will get us nowhere. I suggest that in future the hon member keep himself occupied by writing a second verse for the “Brakke van Turffontein”.

Order! I think the hon member must withdraw the statement that the hon member uses smear tactics.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Firstly, I want to refer briefly to what the hon member for Sea Point said here. I respect the honesty with which he states the PFP’s case. I would also like him to face the real consequences of their policy squarely, to accept that the final result of their policy will mean that this country will be governed by a majority, and that that majority will be Black. Accordingly he will have to accept that in such a situation that majority will make its mark on what the country will look like, and will determine what form of government the country will have.

That is correct.

In all probability, if we look at the rest of Africa, it will take the form of a dictatorship. [Interjections.] I am saying this because it seems to me that it is perhaps difficult for the PFP to understand that I am saying that there will be a clash between nationalism and what liberalism advocates. I am an Afrikaner.

How do you define nationalism?

I am an Afrikaner, and as such the continued existence of the Afrikaner people is essential to me. I cannot be an Afrikaner if my people do not continue to exist. [Interjections.] In the honesty of this view I want to say that a guarantee must be built in for the PFP as well, because if the Afrikaner continues to exist in this country, as Whites there is a place for them with us, but they will have to find their place on the ethnic basis of our Afrikanerdom.

I am just as good an Afrikaner as you are.

I do not dispute that, but the hon member must face up to the consequences of the policy he adopts.

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

My time is limited. [Interjections.]

I now want to turn to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He is not here today, but during the debate on the motion of the hon member Prof Olivier he said that my statement that there were two elements in this country, the violent and the non-violent, necessarily led to the inference that the CP, and I in particular, was saying that no negotiation should take place. He also said that he deduced further that we on this side of the House would enforce partition by violent means.

In the first place I want to say that that was not my standpoint. My standpoint was simple. I said that both the violent and nonviolent wings laid down the same requirement, and that was that talks and negotiation could only take place if the violent element was also invited to sit around the conference table and was in fact present. I said that because this was the case, and because the NP had said that it would not negotiate with the violent wing, the negotiation process they were trying to set in motion was doomed to failure, because it would not get off the ground. If they want to negotiate, the PFP’s method of negotiation is the only possibility, but the NP do not want to do that. [Interjections.]

Are you going to negotiate?

Our standpoint is that we will negotiate, but not from the NP’s point of view. They want to negotiate on a basis of power-sharing and the restriction of freedom. We are only prepared to go and sit around the conference table with another person on the basis of full and equal freedom. [Interjections.] We are not prepared to place that matter on the agenda. It is not negotiable. [Interjections.]

If the inference is made that we on this side of the House say that partition can only take place by means of violence, it is an incorrect inference which could not be substantiated. The hon the Minister must forget about trying to put words in my mouth. He will not succeed. [Interjections.]

We were invited to refer to this matter by the hon the Minister of National Education. He expressed concern here for the question of whether the Afrikaner would retain the freedom he had gained in this country.

What does the AWB have to say about that?

He expressed concern about this, and I am pleased that this kind of attitude exists on that side of the House, for then we can talk about it. My problem is that the hon the Minister says that he does not want the freedom gained by any group to be lost. The problem is that we on this side of the House do not agree with his point of departure for acquired freedom, because his concept of freedom is the present dispensation. To use this is unacceptable, because it is no freedom if I first have to obtain the permission of other groups, the Coloureds and Indians, for what I want to do, for laws I want to make and for the right to govern my people. To us freedom means one thing, and that is that every people must have the right to decide for itself about every facet of its life.

That is why the hon the Minister’s Budget will not work out, because he is trying by means of methods, manipulations, institutions, committees and councils to put structures into operation, the cost of which it is impossible to determine. The extent of this is of such a nature that the hon the Minister’s Budget will never balance as long as they adhere to that course.

If that is their point of view, the question is whether it is possible to retain this so-called aquired freedom they now have. From what the hon the Minister says, it appears that the NP’s policy is to retain it, but if the NP says it wants to bring in the Black man as well on the basis of no group domination, we say that it will not succeed, because it is an unattainable cause. [Interjections.]

We would like to explain to the NP why this is the case and how we see the matter. In point of fact the present classification is based on both proportional numbers and race. This is being presented to us as being a fair classification, because the Government is in fact giving them—the Coloureds and the Indians—representation based on numbers. They cannot complain that ultimately by way of manipulation—I am simply calling it manipulation for the purposes of my speech—there is a White entrenched Government which makes the final decisions by way of the President’s Council. I think that approach has a fair basis because, after all, with this ratio the White man would be entitled to say to the Coloured and the Indian that it is he who governs.

If the Government now wants to take that basis away, they are going to be faced with a problem. The hon the Minister tells us that those who have to be accommodated are the Coloureds, the Indians, the Whites and the Blacks. Now the Government is changing its basis, however, because it is now telling the Black man he is coming in on an ethnic basis, and partially on a racial basis. If one brings him in in that way, one is being prescriptive, because you yourself have not been and are not prepared, whereas until now you, as a race, have been in the majority and have used that position as your right, not to bring the Black man in on a similar basis. That is an untenable position which will never ever succeed in this country, because the Government will eventually find that they are unable to escape from the crush-pen in which they have placed themselves.

I want to point out to hon members that both the PFP and we on this side of the House predicted that the Government would find itself in this crush-pen. In 1983 we said that the NP was adopting the wrong course, since they would be forced to include the Blacks as well. The NP denied this at that stage. [Interjections.] On the other hand, the PFP said the Government was on the right path; all they needed to do was bring in the Blacks as well.

Those were the standpoints, and the NP find themselves in this crush-pen today, and they will not escape, because if they change the basic principle now, they are going to place themselves in the position that they will have no moral basis for the cause. In this way we will make fools of ourselves, as we have already done in the eyes of the world and other leaders in the Republic of South Africa.

Another cause for concern arises out of just one thing. The document I have here is the AB document before the House. The hon members of the NP who are members of this organisation must answer one question. They must tell me who are not members of this organisation, rather than who are members, since as far as I know, it would be easier to point them out. [Interjections.] The NP must tell me something. It says in this document:

My question to the NP is whether one can infer anything else from this document but that it accepts that the Blacks will govern in this country, and that the NP will now have to bargain with them to be given a small measure of say. [Interjections.] If the NP says that this must be interpreted differently, they must tell me what the words “dit sal op ons afgedwing word” mean. [Interjections.] Tell me what those words mean. It says here that it will be forced on us if we do not ask to be given a small measure of say somewhere.

This is the best the NP wants to present to the Afrikaner people, and we find this totally unacceptable. The hon members on the opposite side of the House must tell us what else these words mean. This is an acceptance by that side of the House that the necessity for Black majority rule is recognised. Until that question has been answered by the NP, there is good reason to say to the hon the Minister that the question as to whether there will be Black domination is answered by the logic of the matter that there are numbers that cannot be accommodated in any other way, since in a true democracy there is only one that governs, and that is the majority. Hon members will never get away from that on another basis.

We on this side of the House will therefore always uphold this standpoint.

Personal Explanation

Order! The hon the Minister of Education and Culture has asked me to allow him to make a personal explanation. I now afford him an opportunity to do so.

Mr Chairman, thank you for this opportunity. On reading through my Hansard I noted that I had reportedly said on 12 June:

Since the possibility exists that these words could be interpreted to mean that the hon member knowingly told certain untruths and since that was naturally not my intention, I am prepared to withdraw those words.

Well said, Piet!

* * *

Mr Chairman, yesterday my benchmate, who is unfortunately unable to be present today, made certain allegations about the political and public past of inter alia the hon member for Ermelo. The hon member had the opportunity to correct the record today. He omitted to do so and simply passed off the allegations made by my benchmate as smear tactics.

Order! The hon member may not refer to that matter because the hon member withdrew what he said. The hon member may proceed.

Very well, Mr Chairman, I withdraw that.

In any event, I am grateful that the hon member for Ermelo referred to the feasibility of political policies. The feasibility of a political policy also has a bearing on the cost that such a policy entails.

Over the past few months—and it is appropriate that we should mention this in this Budget debate—we have heard allegations about the cost of the policy pursued by this Government. At this juncture I am not going to go into all the distortions and half-truths that emanated from the CP during the election campaign concerning the extent of expenditure and the cost to the taxpayer of the NP’s programmes. Suffice it to say, then, that in their publications and meetings the CP contended that virtually every significant expenditure by the Government that had anything whatsoever to do with Black services was bad.

Now that we are asking questions about the cost of the policy of the CP, about the feasibility of the CP’s policy in terms of rands and cents, they are running away. The hon members of the CP are refusing to tell us what an effective programme of partition for the voters of South Africa would cost.

Actually implementing partition would cost thousands of millions of rands. It would cost more than any programme initiated by this Government. If it is not an extremely expensive programme, the only other way partition could be carried out, would be through violence. We are therefore grateful that the hon member for Ermelo told us today that violence was not the basis of their policy. If it is true that the CP does not envisage tackling highly expensive partition programmes, that they do not intend implementing their policy through violence, then we are making progress, because then we are reaching the stage of which the hon member for Overvaal said—I regret that he is not present at the moment…

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

Sir, my time is extremely limited and the hon member knows it. I cannot answer any questions now.

Then we have the situation that the hon member for Overvaal told us about this week, viz that total partition has never been the policy of the CP. Therefore they are now beginning to back down. If total partition does form part of their point of departure, it is surely appropriate at this point to ask the hon members of the CP why they broke away from the NP at all. [Interjections.] If it was not purely a matter of personal ambition, frustration and hostilities, why then did they break away from the NP? I ask this because after all, partial partition is still the policy of the NP today, and the evidence for that is the TBVC countries and the six self-governing countries in South Africa. What is more, there is no intention whatsoever of getting rid of them.

But you know it was over power-sharing!

But, Sir, if one does not believe in total partition, then one has to apply power-sharing somewhere. [Interjections.] That is as simple and inevitable as that the sun will rise tomorrow. [Interjections.]

If total partition is not feasible—these were the words of the hon member for Ermelo—why then have partition at all? If one pursues the policy of partial partition, then surely one is going to have Blacks in one’s White territory. There will still be Blacks living, working and procreating here, people who know no other home than White South Africa, who will not wish to exercise their political rights in any other place than where they live and work. That is the same situation that this Government is faced with. We await with interest further statements by the CP about their policy. [Interjections.]

The PFP, too, referred to this so-called over expenditure by this Government. Shortly before the election they regaled us with a pamphlet on the Nat “gravy train”. [Interjections.] We heard all kinds of dreadful stories about the cost to the taxpayer of this Government’s programmes. There was the accusation that we had such a multiplicity of members of Parliament, Chambers of Parliament and Ministers’ Councils that the population was totally overtaxed. The hon the State President refuted those allegations on 4 February in this House of Assembly and drew comparisons between South Africa and other countries in the Western world. He indicated very clearly that in view of the size of its population, this country did not have an excessively large government.

We had allegations in the same vein about an overinflated public service in the Sunday Tribune. The hon the State President refuted those allegations too, in Pietermaritzburg and elsewhere.

†When these allegations failed, the PFP started out on a new tack. They are now trying to convince the electorate that the NP Government has adopted a secretive approach to the provisions for the spending of money in our country. In the past week there has been a hysterical campaign in Natal about the way in which the Natal provincial budget is being dealt with.

Yesterday I waited with bated breath to hear what the hon member for Pinetown would have to say when he rose to speak. Here, I thought, we would get an eloquent plea for more and better public debating on the Natal finances—among other reasons, because they are pleading for it—through open standing commitee meetings. Here he had the opportunity to deliver such a plea. [Interjections.]

Yesterday, in a footnote to a letter I wrote, The Natal Mercury in Durban reported as follows:

[Interjections.]

Here was a golden opportunity for the hon member for Pinetown to raise this matter.

The Vote is coming and you know it!

We did not, however, hear a word about Natal’s finances; not a single word. We heard only the old hackneyed and unconvincing pleas for a non-racial society and non-racial democracy, the same arguments which were completely and decisively rejected by the electorate a month ago.

Last week we had an example of these efforts to cast doubts on the openness of public debate on public finances when we had the meeting of the Standing Committee on Natal Provincial Affairs. Let us first of all look at the composition of this committee. Of the 23 members of this standing committee, 18 are from Natal constituencies, only two fewer than the total number of members in the now defunct Natal Provincial Council. Not only are these 18 to all intents and purposes as representative of Natal voters as the old provincial council but they are also representative of Natal’s White population group through nine representatives, Natal’s Indian population group through five representatives and Natal’s Coloured population group through four representatives on that standing committee. In other words, for the first time provincial matters in Natal are being debated by all three population groups which do not have their own legislative assembly in Natal.

There is no debate.

The debate is here, however. The point that hon members of the PFP seem to miss is that the Natal budget becomes a component part of this debate which we are now conducting. There is also no limitation on debating time. The Second Reading debate on this Budget has been going on all week, and the Committee Stage will go on throughout August and later.

Yes, we know there are a few committee members from outside Natal. That is for a very simple reason. The provincial executive has been transformed into a regional body dealing with general affairs over which Parliament and all its parties have jurisdiction, even those without seats in Natal. As a result there are two members from the Official Opposition, even though they do not represent Natal seats. Now, however, the PFP feeds the The Natal Mercury with the lie that we are to blame for the fact that the hon member for Mooi River does not sit on that committee.

No, that is not so.

On 15 June in an editorial The Natal Mercury had this to say:

Is that true?

I will answer the hon member for Greytown. It is not at all our fault that the party of the hon member for Mooi River chose a kiss-of-death alliance with the PFP. Will the hon member for Pinetown tell the The Natal Mercury that it is not our responsibility to give debating time or a seat on committees to the hon member for Mooi River and that the PFP has received and accepted equal debating time with the Official Opposition, against the complaints of the Official Opposition, on the condition that they accommodate the Independent and the NRP member of this House—that they do the purely gentlemanly thing and that is to accommodate their own alliance partners?

Will the hon member take a question?

No, Mr Chairman, I have already said that my time is limited.

You know it is temporary! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Pinetown’s request to ask a question is refused, he cannot shout out remarks. He must please respect the Rules in this regard. The hon member for Umlazi may continue.

The responsibility to accommodate the alliance partners of the PFP does not rest with us. It ill-behoves a party represented in this House to feed the Press of Natal with news to the contrary.

The system is a farce.

That is exactly what the hon members of the PFP are trying to do with the bodies created by this Parliament!

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Durban Central must stop making interjections during the speech of the hon member addressing the House.

Mr Chairman, my time is very limited.

Your intelligence is too!

Mr Chairman, I bow to the hon member’s superior knowledge about limited intelligence.

The hon member for Pinetown did not stop there. He lamented the change to the new system, and I quote him again from The Natal Mercury of 12 June:

‘This year the closed doors of the standing committee have effectively blocked any public debate of detailed budget items until there is general discussion on them in the three Houses later in the year.’

That is simply not true! In the provincial council there was a Second Reading debate and a Committee Stage debate but there was never any other stage such as afforded by a standing committee of Parliament where hon members from the three Houses of Parliament could question the administration closely about all aspects of the provincial administration.

Mr Peter Miller MEC—until very recently an NRP member of the provincial council—said in the following issue of The Natal Mercury on 13 June:

What is more, I have not even referred to the fact that the provincial budget is no longer a matter exclusively for the White voters of Natal.

The Natal Press have only themselves to blame if they allow themselves to be led by the nose by the PFP, a party which has never enjoyed majority support in Natal and knows next to nothing of the traditions and history of the Natal provincial system. [Interjections.]

Let us refresh the memories of the hon members. In 75 years of provincial government in Natal the PFP managed to get one single solitary soul elected to the provincial council. That was in 1981 in Pinetown by a mere 59 votes. If they now seek to display their abysmal ignorance of what they would like the people of Natal to believe were the good old provincial council days, one can only pity them.

We on this side of the House have four members—they are ex-MPC’s—on that committee with a combined period of service in the provincial council of 30 years. [Interjections.] The hon member for Pinetown is the very last person to pose as an expert in the field of provincial government.

This system which Parliament itself and not the Government has devised to meet the needs of decentralized powers of government for all three population groups represented in Parliament is a far superior way of dealing with provincial budgets than we had ever known in this country before, despite what the hon members of the PFP say.

Mr Chairman, it is an honour for me to take the floor after the hon member for Umlazi. I know they also have soccer teams in Natal, but I can give hon members the assurance that after August, Ellis Park Stadium will not only be famous for the wonderful matches between Orlando Pirates and Kaiser Chiefs.

The constituency of Jeppe is unique in many respects. It encompasses the so-called “golden square kilometre” of Johannesburg, within which the commercial hub of Johannesburg falls. Approximately 50% of the country’s total wealth is reportedly controlled from this constituency. That is a remarkable state of affairs in any terms. We are deeply grateful to the business people in our constituency for what is being achieved through their community involvement and their contributions to the welfare structures in Johannesburg as well as in the rest of South Africa.

However, the inhabitants of Jeppe do not consist only of businessmen. In reality we find here the salaried persons, pensioners and in general those needy persons who form a sharp contrast to the other extreme of wealth. The subject of improved welfare structures as such is one which warrants a complete study and a debate in itself. I shall not be concentrating on that.

I should like to talk today about the economic models which we could possibly propose for South Africa. In this regard I should like to refer to Japan and to look at what similarities exist and to what extent we may use that country as an example for our own situation.

In Johannesburg, and of course in the rest of the country, there are several very large Eastern companies and agencies. South African trade, and particularly industry, has very close ties with Japan. These ties are becoming even stronger. The business world is reaching out to Eastern concerns on a large scale, to such an extent that Japan is one of our largest trading partners. In fact, if gold is taken into account, we may accept that approximately a quarter of the country’s total gross national product eventually reaches its destination in the East. When we consider the Far East as a whole, that amount is considerably greater. That is why one asks certain questions.

When one looks at the economy of Japan as a whole, one notes that it is the second largest economy in the world today. Based on current growth rates, the projections are that it will be far greater than the economy of America before the year 2020.

This phenomenal achievement on the part of Japan has been attained despite the fact that this country was virtually razed to the ground after the Second World War and despite the fact that it has precious little natural resources and production factors at its disposal. Apart from that, the country was overpopulated after the Second World War and there was an imbalance between its male and female citizens. The Japanese economy compares outstandingly with, and in fact outstrips in all respects, comparable economies in the USA, the United Kingdom and Europe—particularly West Germany—as regards growth rates, the combating of inflation, unemployment figures and the savings rates in that country.

When one is looking at a possible model for South Africa, one asks the certain questions. What form should capitalism take in South Africa? Upon what strategy should we base our economic growth, and what manual or what country in the world can offer us a strategy and the best guidelines for an economic policy? The most important question in my view is what form the secondary and tertiary educational institutions should take in order to meet the technological requirements and to provide for the consequent demand for job opportunities.

Another aspect which is naturally very important is the expansion of the small business sector, particularly through stimulation of this sector and through deregulation.

We all know that South Africa has a complex economy and we know that the First and Third Worlds meet here. Therefore, to summarily draw a comparison with the sophisticated economies of the USA, Europe and modern-day Japan is an oversimplification.

I should like to refer hon members to the situation in Japan approximately 20 years ago. When we look at the Japan of 20 years ago, we can see many similarities between that model and the situation in which South Africa finds itself today. My question is: If we could be guided by those circumstances that prevailed in Japan 20 years ago and could apply the solutions in South Africa, and if we could also learn certain modern-day lessons, where might the South African economy and overall situation not be in the year 2000 and thereafter?

In examining certain of these characteristics more closely, we arrive at the co-operation between State and industry. In Japan there is the so-called Saibatsu, which consists of approximately six or seven of the largest and most influential business undertakings in Japan. The comparison with South Africa is also quite interesting in the sense that this group also controls approximately 65% of the total national economy.

Here, however, there is a co-operation agreement between such undertakings and the State, to such an extent that leading figures in industry and in the State even participate in exchange schemes for periods ranging from three months to a year. In this way there can be a meeting of minds, these two groups complementing each other and learning from each other.

We may also learn from this that a large organisation is not necessarily a negative thing. To be large does not mean that one must of necessity be a monopoly. Let me quote what Dr Fred du Plessis said:

With reference to our own situation I can also vouch for the fact that people like Dr Fred du Plessis and Mr Gavin Relly are not intent on simply forming monopolies. With the right encouragement and perhaps by way of regulations we may be able to persuade them to strive towards another arrangement, namely the take-over of State and semi-State undertakings. Something for which I should like to criticise them severely, however, is the fact that the growth of their undertakings is often accompanied by the absorption of smaller undertakings, and that they do not establish new undertakings.

Special attention must be paid to technology and tertiary development in the Japanese situation. It is interesting that the major portion of the Japanese budget is spent on education. So there is also a direct relationship between growth in the Japanese economy and expenditure on education, particularly technical education. We know that scathing criticism is often directed at the Japanese educational system from academic quarters. In fact, it is said that the scientific content of the courses leaves much to be desired. However, the Japanese point of departure has always been to leave it to others to come up with the inventions, which they then perfect and with which, by so doing, they conquer the market. There are quite a few lessons to be learned from that.

Labour is a very important factor in management and organisation in the private sector. In Japan we find the so-called lifelong involvement of labour. In Japan one comes across the so-called lifelong involvement of labourers. The primary management objective is to establish a dynamic harmony which is essential for the success of consensus decision-making, which in Japan is known as the ring system. The productivity of the Japanese worker and of Japanese industry is, of course, very high. The Japanese have a very elementary view of productivity and increasing productivity. In a nutshell it comes down to the fact that more must be produced with the same input at the same cost. Expressed in another way, it means that just as much is produced as during the previous period, but at a lower cost. What is interesting, is that in this way the Japanese have maintained an 8% increase in productivity during the past five years. What does this mean in practice? It means that in general the Japanese product becomes 8% better or cheaper from one year to the next. This considerably improves its position in relation to its competitors.

In future we shall have to take a far closer look at these aspects if we want to accept the challenges of the year 2000. I am not asking us to turn our backs on the West, but we must take a closer look at the Eastern situation. As our business community has already shown us, it is no longer necessary for such a stream of visitors to overseas countries, such as academics and Government officials, to pick the brains of the West; they should rather go to the East. All our businessmen and other leaders would do well to take a look at the East, because there is a new sun rising on that horizon.

Mr Chairman, the speech of the hon member for Jeppe was indeed most impressive and I would like to congratulate him. In the first place he delivered his speech with minimal notes. He did not read it. In the second place he actually gave us some very interesting information and I fully agree with what he said. Japan is a wonderful example to this country. It is a small country where hard work and productivity have made them rise to the heights of the economic structure in the world. I think the hon member’s maiden contribution was an extremely good one and I am sure that his presence will brighten the House.

I asked the hon member for Caledon to be in the House when I spoke, because I wanted to reply to something he said. Unfortunately I do not see him at this stage. I am going to go ahead with it in any case. He said that the hon leader of our party, the hon member for Sea Point, was judging South Africa by Western standards and not by South African standards. He wanted to know how we judged the reality of the situation, particularly in regard to the state of emergency. I want to tell that hon member that we judge it by South African realities and by no other realities. Our main problem with the state of emergency is that it does not go hand in hand with real negotiations in order to bring about the real solution to the problem. We all know that the state of emergency is not going to solve the problem. What will solve that problem is very real negotiation. That is not happening. When not even someone of the calibre of Nkosi Buthelezi is prepared to negotiate with the Government, how can we hope that other people who are to the left of Nkosi Buthelezi on the political spectrum will negotiate with it?

The problem that we have with the NP is that the state of emergency is not going hand in hand with real negotiation. I see the hon member for Caledon is now here. I believe that what the NP wants to do is to choose the leaders for the Black population. They will not allow them to choose their own leaders. This was very noticeable when the hon the State President visited a Black township the other day and he said to them: “I will choose the people for the National Statutory Council from local leaders”. He said “I will choose” and not “I will let you choose”! Secondly, he has set an apartheid condition on the meeting. He will only negotiate on a group basis. That is apartheid. He is saying to the Blacks that there will be negotiation as long as they accept apartheid.

I want to ask the hon member for Caledon what would happen if the ANC were prepared to stop violence in order to conduct negotiations for the future of South Africa with the Government of South Africa. Would he then say that we should negotiate?

If they abandon violence.

I asked if they would be prepared to negotiate if the ANC were prepared to stop violence. My information is that when the EPG, the Eminent Persons Group, were trying very hard to bring about some sort of solution to South Africa’s problems, they basically had a promise from the ANC that if we were to enter into negotiations on a fully open basis with no preconditions then they would stop violence during the process of those negotiations. Yet that whole initiative disappeared when the South African Defence Force and the South African Government sent troops into Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

I want to get on with the subject that I started on and it has to do with what the hon member for Umlazi said about the gravy train and the secretive approach. I hope he reads my speech in due course because I think he might get some answers.

We are all aware that this Government scored a very major victory in the last election. There were reasons to do with security why that happened. However, there were also other reasons. One of those was the degree to which the gravy train has been expanded and how consensus politics is in fact arrived at in this country. I have a demonstration of this which I wish to bring to the attention of this House.

We are all aware that a group broke away from the Labour Party during the last recess. They formed a new official opposition in the House of Representatives. Two of the prominent people involved, the hon members for Schauderville and Border, are from the Eastern Cape. I am therefore very interested in what they are doing and I read their speeches in the no-confidence debate in the House of Representatives. I found the following fascinating passage in the speech of the hon member for Border (Hansard: Representatives, 22 May 1987, col 197):

This was all most interesting so I dug further and I found that on Thursday, 12 June 1986, the hon member for Schauderville had moved (Hansard: Representatives, 12 June 1986, col 4179):

Subsequently this amendment was withdrawn and it therefore appeared to me from the column I have quoted, that the sum of R1,5 billion had something to do with the withdrawal of the motion. I then made enquiries as to what the hon member had meant when he said: “The hon the Minister ran around and ended up slap bang in the middle of the Labour Party’s caucus.” The story that emerged was as follows. The hon the Minister of Finance was apparently most concerned at this amendment to his Sales Tax Amendment Bill—I do not blame him—and he addressed the Labour Party caucus or a section of it. Is that correct? Right, the hon the Minister nods his head. He then swore them to secrecy, I understand.

Caucuses are secret.

All right, caucuses are secret. He also asked them to withdraw their amendment and as a quid pro quo he said he would then allocate them R1,5 billion for Coloured and Black housing. He is shaking his head but I would be interested in his version of events because the version that I have is interesting to me.

I am not prepared to break the confidence of the caucus.

But you can tell us what you said? [Interjections.]

There seems to be some uncertainty as to whether this money is for Coloured housing only or for Black housing as well, but I do not think that is relevant to the debate. [Interjections.] Be that as it may the quid pro quo was accepted and the amendment was withdrawn. That is the only inference that can be drawn from that Hansard excerpt of the hon member for Border. I wish to make it quite clear that I do not blame the Labour Party for accepting the bribe. Their people have been hounded out of so many areas like District Six and South End in Port Elizabeth…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to imply that the Minister of Finance bribed caucus members?

Order! Is that what the hon member implied?

Yes, Mr Chairman, I will withdraw it if necessary.

Order! Yes, the hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

There has been totally inadequate provision of both land and houses for Coloured people and there is desperate overcrowding and deprivation within their community as a result. The same, of course, applies to the Blacks.

Then I had to ask myself the next question. If this happened, where had the money come from? R1,5 billion hardly grows on trees, and it was quite a conjuring trick, if in fact it had been produced, of the hon the Minister to suddenly produce this large sum.

I understand that it is possible that the money came from the Central Energy Fund. I ask the hon the Minister: Is he prepared to comment, yes or no?

I am not prepared to comment. [Interjections.]

Coincidentally Sir, I put a question on the Question Paper regarding the amount in the fund at the latest possible date, and was answered that there was R3 100 million, which was far less than I had expected. I have the balance sheet of the fund here and as at March 1986 they had a balance of over R6 000 million; in fact, it was R6 024 771 124. With an average income of almost R1 200 million per annum less about R200 million in expenses they should have by now some R7 000 million in the fund. Yet there is only R3 100 million in the fund.

I want to ask the hon the Minister: Where has the rest gone to? Perhaps he would answer that question in due course.

There are some pickpockets around.

No large sum, as far as I am aware, has been set aside as yet for the Mossel Bay gas project. Certainly the Sasol complexes do not need money and neither have any other schemes being accepted for the production of fuel. So where has the money gone? There appears to be no doubt the R1 500 million must have gone to housing.

Cooking the books!

The next thing I did was to refer to the Central Energy Fund to see for what purposes the money in that fund could be used. I find as follows in terms of section 1 of the Central Energy Fund Act:

1. (i) the acquisition of coal, the exploitation of coal deposits, the manufacture of liquid fuel, oil and other products from coal, the marketing of the said products and any matter connected with the said acquisition, exploitation, manufacture and marketing;
   1. (iA) the acquisition, generation, manufacture, marketing or distribution of any other form of energy, and research connected therewith;
2. (ii) any other object for which that Fund may be applied, and which has been designated or approved by the said Ministeer with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance.

Let me say too that when it says “any other object for which that Fund may be applied” that, Sir, must be within the orbit of the Act, which is the Central Energy Fund Act.

Paragraph (b) of section 1 goes on to provide:

1. (b) Any such moneys which
   1. (i) are not immediately required for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), shall be invested in such manner as the said Minister with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance may determine;

I repeat, invested Sir—

1. (ii) are not required for any such purpose, shall be paid into the State Revenue Fund.

From the hon the Minister’s interest it would appear that I am in fact correct when I say that this is where the money has come from. [Interjections.] In other words, housing does not qualify…

Everybody knows it.

Housing does not qualify as one of the items on which the money can be spent.

Surplus funds do.

Yet the money had apparently come from the fund and I had to ask myself how the hon Minister got his hands on this money. There appeared to me to be two possibilities: Firstly, that the money had been taken directly from the fund in contravention of the Act; or secondly, that some subterfuge had been used and the money was taken from the fund for a purpose which complied with the Act but was then transferred into housing. Whatever it was, is not as important as the fact that I believe it did happen, and this did happen as far as I can establish.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it in order for the hon member to imply that the Minister of Finance dealt with a certain amount of money in an underhand fashion?

Of course! [Interjections.]

Order! It is for the Chair to decide, not for hon members to decide. Would the hon member please repeat that particular sentence.

Mr Speaker, I said there appeared to me to be two possibilities: One, that money had been taken directly from the fund in contravention of the Act; or secondly, that some subterfuge had been used and the money had been taken from the fund for a purpose which complied with the Act but was then transferred into housing.

Order! I do not think the implication is parliamentary. I shall appreciate… [Interjections.] Order! The hon member for Sea Point! I am talking to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, Mr Malcomess. He is trying to explain the situation to me and hon members must give him an opportunity to do so. Would the hon member please again explain to me what he was saying when I was interrupted?

Mr Speaker, I am prepared to withdraw it at this stage. [Interjections.]

The motorist has been paying large sums of money annually into this fund in the belief that it was to be used in order to ensure that South Africa had sufficient fuel available for its purposes. Yet this money has not been used for that purpose.

I would have thought that the R7 billion which should be in the fund at this stage would be more than enough to cover the financing of the Mossel Bay gas project which, I understand, is something of the order of R5 200 million. It would appear to me that the strength of the fund is such—particularly when one considers the fact that money should be recovered from Sasol over the next few years—as to enable the hon the Minister to dispense with this tax on the motorist and reduce the price of petrol accordingly. If we are going to use it for these things, surely we could suspend it. This would obviously help to reduce inflation and would be to the advantage of every South African.

I do not believe that this whole affair should ever have happened. If money is required for housing, it should be voted instead of taking it from another fund created for a different purpose. I believe the taxpayer is entitled to know what his money is being spent on.

Bribery!

One can only sum up this affair as being one of the largest sums of money ever paid in the history of Southern African politics in order to persuade a party to vote along with the Government.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: It was ruled out of order earlier for an hon member to imply that a Minister of Finance had bribed a certain political party to fall into line. The hon member had to withdraw that, but he has just repeated the implication! [Interjections.]

Methinks the hon the Minister doth protest too much!

Order! What was the hon member implying?

Mr Speaker, I actually changed my notes as I went along, because I had the word “bribe” in here again. I tried to put it differently by saying that this sum of money should never have been used in this way in order to persuade another party to vote along with the Government.

Order! What was the hon member trying to imply?

I was saying, Sir, that according to the Hansard of the House of Representatives from which I quoted, the hon the Minister offered R1 500 million to the Labour Party in order that they withdraw their opposition to a Bill. That money was to be spent on housing.

Order! Is the hon member not implying that this was bribery?

The hon the Minister does not deny it!

Mr Speaker, I am stating facts, and I quoted from Hansard.

Draw your own conclusions!

Order! I do not want to interrupt the hon member if he is stating facts, but a point of order was taken as to whether the hon member was referring directly or indirectly to bribery by the hon the Minister of Finance. I am asking the hon member a very simple question. Is that what the hon member had in mind, whatever words he was using?

Yes, Mr Speaker, that is what I had in mind, and I have the word “bribe” in my notes.

Order! The hon member must withdraw any such implication unconditionally.

No, Mr Speaker, I regret to say that I am not prepared to do so.

Order! If the hon member is not prepared to do so, then, since he has disregarded the authority of the Chair, he must withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

Certainly, Sir. [Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

Mr Speaker, I do not wish to comment at this stage on what has just happened here, but I think the way in which the hon member made his speech is totally unacceptable.

During the recent election more than 500 000 people voted for the CP, and this enabled them to become the Official Opposition in this House. Many of these 500 000 people voted against the NP because the CP told them that it was NP policy to establish mixed schools. That is an untruth, but for the sake of fairness, I think this is within the rules of the political game. Many of these 500 000 people voted against the NP because the CP whispered to them that South Africa was on its way to becoming a second Rhodesia under the NP Government. This is another untruth, yet it remains within the rules of the political game. Many of the 500 000 people also voted against the NP because the CP led them to believe that Black majority rule was NP policy. [Interjections.] Again this is a complete untruth, but perhaps it is still within the rules of the political game.

There are also many of the 500 000 people who voted against the NP because CP propaganda insinuated that the hon the State President, amongst others, had called upon people to turn their backs on their Christian heritage. Apart from the fact that it is a complete untruth, it is totally outside the rules of the political game. [Interjections.] Many of these 500 000 people also voted against the NP because CP campaigners told them that the NP had turned its back on Christ by establishing a tricameral Parliament in which Moslems had representation. [Interjections.] I myself experienced this. A man told me that he had voted for the NP all his life, but that he could not vote for it now—hon members must listen carefully now—because the NP had denied Christ by omitting Christ’s name from the opening prayer at sittings of the House of Assembly. That is a complete untruth. [Interjections.]

I do not mind how we quarrel with one another, but I want to have it placed on record that we must refrain from engaging in politics on the basis that we place one another’s Christianity under suspicion because of specific political convictions. [Interjections.] We must refrain from making the Christian religion expedient to party-political propaganda, and I hope we will never again have to deal with this kind of politics in the future. [Interjections.]

Ultimately one not only votes against something; one also votes for something. More than 500 000 people voted for partition as a solution to the Black man outside the national states. The irony is that by virtue of its own political philosophy the CP will not be capable of implementing partition. I want to repeat that: By virtue of its political philosophy the CP will not be capable of implementing partition. I want to motivate this statement, but before I do so, one must ask oneself what partition is.

The CP distributed a pamphlet entitled Peace in Partition. In it they mention a number of examples of places in the world where partition is supposedly being successfully implemented, and they then say that this is a model which could also be used in South Africa. Most of the examples given are not examples of partition. Most of the countries mentioned such as Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland do not have a system of partition. It is separation or secession, and there is a world of difference between the two. The hon member for Barberton is laughing, but there is a world of difference.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether it is not true that over a period of 30 years the NP has specifically stated that partition was its policy?

Mr Speaker, the NP’s policy is a process of decolonialisation to make peoples self governing and independent in their homelands. The CP even mentions the homelands as examples of partition. I am not splitting hairs—I am coming to what partition is in terms of their policy—but the CP must not use a process of imperial decolonialisation and then attach the name partition to it to create the impression that what has been done in those countries could very easily be done here. [Interjections.] Surely that goes without saying.

In the case of secession or separation there is a homogeneous group of people who have been living in a particular geographic area for generations and centuries, who have their own cultural and language background and who even have the capacity for their own economy. For historical reasons they have become part of a larger political entity. All that happens then is that at some stage they request to be cut loose from that larger political entity to separate from it. That is what happened in the examples the hon member quoted in the pamphlet. In fact, that is what we have also done in a certain sense with our self-governing and independent states.

I could quote other evidence here as well. In Politieke Alternatiewe vir Suid-Afrika Dupisani clearly states:

He then mentions the same examples as the hon member, and goes on to say:

What, then, is partition? Partition is the division of a particular area in which various groups have become mixed, into two or more areas so as to eliminate a conflict existing between those groups. If those hon members say that their policy is partition, we must look at the RSA as it is constituted at present. Here one has a mixture of population groups. In order to implement partition, one would have to go and partition the RSA as it is constituted at present, and that means that one would have to move people from various groups to and fro. That is what partition means. Against the background of this definition, there have been only three examples of partition in the whole world this century. Experts say there have been so few examples precisely because it is such a difficult thing to implement. The countries where this took place are Ireland, Palestine and British India. [Interjections.]

If in terms of this model one’s policy is partition, there are certain conditions one has to meet before one can implement partition. Now I am back with my original statement that in terms of its own political philosophy the CP is unable to implement partition. The first factor one must take note of is that nowhere in these three examples could partition be implemented without negotiating about it; there is no such thing as unilateral partition. [Interjections.]

The CP’s spokesmen have said on various occasions that they are not going to negotiate the future political model for South Africa. However much the hon member for Ermelo tried to indicate this morning that they are in fact going to negotiate about that, he must know that there have been numerous statements from CP members in which they indicated that they were not going to negotiate. Yet one cannot implement partition unilaterally. If all the people involved in the partition do not consent, one cannot implement it. Negotiation is not, after all, part of the political philosophy of the CP.

The second aspect to bear in mind is that wherever partition has been implemented, they have had to give minority groups guarantees. There is no such thing as absolute partition. The hon members can go and look at these examples. After partition in Ireland, there are still Protestants in the Roman Catholic area, and vice versa. After partition in British India, there are still Pakistanis in India and Indians in Pakistan. Nevertheless they could not implement partition anywhere without first guaranteeing the rights of those minority groups.

The hon member for Randfontein said here that in Southernland the Black people, who form the minority in terms of the CP’s policy, would be able to apply for citizenship, but it would not be granted. In terms of the CP’s own political philosophy they can therefore not guarantee the political rights of minority groups after implementing partition. Consequently they will not get off the ground with partition. The biggest stumbling block is their own political philosophy.

Nevertheless I do not think the CP’s policy is partition. The CP’s policy is simply what I have just outlined here—a policy of secession, of separation, which is also the NP’s policy, and then they just want to link the Black people in the RSA politically to those areas that have come into being through separation.

Domination.

The linking policy was also the NP’s policy, but one must remember one thing, and that is that linking was subject to one major condition. Hon members must go and read what Dr Verwoerd had to say in 1959 when he spoke on the Promotion of Black Self-Government Act.

He said that Black people in the RSA would not be a problem in the year 2 000; there would be only 2,5 million. He then went on to say that these 2,5 million would only be here on a rotational family basis. There roots would be in the homelands. They would come here for two or three years, work here, go back and be replaced by another group on a rotational family basis.

The premise on which linking was based was that Black people in the RSA were not here permanently. That is the premise that has changed completely, and that is why one is not even able to implement the linking policy.

I shall conclude with the thought that on the basis of their own political philosophy, one cannot implement partition. One cannot implement linking because the premise on which it was based was not realised. All that remains is a policy of self-determination over own affairs and joint responsibility for matters of common concern.

The question of how to eliminate domination has been asked many times. We have devised a legislative process here. I am not saying that it is the perfect process, but I want to emphasise the legislative process. We have devised a legislative process where numbers do not play a role. It does not matter how many people sit in this House of Assembly, or how many people sit in the House of Delegates or the House of Representatives. We have already come so far as to devise a legislative process where numbers do not play a role. We will be able to take this further on that basis.

We have three levels of government. We have already granted full political rights to Black people outside the national states on the third tier of government without jeopardising the position of Whites. The same applies to the second tier of government. We will work on those models in respect of the first tier of government as well.

Mr Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and an honour for me to rise in this House today in support of the Appropriation Bill before us.

Before commenting on a few aspects of the 1987-88 Budget, I would like to record my thanks to the voters of Pietermaritzburg South for the support they gave me on 6 May as well as the mandate given me to contribute to the best of my ability to the continuation of good government in this beloved country.

*As an English-speaking person I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank my hon colleagues in the NP for their support during the recent election campaign. I want to thank them in particular for the hand of friendship and co-operation extended to English-speaking persons, which I and many former NRP supporters gladly accepted.

†It is precisely this attitude of South Africanism which won the seat of Pietermaritzburg South for the NP for the first time. I believe this will go a long way towards solving the critical problems that face our country today. My predecessor, Mr Mike Tarr of the PFP, made a fatal mistake at the start of the election campaign when he stated through the medium of The Natal Witness, the local newspaper, that he looked forward to giving me a good hiding. It is in my character and in that of the NP and its supporters, to respond vigorously to challenges of that nature. The result of the election is now history.

Those hon members who are interested in history, will find a brass tablet in the Lobby outside erected by the Parliamentary Association. This commemorates the loss of life in action on the sinking of the Galway Castle of Robert Henry Buntine MLA, Member of the Legislative Assembly for Pietermaritzburg South. His ship was torpedoed at sea on 12 September 1918. Almost 70 years later the voters of Pietermaritzburg South torpedoed the PFP and Mr Mike Tarr was castled!

However, in all humility, even though I do not agree with his party political philosophy or with some of his actions, I would like to pay tribute to Mr Mike Tarr for the conscientious manner in which he carried out his duty as MP for this constituency.

*Shortly after our arrival here we newcomers were told that we must not try to make “volk” speeches, and I have no intention of acting in that manner in this speech. [Interjections.]

†There are, however, certain matters which, I believe, are worthy of mention and allied to this Second Reading debate. Taking into account the exceptional circumstances the hon the Minister of Finance had to contend with, I think the Budget he presented has, generally speaking, been most favourably accepted.

It is in the field of finance and economics that it is so easy to criticise. We have heard in this House that the Budget has been called a non-event. However, this Budget cannot be seen in isolation. It must be judged against the background of recent budgets as having been designed towards bringing the economy out of recession and putting it on the path of sound growth. I think this has been achieved to a large extent. The balance of payments problem has been brought under control. Inflation, whilst still with us, has been arrested and a base has been set, in conjunction with the priorities laid down by the State President’s Committee on National Priorities as part of the five-year plan, to establish a pattern for further growth, development and tax reform.

Disappointment has been expressed that the economy has not been given a boost by the lowering of taxation to stimulate demand. Apart from the dangers inherent in this approach—particularly in overheating the economy and fueling inflation further—the hon the Minister of Finance, in his Budget Speech, clearly spelt out that the tax system stands on the threshold of renewal. With reference to the Margo Commission Report on the South African tax system—this is a monumental piece of work—the commission itself has recommended that further investigation be made. Therefore, it is clear that far-reaching changes would at this stage be premature. The hon the Minister of Finance and the officials in his department must be commended for their prudence, and not be criticised for producing a stable budget instead of fireworks.

The uncertainty about investment allowances was relieved this week by the welcome announcement of their extension to the end of next year. I think this will do much to assist businesses in their forward planning.

A matter of concern to me, and one taken note of by the Standing Committee on Finance, is that of the decrease in the Budget in respect of employment creation and the combating of unemployment. More than one and a half decades have passed since Toffler wrote his bestseller Future Shock in which he warned of impending disaster as we move into the 21st century. The year 2000 is only 14 years away. As individuals, our lives become more and more complicated. As South Africans, we struggle with the reform process. Some want a new social order literally overnight; some want a take-over and some a hand-over.

We must plan to manage for tomorrow, Sir. The training of management is one of our most serious problems. When we consider the facts, we realise that we have no time to waste. In 1985 demographers calculated that Blacks would outnumber Whites in this country by 15:1 by the year 2000. The ratio of managers to non-managers was estimated at 1:42, compared to 1:16 in the USA. Based on current population trends, the ratio has, according to the Institute for Futures Research at the University of Stellenbosch, now soared to 1:76. Many people in business take refuge behind the idea: “There is nothing I can do until Pretoria changes”. However, as the hon the Minister of Finance pointed out in his speech, the training of management is the joint responsibility of business and government, and the challenges must receive the highest priority if we wish to avoid a total collapse in the economy before the magical year 2000.

Furthermore, big business must stop tokenism in the advancement of Black management and get on with the job of delegating real responsibility.

My last point concerns education. I noted with appreciation the increase in the Budget. I would like in particular to refer to the University of Natal in Pietermaritzburg, where I received my tertiary education. This university is in my constituency. The university has produced men and women who have brought credit not only to themselves but also to South Africa. In particular, the faculty of agriculture has received international recognition and acclaim. I believe more could and should be done to improve facilities at this university where expenditure on capital projects has lagged behind most over the past decade.

Just as important an aspect, however, concerns the university education of Afrikaans-speakers in the Province of Natal. We need to keep in Natal the Afrikaans-speakers with their many talents, people who have to travel far afield to further their studies. Taking all factors into account, factors like cost, the effect on homelife, opportunity and sport—with these people staying in Natal, Natal, like Western Province might even win a rugby match!—the introduction of university courses in the Afrikaans medium and the retention of Afrikaans-speaking students in Natal requires urgent consideration.

It seems to have become practice for new-comers to give hon members some background concerning their constituencies. In order not to disappoint hon members, I should like to present a brief sketch of the city Umgungundhlovu which is “the Place of the Elephant”. Situated in the beautiful valley of the Umsunduzi River, the city was founded by the Voortrekkers and named after Pieter Retief and Gert Maritz in 1839. Next year in 1988 it will be celebrating its 150th birthday. A special birthday project is being undertaken with a budgeted cost of R1 million of upgrading its unique Victorian lanes. The city fathers are hoping for financial assistance generously given to other municipalities in respect of projects such as this.

Pietermaritzburg received city status in 1853. It is the capital and administrative centre of the Province of Natal. In the last quarter of the past century, as a garrison town. Pietermaritzburg was colonised by the British so it has become known by many as being the last outpost of the British Empire. As an educational centre it has earned fame for its many fine schools, both English and Afrikaans-speaking. Initially a trading centre for the midlands farming community, recent decentralisation benefits, together with old-established businesses, transformed it into a flourishing industrial area providing employment for many. Indeed, using the expertise and the dexterity of the Asian community it has become the centre of the South African footwear industry. Its motto today is “a nice place to do business in”. However, I believe it is also a nice place to live in because of the quality of life there.

Within easy reach of the Drakensberg resorts, the Midmar and Albert Falls Dams as well as the Natal coastal resorts, it has the best of both worlds, and tourism is on the increase. Its famous city hall—the largest red-brick structure in the southern hemisphere—is one of the fine examples of Victorian buildings, and urban preservation of its rich Victorian and Voortrekker heritage is high on the priority list.

While Pietermaritzburg may be known as the last outpost of the British Empire, the election of 6 May proved that in winning from the PFP both seats in this area for the NP, the people and the city are truly South African. It is a city I am proud to represent. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South delivered a very different kind of maiden speech. He adopted what was indeed a fairly aggressive approach, and I think it is obvious to us all that he will be a major debater in this House from his second speech onwards. When he talked about his constituency in his speech I think it reminded all of us who have been to Pietermaritzburg of this very beautiful city and the prosperous area from which he comes.

It is certainly one of the most beautiful cities in South Africa. In a sense I too in the past have felt—I quote this but I cannot remember exactly who the wit was—that everybody in South Africa should be allowed to love two cities, namely Pietermaritzburg and his own. I hope the hon member will have a pleasant stay in this House and that he will contribute to its debates to the extent that he has shown he is able to.

*Before I address a matter that in my opinion is very topical and important at the moment, I just want to refer, too, to the speech by the hon member for Randfontein. He said the CP had whispered in the ears of the voters that we were going the same way Rhodesia had gone. I presume he is familiar with one or both of the works by Julie Frederikse. The first work deals with the whole process that played itself out in Rhodesia, and she wrote it in the early ’eighties. The title of the book is None but Ourselves: The Masses versus the Media and it deals with the train of events according to newspaper reports, interviews and conversations. The second book she has written since then is called A Different Kind of War, and in this book she makes an analysis of what is happening in South Africa at present on the same basis.

I think it is important that more of us take note of the parallels that exist there. I do believe the parallels exist but I do not think the solution lies in the CP policy of partition. I shall say more about that later and refer specifically to the contribution by the hon member of Ermelo.

The matter I want to discuss today concerns the South West African question. We all know that as far as South West Africa is concerned, we are in fact on the horns of an international dilemma. This dilemma has two dimensions.

Firstly, how do we withdraw from this area, at the same time leaving behind us a safe area for the people of South West Africa? This must take place on the basis of their choice, too. How are we at the same time going to manage to protect our own national interests?

The second aspect of this dilemma concerns the constitution that South West Africa has to develop for itself. Over the past two years there have been intensive talks, negotiations, consultations, and discussions on the model, and they are now in the process of considering it. It is being said that Mr Justice Victor Hiemstra has already drawn up a model of the constitution according to the framework the interim government—that is, the whole Cabinet with the exception of two parties—has fundamentally agreed on. The opposition of the two parties deals specifically with the omission of the concept of “group” as the basis for the protection of minorities, which according to them should be incorporated into the constitution, and specifically as far as second-tier Government is concerned.

The South West Africa NP and the Rehoboth Free Democratic Party are the two parties opposing the constitution at present under consideration. For our Government the problem is a certain approach to the protection of minority rights which are contained in a series of built-in mechanisms. However, I do not want to go into the details, or its validity at this point, nor do I want to discuss whether it is in fact a good thing.

The dispute over the concept of “group” has its origin in the old familiar AG8 and the subsequent promulgation of proclamation R101 by the State President in 1985. A charter of human rights was then added to this government model under the concept of a declaration of fundamental rights. It is stated, inter alia, in clause 19 that if any legislation or any existing regulation under legislation dating from the period before the interim government—in other words, before the implementation of this process—should clash with this declaration of fundamental rights, or even if the Cabinet should amongst themselves have any doubt as to whether they did clash, it would have to be referred to the Supreme Court of South West Africa which would then have to pronounce judgement on it.

If there is in fact a clash, it must be referred to the standing committee concerned, which will have to deliberate on the matter and make a recommendation to the assembly regarding what is to be done in that connection.

They also said cultural rights had to be guaranteed.

We are talking about any rights that have to be guaranteed. This is indeed the case; it is there in black and white! I do not want to debate the merits; I am talking about what is happening.

In this case a date has already been fixed on which the Supreme Court is to hear this matter. This case will be discussed there from 31 August until 3 September. Once the court has pronounced judgement on the matter it will be referred to the assembly. The standing committee will consider it and submit it to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet will make a decision. The people are in the process of seeking consensus on a new constitution. This deals with a lesser aspect of the constitution.

Against this background it was announced in the Press this week that following on these talks between the interim Government and the hon the State President and other members of the Cabinet, another visit will take place this weekend when the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence will be going to Windhoek. According to Press reports, they are going to Windhoek to make known the South African Government’s rejection of the constitutional model that has been submitted. In fact, in the information sheet News from South West Africa/Namibia, volume 1, No. 22, 1 to 8 June 1987, it is stated that the clash concerns the concept of group rights that, in terms of the South African definition, it must incorporate. If this is not incorporated a clash between the interim government and our Government will result.

That is a Sapa report being quoted there.

That is indeed the case. It seems to me that the hon member knows what is happening. [Interjections.] Perhaps he should help me to convey the message.

A message was also sent—I want to add that this is news that is being spread by word of mouth, and that I could find no written evidence of it anywhere; however, one hears it is widely discussed in political circles—that if a basis of group rights was not embodied in a constitution for South West Africa, the hon the State President himself would go to Windhoek and personally tear up the model they have.

It seems clear that for a constitution for Namibia to be acceptable, a group definition, as we understand it, must be an integral part of that constitution. This is what the building blocks of the future system will have to comprise. This has also been the approach of our Government for a long time. If we analyse this, I wonder whether this whole approach of the group definition in terms of the basis of groups, as it exists in our system, is not becoming part of an ideology, or an ideology in itself. The ideology is becoming more important than the solution.

People are seeking a solution. In fact, we said a long time ago that the people of South West Africa had to decide their political future for themselves. Now they are in the process of deciding for themselves, but here we come and say that it has to be placed within a certain framework. One gets the impression that the ideology this Government applies internally, is starting to become an export product.

It is indeed the case that it is being forced on people within our country. I want to refer hon members to the speech made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning during the No-Confidence Debate at the beginning of this year. In Hansard (House of Assembly: 1987(1), col 138), he gives the Government’s reaction to the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba. In that speech he stated that the process could be continued, that it was a positive process. The process should take place. However, it would have to take place within the framework of four basic conditions set by the Government. He mentioned the four requirements. It must take place on an equal basis, there must be no domination by one group of another, power-sharing must take place between groups, and groups must decide their own affairs in executive and legislative structures.

The group question therefore remains a dominant factor on the basis of this philosophy. One can understand if a Government does this in its own country, because as long as it is in power it has jurisdiction over the country. The Government is responsible in that country and one therefore has sympathy for its actions. However, when actions of this nature are carried beyond the borders of the country, when they become export products, the situation becomes unacceptable.

This morning the hon member for Ermelo said in his speech that if the Afrikaner people could not continue to exist, he could not continue to exist either. His safety, his security, his total existence are synonymous with the continued existence of the Afrikaner people. They are part and parcel of the same thing. This hon member expressed a truth from the heart and there are many of us in this country that understand this. For many of us this really represents our complete and final refuge. However, when the hon member went on he, too, began to move towards an ideology. He said he believed in full and equal freedoms. This is still acceptable because he had then not yet begun to describe a model. We should then talk, however, of the full and equal freedom of each person in whatever identification they experience their safety and security. When he came to partition, however, he came forward with a model in terms of which he wanted to have this prerequisite or ideal embodied.

Of course this is a model that can be placed on the agenda, but unfortunately the hon member added that there was no other model. He spoke of negotiation, but said that any negotiation not taking place on the basis of this model was not acceptable. I should like to tell him that as far as his point of departure is concerned, I agree with him in his identification with the Afrikaner and regarding his statement that his own existence really is rooted in the continued existence of the Afrikaner, I share his experience. However, I want to ask him to think of alternative methods. He must think there could perhaps be methods other than partition to achieve this goal. Let us just leave the possibility open; we can discuss the methods later.

It is against this background that I am making the same appeal to the Government. Let us not try to force the way we see things upon people from a position of power, and to absolutise it. Of course the protection of all groupings in respect of their cultural values and many other values is important. However, let us also consider the possibility that the description of a group which then becomes the ideology that everything has to measure up to is not necessarily the be-all and end-all. Let us open ourselves in our discussions on negotiation and the future, and consider the possibility that there could also be other methods of attaining this ideal. I want to appeal to the two hon Ministers travelling up to Windhoek this weekend to enter those discussions with care. Let them have further discussions with the State President on an approach to the issue before they leave. It is, however, a fundamental fact that if the Government cannot break away from the ideology and the rigidity of its approach—this is more important than for any opposition party to break away from its rigidity—there will be no future for us unless we can rid ourselves of the Government. As long as we treat this approach as an export product, we shall encounter the problem, internally as well, that there can be no progress or future.

As far as the Budget is concerned, I want to tell the hon the Minister—just briefly—that it is not a particularly bad Budget. [Interjections.] He had a difficult task to perform if one looks at it against the background of the mini-budget as well as the fact that it was not yet possible to take the report of the Margo Commission into account.

As early as last year the Margo report, in one language, came to the attention of the Government. The translation took a long time to complete and it was this process that delayed matters, I just want to ask the hon the Minister that these matters which have been addressed over the years, as well as the matters to which I have asked him and his predecessor to give attention over the years, be seriously considered once again when this report is considered. I also want to ask that this report be considered as soon as possible so that important tax reforms that are to be effected in the next Budget can receive attention.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Randburg saw fit to make certain remarks here today about the situation in South West Africa. Suffice it to say that the South West Africa issue is such a delicate one at the moment that it does not behove those people who are so poorly informed about it that they have to make use of objectionable gossip regarding what the hon the State President is supposed to have said, to air their viewpoints on it in this House.

The stability of South West Africa, both now and in the future, is also of importance to us here in South Africa. That is why I believe the matter is best left in the hands of those people who are well informed on it and who deal with it every day.

In any event, I want to share a few words with the hon member for Randburg regarding certain events of the recent past and certain approaches that have been adopted by him and his colleagues in the Independent camp. I want to begin by saying that there can be no question about the fact that all South Africans must have equal political rights. Surely we all agree on that. We simply differ on how this is to be achieved, and that is the only point on which we differ.

One thing that is as plain as a pikestaff is that South Africans will have to negotiate with each other on their common political destiny. Changes that are planned, instituted and imposed unilaterally will fail, as surely as I am standing here. The inescapable consequence of coercion is resistance. The essence of both coercion and resistance is violence, and we in this country have now had enough of that. For that reason it is of the utmost importance that negotiations should get under way in this country. We know, however, that this is more easily said than done. South African society—and the history behind it—in itself places enough stumbling-blocks in the way of this; it is part of the problem which we shall simply have to overcome. We shall not be able to avoid it.

There are some stumbling-blocks which can be removed more easily, such as those that are being set up by the left-wing opposition in this House, the PFP, and their Independent ally. At every available opportunity they proclaim firstly that the NP does not really wish to negotiate, but merely to consult. Secondly, they proclaim that we have a number of so-called “non-negotiables”. That is simply not true.

On 20 September 1986 the hon the Leader of the House spoke in Pretoria. On that occasion he made it quite clear that the NP had a ground plan. That is the well known ground plan which the left-wingers do not like and which is aimed at effective group security. The hon Leader said that we wanted to negotiate regarding that ground plan. He said that negotiation had to be linked—

No one who knows Afrikaans and who understands the idiom of the language could maintain on the basis of this quotation that the NP does not want to go beyond consultation or that we have fundamental “non-negotiables” which stand in the way of true power-sharing.

Nevertheless, both the hon member for Randburg and the hon member Prof Olivier said in a debate on 9 June this year that that was precisely our standpoint. The hon member for Randburg actually gave us a lecture on negotiation. After all, the hon member for Randburg does have a penchant for the pedagogical. He said the following (Hansard: Assembly, 1987, col 1117):

That is what the hon member for Randburg said. In that regard we do not differ from the hon member. We simply call it persuasion.

There were three standpoints before that one!

We simply call it persuasion. That is the persuasion component of the negotiation process.

The hon member for Randburg went further, however. He said:

We have no objection that either, Sir. After all, it is a self-evident principle of every negotiation situation…

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

Mr Chairman, the hon member is quite aware of the fact that I have very limited time at my disposal. I do not even know whether I have enough time to fully develop my argument.

But you are quoting selectively!

I am not quoting selectively. That is not true. [Interjections.]

Just carry on!

I am pursuing the question of negotiation and quoting the hon member for Randburg. I said that we also had no fault to find with this last statement of his. It is an obvious principle of the negotiation concept, and we do not require any lectures in that regard either.

The hon member for Randburg and his kindred spirits in the PFP are confusing and misleading those people with whom the Government must negotiate, and in so doing they are not promoting the cause of reform. They are doing this even though they themselves are saddled with a whole number of non-negotiables. The PFP, of course, wants a national convention. That is true. They say the following in paragraph 203.7.1 of their policy document:

Further on it states the following:

According to the PFP’s policy document one of those fundamental non-negotiable principles is:

I now simply ask how, for example, they ever hope to involve the hon members of the CP in negotiations on the basis of those non-negotiables. Or is it not at all important to them to ensure that the largest White opposition party in this House and in this country should be involved in a negotiation process concerning a new political dispensation in our country? I have a suspicion that it is not important to them. I have a suspicion that the only thing that is important to them is to comply with the wishes of the left-wing radicals in South African extra-parliamentary politics.

The hon member for Randburg is not innocent in this regard, either. He is not at all innocent. I have here a document entitled Dr Worrall se antwoorde op vrae wat dikwels aan ons werwers gevra word. What is meant by that, of course, is Dr Worrall’s workers. I note the following question in the document:

The following reply to this question is also furnished: “No”.

So it goes on. I am leaving out a small section which is not relevant. I say this merely for the edification of the hon member for Claremont. [Interjections.] I quote further:

Mr Chairman, what can these “minimum requirements” mean other than non-negotiables? True to the strategy of vagueness, however, he naturally does not say what this means. However, I know what it means.

That is vision, man! [Interjections.]

In the first place it is a prerequisite that we, as the representatives of the majority of Whites, must destroy our power base by abolishing the Population Registration Act, and that we must do so before negotiations can begin.

There can be no negotiation on that point; it is a prerequisite, a minimum requirement for negotiation. It is therefore a non-negotiable. I can offer proof of this statement. According to The Argus of 12 March 1987 Dr Worrall had described apartheid measures the previous day as including the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Population Registration Act. According to The Argus of the following day, 13 March, the very same Dr Worrall said on 12 March:

Therefore, the Government must destroy the very basis upon which this Parliament has been built in order to get negotiations off the ground. How the country is then to be governed they do not say. The Government must demonstrate its good faith in order to get negotiations off the ground, but surprisingly enough the Government itself may not be a party to those negotiations. In this regard the hon member for Randburg said the following in English in this House on 21 May this year (Hansard: Assembly, 1987 (2), col 198):

The hon member and his friends are playing an extremely dangerous political game. They are keeping their plans deliberately vague. They are placing the Government under suspicion as far as possible without shedding any light on their own thoughts on the matter. It is a calculated strategy; they want to irrevocably confuse as many people as possible and hide behind them under the cloak of morality. When, at times during the election campaign, their helpers saw that things were not going too well for them, they did not hesitate to try to influence people with the statement that one could not at the same time be both a Christian and a Nationalist.

That is untrue.

I reject the statement that they used and I also reject the insinuation contained in it that one first has to be far-left before one can be any good. These tactics of theirs in themselves prove the opposite.

Just like the PFP, they want to drastically reconstruct South African society through political action. They want to do the impossible by transforming our multicultural society into a non-racial society by means of a political system. Whites and other minority groups will not be defined as such or be accorded specific political powers. Such a dispensation would have precious little if anything to do with power-sharing. Regardless of how many fine words they may use in an effort to disguise it, the PFP and the Independents are inevitably heading towards the surrender of power. At best, it will be possible to build in mechanisms to thwart and frustrate the decisions of the majority of the Black participants. Prejudice to minority interests could perhaps be avoided in this manner, but there could be very little question, if any, of the positive promotion on their interests. A minority vote in such a dispensation is worth nothing; it is meaningless. Ultimately such a dispensation would be rejected by the frustrated majority, with irrevocable and catastrophic consequences for the minority.

The only protection of group rights which the PFP and the hon member for Randburg want to offer us, are those in respect of religion, language and culture. The hon member for Randburg also wants to allow our children access to education in their native tongue; the PFP does not even go that far.

[Inaudible.]

No, they do not even go that far. If the hon member desires a commentary on that, he may listen to what the hon member Prof Olivier said in this House on 9 June (Hansard: Assembly, 1987, col 1085):

There the hon member for Claremont has it. I am quoting the words of his colleague, the hon member Prof Olivier, from Hansard. [Interjections.] The Independents now want to negotiate these things without Government participation. Just suppose they were to more or less reach consensus in this regard with a substantial number of negotiators. Surely the Government would then have to implement it, but the Government’s mandate does not make provision for that.

The NP, not the Government, must negotiate.

The Government would at least have to consult the White voters once again. If those voters were to reject such a model, which they are virtually sure to do, we would have an untenable situation, namely one in which the majority of Whites would then visibly stand in direct confrontation to the rest of South Africa.

I want to repeat that the left-wing in this House is playing an extremely dangerous game of political confrontation. In truth they have already positioned themselves irrevocably outside the realm of the possible and the attainable in relation to what may be described as White politics in South Africa.

The seventh of February 1986 was the day on which Dr Van Zyl Slabbert took his leave of parliamentary politics here in this House and entered the extra-parliamentary arena. He did so with these words (Hansard: Assembly, 1986, col 428):

Right!

The hon member says that is right and then he blames us for supposedly having certain non-negotiables. This is a non-negotiable for them; they do not even want to think about a negotiation process before this has been done. Who is talking about non-negotiables now? How, then, can we be blamed for it?

The independent hon member for Randburg is now in the same position as the one in which the extra-parliamentary Dr Slabbert found himself when he took his leave of this House. I want to say this today: The future of the hon member for Randburg, inasmuch as he has a future, also lies outside this Parliament. That is why he also said the following in this House on 21 May (Hansard: Assembly, 1987 (2) col 199):

That is not illegal.

No one said it was illegal. No one is talking about it being illegal; just give me a chance to deliver my speech.

The hon member for Randburg is using Parliament as a base from which to practise extra-parliamentary politics. He wants to promote dialogue with the UDF, for example, and with other chartists, from within this House. He wants to use the freedom charter as a basis for discussion… [Interjections.]… the freedom charter with its commitment to the nationalisation of the mines, the banks and other industries, and the redistribution of land among the workers; the freedom charter about which the SA Communist Party says the following:

The hon member’s supporters in the commercial world would do well to take note of this and also of the standpoint which he adopts in relation to capitalism. I shall quote from only one source, namely The Citizen of 26 September 1984:

The hon member for Randburg already believed that in 1984.

According to Die Burger of 27 March 1987, the hon member for Yeoville said:

I conclude by placing on record this question to the hon member for Randburg: Does he perhaps know to whom the hon member for Yeoville was referring? Mr Chairman, I think I know.

Mr Chairman, when one enters this Chamber for the first time, one is immediately deeply impressed by an exceptional atmosphere that prevails here. This gives rise to a few thoughts. In addition to feeling new and strange, one asks oneself whether one will ever be capable of becoming part of the dignity of this House.

At the same time one is filled with gratitude to be able to be a member of this exceptional House. One is also deeply grateful to the voters of Ladybrand for the exceptional honour accorded one of being sent to this House on their behalf. This privilege bestowed by one’s voters also brings with it great responsibilities. I pray for grace to carry out these responsibilities to the best of my ability. I also consider it a very great honour and privilege to represent the constituency of Ladybrand here.

This is a constituency composed of exceptional people, but I cannot say anything about them before referring to my predecessor, Mr Jannie van den Berg. He is an outstanding person with outstanding attributes. He served this constituency for 13 years with everything at his disposal, and we who were his constituents can testify to that. Friend and foe alike honoured him and had the greatest respect for him. He was very fond of his constituency and in particular the community of Ladybrand of which he formed a part. On behalf of this constituency and its people I not only pay tribute but wish to thank him from this Chamber for everything he did for the constituency. We hope his well-earned rest will be very pleasant and that he will soon be restored to full health.

The constituency of Ladybrand is pre-eminently a rural one and comprises 14 different communities—possibly this is a record. Each community has its own particular character, however, with distinctive people and ways of doing things. There is certainly a rich variety which one is not only able to appreciate but from which one can enrich oneself too. In addition to the variety of communities, the constituency also boasts a colourful variety of historical events and noteworthy sights which perhaps make the constituency unique.

In the district of Fouriesburg, for instance, Gen Prinsloo and his men surrendered at Surrender Hill during the Anglo-Boer War on 4 June 1900. The enemy burnt their weapons and ammunition there and until today, 87 years later, nothing has grown on that spot again.

This town also had the distinction of being the capital of the Free State for six days during that war, and to my knowledge that proclamation has never been repealed. Perhaps this may be taken into account in our allocation of new projects.

The largest known number of petrified tree stumps in the Southern Hemisphere are to be found within the wall encircling the Senekal church square. This circular wall and the old sandstone church building were declared national monuments many years ago. This treasure was collected and preserved for posterity in this way on the initiative of a former minister of religion, Rev Olivier, who became well known in this area as well as in the Western Cape.

There is a wide variety of sandstone buildings in the constituency and they give the area an exceptional character. Some of these buildings have already been declared national monuments. It is these very sandstone hills which contribute greatly to this district having some of the most picturesque scenery in the country. They are found nowhere else in South Africa and the greater part of the Highlands Garden Route runs through the constituency of Ladybrand.

A large number of Bushman drawings are found on this sandstone and this is a tourist attraction which has not yet been exploited. The rampant lion depicted on the 20c stamp was inspired by such a drawing in the district of Clocolan. If one considers that only 4% of domestic tourism is drawn to the OFS, I venture to state this is an opportunity that can be exploited.

The constituency of Ladybrand is an agricultural one and fortunately I can say we no longer plant too much maize there. Mixed farming is practised and this area is a force to be reckoned with in nearly every sphere of food production—as is the rest of the Free State. There are obviously a few areas which boast exceptional commodities and here I take pleasure in referring to the cherry because 90% of the cherry production of South Africa takes place in this area. As the production is a mere 300 tons and the demand for cherries in South Africa is 1 500 tons annually, this is clearly an industry in its initial stages which deserves encouragement in the interests of South Africa. We should be pleased to see hon members of this House, who have not yet heard of the cherry festival, attending the next one at Ficksburg.

The cultivation of asparagus in the Ladybrand constituency has gained great momentum over the past four years. The area from Clocolan and Ficksburg has already been identified as the best potential land for asparagus cultivation in the Southern Hemisphere. This potential provides the opportunity to earn millions of rands in foreign currency. The Langeberg Co-operative is establishing an asparagus experimental station here and there are already two canning factories in this area that provide approximately 1 000 people with employment. The flow of labour from these areas to the cities can be arrested if the correct aid measures are applied.

I think few people are aware that Ficksburg is the only town in South Africa bordering directly on a foreign power. Not many people probably know too that this is the busiest border control post—excluding Jan Smuts Airport. I believe few people realise the Ladybrand constituency shares one of the longest borders with a foreign power. This reality obviously creates many advantages but also its quota of problems.

Every rural community would like to survive and, when a community exhibits as much initiative in many fields as the Ladybrand constituency, I believe the survival of this community is justified. It is in the interests of the security of not only the constituency but also of the country that this rural area be developed. Consequently it is in the interests of the entire country that this little community not only survive but also grow to bring about the necessary distribution of people—in the interests of the security situation on the border too.

It is in the interests of South Africa as well that the depopulation of the rural areas be checked. I should like to add, however, that I believe a community should only be assisted if it is prepared to help itself. I think the Ladybrand constituency has proved that these communities are eager to help themselves. There are four progressive agricultural co-operatives for instance and we have established the second largest dairy co-operative here. The cherry on the top is the Sentraoes Co-operative, the largest crop-insuring organisation in the free world, with an income of R101,6 million annually from premiums.

Communities of the potential and achievements I have illustrated here deserve to be helped by means of measures which the State occasionally makes available. We urgently require labour for the development of the cherry and asparagus industries. We do not have a homeland near this area so do not have industrial growth point benefits either. In addition we require Government expenditure in these communities in the form of regional head offices, for example. The Land Bank head office could be in any of these towns because we make a special journey there and do not just drop in.

The Ladybrand constituency would also like to express its thanks for the decision to proceed with the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. This will provide a welcome injection to stimulate growth in all the communities along the border. At the same time we hope this water will become available in generous measure to our constituencies and also to satisfy the great needs of the central portion of the country.

This project also creates pressing needs along the Lesotho border. The improvement of bridges at Fouriesburg, Ficksburg, Clocolan and Ladybrand for example is required and tarred surfaces are a high priority for the roads from Fouriesburg and Clocolan to the border.

In conclusion I submit that a constituency boasting a unique achievement which to my knowledge has not been attained before and which will not easily be equalled either—that the hon the State President and his wife were both born here at Paul Roux and Senekal, respectively—must deserve special treatment.

Mr Chairman, it is my pleasure and privilege to be able to make my first speech in this House today and also to congratulate the hon member for Ladybrand on his maiden speech. Permit me to say that the hon member for Ladybrand delivered a knockout blow for the Free State today too—just like other residents of the Free State known to us. We know we shall often hear from the hon member for Ladybrand in future.

I also find it a particular honour and privilege to be able to make my first speech in this House. It is also my privilege and very pleasant duty to represent the Ventersdorp constituency in the Western Transvaal here. Permit me the opportunity, too, of thanking my opponent in the past general election, the former Deputy Minister, Mr Ben Wilkens, for the dignified way in which he conducted his election campaign. He was not only a worthy opponent but for that reason also a worthy loser.

The Ventersdorp constituency is vast, so much so tht 33 ballot boxes were used in that constituency on polling day. This constituency includes towns and villages such as Ventersdorp, Koster, Derby, Boons, Swart-ruggens, Magaliesburg, Welverdiend and Hartbeesfontein. It is primarily a farming community consisting mostly of agriculturalists and stockfarmers.

The farmers, and particularly maize farmers, are fighting for survival at this stage. We are all aware of this fact. Maize farmers are burdened with enormous debts, the reasons for which I shall not enlarge upon now, but that is why we find that maize farmers in particular are fighting and struggling to keep their heads above water.

I also wish to express my thanks regarding the latest measures announced by the Government to prevent expert, experienced farmers with a high degree of management skill from being sequestrated owing to circumstances beyond their control. It is important for farmers to be kept on the land to enable them to make a decent livelihood there. I also wish to appeal to the Government to help the young farmer by making agriculture attractive to him again so that he may cherish the desire to make a career of it.

In lighter vein I wish to mention that within the Ventersdorp constituency we practise part of the Afrikaner culture in truly traditional manner and have developed and maintained it. I am now referring to the distilling of genuine peach mampoer. I can assure hon members that canvassing in that particular part of the constituency is not all hard work but also a very pleasant task.

A large part of the Ventersdorp constituency is also situated in border areas and that is why farmers in these specific regions experience unique problems, among which are the security situation and stock theft. There have been various terrorist incidents in the Swart-ruggens area in which a number of people lost their lives. Consequently I also wish to appeal to the hon the Minister of Law and Order to pay urgent attention to the security situation in the Swartruggens area and particularly in the vicinity of Wileyspoort.

I wish to thank the SA Police and other security forces for the great task they are already accomplishing in that area; it has not passed unnoticed. I am very proud of the selfless service of the SA Police and other security forces which they furnish in that area under very difficult circumstances.

I also wish to pay tribute to the late Constable Danie Bosman who paid the highest price anyone can pay for his country—his life—when he was killed at Ventersdorp in a terrorist attack during the election campaign. I should like to convey the sympathy of hon members on this side of the House to the late Constable Danie Bosman’s family.

Mr Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon member for Ventersdorp on his maiden speech. He spoke about his constituency in the Western Transvaal and lodged a plea for the maize farmers and the young farmers. I support him as far as that is concerned, and I wish him a happy future in this House.

†It is a great honour for me to be able to address this House for the first time, especially representing as I do the constituency of Wynberg. I believe it is the first time in the history of South Africa that Wynberg has been represented by the party that sits on this side of the House. I would therefore like to thank the voters of Wynberg for sending me here and for the confidence they have placed in me. I would like to give them the assurance that I will always put their interests first and that I am here to serve them and South Africa to the best of my ability.

I would also like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr Phillip Myburgh. I would like to thank him for the way that he represented his constituency and to wish him well in the new fields of endeavour that he has chosen.

Like the hon member for Roodeplaat I am also the third generation of my family to sit in this House. My grandfather, whose name I bear, was not only a member of the old Cape Parliament, but was also a member of the first Union Cabinet and served under General Louis Botha as Minister of Public Works, as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and also as Minister of Finance. It is perhaps interesting that he represented the constituency of Namakwaland in this House.

My father in his turn sat in this House for 29 years as the member for Hottentots-Holland and later as the member for Rondebosch. For 21 of those years he was privileged to be Leader of the Opposition. It is not my intention today to give a historical assessment of the role he played as it is very difficult to form an objective judgment of events that are so recent.

It is therefore with a certain amount of family pride that I stand here today, but also with a sense of humility in that I realise the tradition that has to be maintained in trying to serve the best interests of South Africa and her peoples.

I would like to say a few words about the occupation I enjoyed before I came here and about the community in which I lived.

*I should therefore like to pay tribute to those among whom I have lived for the past 21 years, and here I am referring to the farmers and the community of the Hex River Valley.

The Hex River Valley is a unique place with unique people. It has been my privilege to be able to live among them for a number of years.

Export-quality table grapes are grown in the Hex River Valley. This is probably one of the most intensive types of farming in existence. The size of the average farm is 18 hectares. In this area there are approximately 150 fanners farming on only 3 000 hectares. Approximately 7 million boxes of grapes are produced annually for export purposes, producing a revenue of approximately R58 million and earning valuable foreign exchange. These figures indicate an average gross farming income of R24 000 per hectare. There are certain cases in which producers who are farming with a new cultivar that has been developed in South Africa, namely Dauphine, are producing 6 000 boxes of grapes per hectare and realizing a gross income of R120 000 per hectare. [Interjections.]

Such achievements are attributable to the micro-climate prevailing in that area—not only meteorologically, but economically as well. The table-grape farmer competes in an international market. He is therefore subject to all the market forces. He must either sink or swim. This challenge is being accepted with success by the South African farmer. Today he is regarded as the best in the world in his field. His product is also of the highest quality and performs outstandingly on the world markets despite boycotts and sanctions.

In order to retain this leading role in the international market, the table-grape producer has had to keep abreast of all the latest technological developments on both the scientific and management fronts. We therefore find that close attention is being paid to virus-free propagating material, clone selections and the application of the computer in the control of micro-irrigation systems. Great emphasis is being placed on the development of new cultivars, which must satisfy the constantly changing taste of the consumer. Seedless grapes are becoming increasingly popular and the cultivation of a black seedless grape remains a priority.

Community development still remains a cardinal instrument on the management front and it is gratifying to see how the standard of living of the farm worker has improved over the past number of years. The entry of the Urban Foundation into this area has made a large contribution to what has been achieved.

I must also mention the role of the Deciduous Fruit Board. In these times, when it has actually become the fashion to disparage marketing boards, the Deciduous Fruit Board is performing an outstanding function in respect of the marketing of South African fruit abroad. It has therefore been a great privilege for me to have been able to serve on the Deciduous Fruit Board for the past four years.

Capetonians are often regarded as the most provincialistic group among all South Africans. It is said that on one occasion in the Transvaal Mr Justice Andrew Beyers was asked whether he was also of the opinion that civilisation in South Africa ended at the foot of the Hex River Mountains. “On the contrary”, he said, “I am one of those people who doubt whether civilisation will ever reach that far.” [Interjections.]

†It was my intention to give a short resumé of the contribution of the table grape farmer to the South African economy. I would also like, however, to say a few words about the constituency of Wynberg.

Wynberg derives its name from the vineyard laid out by Jan van Riebeeck in 1658 on his farm Bosheuwel on the slopes of what is today known as Wynberg Hill. Wynberg further achieved reknown as being the site of a military camp during the rule of the Dutch East India Company. This was occupied by the British in 1795, and was situated on the plain in the vicinity of present-day Plumstead. After the Second Anglo-Boer War the camp lost some of its former importance and has since been moved. In its place the Plumstead area is today a thriving residential community and forms the heart of the constituency. Also included are the suburbs of Southfield and parts of the suburbs of Kenilworth and Claremont. The voters I represent are 85% English-speaking and are very much part of the so-called silent majority of English-speaking South Africa. Their contribution to the South African economy is well known, especially in the fields of business and industry. They are a hardworking, conscientious, God-fearing community. They desire a peaceful and prosperous country in which they can go about their daily lives with the minimum of interference. I think their wants are the wants of all of us in South Africa.

I believe that the Budget, as introduced by the hon the Minister, takes us along the road to securing our future in this country.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, I am privileged to congratulate the hon member for Wynberg sincerely on his maiden speech. He had brilliant ancestors and I also wish him good and productive years in the House. My congratulations too as I may also say I have acquired a little more experience, because this is the second time I have had the privilege of rising to speak here. [Interjections.]

I shall probably never forget the morning I first entered this House. As I was doing so the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning walked in beside me and said: “Remember, this is a great privilege that falls to the lot of few.” It is certainly a privilege to be able to rise and speak in this House. That is why I should also like to pay tribute to all the great leaders of our country who have already made history in this House. They all contributed to the history of this country up to now.

In addition I am privileged to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr J W Kleynhans, who represented the Algoa constituency from 1981. He is a most admirable person and I wish to express the hope that I shall prove a worthy successor to him. I should also like to congratulate him on his appointment as the chairman of the first regional services council in Port Elizabeth.

Little did he know when he made his maiden speech here in August 1981 that the very things he said here would have to be put into practice by him today. He spoke inter alia on local government which is so close to our people and which has to provide their basic needs. He also mentioned the fact that a level of government could only be as independent as its ability to levy taxes for the purpose of discharging its responsibilities.

I do not wish to dwell on this long but I should like to elaborate a little on the points he made because they still apply today. They were in connection with the own affairs budget and the appointment of our ministerial representatives. In this way we have certainly brought the second tier of government closer to our people at regional as well as provincial level.

I should like to wish Mr Kleynhans every success in the great task resting on his shoulders. I also want to add that he may depend on my full support because if there is one aspect of the process of reform at which we have to succeed it is regional services councils.

I should also like to say a few words about my constituency of Algoa which is situated in the beautiful city of Port Elizabeth. I believe I have reason to be proud of representing such a constituency in the House. This constituency returned the NP to this House with a very large majority. It was a larger majority than before and furthermore—I am proud of this too—it was the largest majority in the Eastern Cape. Two of the Opposition candidates lost their deposits in the four-cornered contest there. I should like to thank all the workers who assisted in the election as well. My thanks too for the confidence they placed in me to represent them in this House.

As regards my constituency I may also mention that there are four homes for the aged in it. I wish to express my thanks to the hon the Minister of Finance for the way in which he looked after our senior citizens above the age of sixty with the 15% investments. I have just spent a day or two in the constituency and one could already see the effect of this.

There are also a number of schools in the constituency and I am grateful for the large amount that is being appropriated for education. I agree that this is one of the greatest single investments we made.

I want to say that I have a good understanding of Port Elizabeth itself, of which my constituency forms an integral part, because, seeing that more than 40% of our population is still living in the rural areas—including the national states—it is essential that development should take place in country districts. The Port Elizabeth prophets of doom of a while back are now beginning to view the city with different eyes because I think we are also entering a period of prosperity. As a result of the experience I acquired in rural areas in the decentralisation of industries, which appears to be a great success up to this point, I wish to add that there are many opportunities in Port Elizabeth for the establishment of new industries. I shall try my best in this regard, but it should be done with great skill and circumspection.

I wish to close by saying that at the present time in particular and in addition to the fact that I should like to represent my constituency to the best of my ability in this House, I also accept full responsibility for the realities of our times. I should like to refer briefly to the foreword to the brochure issued by the Bureau for Information in which it is stated:

Those forces which are not interested in negotiation are the same which are capable of creating chaos and revolution; they are also the forces capable of overthrowing our systems. As I have just been elected to this House and recently taken my seat here, I want to express the hope that I shall also be able to contribute in future within the structures of this Parliament and not outside them. I should also like to do this for the sake of orderly government and contribute to the process of reform to which I have committed myself unconditionally. I desire to do this all this towards the prosperity of all of us in this beautiful country.

Mr Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate the hon member for Algoa on his maiden speech. I think it is obvious to all of us who listened to him that he is going to make a very conscientious member of Parliament, attending to the affairs of his constituency in Algoa, as well as doing his duty as a member of this House. I wish him well.

One thing has become very evident to me over the past four days listening to the debates in this House, and that is that the role of the PFP in Parliament is more important than ever before. [Interjections.] I say that because 90% of the debating time that has been allocated to the Government and to the Official Opposition has been taken up by the CP posturing about the good old days of Dr Verwoerd and attacking the Government for its stumbling efforts towards reform. On the Government side, speeches have mainly, practically entirely, been devoted to protesting that the Government is protecting group identity and is looking after the “Afrikanervolk” in as dedicated a way as ever before.

If it had not been for the speakers on these benches, hardly a word would have been said about the very real problems that are plaguing South Africa at the present time. We would not have heard a word about the urgent need to tackle the underlying grievances which are making it impossible to create a climate, a nonviolent climate, for negotiations between the Black community and the Government off the ground. We would not have heard a word about the serious unemployment in South Africa, nor about inflation which is lowering the standard of living of everybody in this country and grievously affecting the poor. We would not have heard a word here about the news that we hear almost daily of yet another American company withdrawing its business interests from South Africa and the growing isolation of our country. That is something, I may add, about which I have been warning the Government every year since 1979 when I first observed this trend developing in the US. We would not have heard a single word, but for the PFP, about the state of emergency. That would not have been touched on by anybody. We would not have heard anything about the ongoing and incrasing restrictions on the media in South Africa nor about the ongoing, smouldering unrest in the townships. Not a word would we have heard about the extreme case of the political horsetrading that was raised this morning by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, and I sincerely hope the hon the Minister of Finance is not going to try to avoid answering the very pertinent questions which the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central put to him. All of that material can only be found in the speeches of the hon members of the PFP. For the rest—speaking for myself although I would not be surprised if I was speaking for my colleagues as well—we have been bored to tears listening to the internecine warfare between the CP and the NP over the past few days. [Interjections.]

Of course, there have been a few lively speeches in between, attacking the PFP. A typical example was the speech by the hon the Minister of Law and Order. I am sorry that he is not here this afternoon; I did ask him to be present but he has had to attend a passing-out parade or something like that.

He is passing out. [Interjections.]

With a bit of luck! I also asked for his deputy to be present but I think he has had to attend the same function. Therefore their hon colleagues on the other side will have to convey to him the charming words that I am about to utter about the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

The hon member for Bryanston made what I thought was a perfectly reasonable speech the other day about the increasing crime rate and the shortfall in the Police Force. He also criticised some members of the Police Force for exceeding their powers. I thought that was all perfectly reasonable. However, the hon the Minister chose to interpret that as an attack on the police as a whole. We have said over and over again—the hon member for Bryanston said it the other day and I said it when we were debating the private member’s motion of the hon member for Kruger-sdorp—that we have the utmost respect and regard for the police when they are performing their normal functions properly.

Indeed, the police in this particular House are a shining example of police behaving properly, courteously and within the bounds of their power. However, we will not condone any excesses committed by the police and it is our duty to expose those excesses when they are brought to our notice. We will continue to do so despite all the howls of protest that come from the other side. [Interjections.]

We make no bones about our strong disapproval of the lack of training and discipline of the “kitskonstabels”. These men are given only 14 weeks training as against the minimum of six months training given to an ordinary policeman. Why does a “kitskonsta-bel” get only 14 weeks training? Is it because he is just going to be let loose on the Black townships and therefore it does not matter so much whether he is properly disciplined and properly trained? I may say that the ordinary policeman’s period of training used to be a year and that has now been reduced to six months which may not be long enough. We believe that to send these ill-disciplined, badly trained “kitskonstabels”, armed, into the townships, is looking for trouble and there has been plenty of trouble, as a result as anybody who has studied the situation in KwaNdebele where these “kitskonstabels” have been causing havoc, will surely agree.

In the course of his tirade the hon the Minister of Law and Order asked how the PFP could complain that there were too few policemen and at the same time—pointing to me—he said the hon member for Houghton had accused South Africa of being a police state. Of course that shows the ignorance of the hon the Minister, because he clearly does not understand the meaning of the term “police state”. Incidentally, I have never said that South Africa is a police state, although I have certainly said that it is rapidly acquiring all the trappings of a police state. However, for the hon the Minister’s benefit—and I hope somebody on that side will convey it to him—I want to say that the term “police state” does not imply the country has a superabundance of police. The term “police state” describes a country in which the powers of the police are such that the powers of the courts are undermined and in which the freedom of the citizen is at the discretion of the police. Civil rights are in fact virtually non-existent in such a state. In other words, a police state is a country where a knock on the door before dawn is not the knock of the milkman. It is the knock of a policeman coming to drag somebody away into detention.

Maybe the hon the Minister or one of the hon members on that side can tell me just how we differ at present from a police state, launched as we are in our third state of emergency within three years, with thousands of people locked up without charge; with the media more restricted than ever before; with house arrest reinstituted—house arrest was brought in way back in 1962 and has not been used for years, but now it can be used again—with all outdoor meetings except funerals and sport gatherings restricted; and with many indoors protest meetings also prohibited. When people like Janet Cherry can remain detained without trial since August 1986; when Vusi Kanyile—the public relations officer of the University of Cape Town—can be detained for month after month without trial and when Zwelake Sisulu, a well-known journalist, can be heid for month after month without trial, along with many others, the Government must tell me how we differ from a police state! I could regale this House with many ugly stories of the sort of action that is taken by Security Police against detainees when they are interrogating them. Time however prevents me.

The Government, of course, indignantly denies all these allegations of ill-treatment and torture, but it is true that the hon the Minister of Law and Order has paid out hundreds of thousands of rand—taxpayers’ money remember!—in actions settled out of court relating to cases of assault brought against the police; not to mention of course the many interdicts which have been granted by the courts restraining the Security Police from further assaults against certain detainees.

Now, Sir, I should like to look at the case of Michael Roussos, which was mentioned in the paper the other day. Michael Roussos is the education secretary of the SA Railways and Harbours Workers’ Union. He was detained on 7 May under the emergency regulations as a result of information obtained from other detainees that he was involved in organising the assaults at Cosatu House on employees of the SATS who refused to participate in the recent strike. This man was interrogated after he was detained, and his affidavit, I understand from his lawayers, claims that he was stripped naked during the interrogation, something which I consider to be humiliating treatment. I consider it to be cruel and inhuman treatment. It has of course been denied by the police. They say they simply took his shirt off. He says he was stripped naked.

Sir, I do not know, and neither do the Security Police know, whether this man is guilty or innocent of being involved in those assaults. There is only one way to find out. That is by charging him in the courts of law and by having the evidence brought and having the courts decide whether he is guilty or innocent. What, Sir, do the Security Police do instead? The minute an action for his release was brought to court—that was subsequently postponed sine die—he was rearrested under section 29 of the Internal Security Act. Can you believe that, Sir? From being an emergency detainee he now became a section 29 detainee, with of course far worse conditions of detention.

He was once allowed to see his mother, and he was in leg-irons when she saw him. Under section 29 of the Internal Security Act he was of course kept in solitary confinement, with only a Bible. The affidavit states he is not being allowed any exercise either. Now, Sir, this man was admitted to the psychiatric ward in the Johannesburg Hospital but, before proper investigation he was whisked away and placed again in John Vorster Square, under section 29.

It is my information that some months ago, after trouble in the Eastern Cape, an understanding was reached between the Security Police and the Medical Association to the effect that detainees who were committed to hospital should not be removed from the hospital by the Security Police unless written permission had been given by the doctor referring the case. Unfortunately, Sir, there is no hon Minister who is responsible present here now I shall, however, if necessary, put a question on the Question Paper. I want to know whether that written permission was in fact given in the case of Michael Roussos. I want to know if the guidelines that were laid down in that agreement are genuinely being followed because there are many detainees presently under psychiatric treatment.

In conclusion, Sir, I simply want to point out that South Africa can ill afford to have another Aggett case added to the long list of detainees who have taken their own lives while in detention under the security laws of this country.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Houghton is a blue-blooded Prog. [Interjections.] She is a thoroughbred Prog, Mr Speaker.

Yes, I am!

I believe it must cause her tremendous concern to see her party rapidly becoming an endangered species. [Interjections.] There are deep fundamental and philosophical differences between us relating to security matters and all matters regarding the security of the State. I do believe, however, the hon member for Houghton made one noteworthy statement. I really have to stand to attention and salute her for that statement she made. I am referring now to her saying once again that the PFP has an important role to play in this Parliament.

That statement is not remarkable in itself; what is remarkable is that she finds it necessary to reiterate that particular statement.

I said it was more important than ever.

I salute her for the stance she has taken and I know that she has always taken that particular line. However, one cannot help but wonder what has happened to the previous leader of that party who has taken a different stance on this issue. I also wonder whether all her colleagues share with her the view expressed in that statement. However, I for one salute her. [Interjections.]

The hon member also said that there were a number of legitimate grievances which had to be addressed. We are not at all at cross purposes on that particular issue, but I do not think it behoves her in any way to question the absence of the hon the Minister of Law and Order because “he is attending some passing-out parade, or something”.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member did not say that; she said that the hon the Minister was absent because he had to attend a “passing-out parade or something”. [Interjections.] The fact is that that is an important duty of the hon the Minister of Law and Order which he has to attend to. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Houghton has already completed her speech. [Interjections.]

I think one would have expected an hon member of her standing to stand up and say that she appreciated the fact that the hon the Minister of Law and Order was at that moment attending the passing-out parade of the SA Police College in Pretoria, and that she understood his absence and wished him well together with all the policemen in the lives of whom this particular day is a great occasion as members of the SAP. I would have expected her rather to have shown her appreciation for the situation. [Interjections.]

Where are the rest of the Government passing out?

I think the hon the Minister of Law and Order dealt very adequately and eloquently with the arguments advanced by the hon member for Bryanston and I have nothing to add to that. What is unfair, however—I think this is where we really differ with each other—is that the hon member tries to imply that we only have numbers in mind when we refer to a police state, and that the police therefore quite often overstep the mark. What one must appreciate is the fact that the police are up against forces that are not playing by the Queensberry rules. We have questioned the arguments of the hon member and other hon members of that party on numerous occasions before, stating that we would not condone any irregularities of the police as such but that they have to deal with people who govern by the necklace and the matchbox. Those are the forces which they are up against and I think we have irrefutable evidence to support my argument and that of the Government that the state of emergency is necessary and that there is sufficient proof to warrant the maintainance of the state of emergency.

I do not want to deal with the specifics which she mentioned; suffice to say that I do not think her innuendo about Dr Neil Aggett was a fair one.

*I want to tell the “tannie” she must step aside for a moment so that we can carry on with the our domestic squabble. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I thought your ruling was that hon members should be addressed as “hon members”?

Order! It was not very clear what the hon member said but I thought he said, “the hon tannie”. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I am not an hon “tannie”; I am an hon “grandmother”! [Interjections. ]

Order! The Chair will respect the hon member for Houghton. The hon member for Krugersdorp may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

This is the first opportunity that I have to congratulate the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, the nominated member of the CP.

*I do not think I hold it against you, Sir, and I have no reason whatsoever to believe that you suffer from a bad memory, but I do not think you will hold it against me if I recall the many interjections, the veritable stream of interjections, the former members for Rissik and Kuruman bombarded me with over the years. It is with some regret that I stand here today, only to find that they are not here. After the split in the NP, those two former members constantly said I should say goodbye to this place. Yet I am still here, and they are absent. [Interjections.]

They are very pleasant gentlemen, and I do not want to wish them the best of luck in their work, but personally, and as far as their friendship and their families are concerned, they have my best wishes. Even so, I miss them. [Interjections.] I want to add that I am grateful—and even find it quite uncomfortable—to find friendly gentlemen representing those two constituencies. I am pleased that those two gentlemen are here, and I want to wish them a successful political career. [Interjections.] Churchill said on occasion that he liked a man who fought with a smile. The hon member for Soutpansberg is a spiteful hon member; he does not fight in a friendly way. I believe he finds it irritating. He found it irritating in the past and has indicated once again that he was irritated by the NP’s opposing him in his constituency, and entrusting me with the task of making things difficult for him there. I must refer him to a speech he made here in 1985 as well as the speech he made in the recent debate on the motion of censure. One can almost compare the two speeches and ask whether there is any difference between them. The hon member made two statements in the speeches—

He said it twice. He repeated it. The fact of the matter is that this hon member will simply have to get used to the fact—as other hon members will have to get used to it—that members of the NP live like doves, but fight like eagles. We have not finished with them. It was a former member of this House, the former member for Meyerton, who said they were going to chase us from Dan to Beersheba, and the hon member is absent now.

Sir, I am sure you did not begrudge me this little bit of political pleasure.

You have lost many of your tail-feathers!

I do not dispute that in the least. One can be sure, no matter whether one is an eagle or a dove, that when one is involved in a fight of this nature, one is bound to be hit at some or other time. I find it extremely interesting to see these two gentlemen, the hon members for Brakpan and Barberton. When these hon members start whispering to each other, they know that they have lost all their tail-feathers, and that they only just managed to get here. [Interjections.] That is what those hon members admit to one another. They are congenial hon members. I like them, and I enjoy arguing and quarreling with them.

You had better not like us too much.

What I like even more is the fact that hon members in the back benches on both sides of the House are concluding their maiden speeches. It is very clear that a new game is developing.

It was my exceptional privilege—and I do not say this lightly—and a great privilege to be schooled by someone I respect a great deal. He taught me three things in politics, and even today I strive for these three things and they are part of my political armour. He said one could not build the future of this country on discriminatory practices. South Africa’s future lies in our facing our discriminatory practices, addressing these practices and doing something about them. The second aspect is that Blacks are permanently established around White residential areas; they are there to stay. Thirdly, people in this country will have to meet around a table; they will have to face one another and negotiate the future of South Africa.

Did you listen to “Tannie” Helen?

I am so pleased that that hon member is reacting, because I did not listen to the hon member for Houghton, but to the hon member for Randfontein.

The hon member for Randfontein is one of the greatest political mentors I have ever had. He advised me on what I should and should not do. I am pleased that my friend, the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, is in the House. He will not hold it against me if I say that for years now I have been seeking and waiting for an opportunity to conduct a debate with the present hon member for Randfontein on what he taught me, and what he is putting into practice now. I mean this sincerely. I wish him everything of the best, and a speedy recovery.

It was the hon member for Randfontein who said that in this decade discrimination was just as outmoded as slavery. What is more, a human being is a human being, irrespective of his colour. He gets hungry and feels the cold. The test is a subjective one. It is not my place to say I am discriminating against someone else; it is the man on the receiving end of discriminatory practices who must get up and say: But I experience that as being discriminatory; I experience that as being hurtful and humiliating. That is the test one applies when discrimination is the point at issue.

Hon members of the Official Opposition on that side of the House had a great deal to say about the fact that we were negotiating with people who were a danger to the State. They were insinuating that he who sups with the devil should use a long spoon. One of the most daring people in discussions with Blacks was the hon member for Randfontein. I shall stand up in this House and apologize to him if my facts are incorrect, but this was the experience he and I shared. The hon member for Randfontein made representations for the release of certain people who were in detention so that he could go and talk to them. To what purpose? He wanted to persuade those people to take part in the Sowetan community council election in the interests of White South Africa.

Do those hon members, who have so much to say about negotiation and who score points off the NP, agree with their front-bencher, or does their front-bencher himself no longer agree with his former standpoints?

That man locked him up.

Of course that man was not locked up.

It was my privilege to attend the celebration of Transkei’s independence. I travelled to Umtata from the Transvaal, and experienced the excitement of that independence, but was extremely frustrated and disappointed when I returned to the Witwatersrand only to find that there were as many people in Soweto as there had been before my departure. There were as many people in Krugersdorp as in other places, and the hon member for Randfontein was the man who had given me hope for the future and had said we would make Soweto the most beautiful Black city in Africa. I stood back and applauded him.

If ever there was anyone in the history of South African politics who permanently established Blacks around our residential areas, it was the hon member for Randfontein. They got the right to stay here for 99 years, and if anyone wants to tell me in any language, according to any criterion, that that is not permanent, I do not know what is.

The question now is whether those hon members agree with that standpoint. What are they going to do about this? Are they going to suspend those rights or remove them? What is their standpoint? [Interjections.]

In the final instance I want to say that we on this side of the House will fight tooth and nail for the rights of the voters we represent, but we are convinced that it is in the interests of our voters not to be party to any deceit or fraud when it comes to the political rights of the Blacks.

Mr Speaker, it gave me great pleasure to listen to the fine way in which my colleague, the hon member for Krugersdorp, supported our policemen, our brave men, in this House.

†Hon members will bear with me a moment when I say how humbled I am by, but at the same time grateful for the honour accorded me by my party and our leader the hon the State President.

As a newcomer to the caucus of the NP I am immensely impressed by the spirit and the will to succeed and to overcome the challenges of the day. This side of the House knows it has an appointment with the future of South Africa and I am proud to be part of this team.

My colleague, the hon member for Umhlatuzana, referred to the green hills of Natal. I will endeavour to point out the challenge that these rolling hills pose to agriculture in Natal and the forces of change and adjustment food production has to undergo to meet the needs of the population in future.

The farmers of Natal are coming to the same realisation as our city fathers of Durban have come to and that is that there are more people living on the immediate perimeter, on the outskirts of Durban, than in Durban itself—some 1,5 million people. Town and regional planners of necessity have to take this into account.

The farmers of Natal are similarly affected. There are 6 500 farmers in Natal, most of whom are neighbours in one way or another with the rural population of 2,5 million of KwaZulu. The needs, aspirations and activities of these people naturally affect our farmers and the rest of Natal.

I must make mention of the tremendous accomplishments of the Natal farmer. His endeavour, skills and knowledge have over the years made Natal a model in many ways. Most important though, production has been improved, yet natural resources have been sustained.

About seven years ago this Government introduced measures by which the initiative of promoting conservation and extension was privatised to the extent that selected farmers, chosen by their own associations and ably assisted by extension officers of the Department of Agriculture and, in our case, forestry officers and representatives of the sugar industry, were appointed to take the reins as far as conservation was concerned.

This measure has been an absolute success. I had the good fortune for a number of years to head a committee which was so successful that our district is arguably the best conserved in South Africa. We produce a range of commodities, all in tune with the resources of the farms. Our whole thrust is production-oriented as, after all, only a farm that is run profitably has the ability and the means to bring about run-off control and everything that will protect those resources for all time.

There is a great anomaly between the rainfall and the topography of our country. Where the country is the flattest, rainfall is generally the lowest.

As rainfall increases, the land becomes ever steeper. How steep is steep? The Free State farmers say the South Coast sugar farmer is insane. Australian farmers say we are downright daft. It is on such slopes that some 2,5 million Black people make their living in Natal.

It would be a disservice to hon members in this House if I did not mention the very cordial relationship that generally speaking exists between Black and White farmers, and between the Black and White communities in Natal, generally speaking. Our personal successes have fired the imagination of not only our farmers, but also of bodies such as the Institute of Natural Resources, and even a number of townsfolk. There is a growing interest group whose only wish it is to share their knowledge and expertise and who are willing to help our neighbours to help themselves. Where we are discussing the Budget, I would like to point out that this co-operation in Natal occurs on a voluntary basis.

The solutions to our problems are evident. Improved land utilisation may be achieved by the strategy of integrated rural development. In this way we will be able to meet the needs of rural people in terms of three broad dimensions, namely increased agricultural production, the provision of infrastructure, and the services that are necessary to improve the quality of life. By means of rural service centres we will be able to stimulate nonfarming commercial industrial activity so to provide employment for those people who exceed the land’s agricultural capacity and, of course, this take the urbanisation pressure off the metropolitan areas.

Thousands of plot holders have become commercial sugar cane farmers through the Small Cane Growers Fund, yet there are other opportunities and possibilities for peasant food production. The most exciting option seems to be agro-forestry where trees, even the acacia, may be planted on a contour and intercrop with food crops which do not need refinement or processing before consumption. Another possibility is the provision of pasture for intensive meat, milk or wool production.

Yes, we are immensely excited about the future. We do not accept the view that our present situation cannot be overcome and reversed in its entirety.

*I am convinced that if the attitude towards our neighbours is honest and sincere, such initiatives can be decisive, so that there will, in future, be a place in the sun for all of us who love South Africa, first and foremost.

Mr Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate the hon member Mr Redinger on his maiden speech; we hope he will often speak in this House. I should have liked to say much more, but time does not permit this.

They say there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see. [Interjections.] During the month I have been in the House I have discovered this. Yesterday the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition explained the partition policy of this party fearlessly. Up to the present there has not been anybody on that side of the House capable of understanding what he said to them. [Interjections.] This afternoon I want to tell hon members that the CP policy and that of hon members on that side of the House were the same until a few years ago. I wish to state it unambiguously that, if it had not been for the apartheid policy of the NP Government, they would not be sitting in this House today; apartheid was the vehicle that brought them here.

Next I shall refer to the hon the State President who has had a seat in this House since 1948. Not once before he became the State President did he tell the world apartheid was wrong.

There were hon members on that side of the House who told us they had tried partition and apartheid and had suddenly discovered they no longer worked. Surely there is a reason why they no longer work. They worked up to a certain date and then suddenly did not work any longer.

They still do not work. [Interjections.]

Order!

In 1983 the voters were approached and a referendum held to request a mandate for instituting a constitution to include Coloureds and Indians in a tricameral Parliament here. The reason for this request was to keep Blacks out of Parliament. [Interjections.] That was the reason. They said it could be done in a tricameral Parliament.

That side of the House is so bankrupt of political policy that they do not know where they are heading. The hon the State President said he was groping in the dark; there was mention of how he felt about Blacks. In the Volksblad of 10 August the hon the State President said—they can look it up—that he believed the Blacks had a different course to follow from that of the Coloureds. Black people would not be represented in the President’s Council; his successor could introduce this one day if he wished. Those were the State President’s words on 10 August 1984!

The hon the State President was groping in the dark to such an extent that he touched the side of the tunnel that day because he continued on 19 October 1985:

Now this side of the House is being accused of saying this and that. The hon member for Krugersdorp mentioned a moment ago that the hon member for Randfontein had once said that he intended to make Soweto the most beautiful city in the Southern Hemisphere.

Is that so? Was I right?

We did not deny that. We claim he said that…

In Africa!

Was that right or wrong?

… but no one is as big as a person who admits he has made a mistake.

Was it a mistake? [Interjections.]

His eyes were opened but those people’s eyes have not been opened to date! [Interjections.]

I ask again why this NP apartheid policy failed. I shall tell you why. A few years ago they crucified the United Party because that party told them it could not work. They stated it would work. The United Party then said: “If we cannot break them, we shall join them, we shall join them and they will break themselves.” That is what happened there.

You also had your quota.

Hon members on that side of the House fragmented United Party policy. They accepted it over the years.

What does Chris de Jager say?

Sir, let me put it to you like this…

You are touching pitch!

… at the moment three former members of the United Party are sitting there as Deputy Ministers. [Interjections.] There are other hon members on this side of the House who have been in Parliament longer than they have but those hon members are Deputy Ministers. The other hon members were passed over.

Order! Which hon member referred to someone as having touched pitch? Who is touching pitch?

Mr Speaker, I was not referring to anyone in particular. I said: “Touching pitch.” [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member say “all of you” or “you” are touching pitch?

No, Sir, as I recall, I said: “Touching pitch.”

The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

The hon member for Carleton ville may proceed.

Sir, what do we find today? A coalition government! We find a coalition with the UP, the Coloureds and the Indians to govern us, White South Africa.

I foresee the day in the not too distant future when hon members on that side of the House will start forming a coalition with the PFP. [Interjections.] They are in process of adopting that party’s policy at the moment; that is why we hear pronouncements such as those of the hon member for Innesdal that we have to negotiate with the ANC. The Government did not take steps against that hon member. Before an election he was welcomed back into their ranks because they knew there would be hon members who would go with him if they took action against him. The example of the hon member for Randburg comes to mind.

We all know that party is drifting without a policy; they do not know which way they are going. Sir, I should like to give you an example. Last week in the standing committee of the Transvaal Provincial Administration hon members of the PFP moved an amendment comprising seven pages to a report. Can hon members imagine this? There were representatives from all three Houses. The NP representatives said it was unacceptable. Representatives of the PFP and those of the other two Houses challenged hon members of the NP to point out a single section in that report which they could claim not to be their policy. Up to the moment no one has risen to do so; they are therefore taking over the PFP policy as well. [Interjections.] That is why I foresee the day, no longer too distant, when the hon member for Yeoville will be our Minister of Finance—then another coalition will have taken place.

Are you a prophet?

I am a prophet, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order!

I also listened attentively to the hon nominated member Dr Geldenhuys, the former member for Randfontein. Like all the other hon members on that side of the House he once again alleged that the CP had said this or that but I want to tell the hon members that cowboys do not cry. It takes a man to admit that he has lost and then to confess that this happened because a better man had taken over there. [Interjections.]

Next I should next like to come to the hon member for Turffontein, but unfortunately I have to speak in the absence of some hon members. This hon member made a terrific fuss yesterday. [Interjections.] The reason is probably—I apologise to the hon member if it is not so—that as a UP member he crossed to the NP long ago in hopes of becoming a Deputy Minister or even a Minister but to date he has been passed over. [Interjections.] I think—and I do not believe I am wide of the mark—his speech yesterday was a “bitterbek” speech.

Bull’s-eye! [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon member may not say it was a “bitterbek” speech. The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

You had better withdraw your entire speech! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Turffontein accused people on this side of the House of having been UP members previously; a further accusation was that they were members of the AWB. He did not have the courage, however, to say that in his young days he was a member of the “fakkelkom-mando”.

Oh, so!

That is why he was not welcome among the “Ossewa-Brand-wag”.

I now wish to return to the hon member for Sasolburg. I have listened to him three times and on all three occasions he belaboured one point. He saw three sevens forming a propeller. His only subject is the AWB and hon members are accused of being members of that organisation.

Are you a member of the AWB?

That hon member can fall to his knees, however, and thank Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche for his life every day. He can thank him that he was unable to bring about an agreement between the CP and the HNP. If there had been an agreement, this hon member for Sasolburg would not have been sitting here but would have slid out in Sasolburg. Nevertheless he comes here and levels accusations about CP members who are supposedly members of the AWB.

What point are you trying to make?

I want to appeal to him civilly today to leave the AWB alone. [Interjections.]

Are you a member of the AWB?

Are you a member of the “Broederbond”?

I want to ask the hon member for Kimberley South whether he is one of those New Nats sitting in their thousands on that side of the House. [Interjections.]

I wish to close. There is constant reference to figures and one is exhorted to look at the scoreboard, but what does that scoreboard tell us? We are informed there are 123 Government representatives sitting on that side of the House but we are not told where they come from. Gone are the days when those hon members were proud to say they represented the White conservative voters of South Africa.

Yes!

We still do so!

No longer!

That is no longer the case. The conservative voters of South Africa repudiated the Government…

No, you are dreaming!

… because the Government has lost its way.

You now have all the verkramptes!

The Government no longer has White interests at heart which is why it was rejected. Let us see who the Government represents. PFP people represent the NP now.

Some of them are sitting there already.

How do you figure that out?

Durban Point, Hillbrow…

Jeppe.

Jeppe… [Interjections.] Bezuidenhout. All those places [Interjections.]—previously strong PFP seats—are now represented by the NP. [Interjections.]

I wish to close by saying that hon members on that side mentioned that they wished to negotiate. With whom do they want to negotiate? They place advertisements costing R75 000 in newspapers in which they invite Blacks to come and negotiate with them. They crawled and begged these people. But what happened? Did we find anyone who came forward and said he was prepared to negotiate? Even the Black no longer trusts the Government and does not wish to negotiate with it. This is how I want to put it this afternoon. That party lacks a policy. Until it reverts to its earlier ways and protects White interests it will be repudiated increasingly. The next people to be rejected are those who won by majorities of less than 1 000—which includes most hon NP members. [Interjections.]

You are one of them!

Mr Speaker, the first time I had the opportunity to see the hon member for Carletonville in the flesh was when he arrived in the House of Assembly. I had heard a great deal about him in the past, but now that I have seen and heard him I unfortunately have a slightly lower opinion of the hon fellow than I had before.

There are three kinds of people in the Official Opposition. There are the policy-makers, and the hon member for Randfontein is their leader. There are the rowdies and the hon member for Overvaal is their leader. I also classify the hon member for Carletonville as a rowdy. [Interjections.] In the third place there are the dreamers, and they are led by the hon member for Soutpansberg. They are the dreamers and the sleepers in the House. They see visions and are far removed from the realities.

The hon member for Carletonville made a long speech here but said very little. He also made a few mistakes, for example saying that there were 123 hon NP members, whereas there were actually 133. He was, therefore, out by ten.

No, those elected by the Progs!

The CP has 23 hon members. What worries me about the newcomers here is that listening to them one would think that they had won the election. The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis is one of those people. When I was listening to him the other day I got the impression that the hon member had not yet realised that the CP had lost. That hon member does not yet realise that the CP only represents one province.

Just wait until the next election!

Today the hon member spoke here about a coalition government on our side. I have, however, never heard of a coalition opposition. At the moment they represent a coalition of the HNP, the CP, the AWB and the old UP. This is, therefore, a coalition opposition, Sir. [Interjections.] The hon member for Carletonville used to support the HNP. Am I wrong when I say that? He is a deserter. He has now started speaking English and he is one of the people who brought in the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis to get the English vote.

As a mascot!

Yes, as a mascot. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Carletonville indicated how fearless his leader was, but I want to tell him that when he talks about fearlessness, he should listen to the speeches of his hon leader occasionally. The hon member said that we did not understand what the hon the leader was saying, and I agree with him. We do not understand what he is saying, because he does not say the same thing every day. He does not say “yes” and he does not say “no”, but he says yes and no”. That is why we do not understand him. We like people who talk plainly. The hon member for Randfontein speaks a little more plainly and that is why we are glad he has returned to this House.

The hon member makes dreadful statements here. The other day he said that it was not true that the Blacks could not find work, but that they did not want to find work. Now he says that he disagrees with the hon member for Randfontein, who is one of the policymakers, because he would not like to see Soweto as the most beautiful city. I want to tell this House what the NP believes. If we want peace in this country what the hon member for Randfontein said must become a reality.

What confuses us is that we are talking about a very important matter, namely partition. It is the policy of the Official Opposition. When we discuss partition, we become very confused. One aspect which is quite clear is land, and there is a battle being waged about land. We say that partition means the division of land, and the CP must please tell me today how this is going to be done. The hon member for Lichtenburg always criticised us when we tried to allocate land according to the 1936 legislation. The CP criticises us time and again and warns us that we are exceeding the quota. Every time we want to allocate land they make things difficult for us. But we have succeeded in allocating the land. This was our function and this is what we did.

Prof Boshoff said that they were going to divide South Africa drastically and radically. Now the policy-maker who speaks plainly, the hon member for Randfontein, has come along and made the following statement on the division of land in South Africa (Hansard, 21 May 1987, cols 266 and 267):

In the same speech the hon member also said:

The hon member then went on to say:

In this I read the redividing of South Africa. I want to ask the hon member for Carletonville whether he also sees it this way. Are we going to allow a further drastic and radical division of land to take place in South Africa in order to make partition possible in South Africa? Will we make it possible, in order to divide South Africa according to their policy, for South Africa to be divided in such a way that a fair division of land can be made between the 13 peoples? I want to ask the hon member for Ermelo, my namesake, whether I understood this correctly when I said that the hon member for Randfontein spoke about South Africa being drastically redivided. This is the policy I read in this. I want to add that we must speak plainly to the people outside when we talk about the division of land and about partition, so that our people can understand us.

I want to tell the hon member that the original land for Black people in South Africa was divided into different areas which constituted a small area of nine million hectares. An Act of this Parliament made it possible for 6,2 million hectares to be added to this area giving a total of 15 million hectares for the Black people. This had to be divided between 10 peoples. This is what we are doing at the moment, and we have almost carried out the NP’s policy in respect of the division of land in South Africa. We are completing that process. Those of us who are involved in this division in terms of the Consolidation Act of 1936 are in the process of completing our task. We experienced a great deal of opposition from that side of the House. Every time we allocated land to the Blacks, they said that it was Afrikaner land, that it was White land, and that we would get that land over their dead bodies. I want to ask those hon members very politely how much land they are going to allocate and with what money they are going to purchase it?

The hon the Minister sitting there can tell us that to get consolidation to where it is today has cost a couple of billion rands. We want to ask that hon Minister whether he has the money to implement the further consolidation contemplated by the hon member for Randfontein?

We will not buy.

The hon member says they do not want to buy. Then they must tell us clearly whether this is inclusive. Thus far, as a result of a lack of funds in the past, we have gone ahead and bought with Government stock. This gave rise to tremendous resistance among our people. Our people rightly said: “If you expropriate our land, you must pay for it. And you must pay with hard cash.”

I want to ask the hon members of the Official Opposition where they are going to get a few billion rand from to pay for this. Or are the hon members, because they do not have the necessary money to pay for it, simply going to include the people? The farmers to whom the land belongs need to know whether or not it is going to be included. We must know whether the towns are going to be included? After all we are acquainted with history. We know how much resistance we experienced from that quarter when we wanted to or did include towns. As we are now in the process of consolidating KaNgwane may I ask the hon member for Barberton whether he is in favour of the inclusion of towns.

Mr Speaker, seeing that I have battled for more than a year to get a reply from the NP, may I ask the hon member whether they have recommended that Barberton be included in KaNgwane? [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon member must wait a while. We have virtually finished and will make an announcement soon. According to the new policy the CP is now adopting, namely a policy of redividing South Africa, he should be in favour of the inclusion of Barberton. He should be glad if Barberton is included.

Do not talk nonsense. [Interjections.]

But that is what the hon member’s leader said.

While the commission is engaged in this we can always consider matters if the hon member were to ask for more towns in his constituency to be included. He must merely make this clear to us. [Interjections.] If we are to help them with partition, the hon member must be grateful if we do this. He must not attack us outside because we are including or excluding certain areas.

The work has virtually been completed and we are soon going to announce the land that is to go to KaNgwane and KwaZulu. Then I will be without a job, but South Africa will be happy. We worked on this for 50 years and that was long enough. We have to give what we have to, and then we will have finished giving, except that we will have to, find land for urban Blacks in South Africa. But as regards consolidation in terms of the 1936 Act we are finished and everyone, both Blacks and Whites, will be pleased that they know where they stand. The farmers would also like to know.

I should now like to ask the CP whether or not they are in favour of our finding more land on which people of colour living in urban areas can be settled, in consequence of the shortage of such land in South Africa. They said that they were opposed to us relinquishing more land. Because the CP does not want to relinquish any more town land I assume that they want to relinquish larger pieces of farming land to create states. This is their policy as I understand it.

The NP acted in a very responsible way under difficult conditions. It found the money and purchased the land. It is not easy for anyone if his land is taken away from him and I feel sorry for every farmer we moved off his land. No one would like to relinquish their land but we persisted and have virtually completed the process. The CP can now tell us whether they are going to start up that process again because to me partition means the division of land. I would be glad if the hon members would reply to me on this.

The hon members must fully comprehend that as far as we are concerned influx control has been abolished forever. We are going to allow people to sell their labour and move about freely in South Africa. As far as we are concerned enforced removals in South Africa are a thing of the past. We say it is in the interests of everyone in South Africa for people to own land and that is why this Government has made it possible for Black people to own the plots of land on which their homes stand.

The CP says we must create fatherlands for Black people. In the vicinity of Morgenson, which according to them is the starting point of the White homeland, 73% of the people are Black. They want to shift people on a large scale, but one must face up to the present situation in South Africa. Approximately 16% of the people in the Free State are White, the rest are Black. In other words, according to the CP’s policy of partition 80% of the people are going to be moved. The same applies in the other provinces—Transvaal and the Free State. Now it seems to me as if the hon member for Randfontein is going to lose his argument and Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche is going to win his as regards the “Boerestaat”. They are going to run away, in the same way that they ran away from their constituencies, and they are going to tell the people that they must stay, because that “Boerestaat” is the White state.

In conclusion I want to say one thing, namely that we must be consistent in South Africa. Recently a man told me that we must remove the 10 million Blacks from White RSA. I asked him whether we should remove all of them. He then said that we should leave a few of them to work for him. If those hon members want to be consistent and want to talk about a White state and Boerestaat, they must say that no person of colour must enter that state. Otherwise they will never solve the problem, because they will never succeed in moving those 10 million people who are living inside the borders of the RSA. That is why we say the CP’s policy of partition is not honest, because they cannot implement it. I should also like a reply with regard to the division of land.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to my feet after the hon member for Vryheid’s speech. The hon member for Vryheid not only made an excellent speech, but last weekend he was also unanimously elected chairman of the NP in Natal.

Hear, hear!

At the outset allow me to thank the hon members on this side of the House—and in particular the Natal caucus of the NP—for the confidence they shown in me by electing me to this House. As a businessman who has always had a lively interest in politics, it is a great privilege and honour for me to serve my country in this way.

I should like to accentuate a few aspects in connection with the small business sector. The importance of this sector to our national economy is self-evident to this House. I do, however, want to refer to what Pope Pius XI said in 1949:

The truth embodied in these words is emphasised by the magnitude of the small business sector throughout the world. In Japan small business undertakings are estimated to constitute 99,4% of all business undertakings. In West Germany this figure is 85% and in the USA virtually 97%, while here in South Africa it is estimated at 75%. Of more importance, owing to our country’s unique geographic and population composition, is the ability of this sector to generate work. In the USA it is estimated that this sector provides 60% of all employment opportunities in the private sector. In Japan this figure is estimated at 80% and in West Germany at 66%.

In addition the small business sector makes an important contribution to the development of entrepreneurs. In the USA the ratio of entrepreneurs to the labour force is 14%, whereas in the Republic of South Africa it is estimated at only 3%. In brief what this means is that the small business sector forms the economic backbone of a nation. It is, therefore, important that this sector be stabilised and developed to its full potential.

Now I want to say at once that we are grateful for what has been done in this connection, inter alia by organisations like the Council for the Promotion of Small Business, the Small Business Development Corporation, several of our universities and so on. Owing to a lack of time I shall have to press on, although I would have liked to dwell for a moment on what each of these organisations do. What is, however, causing concern is the apparent defencelessness of small business undertakings in the face of external economic factors which adversely affect them. Their inability to survive during periods of recession is clear from the statistics in connection with liquidations and insolvencies.

I should like to quote statistics in this regard from the figures of the Central Statistical Services. In 1980 the number of liquidations of companies and close corporations totalled 1 441. In 1985 this figure was an alarming 3 061. Over the same period the number of insolvencies—this involves private individuals and partnerships—totalled 1 003 in 1980, while it was an alarming 3 221 in 1985. It is, therefore, clear that something must be done to make it possible for small business undertakings to improve their liquidity. They must be able to build up adequate capital reserves to see them through the lean years. In this connection I should also like to address a request to the hon the Minister of Finance. I want to ask him—if recommendations in this connection are not already contained in the Margo Commission Report—to consider adjusting tax measures in such a way as to help the small business sector.

What I have in mind here is that the small businessman should be accommodated in a way similar to that applying in the Republic of China, for example. In terms of this arrangement the maximum tax rate only comes into force on an income above a specific amount. I am convinced that such a step will also be beneficial to the Treasury in the medium and long term.

In conclusion I want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Finance, and his department, on a well-balanced Budget, considering the demands made on them.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in congratulating the hon member Mr Hattingh on his maiden speech. Not only do I want to congratulate him, but I should also like to thank him for choosing the subject of small business enterprises. I must admit that that is a subject about which I know very little. I thank the hon member, therefore, for having enlightened me. I know much more about this subject now than I did before the hon member began his speech. I hope his future speeches will be just as informative. That would definitely be of great help to hon members in this House. I congratulate him sincerely and wish him everything of the best.

Mr Speaker, there were three speeches this week which I found very important and interesting. These speeches were delivered during the debate on the own affairs Budget as well as during the debate on the Main Budget of the hon the Minister of Finance. I am delighted to see that the hon members who made these three speeches are all present in the House this afternoon. Considering the political convictions of those of us on this side of the House, we can differ with those hon members and, fortunately, also conduct a debate with them.

In the first place, I want to refer to the speech the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare made on Monday afternoon. After that I want to refer to the speech made by the hon member for Innesdal; and last, but not least, to that made by the hon member for Langlaagte. I believe these three hon gentlemen would do well to go and read their speeches again. Having listened to their speeches, I cannot understand why they are still on that side of the House. In view of the principles and convictions they expressed in those speeches, I find it difficult to believe that they can still feel at home om that side of the House.

Sooner or later you will also come and sit on this side of the House! [Interjections.]

In the short time at my disposal, I should like to refer to one of those speeches, the one made by the hon member for Langlaagte. He broached a few subjects, but time does not allow me to discuss all of them. Basically he spoke about apartheid and the franchise, and offered an explanation of his opinion on those subjects. He makes very interesting speeches and it is always a pleasure for me to listen to him; probably because he is a doctor, like me—we are highly intelligent! [Interjections.] I want to quote the words he used when he spoke about apartheid. I think he was a little disapproving of it. I quote:

I want to repeat the word “past”—

He went on to argue that we should rather talk about simlarities, and referred to religion as an example of a point of similarity. He could also have referred to language, culture, geography, profession, and other matters as points of similarity. I want him to tell me what they are saying now to prove that their policy is the right one if, in the past, they referred to colour, “the structure of the hair, and Heaven knows what else” to prove that their “policy was the right one”. Why is he sitting in this House, and not in the House of Delegates or the House of Representatives? Why is he living in a White area and not in an Indian or Black area?

I did not say there was no difference.

Why may he swim in the ocean in Port Elizabeth whereas the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives may not? Why can he be treated in the White ward at Groote Schuur Hospital whereas Chief Minister Buthelezi has to be accommodated in the Black ward? Is it because of religious differences? Is he perhaps a Christian whereas some of them are not? Is it because of language differences? Is he Afrikaansspeaking whereas they are not? Is it because he is a doctor who is perhaps more learned than they are? No. I quote him once more:

The hon member may sit here because he is White; he may live in his residential area because he is White; he may swim in the ocean in Port Elizabeth because he is White; and he may be treated in the White ward at Groote Schuur Hospital because he is White. He cannot tell me, therefore, that the differences are not because of colour. It is certainly not because of these “wonderful” similarities of ours that he pointed out.

He must also agree with me that the Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act on the Statute Book are all the result of skin colour, the structure of the hair and “Heaven knows what else”. That is the only reason; he cannot disagree with me about that. I should like to ask him, the hon member for Innesdal, and the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare to debate this with me later on—we do not have time now—and prove me wrong. [Interjections.] How can the hon member talk about differences in the colour and about apartheid “in the past”? As far as I am concerned, that is still the NP’s policy today and will be its policy in future.

Unfortunately, in view of the last election on 6 May—I do not say this gladly—that is the policy that most White South Africans believe in. They believe that is the basis on which this country’s laws are made is one of apartheid and discrimination.

†I concede that, like the PFP, the NP is searching for a political solution in South Africa by means of a negotiated constitution that will allow all South Africans to be first of all citizens of South Africa; secondly, to have the vote in South Africa; and thirdly, to participate in decision-making at the highest level. I concede that that party and this party are both searching for such a solution. However, I would like to argue for the rest of my speech that we in the PFP clearly state how we see this. They may disagree with us; I accept that, but we state clearly how we see this future whereas the NP has not told us yet how they will allow participation in decision-making at the highest level.

I would like to ask the hon member…[Interjections.] No, the hon member can ask me a question later. Is this full participation going to be in this Parliament? We say “yes”. Can they say “yes”?

Not in this Parliament. That has not been decided at the moment.

Now, Sir, that is very interesting. Who is going to decide where this participation is going to be? Is it to be the Coloureds, the Blacks and the Asians or the Whites? [Interjections.]

*Such negotiation is concerned with something that is not negotiable. They may not be here. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon member a question.

Certainly, Sir, it will be easy.

Is the hon member not aware that we are going to debate legislation with regard to the National Statutory Council during this session?

Is it going to be a new Parliament?

I know that, and if I am given the chance, I shall gladly participate. We shall be just as much at cross purposes then as we are now.

†May I now prove to the NP Government that they are on the road to failure and direct them on the correct road. I want to draw on my past experience as a medical doctor. When I am consulted by a patient—and the hon member for South Coast can come to me as a patient; I am a good doctor—my first duty is to make a diagnosis and then to treat him. Now I would like to tell the hon the Minister of Finance who must feel right out of it that he can use this principle in his Budget too. The first principle of treatment is to remove the cause.

But doctors have been known to be wrong.

Your job is to bury our mistakes! The first principle is to remove the cause. To give an example, if one goes to the dentist with toothache it is no good his just filling the tooth; he must remove the cause of the ache. He must first drill out the infection and then do the filling. To put it much more bluntly, if one has bleeding piles it will not help to take out one’s tonsils. One has to do a haemarroidectomy. One has to remove the cause.

When we look at South Africa’s political doctors, how do they handle the cause of our problems? First of all, I think the party on that side and this party will agree that the disease is racial discrimination. That is the disease South Africa is suffering from. Racial discrimination is the disease. Having diagnosed the disease that is racial discrimination, how do the various political doctors go about curing it? The CP doctors on my right will not be offended when I say that I doubt if they would even make the diagnosis. They want to treat this patient by cutting him up into pieces, by partitioning him. They want to amputate his legs, they want to amputate his arms, disembowel him, take his heart out and then, if they are still not happy, they will cut his head off. That is how they want to deal with South Africa. Neither the patient, his relatives or his friends will allow them to cut South Africa up into pieces. Secondly, if they should succeed, there is only one answer and that is death, catastrophe and failure. They cannot succeed.

Now I would like to deal with the NP doctors. They have diagnosed the disease of South Africa. They call it the same as we do—apartheid. Those members know that this racial discrimination cannot continue. They have admitted it.

The hon member for Vryheid said here today that one must be consistent. Racial discrimination is the disease, but what do they do? They change the name. They think this disease can be cured by changing its name. First of all they called it apartheid; then plural development—that sounds like a lung condition; then segmental differentiation; then own and general affairs; then city states—that sounds like a soccer team; and now their latest favourite is group identity, that buzzword of theirs. However, all these new names have the same meaning, namely racial discrimination, and they have not removed the cause of South Africa’s disease. [Interjections.]

That is why we in the PFP are brilliant doctors; we are dedicated and hard-working. We diagnosed this disease right at the beginning and set as a priority the removal of the cause. When we come into power we will scrap all racial discriminatory laws in South Africa.

It does not have only one cause; there are more than one.

I want to ask the hon member for Langlaagte if he will support the scrapping of all racial laws in South Africa.

As far as is practically possible. [Interjections.]

Well, we will. I would like to ask the Government how they can have a successful new constitution if they want to build a mistake into a new constitution. That is what the Government are doing. They want to reform and negotiate by building group identity and racial discrimination in as a principle—the cause of the problems and failures of our present Constitution. [Interjections.] No, I have nearly finished my speech.

Therefore, this Government cannot negotiate a future constitution for South Africa. It is totally impossible to negotiate on a failure and have success. That is what the Government want to do. They want to go to Black leaders and say: Let us negotiate a new constitution, but the failure, racial discrimination, group identity, is to be part of it.

So, in the last instance, they cannot have reform because the cornerstone of their reform is still the failure of the past—the failure of South Africa and the failure of our society which is recognised by them and by us—racial discrimination!

Mr Chairman, as always, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon member for Parktown, but I would like to say that I think we are really in desperate need of a second opinion as far as his diagnosis is concerned! [Interjections.] As a matter of fact, I think the patient must die after such a diagnosis.

The hon member for Parktown is always interesting to listen to; there is no doubt about that. He started off by quoting three hon members on this side of the House, the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare and the hon members for Innesdal and Langlaagte, but he never got to the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare, and he never really got to the hon member for Innesdal.

I said I did not have enough time.

The point, however, which we should address is his diagnosis, because according to him the disease, the cause of everything, is racial discrimination. Is that correct?

Yes.

Why then should there be necklacing? Is it because of racial discrimination? [Interjections.] Do hon members think that one Black would necklace another Black because of racial discrimination?

It is a symptom.

Nonsense! [Interjections.] What utter nonsense! [Interjections.] This is a naïve view of the situation in South Africa.

If the hon member for Parktown does not think there is group identity in this country, he is walking around blindly. He mentioned a few anthropological identities of certain races, but he should know better than anybody else because he must have studied anthropology in his first year or otherwise he skipped it. If he skipped it he should go back to his first year, because this is the basis of what we have in South Africa. Nobody can deny it. [Interjections.] As a matter of fact, for his edification as far as the latest census in Soweto is concerned—I think we should educate the hon member for Parktown—the individuals in that particular area and not the Government, classified themselves as 9 000 Xhosas, 285 000 Zulus, 57 000 Swazis, 133 000 Southern Sothos, etc. Now the hon member for Parktown would say that that is racial discrimination, but these are the forms which these citizens of Soweto filled in themselves. So it is utter nonsense and a typical PFP wrong statement. [Interjections.]

Let me deal with the situation. He should have made another diagnosis and that is that the PFP is a dying breed. I do not know whether he listened to what I said the other day. They are becoming smaller and smaller. We see just a few of them sitting there, but still the hon member for Houghton has the temerity to say that she has been bored to tears by the debate in this House. [Interjections.] What she does not know, is that the voters are bored to tears by their party and that is why they are such a small number. [Interjections.] She said that the duty of that small number of liberals was to expose the excesses of the police. Has anybody heard her congratulate the SA Police in all the years that she has been here? I have not. Has anybody else heard her? [Interjections.]

She did so today. Where were you?

I did not hear it, but I most definitely did hear her talking about the excesses. The point is that the hon member for Houghton said that there are “many detainees under psychiatric treatment”. This is a most grave accusation. The hon member for Houghton said that there are many detainees under psychiatric treatment, but she did not mention her source and I think this House should demand to know it. I would like to know before the end of this debate what her source is so that I can investigate it as the Minister responsible for the health of these people. It is a very important allegation she made. [Interjections.] We want to know what the source is and where it is so that it can be followed up. I do not think that anybody can make a statement like that. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question?

When I have finished. [Interjections.] The point that I would like to make is that before the end of this debate the hon member for Houghton should make a statement in this House disclosing her source of information on these many detainees that are being treated as psychiatric patients, their number and where they are being detained so that I can follow it up as it is my responsibility. [Interjections.]

I think she should do it forthwith. [Interjections.]

*We must take this a little further. I want to turn to another aspect. The hon member for Carletonville is an exceptional hon member who has made an outstanding contribution here this afternoon. He takes an exceptional view of matters. I must say, his vision is a little clouded for a prophet. [Interjections.] If I remember correctly, the hon member for Brakpan said very engagingly on television that if the CP came to power, trade unions would be abolished. I think I heard him correctly.

Black trade unions.

I think he was talking about all trade unions.

No, you heard incorrectly.

The hon member says it applies only to Black trade unions. [Interjections.] What is important in this regard, is the question as to whether this applies only to the Black trade unions and whether the Black trade unions, like the White trade unions, make an important contribution. Will the hon member for Carletonville be able to convince the hon member for Brakpan that there are also some radical White trade unions, just as some of our extra-parliamentary coalitions are radical? He has only spoken about the coalitions within this House, but there are also coalitions outside the House. We know about the very strong sympathy on the part of the PFP towards the ANC, and the strong sympathy of the CP towards the AWB, and apparently towards the BWB. [Interjections.] Therefore we must discuss this aspect in conjunction with the issue of trade unions, and we should like to hear the viewpoint of the prophet, the hon member for Carletonville, in this regard at some stage or other. We shall be speaking at great length about trade unions in this debate.

We must also talk once again about section 2.3.4 of the policy of the CP. I quote to hon members from the Programme of Principles and Policy of the CP, in which the following is stated:

There is only one way in the world in which one can control this sort of influx, and that is by building a wall like the one between East and West Berlin.

What about Mozambique?

That is the only way. [Interjections.] There is no other way to do it. Other methods, such as those employed in Mozambique, do not work.

I can appreciate that it would be possible in those 13 states. [Interjections.] I can understand that one could build that type of wall around 13 states. I appreciate that it is possible and that we could man it with a semi-military group. I think we all know who would man it. I just want to point out that it would cost the taxpayer of this country a great deal.

The NP says there is only one way to solve the problem, and that is by creating job opportunities. The NP says it is not possible to control the influx of people in search of work.

There is one last point I want to make. When we talk about the influx of other peoples to the White RSA, which according to section 2.3.4. of the CP’s policy will be strictly controlled, we must also look at another very important section, namely section 12 (d) of the policy of that extra-parliamentary group which is so closely linked to the CP, a section in which the following is stated:

They speak about “volksvreemde persone of organisasies”. Their land will therefore be expropriated. Sir, I think the voters of this country deserve an answer in this regard.

Finally I want to come back to the hon member for Parktown. The hon member had a great deal to say the other day about health in the RSA. I want to give him some efficacious medicine during the course of the debate so that he may discover that our health situation in South Africa is not, after all, as bad as he thinks it is.

Let us now take a look at what the World Health Organisation expects of us.

†As regards the targets which the WHO has identified as health targets to be reached in order to obtain health for all by the year 2000, I would like to tell the hon member that at the present moment we in South Africa spend at least 5% of our gross national product on health. In the United States of America it is 11,3%. We spend 5,8% but the World Health Organisation wants us to spend 5% by the year 2000. It is important to note that we already spend 5,8%.

The World Health Organisation anticipates a life expectancy at birth of over 60 years by the year 2000. The South African average is 63 years and that of the Blacks 58 years. As far as the infant mortality rate for all groups is concerned, the World Health Organisation wants it to be below 50 per 1 000 live births by the year 2000. The South African average is 55 and the Black average 80. We want it to be fewer than 10.

As regards immunisation against diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, poliome-lytis and tuberculosis, the percentage that the WHO wants by the year 2000 is 100%. Under one year in South Africa BCG we have at the present moment 95%; measles—67%; polio-melytis—76%.

These facts are impressive by any standards. What is more, the WHO which castigates South Africa wants safe water in the home or within 15 minutes’ walking distance…

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

Mr Chairman, I am in the middle of a sentence. Could the hon member calm down a little?

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

The WHO also wants adequate sanitary facilities in the home or immediate vicinity. The WHO wants this to be achieved by the year 2000.

In the towns this is 100% but in our rural areas in South Africa it is already 73%. What is even more impressive is that as regards the adult literacy rate the WHO wants it to exceed 70% by the year 2000. Our average is already 76% and the Black average 67%.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are making progress as far as our health services are concerned, we are making progress as far as our constitutional development is concerned and we are making progress on this side of the House in that we have the support of the majority of the people of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, today it is also a very great privilege, a very great honour and a moment of great note for me to be permitted to say a few words, for the first time, in this highest of Houses in the Republic of South Africa.

Please allow me, firstly, to pay tribute to my predecessor, ex-Minister Sarel Hayward. He is a man who is held in great esteem, not only by me, but also by every hon member of this House; a man with a tremendous love of the Karoo and its plant-life, a man whose name will go down in history for his efforts to check the deterioration in our natural grazing. He is a man who, with the assistance of Mrs Hayward, could very successfully lead the life of a public figure. I want to express the hope that ex-Minister and Mrs Hayward will gain the same satisfaction from their retirement as they did from public life.

I have the privilege of representing here the Graaff-Reinet constituency in the Karoo. Whenever the Karoo is mentioned, the average South African sees, in his mind’s eye, a dry and desolate region, with here and there an isolated farmhouse, windmill and dam dotting the landscape. So permit me briefly, Sir, to take hon members in this House back in history—approximately 250 million years.

At that time Africa, together with South America, Madagascar, Australia, Antarctica and India, formed part of a supercontinent known as Gondwanaland. As a result of continental drift, a geological process, these areas moved away from one another. At the time, ie 250 million years ago, the Karoo consisted of marshy rivers and flood-plains, overgrown with gigantic waterplants, ferns and trees.

Amongst these prehistoric plants lived gigantic prehistoric animals, gigantic carnivores such as Anteosaurus, which was three metres in length, and massive herbivores such as Tapinochephalus, Bradysaurus and Mos-chops. An interesting fact is that this Mos-chops was very thick-skulled. Paleontologists are of the opinion that this can be ascribed to the fact that they were forever butting their heads together, as in fact many reptiles and mammals and human beings still do today. Now, one wonders whether that cannot teach us the lesson that bumping one’s head too often leads to one’s becoming thick-skulled, which would have a negative effect on one’s reasoning ability! [Interjections.]

The Karoo experienced a period of volcanic activity 190 million years ago. Subsequently there was a new wave of inhabitants—even more gigantic and spectacular than their predecessors. I am referring here to Massospondylus, an earlier South African dinosaur which was six metres in length. The largest dinosaur, however, was Melanosaurus, which was 12 metres in length.

If hon members of the House have some difficulty in forming a picture of the Karoo I am now speaking about, they would do well to pay a visit to the South African museum here in Cape Town. One can also see beautiful examples of these Karoo fossils in a museum on the farm, Wellwood, belonging to the Rubidge family in the Graaff-Reinet district. Mr Sidney Rubidge, in fact, received an honorary doctorate from the University of the Witwatersrand for his contribution to paleontology.

It is therefore not to be wondered at that a leading American paleontologist referred to the Karoo as one of the greatest natural wonders of the world—even greater and more impressive than the man-made pyramids of Egypt and the hanging gardens of Babylon.

Today the only evidence of the existence of these prehistoric animals is provided by their fossilised remains discovered by paleontologists. The lesson to be learned from this is that those prehistoric animals who could not adapt, died out.

Let me come back to this natural wonder, my constituency comprising a 50 000 square kilometre section of it. We must continually adapt in order to survive. We must adapt to difficult climatic conditions, higher input costs and interest, and also to pests and plagues such as the Karoo caterpillar and the brown locust.

One of the major problems, however, is the White depopulation of the rural areas. In this regard I want to refer hon members to the statistics relating to Graaff Reinet, where the White population of the town and of the district decreased from 6 300 in 1960 to 5 000 in 1980. The comparable figures for Middelburg are 4 000 and 2 600 respectively and those for Willowmore 2 300 and 1 200 respectively.

At present serious attempts are being made to halt this process. In this regard I should like to pay tribute to Dr George Craven and his wife who established the organisation Roep, “Red Ons Eie Platteland”, in 1982. This organisation, with its 1 500 members, has succeeded in increasing the White population in several Karoo towns. One of our major tasks, in our struggle, is the preservation of our rural schools. In order to have our children, who already leave home at six years of age, with us at least for the weekends, we must preserve these schools. For the sake of having well-adjusted citizens and leaders for the Republic, it is important to preserve these schools.

That is why we are making major efforts to bring children in from the cities, in our case from Port Elizabeth. These are frequently children of unemployed parents who must seize this opportunity, in the majority of cases intelligent, lovely children who, in the rural environment, develop into well-adjusted members of society.

This, however, places a great financial burden on the small communities. These children must be supplied not only with school clothes and Bibles, but frequently also with toothbrushes and pocket money.

The major problem, which is virtually insurmountable, involves transporting these children to and from their homes. Buses are needed for this, and to replace such a bus is simply no longer within the financial capabilities of these small rural communities. We therefore trust that assistance in solving this problem will be forthcoming from the authorities, because this would be to the benefit of the rural schools and the underprivileged children from the cities.

Unfortunately we also have problems with the tremendous cost of electricity and water, and also the curtailed train and bus services which adversely affect our postal services. We therefore believe that the maintenance of these services and the infrastructure in the rural areas cannot only be assessed on the basis of their economic justifiability. Help the rural areas to help themselves and this would be to the benefit of the country. The depopulation of the rural areas opens up avenues for communist infiltration. Less than two weeks ago we came upon terrorist weapons between Aberdeen and Murraysburg.

We do not, however, have only problems in the Graaff-Reinet constituency. For example, since the establishment of the NP in 1915 this constituency has been Nationalist, and from 1915 to the present day it has always been represented by a Nationalist in this House—something we are very proud of.

The principle town, Graaff-Reinet, is one of the most historical towns in our country. Last year it held its bi-centennial celebrations. It is a town with beautiful buildings and monuments which have been restored, for example Reinet House, the Drostdy Hotel, the adjoining Stretch Court and the Hester Rupert Art Museum. It is a constituency in which wool-farming and angora goat farming are the main branches of the industry.

It is a constituency with a world-renowned college, the Grootfontein Agricultural College. The constituency also has the Graaff-Reinet Teachers’ Training College which, until quite recently, was where virtually all the farmers in the Karoo happened to meet their well-trained and well-adjusted wives. [Interjections.] In the use that will be made of this college in future, we shall again have to include more women; otherwise I foresee major problems and disparities in my part of the world. [Interjections.]

†We also have a significant number of English-speaking people in the Graaff-Reinet constituency. They are mainly descendants of the 1820 British Settlers. They are successful farmers and owners of the best angora goat studs in the world. I am referring to the Hobsons, the Fritzhenrys, the Cawoods, the Nashes, the Hendersons, the Kingwills etc. They are open-minded, thinking, intelligent people, who support the process of reform in the Republic of South Africa. They even want the pace of reform to be speeded up if possible.

*Mr Chairman, these 10 000 voters who I have the honour of representing here, have great expectations for the future. Even though some of them oppose the NP, this House, and I myself, must not disappoint them. I think it is possible to ensure a safe and prosperous future, not only for them, but also for every other inhabitant of this country. This can only be done, however, with the assistance, the wisdom and the insight of the Almighty. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon member for Graaff-Reinet on his maiden speech. I think that he did a very good job of bringing the excellent qualities of his constituency to the attention of this House, also mentioning the names of certain people who have rendered outstanding service in his community. I find it striking that we had two maiden speeches, ie that of the hon member for Brits on this side of the House and that of the hon member for Graaff-Reinet, both advocating the continued existence of our smaller farm schools. I think this underlines the importance of this sector of education in South Africa.

We are now coming to the end of a very important debate. In fact, as far as I can judge, this probably ought to be one of the most important debates of this session. I see only one hon Cabinet Minister sitting over there, however, and that is an hon Minister of the Ministers' Council. My contention is that the Cabinet is in the process of downgrading Parliament. They are in the process of downgrading the House of Assembly and Parliament as a whole and lowering the esteem of the highest legislative and executive authority in South Africa. In the course of my speech I shall be motivating this on the basis of speeches delivered in this House last week. [Interjections.]

Just before the hon member for Graaff-Reinet spoke, we had two doctors trying to give a political diagnosis of our situation here. The hon member for Parktown is a heart surgeon and I attach great value to his diagnosis when it comes to heart disorders. The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development is a gynaecologist by profession, and I attach great value to his diagnosis when it comes to diseases suffered by women. For both their diagnoses of the political situation in South Africa, however, I do not have a very high regard. To say the least, I think those diagnoses are useless. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Parktown’s diagnosis is that the basic political disease in South Africa is discrimination. He says that if one wants to combat that illness, one should remove discrimination, because then one would be removing the cause. The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development did not get round to a political diagnosis at all. We on this side of the House say that South Africa’s political disease lies in the struggle of separate peoples for political power in South Africa. That is the root cause of our problem. The only way of eradicating that, is to eradicate the cause, and we find the cause in those seats opposite me. Those individuals are the cause of the powerstruggle between peoples to get their hands on political power. Let me tell hon members that the South African electorate will eventually diagnose this disease and its cause, too, and remove the cause, ie the NP, from the Government benches of South Africa. [Interjections.]

In regard to this constitutional dispensation, which has not yet been in operation for three years, and which is presented as the magic formula for a safe future for us and for our children, some individuals have had a rude awakening. Those who voted for it, the yes-voters, those credulous individuals who said “yes” at the time, have had a rude awakening. We see them every day. They come to us and say: “We voted yes in the referendum, and look at what has happened now.”

Was there not an election on 6 May?

I am still coming to that hon member. [Interjections.] One recalls the slogans just prior to the referendum. There were slogans such as: “Vote for orderly reform and reasonableness” and “Vote for economic, political and social stability.” Where is South Africa’s economic stability? Is there stability when a country’s expenditure exceeds its revenue by R8,4 billion? Is it stability if the inflation rate is 15% and 18%? Is it stability when a former Director-General says: “This country is technically bankrupt”?

Do you not understand that yet? Shame!

The hon the Minister of Finance will have a turn, a lengthy one.

I have explained that many times, but you do not want to understand!

We have had to listen to “Vote for security, freedom and prosperity throught justice.” Freedom in South Africa? We now have a state of emergency which, after a year, has been extended for a certain period without any break. Speaking of that—we have learned today of an ANC announcement on Radio Freedom that the UDF is an instrument established and used by the ANC and that it has close ties with that organisation. We want to tell the Government: If that is the case, the Government must tell us what it is going to do with this organisation which has now been pinpointed by the ANC as having close ANC ties.

During the referendum we had to listen to “Vote yes for South Africa”. This slogan also appeared in pamphlets and on posters. Conservative Afrikaners, for example those in Hercules, were hoodwinked. They were pacified with categoric statements such as those which appeared in the pamphlets of the hon member for Hercules. He still remembers that. What was stated in those pamphlets? It was stated that the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act would be retained and not be jeopardised in any way. [Interjections.] It was stated that the policy of separate development was being reaffirmed by the Constitution. It was stated that Black people could never be included in this dispensation. Three years have elapsed since then. After we told them, in fact warned them, countless times that Black people would unavoidably have to become part of this dispensation if the principle of undivided citizenship in an undivided South Africa with one umbrella government in which everyone has a say were to be accepted. On that occasion the NP said that those were lies. At that juncture the hon the Minister of National Education appeared on a platform before an audience at Tukkies and gave the assurance that it had never been part of the Government’s pattern of thinking, philosophy or intention that the so-called urban Blacks should be included in a joint dispensation with Whites, Coloureds and Asians. He went on to say the following—it is a pity he is not here this afternoon, because he would not have denied it:

He was referring to the CP, which was then only a few days old. Barely five years ago, and still within the mandate period of the NP’s 1981 manifesto, this hon Minister made a statement. He was holding the customary meeting behind closed doors in the Innesdale constituency and made certain statements there. I quote from Beeld of 9 March:

The report went on to state:

In other words, the redistribution of wealth. The Minister went on to say, and this is in quotes, so I take it his words were being reported verbatim:

Now, after the election, the NP says it has obtained the mandate for power-sharing with Black people. The question is, however, how one will achieve this democratically, without domination. How does one guarantee minority rights in an undivided South Africa? That is the big question which was not answered in the election and which has not been answered in this debate either. I say it is not possible.

There is one Minister on that side who also said that it was not possible, and I am referring to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. On 4 July of last year he addressed a meeting in Witbank and, according to Die Volksblad, said during question-time:

In other words, according to the hon the Minister the protection of minority rights in an undivided country is therefore not possible. I think that Minister was right. He was also correct in the answer he gave to a question put to him at a Press conference for foreign correspondents. The question was: Would you have any objection, in principle, to serving under a Black president? The hon the Minister said, amongst other things:

That was last year, but let us have a look at more recent statements by Cabinet members. I again want to quote a statement to indicate how this links up with statements made last week by other Cabinet members. This is the statement made by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid on 28 April at Brits. I quote from Beeld of 30 April:

Later he goes on to say:

In the censure debate the hon the Minister of Manpower, after dealing with the NP manifesto and saying, amongst other things, that structures would have to be created and developed to facilitate consultation and power-sharing, said (Hansard, House of Assembly: 1987 (2), col 59):

Here he was referring to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. The hon the Minister went on to say:

Not in “this” Parliament…

That is correct, and I am now specifically coming to the hon Minister who is getting so worked up. Just before I do so, let me say that two days later—that was Friday, 22 May—the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, in reply to an interjection from the hon member for Randfontein, who asked whether there would also be Blacks in the Cabinet, replied (col 370):

The hon the Minister says it is not Parliament.

Not this Parliament!

That is the point. It is another structure.

I shall reply to you on that issue next week.

It is not this Parliament. At the end of his speech I asked the hon the Minister of the Budget whether Black people could be represented in Parliament by even a majority of members. The hon the Minister then rightly said: “I never used the the word Parliament.” The hon member Prof Olivier also referred to that. This hon Minister is therefore saying that in a future dispensation—I have quoted a few of them here—Blacks are going to hold office or have a say in a higher legislative authority than at present. I now want to ask whether these people sitting in this Parliament will form part of the electoral college and whether the electoral college will be chosen from that new higher body which is to be established. The present situation is such that there are 50 members from this House of Assembly, 25 from the second chamber and 13 from the third chamber. So there are 50 representatives of the Whites in this country as against 38 for the others. So there is a difference of 12. The question is now whether there will be fewer or more than 12 Black members in such an electoral college. I think it would be a good thing for the hon the Minister to give us an answser to that question.

I shall reply at a later stage.

If there are going to be fewer than 12 Black members, let me ask on what basis 20 million Black people, citizens of South Africa, can have the smallest representation in such an electoral college. If there are going to be more than 12 Black members, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon member for Randburg and the Afrikaner Broederbond circular, which the hon member for Langlaagte dealt with here, were surely correct in alleging that the majority of the members of that higher legislative authority could be Black people and that there could therefore be a Black State President. Do hon members opposite wish to argue about that?

It is not this system…

They are as silent as the grave. I think the time has come for the Government to spell out the logical consequences of its envisaged new dispensation. Firstly I have three questions, in particular—I hope the hon the Minister of Finance will respond to this: Where is the highest legislative authority in South Africa going to be established? What will the highest executive authority look like? How is it going to be constituted? How are the voters going to be represented in it on a democratic basis? How are the freedoms of the various peoples in the same country, in the same territory, going to be dealt with? In this House last week the hon the Minister of National Education dealt with the question of the freedom of the respective groups—minority groups, as hon members on the Government side refer to the respective population groups of South Africa these days. In the debate on the own affairs appropriation last Friday he said:

A little further on he states:

What the hon the Minister of National Education is therefore saying is that they also want to lead other peoples to freedom in a territory in which, as he says, we already have that freedom. He says we must grant everyone freedom in the same country. Physically that is simply not possible—not in the same territory. It is impossible in an undivided South Africa. The solution lies in partition, in a division of political power—a complete division of political power for each people interested in such division.

We on this side of the House cannot and do not want to speak for either the Coloureds, the Asians or the Black people. We do not, as the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs said, want to force them into a partitioned South Africa. That is their own affair. They can speak on their own behalf; they can speak for themselves. But—and I say this with the strongest possible emphasis—we seek our own freedom on behalf of our people. We seek our own full-fledged freedom, without interference in our own fatherland, which rightly and historically belongs to us. We on this side of the House will never cease in our struggle to achieve that, not before we have won the day.

The wave of Afrikaner nationalism backing us up will eventually win the day in South Africa once again. [Interjections.] This ideal is only possible with a policy of partition. The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare has said that partition has never been NP policy. Let me just remind him of the booklet, Vrugte van die Nasionale Bewind.

Listen, Dawie!

After 25 years of NP Government—this policy has continued in existence so that it would also be true for more than 30 years of NP government—that was the standpoint. On page 37, under the heading “Die Volkerebeleid van die Nasionale Party”—I think hon members know what I am talking about when I say that the hon member for Pretoria West repeatedly said that the “volkerebeleid” was NP policy—the following is written about the NP:

I quote further from page 40:

We on this side of the House are saying that we are making it our task to lay claim to the existence and continued existence of a sovereign White people and State here in the country of our birth. We shall not allow that party opposite to get in the way of that. In the next election the voters of South Africa will not allow that party to stand in the way of that being achieved. [Interjections.] We are going to lay claim to the freedom of our people in the country of our birth, and no one is going to stop us. A portion of this southern land of Africa rightfully belongs to us. We shall work towards that, and this party will fight for it until all doubts about it have finally been dispelled.

Mr Chairman, for the information of new hon members let me say that that much-discussed letter the hon member for Pietersburg spoke about, that letter from the hon member for Hercules, has been raised many times on that side of the House. On three occasions that letter was distributed from door to door in my constituency, by myself prior to the 1983 referendum, by the previous member of Parliament for Langlaagte in May 1987 and also by Mr Jaap Marais, the Leader of the HNP in May 1987, with fatal consequences for the last-mentioned two gentlemen.

You should distribute it again.

The hon member for Lichtenburg…

You are one who won with the greatest majority.

The hon member for Lichtenburg broached two matters in his speech.

Order! I have less objection to a member interrupting a speaker in his own party, but it will not be permitted in regard to members in other parties. Hon members must please stop making interjections. The hon member may proceed.

In his speech the hon member for Lichtenburg broached two very important matters. Firstly he spoke about urbanisation and, secondly, about the division of income.

About urbanisation he insinuated that with the abolition of influx control measures the Government had accepted a policy of urbanisation in the RSA. That is not, however, the case. Urbanisation is a world-wide phenomenon which manifests itself in our country too. In our country urbanisation is caused by certain factors. From time to time our country is ravaged by lengthy droughts and poor agricultural conditions which, of necessity, go hand in hand with that. Together with these lengthy droughts we also repeatedly have economic slumps which cause people from the rural areas to stream into the cities. The development of mining and the creation of job opportunities in the mining sector have also caused a flood of people to our cities. After the Second World War there was tremendous industrial development in our country, and after the establishment of the Republic in 1961 this industrial development accelerated, thereby creating still more job opportunities. All this contributed to the depopulation of the rural areas.

The concentration of people in the urban areas led to better training facilities and better overall socio-economic conditions. This drew even more people to the cities.

Another interesting factor contributing to the urbanisation of our people has been the rainfall and the availability of water. Primarily we can link the settlement of people to the availability of water and the annual rainfall. In the eastern half of our country there is the highest concentration of people whilst fewer people are encountered in the western half. So much so that in the western half of the country we find one inhabitant per square kilometre, as against an average of 100 people square kilometre in the eastern half with its higher rainfall and greater availability of water.

There are also the historical considerations of the Indians chiefly being concentrated in Natal and the Coloureds in the Western Cape and that the Black people have traditionally lived in those parts of our country with the highest rainfall and the greatest availability of water.

Since the NP came into power, considerable industrial development has taken place, and after the Second World War the Vereeniging, Vanderbijlpark and Sasolburg areas were developed. After the advent of the Republic in 1961, Richards Bay, the Witbank-Middelbank area, Newcastle and the Bethal-Secunda area were developed. All these developments led to increasing urbanisation. In 1911 only 53% of the Whites were urbanised. Over the next 50 years up to 1951 the extent of White urbanisation increased to 79%. In 1970 the figure was 86,7% and in 1985 it was 89,6% of the Whites in our country who lived in urban areas.

Amongst the Coloureds urbanisation increased from 50,4% in 1911 to 77,8% in 1985. The figure for urbanisation amongst the Asians increased from 52% to 93,4% in 1985.

It is very interesting that in 1911, just after Union, only 13% of the Black people were urbanised. This figure increased to 27,9% in 1951, 33% in 1970 and 39,6% in 1985. What is interesting is that this 39,6%—I shall be coming back to this at a later stage—of Black people who are urbanised represents 6 million people. As a result of the factors I have indicated, it was natural for a large stream of people to move to the Transvaal. In 1985, 53% of the White section of our population were living in the Transvaal, whilst 70% of that 53% were living in the PWV area. So the hon member’s contention that after the abolition of influx control measures urbanisation has become NP policy is, of course, simply not true. It is not true because, as has already been indicated, it is a process which has established itself, as it were, over a period of many years. So to compare us now with countries in South and Central America simply does not hold water.

In conjunction with this, the hon member for Lichtenburg made another very interesting statement. After he had dealt, amongst other things, with the redistribution of income, which he is opposed to, he made another statement and that was that the establishment of the regional services councils was one of the matters contributing to the redistribution of income. According to him it is impoverishing the country. He said:

The hon member for Lichtenburg, the Deputy Leader of the CP, contends that the State is selling assets so as to facilitate the redistribution of income, thereby promoting socialism.

Now we come to the 89,6% of the population living in the urban areas. I hope my arithmetic will not leave me in the lurch now. Let us take the period since 1970. We can use that date; it is 17 years ago. How many thousands, how many millions, of rands have not been granted in assistance, by the Department of Finance, to the agricultural sector of our economy? I should now like to ask the hon the Minister of Finance whether that assistance does not also represent a division of income.

I now also want to ask the hon the Minister what the tax contribution was of that sector of the population to which assistance was granted. The point I want to make is that the urbanised Whites—they constitute 90% of the White population—furnish the taxes and revenue which the Minister of Finance distributes. The Minister of Finance redistributes the revenue.

I now want to ask the hon member for Lichtenburg whether that is the redistribution of revenue he is talking about. [Interjections.] If that is so, the hon the Minister of Finance is promoting socialism. The hon member for Lichtenburg says, does he not, that the hon the Minister of Finance is promoting socialism by the redistribution of income. Is it not time to combat that socialism, Sir? [Interjections.] We have great sympathy with the farmers because of the tremendous problems confronting them, but then the hon member for Lichtenburg must now say that the redistribution of revenue promotes socialism, referring solely to the Black section of the population, without assuming any responsibility himself.

That is a very important matter. I have indicated that 90% of the White population live in urban areas. In my constituency there are many unemployed and very poor people. In my view, the urban-dwellers, the 90% to whom I referred, are entitled to a considerably larger appropriation than we receive. There are services in the urban areas which have been left standing. I do not want to say that the assistance which promotes socialism should be done away with so as to help the urban areas, but I think that the urban taxpayers do have a case too. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, my sincere thanks for the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech here from the kitchen. I sincerely hope…

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member, but normally that portion of the House is not referred to as the kitchen. [Interjections.]

I am sorry; I withdraw it, Mr Chairman. I sincerely hope we shall be providing everyone with good, digestible dishes from this side.

My bench-mate, the hon member for Graaff-Reinet, has already been congratulated by the hon member for Pietersburg on his maiden speech. I, too, want to congratulate him. That hon member and I began our studies in agriculture 21 years ago at the university in Bloemfontein. We have seen each other on one occasion since then, and only now again as bench-mates here in this House. I want to wish him everything of the best with his career here in Parliament. [Interjections.]

As hon members know, I represent the Winburg constituency, a very historic and historically important constituency, about which I could perhaps just mention a few brief facts. Winburg is the oldest town in the Free State and was a very important fountainhead in the history of our country. This is confirmed by the existence of the Voortrekker Monument with its five columns and other symbolism on the historic farm Rietfon-tein just outside Winburg. Two former Presidents were also born in Winburg, ie President M T Steyn on the farm Rietfontein—that is where the Voortrekker Monument stands—and also the late State President C R Swart, on the farm Morgenzon.

The Winburg constituency has been in existence since 1910 and has been represented in this House by the NP since 1915. No wonder Winburg was known, at one stage in its history, as “Wenburg”.

In this connection I just want to convey to the House an interesting piece of history. In 1835 a number of Voortrekkers under A H Potgieter left the Cape Colony, trekked across the Groot River and gave Makwana 42 head of cattle in exchange for virtually the whole region between the Vet River and the Vaal River.

It was thought desirable to establish a town in this area and so the people began to look for a suitable spot. Eventually two places were singled out, and the people held a meeting to decide which of these two places they would choose. The majority party won and the farm Waayvontein was chosen. The owner of the farm was Mr J F de Beer. The town was subsequently called “Wenburg”, in honour of the victory of the party which wanted to establish the town in its present location. I just want to mention that the other party then called the other farm, which had not been chosen, “Mompeling”.

I should also like to pay tribute to my predecessors in this House who left their mark on our country’s history. I just want to refer briefly to the late Dr N J van der Merwe who represented the Winburg constituency in this House from 1929 to 1940. He was also the leader of the NP in the Orange Free State and he would probably have left his mark in the annals of our country’s history too if he had not died in such a tragic fashion.

I should also like to refer to the late Adv C R Swart, who represented the constituency from 1941 to 1959. He then became Governor General after having occupied several Cabinet posts. On 31 May 1961 he became the first State President of the Republic of South Africa.

I should also like to pay tribute to Mr N C Sadie who died on 12 April of this year, Mr A C van Wyk, who was subsequently Administrator of the Free State, and Mr Daantjie Scott, my immediate predecessor. He was also a native of Winburg who, over a period of 12 years, did his best for the voters of this constituency.

It is also a heart-felt desire, on my part, to thank the voters of Winburg sincerely for the privilege of representing them here at this important juncture in our country’s history. I thank them that I can as an NP representative, carry a banner of hope for the future.

I also thank my dear wife, who was also born in the Winburg district, and my five children, who are all still of school-going age, for their support and willingness to embark upon this journey with me. For them in particular, as we all know, it is frequently a difficult and lonely road to travel. I also say thank you for the blessings we have received and for those influences on our lives which have made us capable of rendering a service.

I should very much like to take this opportunity of thanking the hon the State President, the hon the Minister of Finance and also other hon members of the Cabinet very sincerely for the additional assistance granted to our farmers in the Budget. This is a farming community which is, at present, experiencing very hard times. I thank them on behalf of the farmers in my constituency, on behalf of the members of the Sentraal-Wes Co-operative, of which I am a director, and also on behalf of Uniegraan, a co-operative exchange of which I am the chairman.

Since October of last year Uniegraan has been involved in a scientific investigation to determine what influence these factors would have on the ability of our farmers to survive in the long term, particularly in the summergrain areas. The report was published in February of this year and brought disturbing facts to light. If 73% of the members of a professional group, in this case the farmers of our summer-grain areas, are going to go downhill financially over the next ten years under normalised conditions and with normalised prices prevailing, there is something drastically wrong somewhere. It is abnormal and unacceptable. That is why I am extending a word of thanks for the understanding that exists for this situation and for the relevant corrective steps that have been taken.

I should also like to extend a word of sincere thanks to the hon the Minister of Agriculture for the major contribution he is making, at this stage, in connection with the problems of agriculture. In the past I have worked very closely with him and I know what contribution he has made. I also want to thank the hon the Deputy Ministers of Agriculture for their helpfulness—particularly as far as we younger members are concerned—in solving the problems we have encountered here. I also want to thank the officials of the Department of Agriculture, who recently have had co shoulder a tremendous burden, for this additional assistance and everything that entails. I also want to extend my sincere thanks to the chairman and members of the Agricultural Credit Board and the local agricultural committees. It is their responsibility to make meaningful use of the taxpayers’ money, this R400 million, in the field of agriculture.

In conclusion I want to present this House with the present-day problems surrounding the Sand-Vet State Irrigation Scheme in my constituency. The investigation involving the development of that scheme commenced in 1935 and lasted until 1937, and the two dams involved in the scheme, ie the Allemanskraal Dam—where the Willem Pretorius Game Reserve is also situated—and the Erfenis Dam were completed in 1960. The Vet River canals were completed in 1964 and the Sand River canals in 1963, and the farmers were settled there at the time. A mere five years later, however, in 1969, another investigation was launched into the viability of the scheme. This resulted in a complete re-consolidation, a project which was completed in 1972.

The scheme serves 11 300 hectares of scheduled land and consists of 463 plots owned by approximately 110 canal farmers and 160 other farmers. For those farmers the waterrights had a very stabilising influence on their farming, but the canal-farmers, in particular, are now experiencing very serious problems. They are experiencing pioblems with inadequate water quotas, water restrictions which have been in force for three years now, low profitability in crop cultivation at the moment and the effect of adverse climatic conditions, variations in soil types and limited cultivatable land surfaces which increasingly inhibits crop choice. As a result of these factors, the debt burden of these canal-farmers has increased tremendously in the recent past. Virtually half of this debt burden consists of production credit which is in arrears.

The prospects for recovery are extremely poor owing to the fact that water restrictions are still in force, a factor which seriously hampers production and allows farmers to generate only a limited cash flow. This causes a steady increase in debts without any solution being in sight.

I just want to add that my officers and I, as commander of group 34, did a military evaluation in 1983 of the effect of the depopulation of the rural areas. This was done on the instructions of the hon the Minister of Defence. It was very apparent, from that investigation, what a stabilising influence such an irrigation scheme had on an area in every conceivable respect.

I therefore advocate the stabilisation of existing schemes before we continue with the development of new irrigation schemes in this country. I have also learnt that one never makes plans without, in advance, having made a sound evaluation, and that is why we now want to try to find certain solutions there.

The hon the Deputy Ministers of Agriculture have already granted us certain assistance in this context in that the Department of Agriculture will help us with certain of the investigations. Since the department, however, does not have a sufficient number of officials available at this stage to carry out an in-depth investigation there, it is my pleasure to announce here that the board of directors of Sentraal-Wes Co-operative resolved at a recent board meeting that the agricultural development division of this co-operative could undertake this comprehensive investigation. It will be regarded as an official investigation owing to the involvement of the Department of Agriculture as overall coordinator of the project.

In conclusion I should like to request the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply to evaluate and implement the proposals as speedily as possible after the conclusion of the investigation. All these facts about agriculture and the Sand-Vet State Irrigation Scheme I am supplying in the light of the celebrated words of late Minister S P le Roux:

So it is a privilege for me to support this Appropriation Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to welcome the hon member for Winburg to this House and congratulate him on his maiden speech. I, too, have a long-standing connection with his constituency. As former Colonials we always wanted to flee from the Transvaal at the end of the year, and then my parents used to come and pick me up at school. We always left immediately to ensure that we got across the Transvaal border, and then we usually drove as far as Winburg, on the Sand River, and camped there at the side of the road. Of course that was in the old days when it was still safe to do that.

We have now reached the end of the debate, which was actually very interesting. In particular there was a relatively futile discussion about partition between the ultra right-wing and the far right-wing. [Interjections.] The Government, and the CP, tried to place a little distance between them, both as regards their policy and its implementation. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tried to prove that the NP actually still wanted partition, and that the debate actually concerned how absolutistic one should be about this. I agree with him. On the other hand hon members of the NP confirmed that what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had said was actually true. Their criticism of the CP was never concerned with the principle of the matter, but simply its feasibility. They said—that is what the speeches of all the hon members of the Government sounded like to me—they still yearned for the objectives of partition, but that they simply could not be realised. Therefore it cannot, unfortunately, be applied in its full geographic sense.

I want to tell both those parties that there is very little difference between them, according to the views of the rest of South Africa beyond the precincts of this House. Actually the only difference is a little sleight of hand practised by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He said that if geographic partition was not possible, one built a partition in one’s imagination, and in this way fenced oneself in.

Now we understand everything.

Then one takes one’s partition with one wherever one goes. The only difference is that we then call it own affairs. [Interjections.] Hon members on that side therefore have an imaginary little partition, which they call own affairs, while these people say that we must keep it geographic.

Several hon members of the NP, inter alia the hon members for Innesdal, Langlaagte en Caledon, confessed here how impossible the policy they had adopted for the past 40 years actually was. I want to refer specifically to the hon member for Innesdal, who asked every person who had ears to hear and eyes to see, whether they knew what tremendous pressure had been exerted with regard to citizenship. He said that if the Government had closed its ears to this it would have been acting in a rash and foolish manner.

Now I want to put a question to hon members who have ears to hear and eyes to see—nowadays people do not all see and hear the same things. What about the pressure in connection with franchise, the abolition of this tricameral system, the release of Mandela, the unbanning of the ANC and all the other pressures which very obviously exist? [Interjections.] If that pressure exists and the Government closes its eyes to it, I maintain it is still acting in a rash way.

We hear with the same ears.

As regards partition that hon member said that they had purchased tracts of land and that hon members could go and see how those tracts of land were being used incorrectly in the Black areas. He said that they had added the land which was not being utilized properly. Yet again, as regards his partition policy, he said that it actually did not work. We are, therefore, asking: What now?

The hon member went on to say that they admitted that the legislation on land, of 1913, the legislation on trust land of 1936 and the Group Areas Act had tremendous advantages for the Whites, but that the other groups in this country were largely prejudiced by them. That is what the hon member for Innesdal said. [Interjections.] That hon member, and other hon members, admitted that they had tried for 40 years to implement a mandate which could not be implemented. That side of the House has been governing for 40 years with a mandate from the White voters, and now they are admitting that they were wrong.

The only consistent factor in the entire debate was that the Government was consistently wrong. Can it not now admit that it is still wrong, and that the mandate given to the Government during the past election is still impracticable? [Interjections.] Both the policy and its implementation are wrong. [Interjections.]

Let us consider the next aspect regarding which the Government and the Official Opposition tried to place a distance between them. This concerns the entire matter of the implementation of the policy. From the side of the Government it was argued in the debate that the policy of the Official Opposition would have to be forced on people because it was not feasible. The debate revolved around the fact that it was not feasible in the first place on the basis of the economic and other realities; in the second place in view of its acceptability; and in the third place because it could not be implemented.

What is, therefore, actually at issue is the amount of force to be used. The Government says that the Official Opposition will have to use force to implement its policy, but what about the amount of force this Government has used over the past 40 years to implement its policy? [Interjections.]

Regarding the question of acceptability the hon member for Innesdal said that the CP had not spoken to any recognised Coloured leader or community regarding the one-sided standpoint it had adopted with regard to a Coloured policy. Now I want to ask which experienced or recognised Coloured leader accepts the group basis of the division of this tricameral Parliament or the Group Areas Act? [Interjections.] Not a single one. Not even the Rev Alan Hendrickse, who is a member of the Cabinet! [Interjections.] Will the Government, therefore, use force to implement its policy? [Interjections.]

Let us dwell for a moment on this question of force. Now the hon member for Caledon’s speech becomes very interesting. The hon member said that the state of emergency was necessary because of the unrest which was prevailing. He said that freedom had to be restricted, because freedom was the fruit of security action.

I said freedom was the fruit of security.

Oh, the hon member said that it was the fruit of security. Very well. But then I want to tell the hon member that this security tree has been growing for 40 years now but it has not born any fruit yet. The longer the Government carries on in this way the more it will have to make use of force and the less people will be free in South Africa every day. [Interjections.]

You have now frightened yourself.

No, the hon member must listen to my comments for a change. He criticised my party, and now I am going to criticise his.

Your numbers are dwindling. [Interjections.]

The question is how the Government intends to implement its plan. It is very simple, Sir. They are going to do so by co-opting people who are prepared to participate in the separate structures; and anyone who protests will simply be branded a revolutionary. [Interjections.] They think they can then imprison him or do anything they like with him. [Interjections.]

That is not true.

I want to give that hon member, who has just said that this is not true, a single example.

This example takes us back to 1919, when a certain Joseph Gumede of Pietermaritzburg, went to Britain to protest there against the Government, regarding that law which the hon member has now, after 70 years, admitted was wrong. That was in 1919, Sir! In 1914 his son Archie Gumede was born. Do you know what that Government has done to Archie Gumede since 1944, Sir? He has been constantly imprisoned or restricted since 1956. There was a treason trial in 1956, which was set aside after about a year. All charges were withdrawn and Archie was released. That was the first treason trial. In October 1957 he was restricted, in 1960 he was again restricted and in 1963 he was restricted for five years.

And where is your salute?

Yes, I would not mind showing that I suffer with the victims of apartheid. [Interjections.] We are still talking about that same Archie Gumede. In 1981 he was again restricted, and in 1984 there was a second treason trial, which was thrown out of court. To this day he is still asking: “Please, when are you going to listen to us? I am still talking today about the same things my father spoke about in 1919.” That was and remains the policy of that Government and that is why I say that it is still an impracticable mandate. [Interjections.]