laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Pension Benefits for Councillors of Local Authorities Bill [B 93—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development).
2. (2) Remuneration of Town Clerks Amendment Bill [B 94—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development).
3. (3) Gold Mines Assistance Act Repeal Bill [B 95—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs).

Mr Chairman, before the adjournment last night the standpoints that were put relating to the legislation under discussion, including the standpoints of the hon member for Umlazi, specifically arose, concerning what he called the right that they will grant us on this side of the House to establish an own White fatherland. This question, as well as other questions that stem from that, arises and to avoid any misunder standing that could possibly have played a part in this debate yesterday evening, I specifically want to refer on this occasion to the clauses that I want to deal with next.

I refer in the first instance to clause 4 in which specific mention is made of the fact that—here I use the words of the hon member Prof Olivier of the PFP—“afskeid geneem word van die begrip van etniese eenheid en dat, in die plek daarvan, nou die selfregerende gebied vooropstaan”. We on this side of the House have problems with that interpretation of the hon member Prof Olivier. We have problems with that because an area, we believe, cannot exist in a vacuum. An area must have inhabitants. It is also the standpoint of members on this side of the House that when, for example, the self-governing area of kwaZulu is discussed, it means the area in which the Zulu national unit is living. If the standpoint of the hon member Prof Olivier that through this measure we are saying farewell to the national unit concept were to be correct, a very important question arises that has to be settled in South Africa, and we ask the governing party whether we are in this Bill saying farewell to the concept of national unity. Is the territorial concept replacing it now? It would of course mean that with that we would finally be ruling out the existence of national units and that in the place of that the individualistic approach would arise where an area is inhabited by units and not by a people.

This brings us to a very interesting interpretation. It is the question of whether the individualistic and the individual rights that stem from that are in future going to be the acceptable policy.

Mr Chairman, I just want to remind the hon member that he still owes me a reply to my question. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Losberg may continue.

Mr Chairman, I do not know if that was an attempt by the hon member for Langlaagte to waste my time when I am dealing with important matters. [Interjections.]

I also want to refer to clause 6 of the Bill under discussion. It reads as follows:

It does not have to do it, it may—

It is precisely this anomaly that I want to point out here. Now we are excluding the national unit as a point of departure and we are making the territory the point of departure, and then in clause 7 we carry on directly from there, and want to speak of the citizens of that national unit.

I want to ask hon members on this side of the House what the policy of the NP is in regard to this matter, because—this was repeated over and over in the election—the national states, as they used to be called, are being deprived of their citizenship and a South African citizenship is being introduced in its place.

That is not true.

If it is not true, the hon member may come and ask me for the evidence afterwards. Yesterday evening I was not given the opportunity to present my evidence here. Perhaps I should quote just this one very important premise. It is the fundamental standpoint that the Government is committed to an undivided South Africa. This side of the House urgently requests the NP to tell the voters of South Africa, if its premise is an undivided South Africa, why the country is being divided into various territories in terms of clause 4 of this Bill. It is a contradiction; it confuses the voters.

It is the contention of this side of the House that the Government is sitting on two constitutional stools in this connection in order to satisfy all possible voters, and then at the end of the day jumps to the constitutional stool that will still allow it to remain in power. But in what way this is honest politics in regard to the people in this country is the question this side of the House is very seriously asking.

You underestimate the voters’ intelligence.

It is also being said that it is a fundamental standpoint to have one undivided South Africa with one citizenship for all. Now we have representatives of citizens of various self-governing territories after having just said farewell to the national unit concept.

In the past we spoke of a general law amending or an omnibus Bill, which was a technical expression. This side of the House says it is very clear that what has been collected in this Bill are a lot of oddments which will be inherently contradictory and confusing in future. We do not know, after we have read the Bill, where the hon members on the Government side are going with this country.

In this connection I also want to refer to clauses 6 and 7, and again want to quote from the comments made by the hon member Prof Olivier:

In this interpretation—it also demonstrates the confusion we are dealing with here—“government” is again at issue. It is therefore not the territory that is being represented, but the government. Who are the government? The government consists of people, that is to say elected members who form the government of a particular region. In connection with this it is equally confusing that an interpretation of “government” is given here, and we ask the other side of the House and the hon the Minister with urgency to indicate what has to be understood by this, because this confusion must not continue any longer. With your approval, Sir, I want to refer to the fact that on the standing committee the standpoint was expressly adopted—we verified this—that assistant ministers would not be part of this Bill. The hon member Prof Olivier also referred to this. I now want to link up my argument with what I said earlier on in this debate about the broadening of democracy. We can no longer use these hollow concepts such as the broadening of democracy if in practice exactly the opposite is being done. That side of the House states that they want to broaden democracy in South Africa and therefore they created the constitutional dispensation and standing committees on which these things could be discussed. The Standing Committee on Constitutional Development departed from the concept “assistant ministers” here, and I understand it was fairly unanimous.

What is the situation now? It is the broadening of democracy, but in this way democracy is being violated. In conflict with that recommendation of the standing committee a roundabout method is now being sought, as is the case with many other things, and “Assistant Ministers” is being taken out of this amending Bill. Hon members are welcome to look at the amending Bill before it was amended after having been dealt with by the standing committee and they will see very clearly in the memorandum the words “the appointment of Assistant Ministers”. This is being removed in a roundabout way, and has been proclaimed by means of another piece of legislation. In this way this constitutional dispensation is being misused by that side of the House. I emphasise the words “misuse”. In this way democracy is being circumvented because that consensus approach—I emphasise the word “consensus approach”—that had to be adopted on the standing committee did not suit that side of the House any more.

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

Order! The hon the Minister will excuse me, but I just wanted to tell the hon member that his time had expired.

I would have allowed the question if that side of the House had given me the chance to. [Time expired.] [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, allow me for just a moment to congratulate the hon member for Swellendam and his wife on the birth of their little daughter, Ernestine. [Interjections.] We hope that she will bring them a lot of pleasure.

The hon member for Losberg asked a number of questions here. I want to refer him to page 8 of the election pamphlet, NP Policy: The facts! on page 6. [Interjections.] Question 12 asks whether the Government has abandoned the homelands policy, and the reply is “definitely not”. The four independent states will remain as they are and the self-governing states will also continue to exist. It is still the intention to lead them to independence. [Interjections.] I shall send this publication to the hon member in a moment so that he can read it for himself.

Question 17 deals with what the State President means when he states that we accept an undivided South Africa. This answer is on page 7:

Question 23 asks if Blacks can receive full citizenship in South Africa and if this is not in conflict with NP principles. The answer is on page 8:

The hon member also asked what dual citizenship meant. He is welcome to go and read the answer on page 8. The CP tried to give the impression that this amending Bill meant the end of the Whites in South Africa. It seems to me as if the CP, which is so politically bankrupt, wants to seize at every opportunity to try to impress the voting public, but they are not going to succeed. The divergent provisions of this Bill makes provision for the constitutional structures and processes to be adapted to changing circumstances. A positive start is now being made to allocate more powers to the self-governing territories. I cannot imagine that this is in conflict with the view of the Official Opposition.

I now want to concentrate briefly on clauses 12 to 15 that deal with the Commission for Co-operation and Development that was introduced in terms of the Black Affairs Act, Act 55 of 1959. Since the commission now falls under the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the definition of “Minister” in the Act is being amended to read “the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning”.

Allow me to take this opportunity to convey our sincere thanks to the hon Minister for the thorough co-operation that we have already received from him and the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid with whom we shall continue to work closely in future.

The Standing Committee in its wisdom decided not to amend the name of the commission at this stage. What is very interesting is the old section 4 of the Act that is now being deleted. That section provided that if the commission were to come forward with a proposal, and the hon the State President or the Government were to disagree, the commission could appeal to the House of Assembly to have that concept accepted. Section 4 also provided—this is in view of the fact that the chairman of the commission has the casting vote—that if an individual member of the commission cannot get a specific suggestion, about which he feels strongly, accepted, he could then bring that provision to the House of Assembly to have it passed here. I must say I am sorry that I am only discovering this measure at this late stage. This measure has never been used and since the commission consists of members of the governing party, it has never been necessary either. Consequently it is now being omitted.

An important amendment with which the Official Opposition also has a problem, is the fact that the State President may now appoint hon members of Parliament to the commission. Until now only members of the House of Assembly could be appointed. With this amendment the principle that the three Houses of Parliament are jointly responsible for dealing with general affairs is being confirmed. The hon member for Pietersburg in particular had a problem with this. This provision enables the State President to to do so if he should see fit.

In the Standing Committee on Education and Development Aid there was often a lack of understanding particularly amongst hon members of the other two Houses, when we had to deliberate on the transference of land to the national states. Participation in the commission can lead to better comprehension and insight. It was very easy to criticise any proposals or to shoot them down when one was not part of the investigation and part of the team that had to make proposals, listen to evidence and eventually, after long deliberation, come forward with final proposals.

The hon member Prof Olivier mentioned that he was of the opinion that the commission had served its time and that it should be abolished.

Yes, that is correct.

As a result of the fact that the commission had until now been dealing primarily with consolidation, the misconception exists that consolidation was, and still is, the only task of the commission. Of course consolidation was a very important and responsible task of the commission. As I indicated earlier the TBVC countries and the self-governing states are here to stay, and we shall still continue to complete this task that was entrusted to the commission. The activities and duties of the commission include the consideration of any matter regarding the general management and the administration of Black affairs, or regarding legislation as far as it affects the Black population. It even includes the submission of recommendations to the Minister.

The hon member Prof Olivier should also take note that the Minister may, as he sees fit, transfer any power, duty or function which he has in terms of this Act to a member of the commission.

I am also convinced that the commission will continue to have an important role to play on the road ahead. Expertise has been accumulated. Black leaders have often been conferred with, and in future, particularly since we now find ourselves on the road of reform, this kind of expertise that has been accumulated and the good understanding that has been cultivated in the negotiations that have already taken place, can be fully utilised.

Discussions and consultations constantly take place and will continue to take place in future. It is my considered opinion that in future it will be possible to use the commission very effectively in this sphere. The commission can in my opinion also be utilised to address the needs of Black urbanisation.

I think the hon member has dogressed slightly from the Bill. He should rather come back to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am merely reacting to the hon member Prof Olivier’s arguments on the Standing Committee and in the House of Assembly that this commission should be abolished.

Order! We cannot, however, take it that far. It would mean that after a while there would be no end to the number of possible subjects for discussion. The hon member must come back to the Bill.

I want to come back to the hon members for Losberg and Pietersburg who want to use clauses 4 and 6 of this Bill in support of their argument that the NP has given up its policy completely. I want to point out to the hon members that in the debates that took place here in the House of Assembly recently it became clear to us that the Official Opposition had no workable alternative to offer for solving the problems in our country. [Interjections.]

I want to appeal to the Official Opposition, when we are dealing with a Bill of this nature, not to exploit that opportunity for the sake of cheap political gain. [Interjections.]

When the hon member addressed clause 4, he told us here this afternoon that we were doing away with the self-governing states. He said we are deleting them from the Bill. Let met tell that hon member that if he thinks he will succeed in carrying out what he proclaimed here today; if he thinks that these self-governing territories, that have developed a pride of their own, will relinquish that pride, and if he thinks that what he said here is true and acceptable, he is making a very big mistake.

It is a pleasure for me to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, clause 34 of the Bill refers to an amendment to the Anti-shark Measures Control Ordinance of Natal and I have no doubt that if this amending Bill had afforded protection to the Great White shark, the CP would have supported it because that is the ludicrous extent of their opposition to this Bill. [Interjections.]

We supported the Bill on the standing committee and we support it on the floor of the House. I want to make particular reference to the significant amendments referred to by my colleague the hon member Prof Olivier concerning the moving away from ethnic relationships to the acceptance of the concept of a self-governing territory. I think this is one of the focuses that the CP really needs to get to grips with. Whereas they emphasise and have throughout this debate emphasised ethnicity as the issue, and have seized on things like the Zulu unit, they tend, I think, to lose sight of the fact that ethnicity is not confined to the Black group. There are, for example, ethnic units among White persons. However, that ethnicity does not serve the purpose of the CP in their constitutional proposals, and therefore they do not emphasise the fact that ethnicity among Whites is as significant or as insignificant a factor as among Blacks. One accepts, for example, that KwaZulu has in its legislative assembly members who are Zulu-speaking, but it also has members who are Tsonga-and Sotho-speaking. The way in which that self-governing territory is constituted, I submit, is the way in which we should and will be going in this country—not to over-emphasise ethnicity as a dividing principle on constitutional lines.

Similarly, I find that some of the language that the CP has used in this debate is open to question. I particularly like the phrase used by the hon member for Soutpansberg, who talked about the political liberalism of the NP. [Interjections.] I actually do not find anything liberal about the NP.

Hear, hear!

I have very great difficulty in seeing how the CP can use that term at all.

Similarly, when the CP waxes lyrical about broadening democracy, it strikes me as ironic. Do they really mean democracy?

What does the CP itself mean by “broadening democracy”? The arguments put forward by the hon member for Umlazi and later the hon member for Losberg, concerning the concept of ethnicity, lost sight of a significant point that the hon member for Umlazi made when we originally looked at this Bill several weeks ago, namely the path to independence. This, Mr Chairman, is still an area of difficulty which the Nationalist Party have got to come to terms with. Maybe they are beginning to. Maybe the significant turnabout that is coming in the movement towards the independence of KwaNdebele is an indication that they are re-examining that concept.

If we accept that independence is an end goal—as the hon member for Umlazi set it out—for these self-governing states, it gives the lie to the very words quoted by the hon member for Umfolozi from the Nationalist Party’s holy writ, which is that they …

National Party!

Certainly, the National Party—which is full of Nationalists! [Interjections.] Those Nationalists have as holy writ their party’s constitution and rites which lay down—the hon member for Umfolozi quoted it to us—that there should be a single South African State, and that all persons within it should be citizens of South Africa. That is the problem. Sir: If one says one has the end goal of independence, in other words, that those self-governing countries are moving towards independence, it gives the lie to the very transcripts the hon member for Umfolozi has been quoting from.

The PFP have looked at this measure, and we have discussed some of the problems we have with it. My colleague, the hon member prof Olivier, has mentioned the one significant problem we have with clause 33 which is in fact aimed at extending the nominating powers of management councils to the RSCs. We are not happy about nominated bodies. We would much rather they be elected bodies, but we also understand that that is a temporary measure extended only until the elections of 1988.

We in these benches feel, therefore, that this does go along in some ways with what the hon the Deputy Minister said in his Second Reading speech which explicitly concerned the political reform process that we are experiencing. We obviously, and my colleague has made mention of this, do not think that it goes far enough.

Lastly, I do not think that we can overemphasise the point that my colleague the hon member for Houghton made. In fact the extension of ownership rights to Black women is one of the most significant measures contained within this composite Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Pinetown for supporting this Bill. I think there is a large measure of agreement on this Bill between the NP and the party he represents. I will therefore not follow him any further in his reasoning.

He mentioned something very significant and that was the amendment to clause 1—the fact that property rights are now being given to Black women, a fact that was also mentioned by the hon member for Houghton as the hon member for Pinetown correctly stated. It is a very interesting aspect of this Bill, because I think the South African Government is one of the pioneers in this respect. Therefore. I would also like to say a few words on this amendment to clause 1.

*In terms of this amendment, Black women may now get full property rights. This is interesting, because freehold or ownership of any kind of movable or immovable property is very rare in the customary law of the Black peoples. As the hon member Prof Olivier said, in terms of the customary law of the Black peoples the Black woman is regarded as being permanently under age. Some people say that this phenomenon has its origin in the Black people's custom of lobola. It derives from the patriarchal period when the patriarch was supposed to have had absolute power over his subjects and could barter, enslave or pledge them as security as he saw fit. We do not know whether that is true. When one talks to the Black peoples about this today, they deny it. They say that the lobola system contributes to the preservation of marriage as an institution among Blacks and that divorce is restricted to a very low percentage.

The fact remains that in terms of customary law, Black women were not entitled to conclude any transaction on their own.

Perhaps we should go back to that system too.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Langlaagte will pardon me, but I do not want to say anything on the subject of women. I am a widower and must be careful what I say, especially on this topic. [Interjections.]

Even today, despite the fact that we find so many elements of common law in our Black areas, this custom of lobola continues to exist. According to this custom, the bride has no say in the price paid for lobola. The parents of the bridegroom and the bride negotiate the price or the number of animals that make up the lobola. As far as the possession of movable property is concerned, we find that there is no law in the legal system of any of these Black peoples that can grant such property to them, except in extremely exceptional cases. In one case, for example, a female animal is given to the bride when she gets married. In most cases, that animal is slaughtered and eaten either on the day of the bride’s marriage or shortly afterwards. The woman then owns nothing. Until recently, the married Black women in most of the Sotho and Nguni tribes had rights of ownership only in regard to their dowries. In most cases, however, they had to get the approval of their husbands if they wanted to dispose of this property or conclude any transaction concerning it. Although the married women in certain of these tribes had a limited right to own immovable property, they could do so only with the approval of their husbands or if they had obtained the immovable property involved by virtue of their own labour and skill. They were not entitled to any other rights of ownership.

Among the Tswana and Venda peoples this right has advanced to the point where married women do have the right to own immovable property. This is also subject to the restriction that the woman must acquire it through her own labour. In neither case may the woman own any immovable property, however.

The only proof I could find of a Southern African country which does permit married Black women to have property rights, is that of Transkei. If a woman in Transkei is married in terms of customary law, she may own her own property. I do not know whether or not this has changed. My sources are dated as recently as 1982. I do not think there has been any change to this law in Transkei, however.

I want to say that Transkei is the only Southern African state in which a woman has ever had the right to possess immovable property and to dispose of it or pledge it or conclude contracts involving it. Her husband may not dispose of any immovable property that belongs to her, unless he has her permission to do so.

As far as the legislation under discussion is concerned, I want to point out that we are dealing with a very interesting phenomenon which, of course, is peculiar to our own capitalist system, in which land ownership is regarded as one of the sources of capital or of wealth. I contend that as a result of the amendment contained in clause 1 of the Bill, Black women in South Africa are now receiving the same level of treatment as their husbands or their White counterparts—the White women of South Africa. In the economic sense, Black women have now been fully emancipated.

No, it is a long way from that.

Well, we can argue about that. I am just arguing the point of property rights in that respect. [Interjections.]

*I think the interjections made by the hon member for Houghton are the subject of a debate we can conduct later. She also referred to the fact that the SA Law Commission had recommended, although it did not want to interfere with the customary law of the Black peoples, that a Black woman be allowed to make her own arrangements in the marriage according to common-law practice and in terms of the Matrimonial Property Act, Act 88 of 1984. Common-law marriages that take place in the Republic will therefore further the emancipation process of the Black woman, if this legislation before us is passed. I hope this reply satisfies the hon member for Houghton. I merely want to tell the hon member that I am not opposed to her—I am not generally opposed to women.

I think this is an important step …

One could call him a ladies’ man.

… because in my opinion the inclusion of the Black woman in the capitalist system, the right granted to her to own property, is a stabilising factor in our Black areas. A person who owns land or property is not a stone-thrower or an arsonist, because that person has something to lose. [Interjections.] This is a factor which can help us to ensure stability in the South African society in future.

I now come to clauses 6 and 7. A number of hon members referred to the amendments effected in these two clauses. We on this side of the House see this step as a broadening of democracy, because in terms of these provisions the government of a self-governing state or territory may appoint a representative to represent that government with its citizens who are resident in the Republic. Certain powers are being granted to him: He may appoint assistant representatives and even request the government to appoint boards to assist him in his task. In my opinion this will also promote stability, because it is a means of negotiation and a way in which the wishes of the citizens of self-governing territories can be brought home to their governments, which in turn can negotiate with the South African Government. This can only lead to better relations.

These are a few of the points I wanted to single out in this Bill. There are other amendments too, which in many cases are merely consequential. In conclusion I want to pledge my support for this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by dwelling for a moment on what the hon member for Vryheid said. Apparently he was impressed by the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba and the human rights charter that was issued there, because he kicked off in his speech by proclaiming a human rights charter to us. He said:

If we pause to consider the first basic right spelt out by the hon member—the right of private ownership irrespective of the race or colour of the people—we find it strange that in this Bill we are in fact giving the Black women rights they are not given by their own people in their own territory. We are extending their rights in South Africa and giving them more rights than the Black peoples, even the independent Black peoples, traditionally give the Black women in terms of their own law in their own territory.

When does tradition end? When did White women get the vote?

It is true that White women got the vote in 1929, quite a few centuries after the men got it. It looks as though we, and even we in the CP, are prepared to give Blacks the vote in a far shorter period than it took the Whites to get the same rights.

It is not something you can give; it is their right.

The hon member for Vryheid said the following about the next basic right:

I merely want to ask whether, in defining these human rights the hon member for Vryheid was presenting to us, he included the abolition of the Group Areas Act, because he was advocating the right of any person to stay where he chose. Does that include the right of the Blacks to live in Waterkloof and of the Whites to live in Mamelodi?

I mention this only because certain basic concepts are being used rather loosely, and I am sure the hon member for Vryheid did not consider this properly before saying it. I assume, in fact, that at this stage he does not yet agree with what he said here. If I am wrong, however, he can correct me.

The third basic right he spelt out here was the right to reach an agreement with one another. I have never heard before that that was a basic right, because it is not a right that applies to only one person. Two people are necessary to conclude an agreement, and this also includes the basic right of the other person not to agree with one.

He mentioned a fourth basic right. Is that right the right to participate or to compete? There is a difference between the right to participate and the right to compete. The right to participate makes one a accompanist whereas the right to compete makes one a potential winner. I do not know what this right has to do with this legislation.

People often talk about the right of free association. I merely want to ask whether that also includes the right of non-association. Do I also have the right to say I do not want to live with those people or be associated with them? I want to live in my separate state or separate area? [Interjections.]

You can move to Morgenzon tomorrow if you like.

I was born there and I am proud of it. I am also proud of having a father who is a war veteran and was not a joiner or a capitulator (hensopper) in the Anglo-Boer War. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to another aspect on a somewhat different level than that to which I was asked to lower myself. Clause 1 refers to “Black law”. I want to suggest that the hon the Minister consider whether we should not make use of the term “indigenous law” instead. In my opinion, use of the term “Black law” may lead to our subsequently talking about “White law”, “Brown law”, “Yellow law” and law of all colours, and in my opinion that is not the idea at all. I think one would do well to consider substituting “indigenous law” for the term “Black law”. In fact, as far as I know that is the juridical term generally used.

What about the indigenous harbour at Wemmerpan? [Interjections.]

The NP will indeed need such a harbour, because if they maintain their present course they will have to flee from this country using every possible harbour. [Interjections.] We shall have to build many harbours for them, because they are not prepared to row towards a goal; they simply float along and hope that they will survive wherever they may wash ashore.

The hon member Prof Olivier said he welcomed the expression “self-governing territory” instead of “national state”. I think he is correct juridically, because a state and a territory are different concepts. Nevertheless, I do not think a state can be separated from its inhabitants, the people who are resident in the state. A people is inextricably bound to a state. That is why we believe that a state or territory should be created for each people in South Africa. A people cannot exist without a state. A people cannot exist without a territory which it inhabits.

In the hon member Prof Olivier’s opinion, clause 4 bids farewell to the principle of ethnicity. This is in fact the case, because reference is made here to territories instead of to peoples or ethnic groups. I merely want to tell hon members on the opposite side that I do not think Prof Olivier is wrong in saying this, because that is indeed what is stated in the clause.

Since hon members on the opposite side of the House have indicated, in their search for a solution to inter-group relations in South Africa, that they also have strong feelings about the group principle, they must make sure that they do not in this way cause the group principle to disappear. If we advocate group rights, no matter how much we want to protect them, we must not permit the concept of group or people to be omitted from every second clause of a Bill, because then we are slowly but surely losing the building-stones we want to use to protect the various group interests.

I now want to quote from the proposed new section 4 as contained in clause 6:

1. (a) appoint a representative to represent that government in the Republic with the citizens of the self-governing territory who are or are resident in the Republic;

In the first place we have to contend with the technical problem that the self-governing territory is not a territory outside the Republic; in fact, it is part of the Republic. We are trying to maintain, therefore, that part of the Republic is being represented in the same Republic. In conjunction with that—we have spoken about this already—the hon member for Losberg also pointed out the anomaly that one citizenship is being advocated, but that reference is still being made to the citizens who find themselves in this unitary state and who may be represented.

What this amounts to is that the self-governing territory which is part of the Republic is sending a delegate, proxy or representative to represent the citizens of that territory—they are not even referred to as being residents, but as citizens—and not the residents. We maintain that it is an anomaly to talk about one citizenship and then use the term “citizenship” in this legislation. Apart from any political connotations this may have, it is not a pure concept to use here either juridically or otherwise if, in fact, one means the residents and not the citizens who have a separate identity.

I want to confine myself to the comments I have made in this connection, but I should like to reply to something the hon member for Umfolozi said. He maintained that the hon member for Losberg was talking about the abolition of the self-governing territories. It is clear that the hon member did not understand that there is a distinction between deleting a word in an Act and excising a territory as such which amounts to its being taken off the map. We are not in favour of self-governing territories being completely abolished and disregarded; on the contrary, it is a concept and a cause that we are striving for in that those areas should get the right to govern themselves. In this Act the word is being deleted, not the territory. That is what we and the hon member for Losberg were talking about.

The hon member for Pinetown spoke about the broadening of democracy. We on this side of the House do not stand only for the broadening of the democracy; we also stand for the full expression of democracy, in that a people can govern itself because its own people are voting for their own representatives and governing themselves in a sovereign way. We are not striving for the broadening of democracy, but for absolute democracy.

Mr Chairman, it is always difficult to enter a debate at the end, when so many experts have participated before one. [Interjections.] Despite the provocation that could take place, I am going to try to make a positive contribution to the debate on certain points.

I should like to commence by saying that the mere fact that today we are once again dealing with legislation containing innumerable amendments to legislation pertaining to the Black peoples of Southern Africa, indicates the necessity and desirability, as does the policy of the CP, of tranferring the full right of self-determination, in the constitutional field as well, to these Black peoples in their own states as soon as possible, so that the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa will no longer find it necessary to pass this kind of legislation. [Interjections.] The sooner those peoples are given the right to to decide fully for themselves about their domestic affairs, the better.

As far as the legislation before us is concerned, I think the hon member for Kuruman pointed out very expertly that in terms of Black common law or indigenous law—that is what the hon member for Bethal calls it, and I associate myself with him—Black women do not have the right of ownership. It is not a recognised or even a well-known concept in that law. It is therefore my respectful opinion that one has an anomaly when provision is being made in South African law, in regard to this population group, for a concept that is unknown in their own law.

In my opinion, hon members have adequately pointed out that the CP is not in favour of the acquisition of rights of ownership, whether it be by Black men or women, in White areas. I am therefore not going to try to emphasise that point any further, since I think it has been put very clearly.

If we look at clause 2 of the Bill, I should like to point out to hon members what the clause is now doing away with. The movement away from the national concept to certain other concepts was also mentioned in regard to clause 4. To illustrate this point further, I should like to refer to the relevant preamble which is now being repealed by clause 2. The preamble to the Promotion of Black Self-government Act, Act 46 of 1959, reads as follows—I will not quote the whole passage, but I just want to show hon members what is being repealed:

The rest of the preamble does not apply to this point. This Act was passed in 1959, and apart from its mere rhetoric or the direction it takes, it is also an indication of the attitude of the legislature at that specific stage. The preamble to this Act, which is now to be repealed by clause 2 of this Bill, is an indication of the attitude with which the legislature approached the development of the Black constitutional set-up at that stage.

The point of departure and this attitude were based on the principle of partition and the principle of separate development, which implied that each particular ethnic group would gradually be granted full sovereignty in a specific territory.

I want to touch on the replacement of the concept “national units” by the territorial concept. This is a further indication of a deviation from the approach adopted in 1959 by the legislature, and by implication also by the governing party in the Parliament of South Africa at that stage. I want to leave the political and constitutional implications for a moment and refer to clause 4 (4) (b), in which the following words appear:

1. (b) shall not hold any other office of profit in the service of the State.

I just want to indicate at this stage that shortly after this, we shall proceed to discuss the Transport Advisory Council Bill. It is significant that in this specific provision the words “office of profit in the service of the State” are used. We shall soon see, when we come to the Transport Advisory Council Bill, that a different legislative language is used there. In that Bill reference is made to an office of profit under the Republic, which is an archaic legal expression.

Today I want to make a plea for us to dispense with these different ways of expression when it comes to legislation, and develop a uniform legal terminology which the man in the street will also find easy to understand and read, apart from the fact that it will make it easier for jurists to interpret the law.

I want to commend the legal terminology used in this specific Bill, and say that I particularly appreciate the fact that it is stated very clearly in plain Afrikaans what the meaning is, viz “’n winsbetrekking in diens van die Staat.”

When one looks at the terms used in the Transport Advisory Council Bill, which we shall still discuss, I am convinced that when the man in the street reads that a man occupies an office of profit “under the Republic”, he will begin to wonder whether the official concerned does not have something to do with funeral undertakers.

The same problem also arises when both an expert jurist and ordinary members of the public try to determine what “under the Republic” means. I think I have made the point clear. I am pleased to see that this kind of style is now being used in drafting laws.

The point regarding the appointment of certain people who have not been elected, to regional services councils, has already been raised by a number of hon members. I just want to associate myself with that by saying that this is a principle which is not consistent with democracy. In conclusion, I just want to make a few general remarks.

The hon member for Umfolozi made certain remarks on constitutional concepts, citizenship, and so on, and he referred to a publication of the NP in this regard. At this stage I want to say that I do not know how one is supposed to understand his remarks. However, he can rest assured that this concept will definitely be given serious attention by this side of the House in the debate that is to take place under the Vote of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

The hon member for Pinetown remarked that the CP was forgetting about ethnicity in the White community. This is another aspect for which there is unfortunately insufficient time in this debate to debate it in detail. Perhaps it would suffice to say at this stage that firstly this side of the House will very definitely be debating the matter, once again probably under the Vote of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

However, we also want to say that the CP very clearly takes into account the ethnicity in the White community. There are certain very simple questions one must ask oneself in this regard in respect of the loyalty of people and the cultural unity that exists in the White community.

In this regard I want to conclude by referring to the concept “White nation”. It is a concept, not of the Conservative Party, but of the party of the hon member who has just made that remark. I believe that there will in any event be a large degree of agreement from that side of the House in the forthcoming debate, viz that we can speak of a White nation, and not merely of a collection of white-skinned people.

Mr Chairman, I shall probably not be able to complete my reply in the time available to me, but first of all I want to thank hon members who spoke in support of this amending Bill sincerely for their positive contributions. It was very clear to me that hon members had made a very thorough study of this Bill.

On this side of the House we had the speech by the hon member for Mossel Bay. He referred to the hon member for Pietersburg and said that the hon member had used the wrong legislation. I want to ask hon members please to take note that a Bill is referred to a standing committee and that when it comes back with its amendments, that Bill is before the House and not the one which was referred to the standing committee. I think the hon member for Pietersburg did make a mistake in that regard. He became a little mixed up with the Bills and I think that if a medical doctor becomes confused, the situation becomes rather dangerous.

In his speech the hon member for Turffontein referred to the amendments that were positive, and I want to assure the House that each of these amendments which have been effected here is certainly a positive one.

The hon member for Umlazi said that this was not merely an omnibus Bill and he stressed the importance of this measure. It had become necessary for certain amendments to be effected because certain changes had taken place over the years.

The hon member for Vryheid, who excused himself for not being able to be here this afternoon, spoke with authority about the Commission for Co-operation and Development. At present he is the Chairman of that commission and could therefore speak with authority about their work. I want to thank him personally for the task he is discharging there.

The hon member for Umfolozi, who is also a member of the commission, emphasised inter alia that the name of the commission was not being changed. That was the motion which was put before the Standing Committee but which was not agreed to. The commission’s name therefore remains the Commission for Co-operation and Development.

The hon member for Kuruman spoke in a particularly competent way about the position of the Black woman as far as her rights and traditional customs were concerned. He also spoke with great professional knowledge about the lobola system. To me the hon member looks like a cattle farmer. He said he was a widower …

He advertised. [Interjections.]

I therefore do not think that the hon member would experience any problems if he had to pay lobola. On the other hand, I do not know whether an hon member may rise in this House and advertise himself, Sir. [Interjections.]

I want to convey my sincere thanks to all the hon members on this side of the House for their contributions. From the PFP there was the contribution by the hon member Prof Olivier as well as that of the hon member for Houghton.

†The hon member referred to clause 1 in connection with the legal capacity of Black women in relation to leasehold and ownership, and said that one step forward had been taken. I can assure the hon member that the NP is firmly on the road of South Africa and, like Bruce Fordyce, always in front and a winner. [Interjections.]

*I also thank the hon member for Pinetown for his support.

At this stage I should like to move:

Agreed to.

Precedence given to private members’ business.

Mr Chairman, I move the motion printed in the name of the hon member for Brakpan on the Order Paper, as follows:

That the House draws the Government’s attention to—

1. (1) the increasing impoverishment of the Whites, inter alia because of the narrowing of the wage gap and the redistribution of wealth and income;
2. (2) the ousting of the Whites from their traditional employment opportunities; and
3. (3) the forced integration in the labour sphere, with the attendant social disruption and related problems,

and requests the Government to counteract the same actively.

The impoverishment of the White worker in South Africa has been taking place over quite a number of years. It began in the midseventies. There was a high inflation rate at the time and the country was experiencing problems. A Prof Lawrence McCrystal was told to investigate the problem and make recommendations. In other words, he had to see if he could show the Government by means of figures how to combat inflation.

From 1972 to 1985 the real income of Whites rose by 0,3%. Over the same period the real income of Blacks rose by 4,7%. If we had had last year’s figures before us, for example, we would have seen that the income of Whites rose by even less than that 0,3%. The information at our disposal therefore shows that Whites have become poorer year by year, and that the process is continuing.

The White workers of South Africa have done their share to get the South African economy straightened out. For the past 12 years the increases they have been granted have been nowhere near the inflation rate. They have always acted patriotically and pulled their weight. They did not go on strike at the drop of a hat. Yet nothing has been done to improve the living standards of Whites.

I want to quote something to hon members. Before hon members start shouting, “Produce evidence! Produce proof!” I should just like to mention that the SA Foundation asked for an enquiry. I am quoting from their document:

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

I am not replying to any questions now.

Order! The hon member is not going to reply to any questions now.

The document continues:

As I have already said, this problem the White worker is up against has various causes. I have already mentioned that the Whites were concerned about the economy of the country. From the seventies to the present they have felt a desire to play their part. What was our experience in the past? Whenever salaries were being negotiated there was always some Minister or economist requesting employers not to grant excessive increases, as they put it. The employer then hid behind that rampart.

As I have already said, the White workers acted patriotically because they did not want the country to find itself in an economic mess. They ensured that agreements were reached with employers and accepted increases that were considerably less than the inflation rate.

I think it is time something was done about this matter. The Government must give immediate, positive and serious attention to the inflation rate. Month after month and year after year it is said—and we all realise it—that inflation is a very grave problem, but that productivity is part and parcel of the problem. In order to narrow the wage gap, pressure has been exerted for the granting of ever-larger increases to Blacks. However, no one ever stresses the point that management should be prepared to pay on condition that the Black workers increase their productivity so that the firm involved gets something in return. Many employers have already begun to mechanise in an attempt to avoid this extraordinary increase in salaries, but this is not going to help us at all if the Government does not take the bull by the horns and get the inflation rate down. They hope that it will drop to below 10%, but the question is how.

How?

I am being asked how this can be done. If we were in power, we would have shown them how. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister should put forward proposals to the NP caucus on how inflation can be reduced and if he does not do so, he is not really representing his people. He must not ask how; he must come forward with proposals. But this is not happening. [Interjections.]

Let me tell him first of all that there should be less spending. If we look at what has happened here in the past few weeks, we shall see evidence to prove that the Government does not want to save. Even as a newcomer to this Parliament I could mention quite a few cases of unnecessary expenditure.

Name them.

Twenty Deputy Ministers.

I ask those hon members to start with themselves and to cut back in order to bring down the inflation rate. Then White workers will be able to hold their heads high again and not become poorer year by year and have to lower their standard of living in order to make ends meet.

Another matter we should like to discuss is integration in the labour sphere. We find increasingly that employers are forcing integration on White workers in a very nice way. There are still many White workers who do not belong to trade unions. There are many cases of White workers being by far in the minority when Black workers approach employers and make demands which are given in to. I should like to quote to this House what the Government’s policy used to be. It is from a document dated 9 April 1983 and was then still Government policy. However, this policy changes so swiftly that one does not always know what it is. Perhaps the hon the Minister could tell me this afternoon whether it is still Government policy. I quote:

“Geriewe”, not “griewe”.

I beg your pardon, “geriewe”. [Interjections.]—

When they did not want to give you any amenities, you became a CP member!

Mr Chairman, I am proud to be a CP member. [Interjections.] I am very, very proud to be a CP member.

The Nats are ashamed to be White! [Interjections.]

Since I joined the CP I have always stood by my principles, held my head high and looked the world squarely in the eye. Nor do I say one thing and do another. [Interjections.] I am proud to be a CP member. I am proud of my White skin. I am proud of the fact that Whites have chosen me to represent them here. I am proud to represent Whites. [Interjections.]

Order!

To return to the question of separate amenities, Mr Chairman, I should like to repeat that, in a nice way, workers are being forced to share amenities. I can testify to a case in which employers approached their employees and told them that their club had to be opened to non-Whites. I am referring to a semi-State institution now. In fact, I am referring to Eskom. This happened at one of their power stations situated about 30 kilometres from the nearest town. The club was then thrown open. Subscriptions were increased to R5 and it was no longer compulsory for employees to belong to the club. After the club had been thrown open, it was simply not possible for those Whites who did not want to belong to the open club to play rugby any more. They could not even buy their children a cold drink at that club. They could not do anything there any more. Yet they live 30 kilometres away from the nearest town. Now that they have to drive into town frequently, it naturally costs them far more than the R5 a member has to pay to enjoy the amenities of the club. No decision was taken to build a club on the outskirts of the town. The club is in the middle of the town. Therefore the Blacks streamed into town in order to get to the club. As in so many other instances, Sir, the Whites are being crowded out. They have to make room for those Blacks. The Whites do not want to be with them.

I now come back to the assurance we received. Whenever any worker—even if it is only one—asks that this be done, it should be done. I want to submit this afternoon that it is not being done. Persuading an employer to change things is an uphill struggle. The next step is to go to the industrial court. There one encounters the problem that things are not being rectified. One gets no satisfaction there, and I believe the Government should tell us what they are going to do to rectify this matter.

I should like to go even further and tell members on the Government side that this is discrimination against the Whites. Whites are always the ones who come off second best. But this rule also applies in the case of non-Whites. Whenever a Black does not want to share a cloakroom with me or does not want to use the same toilet, he has, according to this assurance, the right to approach his employer and tell him he wants separate facilities. I request the hon the Minister to embody this in legislation; not to lay it down in mere guidelines. It should be written into the Labour Relations Act that when an employee wants separate facilities, when he does not want to bathe with an Indian, a Black or a Coloured, when he does not want to eat with a member of another population group, separate facilities can be made available to him. And now the hon the Minister must not tell me that there will be an outcry about this in the outside world. There cannot be because it contains no reference to race or colour. The hon the Minister would simply have to argue that anyone who does not want it knows what he can do.

One man, one toilet! [Interjections.]

The most recent case to which I should like to refer is that of the young manager of a mine in Virginia.

Have you been there?

I am referring to the manager of a mine in Virginia, who said at a party on Monday that if Whites did not want to share amenities with Blacks, there was no work for those Whites at that mine. [Interjections.] One has to do this, or leave. The hon the Minister is asking me if I was there; he is amazed. No, I was not there. I do not attend multiracial parties. My former members do not take part in multiracial parties either.

Then how do you know?

In that constituency the apprentices were forced to share amenities three years ago …

That is how he knows!

… in Virginia. They had to share living quarters, and they did everything in their power to put a stop to it. They even asked the hon the Minister for help. Who put a stop to it?

We do not want to use threats of strikes all the time; therefore I request the hon the Minister this afternoon to draft legislation which will provide that when any person wants separate amenities, they must be provided. That would satisfy everybody. That would bring about labour peace.

I recently heard about a case of employees being forced to use the same bus as non-Whites. [Interjections.] All these years there have been separate buses …[Interjections.] That hon member who is laughing can do so if he likes because he is laughing at himself. White women use that bus and, because the Blacks sit one to a seat, the White women are forced either to stand or to sit next to those Blacks. Sir, this is our White South Africa; we fought for it; we struggled for it; and we, just like the Blacks, want to have our own rights.

They are laughing at you!

It is time the people who are laughing …I know of others who also laughed until the walls around them were set on fire and when they woke up, they were buried. The same thing is going to happen here. [Interjections.] We must look after the workers, we must ensure labour peace and we must give these people amenities.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Carletonville, and I want to say that I really heard nothing new, except what we have been hearing all these years. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to this motion. I do not want to deviate to the left and the right, I just want to confine myself to the motion lying here in front of me. From this motion it is clear that the CP is displaying complete insensitivity towards our country and its people. This is reflected very clearly in the wording of this motion. To me this is once again a very transparent attempt by the CP to advocate flagrant racism.

Hear, hear!

This is completely consistent with its programme of principles which is full of prejudices, racism and fear for people of colour. For example, in its programme of principles the CP speaks of a policy of the creative withdrawal of foreign labour from one another’s areas; the establishment of labour-saving techniques; of Whites doing their own work; of the selective immigration of Whites; and of the protection of workers. All that these things add up to are racism and prejudice.

Let us look at the motion in more detail. In this regard I want to focus the attention of hon members specifically on the first paragraph, which reads as follows:

1. (1) the increasing impoverishment of the Whites, inter alia because of the narrowing of the wage gap and the redistribution of wealth and income;

I think we should define a few of these concepts a little better right at the outset. In this regard I want to use the Verklarende Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal. “Verarming” (“impoverishment”) means “arm maak” or “arm word”; “herverdeling” interestingly enough, means “nog ’n keer verdeel”; and, interestingly enough, “rykdom” means “’n toestand van ryk te wees; baie geld en goed te hê”. Looking at it in that way, I could rewrite the first part of this motion a little so that it reads as follows:

The insinuation is very clear now. That is that the Whites are becoming poor, mainly because the Blacks and people of colour are now getting more money than they are really worth. That is what this motion is saying, and the hon member for Carletonville has just implied that.

It is true.

I do not know who said it was a fact, but that is what the hon member for Carletonville has just implied.

To continue, it also means that money that should really have gone to the Whites, is now being given to other people. One can again see the naked racism of the CP. The insinuation is so clear: The wage gap is being narrowed in that the salary increases of the Whites are being held back artificially—the hon member for Carletonville has just said that again now—and the wages of people of colour are being increased artificially and excessively. Surely no other interpretation can be given to this. If the CP says that that is not what they meant, what did they mean?

Let us go on and first get rid of those sections of the first paragraph that are deliberately meant to deceive, viz the reference to the “redistribution of wealth”.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to say, with reference to a motion of another hon member, that its purpose is to deliberately deceive? The implication is that the hon member wants to deceive this House deliberately.

Order! I heard that reference and I would appreciate it if the hon member for Stilfontein would withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.] I would say instead that it is deliberately meant to mislead.

Order! The hon member for Stilfontein must not state alternatives now. The hon member must withdraw those words and then proceed.

I withdraw them, Sir.

No institution, Government department, or whatever, has gone and divided up the great deal of money and goods of the Whites another time. No one has taken away the money the Whites had, or still have, from the Whites and divided it up amongst other people, yet that is what this motion says. No White person has been evicted from his house and given a smaller house so that the money from the sale of the larger house could be given to people of colour, yet that is precisely what this motion says. After all, it suits the racist pronouncements of the CP to say this, to try to create the impression amongst Whites that people of colour are the cause of all our problems. The CP can only grow if their whole approach is of a racist nature.

What about the section of the motion dealing with the redistribution of income? Once again the racist insinuation of the CP emerges very clearly here. They want to tell the Whites that their income is going to be taken away by the Government and that it is going to be given to people of colour. Surely that is a gross, downright lie. When have we as a Government ever argued that people’s salaries and wages should be taken away from them and given to others? When have we held back salary increases and given them to others? When have we held back notch increases and given them to others?

Having eliminated those two aspects, only one small facet of this first part remains, viz the "increasing impoverishment of the Whites, inter alia because of the narrowing of the wage gap”. I shall come to that in a moment, but I first just want to state unequivocally that we as a Government are deeply concerned about the fact that all our population groups—not only the Whites—are to a greater or lesser extent temporarily worse off financially than before. We are not arguing about that. We admit it. What we are not prepared to accept, however, is the CP's accusation that it is solely the fault of this Government that this has happened. The hon member for Carletonville said this from one platform to another during the election campaign. I am asking him again whether or not he said it, but he is not reacting at the moment.

What are the true facts? Is it the NP Government’s fault that there are droughts? Is it our fault that the worst drought in living memory has been prevailing during the past few years? Is it our fault that we have had to give thousands of millions of rands in financial aid to farmers to help them through this critical period? Where must that money come from? It must come from the taxpayer, of course, and it does not come from the Whites only, since everyone pays GST, and everyone pays when they have reached the notch on which tax is imposed in terms of PAYE.

Is it the Government’s fault that the rest of the world has been experiencing economic recessions over the past few years? Does the hon member think that when that happens, it is not going to affect us? We are not living in a cocoon. These things must affect us, too. What I will concede, is that owing to our policy of reform it is partly our fault that there are economic punitive measures against, and that companies are withdrawing from, our country. But that is due to one reason only, and that is that the interests and prosperity of all groups without the domination of one by another, is our objective. That includes looking after the interests of those hon members in this country of ours.

What was your majority?

Order! Which hon member made that remark?

I did, Mr Speaker.

That is the second or third time the hon member has done that now, and he must refrain from doing so. That interjection has nothing whatever to do with the subject under discussion. It is a senseless interjection, which makes no contribution to the debate, and I would appreciate it if the hon member would refrain from making it.

If those hon members do not know it, the largest number of Whites voted for us in the recent election, and they are prepared to make short-term economic sacrifices to safeguard their future and the future of their children in the long term. That is why they voted for us in such large numbers.

Everyone is expected to make sacrifices, including Blacks and people of colour who lost their jobs because of boycotts and companies withdrawing from our country. Are the members of the CP so selfish that they are not prepared to make even the smallest sacrifice for the sake of their country? I must assume that this is the case, since they refuse to see the difference between short-term sacrifices and economic selfishness.

Let us assume for argument’s sake that the Whites are becoming increasingly poorer because of the Government’s policy. If they have to make short-term financial sacrifices under NP policy, would this be eliminated if the CP’s policy of partition were implemented?

Yes!

That hon member is shouting “yes”. To be able to aspire to an own partitioned state, the CP would have to ensure that the Whites would constitute the majority in such a state. This means that at least five million Black people would have to be moved.

Oh please!

That hon member is shouting “oh please!”. There are more that 10 million Black people in White areas, so surely it is clear that one would have to move five million. Let us accept their policy that they will get 70% of all Black people out of White areas. They are therefore going to move approximately 7,5 million Blacks. According to informed people, who have knowledge of resettlement, the cost of removal is estimated at R40 000 per capita. This includes the purchasing of assets, the creation of employment opportunities, settlement on a settlement basis, land prices per plot, and so on.

You do it all the time!

To move 7,5 million people, would therefore cost 7,5 million x R40 300; in other words, R302 000 million.

What is your source?

If we assume that there are just over one million White taxpayers, it means that every White taxpayer will have to cough up approximately R300 000. If we also assume that the CP will take 15 years to finalise the partition policy, it means that for 15 years every taxpayer will have to cough up approximately R20 000 per annum in additional tax. That is the present total average income per White earner here in the RSA. What are the Whites going to live on?

Now I ask how feasible is this? Not only is the CP policy going to cause people to make short-term sacrifices financially; they are going to ruin them completely. I also want to know whether it is Christian and morally justified to relocate 7,5 million people—500 000 per annum, therefore.

All the old United Party arguments!

The last section I want to discuss, is the narrowing of the wage gap. I find it very odd that the motion clearly states that “the increasing impoverishment of the Whites” is taking place “inter alia because of the narrowing of the wage gap”. I do not understand it at all. It is in fact CP policy that the wage gap must be rectified and that Blacks and people of colour can earn more than Whites in the same post. Or does the hon member for Carletonville not agree? Does the hon member agree or not? After all, it is their policy that Whites and Blacks …

Make an appointment; I shall tell you then! [Interjections.]

If we look at page 13 of their programme of principles, we see that their policy reads as follows:

Those are the words. [Interjections.] Is it, then, not true? Hon members can come and read the programme of principles; I have it right here in front of me. Surely this means only one thing, and that is that anyone whose productivity in a certain post is greater than someone else’s in the same post, must receive more remuneration than the other person. If the former is a Black worker or a Coloured, what must we do then?

Except if he is Black!

Hon members see how easily and glibly the CP say these things, but they do not think of the implications. In addition this means that everyone who performs the same work, should be entitled to the same basic starting wage, particularly if they have the same qualifications and training as their colleagues, or are better qualified. Now hon members of the CP cannot say, “except if they are Blacks”, because I am then going to accuse them of being racists. Consequently, their policy can only mean that everyone must start with the same basic salary. In terms of CP policy, everyone must therefore get the same, and that is nothing but the narrowing of the wage gap, because in the past Blacks who held the same posts as Whites earned far less. Now the CP also want to narrow the wage gap, according to their programme of principles, but in the same breath they are saying that the Whites are being impoverished by the narrowing of the wage gap. This makes no sense to me.

No employer has ever been compelled by the Government to narrow the wage gap; we must say this here today. If a managing director of an organisation wants to pay his driver R2 000 per week, he does so; it is not the Government that tells him to do so. We do not tell one of those hon members what to pay their domestics servants. They can pay them R5 000 per annum if they wish.

I now want to go further and deal with another blunder the CP made. When we as the Government speak of a redistribution of wealth and income, we are actually speaking of the redistribution of opportunities. We believe that everyone in this country should have the opportunity to earn a good living through hard work and that everyone should be afforded the opportunity of joining the ranks of the haves. That is what we mean. We are certainly not prepared to listen to this racist motion which actively seeks to thwart the redistribution of opportunities. We shall continue to strive for the humane treatment of all groups in this country, including the Whites.

Mr Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the CP and NP spokesmen on manpower. It was especially interesting when one considered the two personalities involved. On the one hand we have the hon member for Carletonville, with his well-known background in the White trade unions. He has always tried to defend the interests of the White worker, even on the basis of “Kaffer op sy plek”. However, he has always been consistent in this regard because he represents the White worker.

On the other hand we have the hon member for Stilfontein. He is a person who is well qualified for his position, and his background includes having been an employee of Anglo-American.

Tell us about yourself.

That contrast tells us a great deal because the situation now is that the NP is far more representative of the economic interests in our country. Therefore they are far more aware of the inherent strength of the economy and of adjustments that have to be made if one wants to survive. That pragmatism and willingness to accept the fact that the economic realities will have to be dealt with one does not find in the hon member for Carletonville. He is simply carrying on regardless and trying to find counter-measures to the economical and historical realities, in the hope of succeeding at some stage. However, he cannot do so; he will never be able to fight against the economical and historical realities.

Eight years ago the hon member for Carletonville, in his capacity as trade union leader, tried to counteract the proposals contained in the Wiehahn Commission report. He had a mandate from his workers. Even then his attitude was exactly the same as it is now. I could perhaps quote from an article by Mr Ken Owen which appeared in Energos. He referred to the representations which the hon member for Carletonville had directed against the Wiehahn Commission report when it was published in 1979. I quote:

That is Fanie Botha—

†That was what Arrie Paulus said in 1979, and that is what the hon member also says in 1987. He is going to lose, because reality is overtaking him. Already at that stage Sacla was not prepared to accept those recommendations. Why, Sir, are the hon member for Carletonville and the CP going to lose? It is because the almost revolutionary forces of an economy are working against them.

Before 1933 we had an economy that was based mainly on agriculture and mining. Vast numbers of unskilled workers, Blacks, were required to keep that going. The skilled jobs could be taken by Whites, because there were more than enough of them to fill those jobs. From 1933 onwards, with the industrial revolution that took place in South Africa, the situation changed. It changed in that the manufacturing sector started overtaking mining and agriculture. One had the situation where, for example in 1935, the mining industry was at the top with a contribution toward the gross domestic product of R133 million; second came agriculture with R93 million; and manufacturing third with R73 million. In 1982 the whole situation had reversed, and the manufacturing industry had streaked forward and overtaken both of them. It was standing first with a contribution of R17 billion; second came mining with R10 billion, and third came agriculture with R4 billion.

Sir, why are these figures relevant? In any industrialised society or any country whose manufacturing industry is expanding, one needs skilled workers. Urbanisation necessarily goes with it in order to ensure a ready supply. This happened in South Africa after 1933. For there to be growth in the industrial sector, there had to be skilled manpower. More Blacks were moving into cities and they were taking more and more semi-skilled jobs. In 1948 a substantial section of Black workers had already moved to the cities. The NP at that stage thought they could stem these forces that the economy was unleashing. They came up with apartheid as a policy, job reservation, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and a trade union policy that tried to keep Blacks out. For approximately ten years they thought they could succeed. At the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, even under Dr Verwoerd, they realised that the inherent power of economic expansion and industrialisation could not be stopped by laws such as those. They had to come to grips with reality, and the strikes that took place in Durban during 1973 forced the Government to realise that Black workers had become a new factor that had to be accommodated. The Wiehahn Commission Report was a result of that. It was an attempt to adapt to the realities. The Conservative Party remained behind. They are still trying to propound the 1950 approach of Dr Verwoerd. He and more particularly Mr B J Vorster had to come to grips with these realities.

The 1980 Wiehahn recommendations were an indication—as I said just now—that the economic forces through industrialisation are such that no-one can stop them. If the CP’s policies were implemented, we could not possibly have a growth rate. The hon member for Carletonville correctly says that one of the ways of overcoming the problems with regard to income which White workers have is to look into productivity. He appeals to the Government to improve productivity. At the same time, however, he is in favour of a system of one toilet, one person; one bus, one person. In this way he wants everything to be duplicated.

*The attitude is: Take them away with the bullet train—across the border every day with the bullet train!

†Sir, that is not possible when one is trying to improve productivity. The approach of wanting to follow the course of total separation must necessarily bring productivity down even further. The hon member for Carletonville must know that he is on a losing wicket. He has been on a losing wicket as far as the economic reality is concerned for the past 15 years! (Interjections.]

The number of Black workers necessary just to maintain the status quo is such that one cannot ignore the Blacks in terms of numbers, economic power—I refer here to purchasing power—or political power. If we are to have a growth rate of at least 3% or even 5%, the numbers with which we are dealing will increase even more.

I should like to give just a few indications of what we are talking about. A business consultant, the former leader of Project Free Enterprise, has worked out, for example, that South Africa will need 116 000 new managers by the year 2000. The maximum number of Whites who can be expected to develop as managers during this period is only 40 000. That means that the remaining 80 000 will have to be Blacks.

Oh!

What is going to happen?

†Will those Black managers have to use separate toilets? Is the hon member for Carletonville even prepared to have Black managers? Without those 80 000 Black managers it will not even be possible to maintain the present static rate of growth in our economy. This is an economic reality. The hon member for Carletonville and the CP will continue shouting against this but the reality will overtake them, unless they are prepared to go to Morgenzon, and have a negative growth rate. I am sure they are not prepared to have that. If we want an economy with a sound growth rate, we shall have to be prepared to accommodate these forces which are inherent in our economy.

When one looks at the Government’s track record in terms of their efforts to protect White workers, one sees that the only area where they really have exclusive power is in the public service. In this regard the hon member for Carletonville must not complain against the Government because, in fact, the Government has been trying to favour Whites over Blacks.

It is interesting to look at the results of a study done by Prof Nattrass from the University of Natal, in which she indicates that the Government has been leaning over backwards to provide jobs for Whites rather than for Blacks. What is even more interesting, is that in the days of Dr Verwoerd far more Blacks were allowed into the public service percentagewise than under the present regime of the hon the State President. It is interesting to look at the figures. From 1960 onwards the percentage of Whites employed by the central Government—these figures include homelands and control boards—actually declined from 47% in 1960 to 37% in 1970. There was a decline.

*They call that “verkaffering”. In those days the Public Service was ostensibly in the process of being integrated (verkaffer). [Interjections.]

†The percentage of Africans employed in the public sector rose from 48% in 1960 to 50% in 1970 and to 58% in 1977. By 1985 African employment, as a percentage of the sector employed, had fallen to 52%. In other words, in 1977, 58% of the employees in the public service were Black. That fell under the administration of the hon the present State President to 52% in 1985. As far as Whites are concerned, in 1977, 28% of the employees were White and that rose to 32% in 1985. The hon member for Carletonville must therefore thank this Government for creating jobs for Whites in the public service at a time when there was actually a far greater demand and need for this Government to provide jobs for Blacks in the public service in order to bring people into the administration of the country who could assist in their own community and generally in the future of the country. They were not doing that. They were prejudiced in order to find work for people who could vote for them, and these people have been voting for the Government.

Let us now look at the aspect of the growing demand for skilled work power. On page 29 of the Report of the President’s Council Committee for Economic Affairs on a Strategy for Employment Creation and Labour Intensive Development there is an interesting schedule in which they project the supply and demand for different labour categories to be required between 1980 and the year 2000. These figures are supplied by the research unit for economic demography at the University of Stellenbosch. The supply available in the executive and management category between now and the year 2000 is 94 000. The demand is 197 000. By the year 2000 there will be a shortage of 103 000. In the professional, technical and highly skilled category the supply available in that period will be 455 000. The demand will be 897 000 a shortage of 442 000 of professional, technical and highly skilled people.

This situation can be corrected by increasing education and training. That means putting more money into that aspect. That also means having those people available at the place where they work in order to improve productivity. It means urbanization, which means greater political involvement by the Black workers and communities in the area in which they live. As a result of that there will have to be political adaptations and necessarily a greater degree of integration of the economy. The greater integration must lead further, because of the political power which the urbanized Black people will have, to greater integration and co-operation in the political field. These are all factors which the hon member for Carletonville seems to wish away in this resolution. It sounds like a desperate attempt to wade in against the forces of history and the economy. He is going to find that his little boat will shatter itself to pieces against those realities, and he will have to come to grips with those realities.

One must concede that as far as the Wiehahn Report and labour legislation are concerned, this Government has tried to come to grips with the realities in those areas. It has in many respects correctly identified the strains and stresses which will occur in the field of labour, and this Government is trying to channel them in a direction where there will not be major labour friction between employer and employee. What they have neglected to do, however, and this is where the problem comes in, is to do the same in the political field. On the labour relations side they correctly analyse and anticipate and try to provide a channelling vehicle. On the political side, however, they refuse to do so, and we are reaching the stage where as good as the labour relations legislation is, it is going to be undermined and become less effective if there is not a rapid addressing of the political realities of Black and White in urban areas. One cannot have a successful labour dispensation if the political dispensation remains totally outdated and the Government refuses to accept the realities.

We therefore reject this motion and will vote against it.

Mr Speaker, although I do not agree with all the statements made by the hon member for Durban Central, I am grateful that he did at least refer to several other aspects towards the end of his speech. I was beginning to fear it would not, yet I feel that as regards the approach adopted in his contribution here, that atmosphere did begin to glimmer through. It reveals an atmosphere in the sense that when one attaches so much importance to the economic realities—of course there are also economic realities—one forgets that there are also political realities and that one of the great challenges in this country is to maintain a balance between these realities.

As regards the Official Opposition we have another problem. To them everything is political, and they frequently forget and negate the economic realities. They want to try to force the economy to fit into their little pattern. [Interjections.]

I would prefer to discuss the motion per se. Here we are dealing with the motion which is an example of an attempt to wrest emotional matters out of their context for the sake of short-term party political gain and to inflate them and exploit them in a way which borders on recklessness.

It is an emotion motion!

You can say that again. It is an example of an attempt to live a lie in practice, and I shall try to indicate this as I go along. This motion tries to suggest that White prosperity is something which can exist or be maintained separately and in isolation from the prosperity of other people in this country. This is simply not true. What is true is that the prosperity of everyone in this country is intertwined and that the prosperity of one cannot be separated from the prosperity of another.

Even if the Official Opposition were to succeed with their policy of partition—be it a partial, complete, semi-or chequer-board partition policy or whatever—the prosperity of the people living geographically in South Africa will still be intertwined, because one does not have all the resources in every specific part of this country. The water resources and the agricultural resources are concentrated in certain areas in the same way that certain minerals are concentrated in certain areas. If one wants to develop the economy of this region properly, one cannot do so with totally isolated units. The prosperity of those units remains intertwined.

Because we share these resources with one another, if we want to promote everyone’s prosperity, including that of the Whites, we must develop these resources to the optimum. In the world in which we live and in the international circumstances in which we find ourselves, we cannot afford to waste scarce capital on unproductive policies. This is an international problem which is singled out in a paginated report of the President’s Council, which sums things up very well. [Interjections.] I am quoting as follows:

I should like to ask the hon member for Carletonville or any of his colleagues whether they accept that their policies will require certain sacrifices by the Whites. Are they going to require certain material sacrifices?

This has been said time and again. [Interjections.]

Very well, I am glad that hon member also admits this, because there are also other examples on record where they have admitted this.

That party has now become the Official Opposition. When one is the Official Opposition one is also the so-called alternative government. This not only gives one enhanced status, but also greater responsibility. It is the duty of those hon members, if they want to be an alternative government, to put their plans on the table too. Let us make the calculations so that we can see how great the sacrifices are which they are requiring the Whites to make. They reject the figures which the hon member for Stilfontein used here today in an attempt to determine what their policies are going to cost.

He did not want to reveal his source.

They must give us their figures. They must not run away from their own statements. Let us conduct a debate on the basis of their figures. Then we can have a meaningful debate with one another on what is really in the interests of the prosperity of the Whites too. Those hon members must spell out to us what they mean by sacrifices.

More taxes.

They must tell us, when they object in this motion to the so-called ousting of Whites from their traditional employment opportunities whether the CP, if it were to come into power, would reintroduce job reservation. Is it going to reintroduce job reservation …

They are clamming up.

… to reserve so-called White employment opportunities for Whites. Because you see, none or very few of our big companies are going to do this voluntarily.

In which category?

They must therefore tell us whether they are going to reintroduce job reservation. Let us argue with one another on the facts, if they are now trying to suggest that the Whites are being prejudiced to such an extent. Are they going to extend job reservation? Are they going to extend it further than it was at the stage when it reached its optimum? Because it is interesting that at the stage when job reservation was at its highest level in this country, it only affected 1% of the employment opportunities.

Another false premise is being held up here, namely that Whites are being prejudiced, are suffering, because other people are being benefitted at their expense. This is the implication of this motion, and it is being said in so many words, but what are the facts? I come from an industrial constituency and I know what the unemployment levels are. I know what it is to be a labourer. I got my university degree by working as an operator at Iscor. I grew up in a labourer’s home, but I learnt one thing in my home. My father taught me: Labour ennobles. I did not ask for any special protection. I was prepared to work, to be rewarded according to my merits.

Those hon members must tell us how they see this matter. Are they going to extend job reservation? Are they prepared to curtail the growth and broadening of the economy for the sake of keeping other people out of managerial posts and so on? They cannot get away with vague generalities.

They cannot reply.

You people are getting away with it.

Before I resume my seat I again want to make a very serious appeal: Let us have a serious debate with one another. Give us the facts. If they reject our figures, they must give us their figures; then we can really have a serious debate with one another.

Mr Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to be able to participate in this debate and support the motion of the hon member for Carletonville.

As regards the hon member for Stilfontein, I listened attentively to his speech this afternoon and I can now fully understand why the majority of Stilfontein’s voters preferred not to have him represent them here. [Interjections.] In the course of my speech I shall also prove to the hon member for Stilfontein that Blacks are in fact being paid more than their productivity justifies.

Your AWB stories again! [Interjections.]

Oh, Sir, all I can say to that hon member is:

[Interjections.] In 1983 the governing party went from one platform to another trying to persuade the voters to vote “yes” in the referendum. Yes, Sir, they said: “Vote ‘yes’ and the land of milk and honey will literally unfold before your eyes.”

That is not true.

Yes, they were promised peace, they were promised prosperity, they were promised progress and they were promised that overseas investments would stream into the country. The people were told that all they had to do was vote “yes” so that Coloureds and Indians could become joint governors of the Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.]

What happened then? We found that overseas investors withdrew their money because they saw that they could not have confidence in a tricameral government consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.] What became of peace? It turned into violence; prosperity turned into bankruptcy. If we look at the figures for 1969, we see that 4 959 natural persons were sequestrated and 3 303 companies were liquidated. What became of the progress? It turned into unemployment and this led to further poverty.

Let us look at the gross domestic product during the past three decades. In the decade from 1950 to 1960 the real growth was 4,4%; from 1960 to 1970 it was 5,9%; from 1970 to 1980 it was 3,6%; and—yes, hold on to your hat, Mr Speaker—from 1980 to 1985 it was a mere 0,7%. [Interjections.] Yes, the growth was a mere 0,7%.

Between 1982 and 1985 the number of employees dropped from 7,78 million to 7,72 million. As a result the number of registered White unemployed persons increased. In January 1983 there were 12 361 registered White unemployed persons. In January 1986 the number had risen to 29 398, and in April of the same year it had risen to 32 114. [Interjections.] Therefore unemployment among Whites has increased at an alarming rate from 12 361 in January 1983 to 29 398 in January 1986, and these are only registered White unemployed persons. This is only one of the factors which has led to the impoverishment of the Whites in South Africa.

Other factors which have led to the impoverishment of the Whites is the narrowing of the wage gap and the redistribution of income. This brings me to the allegation of the hon member for Stilfontein. I am going to answer him, Sir. Let us take a look at the report of the President’s Council’s Committee for Economic Affairs on a strategy for employment creation and labour intensive development—this is the report which appeared this year. I am quoting from page 54 et seq:

Now hon members must listen carefully:

I am continuing to quote:

The report goes on to say:

According to the report the average real income of Blacks has risen by 99,1% since 1970—to such an extent that it has exceeded the increase in productivity. Although Black salaries rose by 99,1%, productivity only rose by 15,9%. Surely this is adding fuel to the inflation fire, and simply causing it to flare up and burn more fiercely. This is also causing businessmen to be unwilling to invest. This is also resulting in businessmen having to mechanise, which in turn gives rise to unemployment.

Let us take a look at the interesting findings of a survey by the SA Foundation:

In his presidential address of 1987 the president of the AHI said the following about the redistribution of income:

He went on to say the following, and I am quoting:

I am continuing to quote what he said:

I want to draw the attention of hon members to these important words:

This predominant minority is the Whites.

The Government must therefore ensure that it does not impoverish the Whites further in order to bring about parity, because that is precisely what is happening now.

Let us in conclusion consider what the International Labour Organisation says. I am quoting their standpoint as presented by the SA Foundation:

In the light of what I have quoted, I take great pleasure in supporting this motion of the hon member for Carletonville.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Ventersdorp made certain remarks about the hon member for Stilfontein at the beginning of his speech. I hear he is a lawyer and therefore I should like to know from him whether he handles any cases on behalf of the Black Mineworkers’ Union or looks after their interests.

Carry on with your speech; that has nothing to do with it. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: It is being insinuated that as a lawyer the hon member for Ventersdorp is acting contrary to an ethical code which compels one to handle the affairs of groups with whom one disagrees. [Interjections.]

Order! That was not insinuated and consequently that is not a point of order. The hon member may proceed.

To tell the truth, I did insinuate that the hon member had acted contrary to CP policy. [Interjections.]

My time is limited and consequently I shall not react further to the hon member’s argument in which he gave a whole list of figures. However, I want to say that South Africa is a developing country and when the labour pattern in a developing country is out of step with economic development, there are delays and growth may come to a complete standstill. But if labour development lags behind, we will be faced with a serious problem in our overall development.

If the principle contained in this motion now before the House were to be embodied in legislation if the CP were to come into power, the economy would be thrown out of gear and would eventually come to a complete standstill. Fortunately the economy has a way of prescribing things on its own. It takes no notice of ideologies and ideological legislation; on the contrary the economy in a growth phase has the ability to make ideologies look ridiculous.

When the Wiehahn Commission was appointed to investigate labour conditions at that stage, job reservation which had been introduced in 1956, as the hon member for Springs indicated, had served its purpose and only a small section of the labour force was still being protected by job reservation. Then came the revival of the late sixties and the early seventies. Certain things happened which made job reservation totally unpractical. That is why there was an investigation into the way in which it was being applied, and it was realised that it was a totally outdated concept. We are now also in the period in which there is free competition in the labour market. I therefore do not believe that if we want to promote economic growth we can deviate from this.

In the CP’s programme of principles and in their policy documents I notice that they prescribe certain things. Whites will inter alia receive preference with regard to employment opportunities. The hon member for Carletonville is nodding his head. He is therefore saying that I am correct. Now I want to know from him, when a White and a person of colour apply for the same position, and the person of colour is better qualified than the White, who is going to be appointed to that post. According to the CP’s policy the White must get that post.

The one who produces! [Interjections.]

No, Sir, if the person who produces is better equipped, better developed and more knowledgeable than the White, he is still giving the best production. I nevertheless thank the hon member for Ventersdorp for coming to my assistance. He is merely strengthening my argument. [Interjections.]

I now want to put another question to the CP. What do they mean when they talk about a traditional White employment opportunity? Are these …

Go and ask the State President!

Are these those employment opportunities which were introduced or protected in terms of the job reservation measures of 1956? Or are they the employment opportunities which existed just prior to the abolition of job reservation? I should very much like to ascertain this from the hon members of the CP because if they want to convert their policy, as it is embodied in the motion under discussion, into legislation, they will have to define that term. They will definitely have to tell us what the definition of “traditional White employment opportunities” is. I want them to tell me this, Sir, because prior to 1956 we still had White shop assistants, White lorry drivers and so on.

A large number of functions were still reserved for Whites only. Does the CP intend to return to that position? When are they going to start telling us what employment opportunities are traditionally White employment opportunities? [Interjections.] When a motion is placed on the Order Paper it is assumed that it is a well-considered motion. In my opinion this is not a well-considered motion, because to speak of traditional White employment opportunities is something which buffles my understanding at this stage.

Which is easy to do, yes.

No, Sir, it is not as easy as the hon member for Overvaal is suggesting. He will have to think very carefully before he can tell me what it is.

What about the non-traditional employment opportunities? What about the new technicques which have evolved in the field of computer science and computer services? This is not traditional work; these are recent technical aids which have been introduced in the labour market. These are also the employment opportunities with better salaries, but they are not traditional employment opportunities. What is the hon member going to do in this case? This is the question I want to put to the hon member for Carletonville. Is he going to allow the non-Whites to do the kind of work where they receive a higher salary, and because bricklaying is a traditional White employment opportunity, is he going to get the White to become a bricklayer and put the non-White in the field of computers? [Interjections.]

This is therefore a ridiculous motion! If we were to do everything which is contained in the CP’s principles and link it to this motion, it would lead to chaos. Now I am not even mentioning labour unrest, etc.

The CP after the election.

Yes, after the election the CP will still be sitting in the opposition benches, no matter how many elections are held.

You will not be sitting over there!

They will remain sitting there as long as they introduce this kind of motion in this House. This is racism. As my hon colleague said, it is nothing but naked racism. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I must agree with the hon member for Kuruman in expressing amazement that this particular motion has been placed before the House for debate. One would think that the Official Opposition, men who at first glance appear to be of reasonable albeit moderate intelligence, would not choose to place a motion so far removed from reality before this House for serious debate. Even if we accept that they are honest in their archaic ideal of protecting White privilege, the recommendations which are implicit in this motion, if implemented, would hasten, rather than alleviate, the increasing impoverishment of all South Africans, including the White race whose cause they claim to espouse.

The motion is based on false premises and apart from flying in the face of the most fundamental principles of justice and Christian philosophy, it makes economic nonsense. Not only economists and labour experts but everybody knows this, and I would like to quote Dr Hennie Reinders, the Chairman of the National Manpower Commission, that there is a vast imbalance between skilled and unskilled labour, a huge supply of unskilled and semi-skilled workers and a small supply of high-level manpower and artisans. We also know that most of the high-level jobs and most of the skilled industrial jobs have been performed by Whites, and that the birthrate of Whites is dropping so that it is just not on the cards that Whites can continue to meet the ever-increasing demand for these skilled and high-level jobs.

The stupidity of this motion is further emphasised on analysis of its separate clauses. First of all it assumes the narrowing of the wage gap. This is factually incorrect. While I concede that in certain very limited sectors—and here I refer specifically to limited sectors of the public service for which we give the Government credit—there has been a significant narrowing in the wage gap, overall there has been a substantial widening.

The latest figures published by the Central Statistical Service indicate that average monthly White wages in the manufacturing and construction industries still exceed average monthly Black wages by over R1 635. In transport, electricity and communications the wage gap ranges from R1 000 to R1 500.

Figures published in the latest issue of the journal of the Institute of Personnel Management show that between 1979 and 1987 average Black monthly earnings across the country have increased from approximately R100 to approximately R450. During the same period average White earnings have increased from R650 per month to R1 350 per month. The gap in 1979 was R550 and it is at present R1 350. It is now almost two and a half times as wide. There is therefore absolutely no basis for saying that the wage gap is on the decrease; on the contrary, it is increasing every day.

The motion refers to a “redistribution of wealth and income”. I am not going to elaborate on this, but I merely want to suggest that hon members of the Official Opposition go out into the townships and rural areas to set their minds straight on this score.

As to the assumption contained in the second part of the motion, I would like the hon member for Carletonvile to give us just one example of a White being ousted from employment to make way for a Black man. I am certainly not aware of anywhere in this country where a White man has been removed from his job—the motion refers to “ousting”—for this purpose.

It happened to 750 transport workers last week.

Even where Blacks are in control of government this has not happened. In Zimbabwe only three Whites have been dismissed from public service since independence seven years ago.

I am equally amazed at the suggestion that there has been forced integration in the labour sphere. It is laughable to suggest that the NP Government’s tardy and reluctant removal of restrictions preventing Blacks from competing on equal terms in the labour market can be termed “forced integration”.

I challenge hon members to show me one Black who needs to be forced to take up employment of any kind, let alone in occupations which because of higher pay and better opportunities for advancement were previously reserved for Whites only.

If the motion makes no sense, it would seem that the CP’s only purpose in introducing this motion is to consolidate support from that section of the White electorate who are apparently incapable of thinking beyond their own immediate selfishness.

The debate has, however, served one useful purpose—it has illustrated very clearly the difference between the CP’s frank albeit misguided championship of White privilege and the NP’s far more pragmatic and disguised pursuit of the same objective. The concept of racial groups in the context of group rights, group protection and group areas remains the foundation of both parties. True protection of group interests which we all recognise as legitimate—including members of this party—cannot be ensured for as long as the group is racially defined.

A group is by definition an association of persons who have a common interest. I want to submit that race and ethnicity, unlike nationality, religion and other interests, cannot be a factor within any interest sphere and cannot serve as the basis for group association in promoting other unrelated interests.

If sportsmen, businessmen and religious denominations, including the Ned Geref Kerk now recognise that their particular interest in their particular field—in a chosen sport, a profession, a trade or a religion—cuts across irrelevant factors such as race, where is the logic in laws which compel us into racial groups for the purposes of education and choice of residence, let alone the kind of thing which the Official Opposition are now proposing—differentiation in salaries and employment opportunities?

I think we must ask and really try to find out why it is necessary to have racially defined groups. What are the interests which will be protected in racial compartments? I would like hon members on the other side of the House who after all are the Government of this country and who determine this kind of thing, to give me examples of areas of interest like language and culture which need protecting where it is actually necessary to give racial definition to a group in order to protect those things. As far as I know, one’s language and culture will survive or fall by virtue of its own dynamism. It certainly will not survive because one allocates a language, a religion or a culture to a particular racial group.

Whenever NP or CP members are asked to give examples of where racial group rights need protecting one will always find that the interest is of a social or class order and invariably—I repeat invariably—a protection of privilege vesting in the artificially created White class.

That is not true.

Although they will not admit it, I believe that the NP knows that racial grouping is illogical and untenable. While past NP policy and present CP policy advocate racial groups for ideological reasons, present NP philosophy sees the group concept as nothing more than a practical way of preserving White privilege and as a constitutional mechanism to retain power or final control in White hands. The NP’s perception of power-sharing revolves around sharing among racial groups as opposed to sharing power among individuals precisely because if one shares among racial groups, one has this hope of power parity which, in the final analysis, if we one day have one democracy in this country, will still give the White group some kind of final control over the affairs of the country.

That is what the Nationalist Party means by power-sharing and that is why …

National Party!

The expression “Nationalist Party” I think is far more appropriate because there is no way in which that party can claim to be a national party; it represents such a tiny portion of the people of this country that it is just a misnomer to call it a national party. [Interjections.]

In the interim, pending our arriving at a democracy, it would seem that the Nationalist Party knowingly …

National Party!

… continues to keep group legislation, racial legislation, because this would seem to be a delaying factor on the road towards negotiation. Not only is the elimination of the race factor essential to the concept of true group formation, but it is also an essential prerequisite for the process of negotiation.

Finally I wish to say that the motion that the Official Opposition has removed today is so far removed from the realities that we should be debating in this House that I for one and I think everybody on this side of the House certainly cannot support it.

Mr Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the motion and I would like to start by saying that hon members on that side of the House convince me every day more and more that they are actually ashamed of being White. [Interjections.] Listening to their participation in the debate this becomes clearer and clearer. The question I ask myself is why this is so. On the subject of our policies they show ignorance unacceptable in political circles. Are they actually trying to play to the gallery and mislead the people of South Africa in the process?

You are looking into a mirror now.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance asked by way of interjection what the voters had to say. He should go and do his homework. Firstly, he should go and assist the hon the Minister of Finance so that he can furnish us with the answers to our questions in this House. Secondly, he should take cognizance of the fact that in the Transvaal it is only thanks to their friends, the HNP. that we did not win the majority of the seats there. [Interjections.]

We have already won 38% of the support in the Orange Free State. In Northern Natal we received 37,6% of the support. Even in large parts of the Cape Province—the northern, central and south-eastern parts—we received 38% of the support.

What about the Eastern Cape?

Even in the Eastern Cape we obtained 33% of the support in certain large areas. The CP is gaining ground because the voters want it that way.

The hon member for Stilfontein spoke about CP racism. It is very clear, however, that he does not even understand the meaning of the word “racism”.

You cannot count!

Before I turn to his allegations, however, I want to ask him why he does not explain to hon members how it came about that individuals, who paid less than R2 million in personal tax during the 1980-81 financial year, are now paying R10,25 million—an increase of 500%—whilst the mining sector has had an increase of only 200% over the same period. That hon member represents the establishment, and that is why he is taking up the cudgels in their interest and castigating us as being racists. His voters, too, have already spoken and it is clear that he represents the minority of Stilfontein’s voters.

More people voted for me than for you.

I shall come to the hon member for Langlaagte a little later.

The hon member for Springs made a cursory reference to the economic realities and then immediately stopped. That is what it is all about. They are almost as afraid of talking about the economic realities as they are of discussing and debating their own policy. That is why they evade the realities.

Give us your figures!

The hon member for Groote Schuur has it all wrong. The CP is not interested in domination by minority—that is the policy of the hon members on that side of the House. Our policy will lead to political sovereignty for all.

Partition.

That is what all South Africa’s peoples, all the rational, moderate, thinking people, are seeking. [Interjections.] We will come to the costs in due course.

Speaking in support of this motion, I want to say that in a land as rich as South Africa it is a real tragedy that we should even be discussing a motion of this nature. This motion is the worst possible condemnation of a Government that no longer serves the people it purports to represent, one that is totally in the hands of the big business establishment, the fat cats.

Under the present NP regime, however, whenever increased revenue is sought, the man in the street is target number one, and more specifically, the White taxpayer. I do not want to repeat headlines in various newspapers over the years, but I should like to go back to 1985 when attention was focused again for the first time in decades on White poverty and the mushrooming of feeding schemes for hungry and starving Whites. The hon member for Jeppe will know what I am talking about, as he himself has been involved in such a scheme, and all credit to him for that. What about the hon members for Hillbrow, Krugersdorp, Maraisburg and others? They must in all honesty confirm what I am saying here this afternoon. They see it in their constituencies, and I am sure that even the hon member for Springs and many other hon members witness this in their constituencies.

I increased my majority.

This particularly includes the hon member for Langlaagte. It becomes clearer each day why the people of Krugersdorp threw him out in favour of a Broeder.

You are talking nonsense, man.

It will not take the good people of Langlaagte long to do the same. He parrots on and on like a gramophone stuck at AWB, AWB, AWB. Yet he is strangely silent about the fact that one of the first organisations to act regarding the hunger situation among Whites, was that AWB whom he detests so much, or maybe fears so much. The AWB transported tons of foodstuffs to help Whites since they became aware of this hunger crisis, without a word of thanks from that side of the House.

However, they can still find it in themselves to bow and scrape to a man like John Mavuso. He is ANC to the core and he still maintains today that he has not changed one iota since he was active in the ANC. He is thanked by those hon members and rewarded by them on top of it all …

Order! The hon member must please come back to the motion before the House.

I am coming back to that right now, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.] …and rewarded him on top of it all …

Order! The hon member must return to the motion before the House. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I am explaining that the hon the Minister of Finance is actually not serving the interests of the people who elected him to power but is serving the interests of big business. In saying this, I believe the hon the Minister of Finance owes the CP an apology for trying to imply that we on this side of the House do not understand the question of dividends earned by companies not being taxed. I have information which tells me that this is actually an important source of financial growth for big business.

Order! Can the hon member please explain to me what that has to do with the motion before the House?

Mr Speaker, I am talking about the redistribution of wealth and I am trying to …

Order! I have listened to what the hon member has had to say. The hon member must please explain to me what it has to do with the motion before the House.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: …

Order! I am addressing the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis at the moment.

Mr Speaker, the motion under consideration reads:

1. (1) the increasing impoverishment of the Whites, inter alia, because of the narrowing of the wage gap and the redistribution of wealth and income.

I am trying to explain that the redistribution of wealth and income is being done via the tax system.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I was saying, I have information which tells me that an important source of financial growth for big business is in the form of these very dividends which are exempted from taxation. These dividends are received but held back and no tax is paid on them. These examples apply to the investment companies of the Anglo-American Corporation group in particular and emphasise …

What are you talking about? Are you talking about holding companies?

Yes, I am talking about holding companies. They receive dividends and retain them or plough them into other similar holding companies so that they never pay tax on them. [Interjections.] Does the hon member understand that?

That is a very useful source for growth.

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

No, Mr Speaker, I do not have the time. [Interjections.] If I do have time I will come back to it.

As I was saying, these examples apply to all the investment companies of the Anglo American Corporation group, and emphasises the inconspicuousness of the reasons for and the sources of their phenomenal growth and the strong financial position in which they are.

Section 10 of the Income Tax Act exempts companies from taxation on dividends received on the assumption that these dividends will be paid out and will eventually be taxable in the hands of individuals. What actually happens, however, was exposed by research which was carried out more than 20 years ago. Hon members of that side of the House who are not aware of it, should be made aware of it. This research concerns 10 companies which were administered by the AAC group over a period of 10 years which extended from 1956 to 1965. It indicates that the dividends paid out, expressed as a percentage of profit before taxation, amounted to only 5,4%. An amount of R92,5 million—the difference between the dividends received and the dividends paid out—was never anywhere subjected to taxation. I am sure that hon member will agree with me that R92,5 million was a lot of money in those days. Furthermore, a portion of the dividends which was in effect paid out was again received by similar companies where, following the same pattern, a portion was held back and therefore never taxed. [Interjections.]

This is what we on this side of the House mean when we say that the hon the Minister of Finance is not answering our questions accurately, in spite of the fact that we put them to him clearly and despite the fact that we even request him to indicate whether he wants the question tabled or whether he is prepared to reply to it orally. During his so-called reply to the debate during which he gave no replies to our questions, the hon the Minister then repeated his allegation that we do not understand the tax issue. The real problem for all of us, including the overtaxed White taxpayer, centres around big business’s avoidance of taxation, a problem which was exposed, as I have said, more than 20 years ago. As far as I am concerned that is one of the main reasons for the impoverishment of the Whites, because in the process the advantage drawn by big business is resulting in the death of small and medium-sized companies and therefore results in the unemployment of the White workers who used to work for those companies.

[Inaudible.]

That hon member listened with rapt attention when the hon the Minister of Finance accused us of telling lies in our publications. [Interjections.] I briefly want to refer to the latest issue of Die Nasionalis.

*It is now no longer called Die Nasionalis; it is now simply called Nasionalis—Nationalist. The caption on the front page reads “AWB wys KP-tande”, with a photograph on the front page of a gentleman greeting two attractive ladies. The caption above the photograph reads: “Met hulp van AWB”. The article reads as follows:

That is a blatant untruth.

Order! The hon member must please come back to the motion before the House.

Having just proved that the NP is just as guilty, if not more so, of spreading untruths, I want to turn to the price increases that have been experienced in the Republic of South Africa over the past eight years. We hear stories about the inflation rate being 17% or 18%. However, we have a situation in which basic foodstuffs such as bread and milk have increased in price by upwards of 300% over the past eight or nine years. Since the hon the State President came to power, prices have rocketed and at the same time the value of the rand has plunged.

It is very clear that the best solution for the Republic of South Africa is a change of government. [Interjections.]

Finally I just want to say that I support the motion wholeheartedly. I also want to refer briefly to forced integration in the labour field.

†This forced integration is taking place to such an extent that Whites are withdrawing from all of the facilities which were developed for them in the first place in their places of employment. Now that the radical Blacks cannot rub shoulders with the Whites in those facilities they are demanding that White employers compel White workers to use those facilities whether they like it or not, so that they can force integration upon them in the labour sphere. That is another reason why we reject the policies of this Government.

Mr Speaker, I really tried to follow the hon member, because it seemed to me he devoted most of his time to the hon the Minister of Finance, who was unfortunately not in the House.

He made certain remarks about racism to which I shall return later. As regards the photograph in Die Nasionalis, to which he referred, I just want to say that he will surely admit that the person shown there looks very much like the leader of the AWB.

That does not excuse the mistake; the lie! [Interjections.]

Let us take a look at the programme of principles of the CP in which they mention inter alia that in the White RSA a system of labour zoning will be introduced for the workers of other nations to ensure that after the Whites they will get labour preference bordering on or near their respective states or where their numbers predominate at the moment. I want to ask the hon member whether this implies that his party supports job reservation. [Interjections.] He is not listening now.

Let us have this placed on record. Let us look at point 8 (2) of this programme of principles of the CP. My predecessor, the hon member for Stilfontein, also referred to it briefly. I am quoting:

The question now is what is meant by this “creative withdrawal of foreign labour".

I maintain, Sir, that one of the primary objectives in respect of our national and self-governing states is that as far as possible adequate employment opportunities must be created for these citizens. As in all developing countries, particularly in Africa, this did not have the desired effect. A report by Benso which was published in 1980 indicated that 100 000 new workseekers entered the labour market in the national states in the four years prior to 1975. Of that manpower only 28,4% could find employment opportunities at home. This pattern has remained largely unchanged during the past ten years. The total number of labourers from the self governing and the national states increased from 1 118 000 in 1978 to 1 395 000 in 1982. This is an increase of 25% over four years, in other words, approximately 6% per year. In 1981 these labourers were responsible for 40% of the gross national income in five of these states.

Now I want to ask the CP whether, apart from the five million Blacks they want to withdraw or resettle in respect of the rural areas, they intend in terms of this creative withdrawal, to withdraw this labour force in respect of the self-governing and national states as well. Perhaps the hon member for Overvaal can reply to this. He cannot. Sir.

It would also be interesting to hear from them—it is possible that another CP speaker will address the House on this matter—what they are going to do about the Coloured and the Indian population groups. In this attempt at creative withdrawal are they also going to withdraw these labour forces, which are concentrated in different group areas throughout the country, to wherever the Coloured and Indian homelands are supposed to be?

They must also tell us now what this is going to cost.

Mr Speaker, at the same time they must also tell us what this is going to cost. As regards the Coloureds and the Indians, there are over one million workers active in the market.

Sir, I think that a party which does not take the realities of South Africa into consideration and act accordingly, has no prospects for the future. A factor which is of importance to future economic and manpower development is the expected drop in the percentage of Whites in the economically active population of our country. The present labour force of approximately 10,5 million is expected to more than double to just over 20 million by the beginning of the next century. The contribution of the Whites to this will drop from approximately 17% at present to 11%, and the contribution of the Blacks will increase from the present 70% to 80%. In respect of men it is expected that the ratio of Whites to non-Whites will change from 1:4,4 in 1980 to 1:7,6 in 2015. In respect of women it is expected that the ratio will change from 1:5,6 in 1980 to 1:10 in 2015.

Whites are not numerically able to make the additions to the executive posts which economic growth requires. In the latest report of the National Manpower Commission this is again proved statistically. No community in the world has such a high component of high-level manpower as the Whites now have. The need for skilled workers will become virtually insatiable in the next few years and an increasing number of people will find themselves in positions for which they are not qualified.

The composition of our labour force requires a growing economy so that adequate employment opportunities can be created. Underlying economic confidence is constitutional reform, and therefore internal tension must be relieved by the developing of sound relations in the labour sphere, not only within the RSA, but also with our neighbouring countries.

The Government’s manpower policy is based on moral, fair, Christian values, and on the principle that—

And I am putting emphasis on “al”, Sir.

Based on this point of departure, the Government’s manpower policy has three main objectives. They are, in the first place, training, in the second place, labour peace, and in the third place the protection of every worker’s safety, security and health.

As regards labour peace the principle which serves as a guideline for the essential harmony in this area is, in the first place, the autonomy of trade unions and workers’ organisations, in the second place, the responsibility of the community and the country, in the third place, fairness and justness of all parties towards one another, in the fourth place, evolutionary adjustments of established labour practices where necessary, and lastly, minimum State intervention, as well as impartiality in the private relations between employers and employees.

I admit that as regards reform in the labour sphere, the social aspects are delicate and sensitive, and consequently must be handled accordingly. We must act in a responsible way and with sound judgment at all times. It is of the utmost importance for us to act within the bounds of reasonableness. I am convinced that with the necessary sensitivity and tact this aspect can be handled in such a way that friction and conflict can be prevented.

The CP possibly wants to make the exception the rule. The field of labour is a complicated field, in which one must act with great responsibility. In this connection I want to express my thanks and appreciation to all the employers and employees in our country who do not use it as a political football.

Sir, we on this side of the House find it impossible to support this motion.

Mr Speaker, I confidently support the motion by the hon member for Brakpan, as it was very competently stated here today by the hon member for Carletonville and other speakers.

What I found strange, however, was that the reaction from the Government side followed a particular pattern. It is a pattern we have been observing now in one debate after another.

Partition.

There the hon member says “partition” and I promise him that I shall react comprehensively to that remark in a moment. [Interjections.]

The pattern Government members have been following in debates, as has been the case here today as well, is one of attacking the CP’s policy.

Hear, hear!

That hon member confirms what I am saying. They continually attack our policy. In that way they avoid the essence of the motion, and the questions which we have put are not being answered. Many questions that are being asked—not only in this debate, but also in previous debates and I shall mention examples in a moment-are not being answered. That does not contribute to good debating.

Another feature that became prominent in this debate today was the large chasm which existed between the thinking of the NP and that of the CP.

Hear, hear!

We are a national party. [Interjections.] We are the real National Party, because we believe in nationalism. [Interjections.] I shall come back to that presently. We believe in nationalism, and nationalism is linked to a people. We believe in the nationalism of the Afrikaner people and that of the English-speaking people and others who associate themselves with it. The nationalism in which the NP believes, has become another kind of nationalism, which as I shall indicate soon, wants to make provision for everyone and in which the Whites will inevitably be stripped of their rights. The nationalist outlook of the CP is being emphasised today. The outlook of the Government is a form of state nationalism which must inevitably lead to the larger group in that open society of theirs, namely the Blacks, eventually governing the whole country.

The hon member for Carletonville made a few crucial statements and I find it strange to note at the end of the debate that the Government has not been giving effective consideration to these crucial statements. I want to mention a few of his statements to you. He said that during the past 12 years the income of the Whites had not yet been raised above the inflation rate.

Surely the debate is not over yet.

The debate is not over yet, but I know who will be speaking after me. It is the hon the Minister, and all he does is make jokes. [Interjections.]

The next point the hon member for Carletonville mentioned was that Government measures were continually benefitting the Blacks to a greater extent than the Whites. That problem had not been addressed. He also indicated that the Whites had to endure these blows in a loyal and patriotic way so as not to create problems. There has been no acknowledgement from the NP side of that attitude on the part of the workers. The hon member indicated that workers had become the victims of integration in the working situation. The NP members remain effectively tacit about that. What I find very indicative of this debate and of the way in which the NP is practising politics these days is the fact that the hon member for Carletonville asked for legislation providing separate amenities for those workers who would like them. I cannot recall anyone reacting to that.

Since we are now approaching the end of the debate and since there are apparently one or two NP speakers who are still going to speak, I want to tell them now in a friendly yet very urgent way, that it is high time they replied to this motion. It is time they addressed the crux of this motion. It is time they tried to oppose the motion we have moved in a resourceful way and on scientific grounds.

[Inaudible.]

I do not want to speak to the hon member for George now; it may not look like it but we are good friends. I want to speak about the nagging interjections that were made about partition, particularly by the hon member for Langlaagte. Much was said about it during the debate as well. It has now been made perfectly clear that the NP rejects partition.

Order! In his discussion of partition the hon member must confine himself as closely as possible to the motion before the House. I am not imposing restraints on the hon member, but I cannot allow a general political debate. There is a motion before the House and the hon member should confine himself to it.

Mr Speaker, my problem is that I have to react to what was said during the debate from the Government side. I associate it with the right to self-determination of White workers and their right to protection, which can only be realised by means of a policy of partition.

The hon members opposite reject partition. In a previous debate the hon member for Langlaagte rejected it out of hand. I now want to put four specific questions to those hon members. Is the offer made by the hon the State President to the Black metropolitan areas that they can gain independence should they wish it, in other words that those areas would be excised from the rest of South Africa, not partition?

It is part of a solution.

The hon member says it is part of a solution, but it is pure partition. [Interjections.] I now want to know what is going to become of the almost 70% of the Blacks in the Transvaal who live in those metropolitan areas and which the NP wants to partition off with the offer they are making. Where do all those workers work? The hon member for Newcastle spoke about the “creative withdrawal of foreign labour”. What does he intend to do with that foreign labour in accordance with this metropolitan partition plan which the Government has? If 70% of the Blacks in the Transvaal, in other words all the Blacks in the PWV area are going to be partitioned off into a separate state, what is going to be done with the workers?

Are all those workers going to work for Whites during the day or are they going to be driven away? Is there perhaps going to be a Whites only policy? In effect the Government is trying by means of this partition policy to establish as stronger White presence in the rest of South Africa. I want to ask them whether that is not partition. If the hon the State President makes an offer to the self-governing Black states and tells them they can become independent, what becomes of those workers, those workers in an independent state, a partitioned off state removed from the sovereignty of White South Africa? Where do those workers work?

In Southland!

Surely Coloured workers also have Coloured group areas and rural areas, and Indian workers have theirs, and now I ask why those areas exist if the Government does not believe in partition? There are two million morgen of land which belong to the Coloureds alone. Is that not a form of partition? I ask what is going to become of those workers. If those Coloureds obtain greater political powers how will that influence the position of the worker?

They must establish their own state.

In the Budget which the hon the Minister of Finance introduced here a few days ago, more than R7 000 million was budgeted for partition to maintain the Government’s established structures of partition. It is very easy for one of the hon members to ask us whether it is Christian and morally justifiable and my reply to him is that we can throw the arguments on partition which he throws at us straight back at him because what he is engaged in is in essence partition. [Interjections.]

Why did you break away then?

I broke away because the NP no longer sees partition as the only solution …[Interjections.] Sir, what I find so interesting is that the hon members began to laugh before I had even spoken. I wonder what they are laughing about?

We broke away because the NP no longer believes solely in partition but because they want to share power in those parts of South Africa where the real problem lies—the so-called urban areas. If five million Whites want to share power with 20 million Blacks then one merely needs to count. There is no place on earth where political power-sharing has worked. Wherever someone has tried to share power with the majority, the majority …

Order! The hon member has explained his standpoint well. I think he should now return to the motion.

I was merely reacting to the hon member, Sir.

Order! The hon member must not react to him at such length. He must come back to the motion.

I shall do so, Sir. [Interjections.] Hon members must please not provoke me again.

The hon member for Stilfontein was the Government’s main speaker in this debate. I should like to give a little attention to his contribution. I think he summarised his contribution well at the beginning of his speech when he spoke of “nothing new”. That hon member really made a pathetic contribution to the motion and to labour related matters. What did he do? He accused us—he devoted the greater part of his speech to that—of naked racism. He based his accusation on the fact that we favour separateness.

I now want to ask him something. We on this side are nationalists. Our labour policy is based on a nationalist view. The policy of the CP is based on a love for what is our own. We advocate a government of our own and the protection of our own workers first. Everywhere in the world it is an acknowledged practice that a country primarily cares for its own workers. Surely that is the case. [Interjections.] Why may we not look after the White workers? [Interjections.] They are laughing at it. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Education and Culture …

He is laughing at his own.

Sir, I shall not allow myself to be provoked again.

If the hon member for Stilfontein is of the opinion that it is racism if we want to propagate separateness and want to care for our own people first I want to put a few questions to him. Is it not racism when one brings about a division among Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in this country? Is that not racism? Is this Parliament not racist then, because surely it is based on separateness? Is the Group Areas Act then not a racist institution, because this Act does not allow certain groups to live in certain areas? It is based and founded upon separate development. Surely separate Chambers in Parliament are a form of racism, as is separate education.

It was a pointless argument by the hon member who said that we were propagating naked racism. [Interjections.] I think he is so worried about his large minority that he cannot think clearly. The fact of the matter is, and he still does not understand it, that our premise is one of nationalism and love for what is our own, but not racism. [Interjections.]

In the third point which the hon member put he quoted very selectively in one respect. He said that everyone paid GST, as if the tax pool we have in this country is contributed to from everyone’s pockets, everyone contributing equally. I merely want to provide him with a little reminder of the direct tax contributions of the four population groups.

In 1983 the Whites paid R4 335 million, therefore 95,4% of the total direct income tax. The Indians paid 2,4% and the Coloureds 2,2%. By comparison with the total paid by the Whites of R4 335 million the Blacks paid only R319 million. That is why the redistribution of wealth is so important to them.

The Whites must become poorer!

They had a lot to say about the redistribution of wealth, and I want to tell him that the word “profit” is not a dirty word to the CP. I find it interesting …

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon member for Overvaal whether he accepts that tax has a bearing on taxable income. [Interjections.]

That is one criterion. [Interjections.] There is expenditure as well. There are many facets which have a bearing on taxation; it is not all that simple. In order to have a redistribution and to take from the wealthy to allow the so-called straggling communities to catch up is totally unacceptable. It was Mr Vorster who said that Oppenheimer had worked for everything he had and John Vorster had worked for the little he had. He also said profit was not a dirty word. Now, however, there is a redistribution of wealth which is being taken away from the Whites and given to the so-called straggling communities. We are opposed to money being thrown down a bottomless pit.

That is racism.

It is racism? Do I therefore have to give my money to someone else?

†When overseas visitors said that to me I asked them why they, the Americans, the Austrians and the Italians, did not pay, while we, the White South Africans, had to foot the bill from year to year.

*Now the hon member says I am a racist when I say that the Whites should keep what they worked for.

Hon members said they wanted a dispensation in which there would be no domination by one of another. That is how one of the hon members concluded his speech. In this regard there is a question which we on this side of the House have been asking for years now. I wonder whether the hon Minister of Manpower and Public Works is not going to make the brave step in the dark of trying to reply to us. How do they want to protect the Whites—the White people, workers and teachers, in a dispensation consisting of a single state in South Africa? In this undivided South Africa of the NP the Whites would constitute only 17% of the population and the other population groups 83%. The Government says that they would bring about structures by means of negotiation to prevent one group from dominating another. How do they want to do it? Mr Speaker, you already know the question because we have been asking it in one debate after another.

I will protect myself.

The reason why hon NP members do not reply to it is because their policy must inevitably lead to a Black government.

My time has unfortunately expired; I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, I must say, after having read the motion and having listened to various CP speakers, that I got the impression that they were discussing another motion and not the present one.

After I had read the motion I could not help coming to the conclusion that it sounded to me like an echo from the past, from the sixties. This entire motion is a throwback to the past. When one looks at the other CP motions which appear on the Order Paper, one sees that everything harks back to the past. Everything has to be repealed, or otherwise all the old things have to be reintroduced. One gets the impression that the CP is making an appointment with the past. [Interjections.] I gather that they are doing their best to negotiate a better past for us. [Interjections.] I gather that the hon members of the CP greet one another with the words; “All right, my friend, I’ll see you yesterday.” [Interjections.] The CP has only one gear, and the person who has to manipulate this gear, is the hon member for Overvaal, the fleet-footed hon member. The only gear he knows is the reverse gear.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: On a few occasions you compelled the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis and myself to confine ourselves to the motion. I cannot see what gears and all those other things have to do with this motion.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must please resume his seat. I shall preserve order in this House myself. The hon the Minister may proceed.

If the hon fleet-footed member for Overvaal carries on like this, and his voters read this motion and the hon member’s speech, they may perhaps think that there is something wrong with him, because he was discussing quite a different motion. If the hon member carries on in this way, I do not know where he is going to flee to at the next election. [Interjections.]

To Potchefstroom!

He has now fled from Jeppe to Overvaal …

Resign your seat; then I will resign mine.

… but now he wants to flee across the Vaal River. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to make a friendly appeal to hon members as far as possible, although we should all like to conduct a debate with one another in a very good spirit in this House, not to refer to my constituency by way of light-hearted interjections. I would really appreciate the co-operation of hon members. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member for Carletonville shouted at me to resign my seat, and I now want to tell that hon member that neither he nor anyone else will cause me to resign in Lydenburg, where the voters gave me a mandate. [Interjections.] That hon member's entire existence and his thinking is so riddled with racism and race prejudice that he cannot debate in a rational way in this House; that is the hon member’s problem.

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

No, Sir, I have 13 minutes, and if there is any time left at the end of my speech, I shall give the hon member an opportunity to do so.

You have little time left; that is clear.

The hon member with the little time left in Overvaal made a speech here today which made me think that he was trying to be a miniature Terre’Blanche. Hon members saw how he tried to change his style. He changed his style completely; he is now trying to be a miniature Terre’Blanche. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I am making an appeal to you to request the hon the Minister to confine himself to the motion and to put a stop to his personal remarks. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

I know the hon member for Overvaal is an over-sensitive and surly person; he cannot take his medicine. [Interjections.] If we were to carry on as the hon member for Overvaal insists we do—going back so far into the past—we will find ourselves back in the trees again one of these days. [Interjections.] All of us!

Order! The hon the Minister must withdraw that reference.

Very well, Sir, I shall withdraw it. The point I want to make, however, is that these people are so fond …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Overvaal left the Chamber without showing the necessary respect to the Chair, and without making the necessary bow.

Order! I noticed it, and the Chair will in due course give the necessary attention to the matter. It is also a matter for the Whips to discuss among themselves. I shall leave it at that; I do not want to make any further comment. The hon the Minister may proceed.

If we were to follow the course indicated by the CP …[Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to the hon member for Overvaal that it is a rule of this House that when hon members leave the Chamber, they must display the necessary respect to the Chair. If the hon member should in future repeat this exercise by leaving the Chamber without paying the necessary homage to the Chair, and then return to the Chamber immediately afterwards, the Chair will consider taking appropriate steps.

If we were to follow the path indicated by this motion—the path leading back to the past—we shall one of these days be cave-dwellers again, dragging our wives around by their hair and belabouring one another with clubs. That is the path indicated by this motion. This motion is fraught with racism, race prejudice, fear, and above all with a lack of belief and confidence in the White worker of South Africa. [Interjections.] When one reads this motion one would swear that the White worker of South Africa had no bargaining capacity of his own through his trade unions to strengthen and entrench his position.

This motion is an indictment against all the White trade union leaders. It is a motion of no confidence in the White trade union leaders of South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to tell the CP that they need not try to protect the White trade union leaders in this country or try to dictate to them, or try to do their work for them. They will do their work themselves. They know how to do it, and they do not need the help of that party to be able to do it. [Interjections.]

Furthermore I want to say that this motion is blazoning a great many untruths abroad. In the first place it is being alleged that there is an increasing impoverishment of the Whites, inter alia because of the narrowing of the wage gap. That is a blatant untruth that is being proclaimed here; it is simply not true. Let us consider the facts.

I shall not begin in 1970, but in 1980. What has happened since 1980? During this period of eight years White income has increased in real terms by 0,29% per annum. The fact of the matter is that the Whites have not become poorer during this period of eight years because their real income has increased by 0,29% per annum. [Interjections.] In what way have the Whites become impoverished? Surely it is completely untrue. It is misleading. It is aimed at creating a certain image among the Whites which will make them afraid of the Blacks. It creating an image among the Whites that someone is stealing from them, while that is not in fact the case. [Interjections.]

During this period the wages of the Black people rose by 2,5% per annum, but these wages hardly remained above the minimum subsistence level. That is the point. [Interjections.] Surely we do not want neglected, wretched, rejected, impoverished Black masses in this country, for we would then be playing into the hands of the revolutionaries and the ANC. [Interjections.]

We want to apply the principle of live and let live, of Christian justice. I do not want to live in a country, nor do I want to be part of a dispensation, in which people benefit themselves at the expense of others.

It is a disgrace that we have a group of people in this Parliament who are advocating the impoverishment of coloured people and the enrichment of one group. They are then doing the dirty work for the ANC, for that is what the ANC wants in South Africa. They are furthering the interests of the ANC with that standpoint and policy of theirs. [Interjections.] I want to go further, and that hon member may as well sit down, because he is simply wasting my time.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: May the hon the Minister refer to us as people who are furthering the interests of the ANC …[Interjections.] …which is a communistic organisation that advocates violence?

Order! Would the hon the Minister please repeat that portion? For a moment I was otherwise occupied.

Sir, I said that hon members are advocating in this motion that the Black people should not make progress, that they should remain a degraded and deprived group of people, and furthermore that the Whites should be benefited at the expense of those Black people. I maintain that if one ensures that there is a degraded, deprived and impoverished group of people in South Africa, one is furthering the interests of the ANC, for then one is furthering the possibilities of revolution in South Africa. That is in fact the point I want to make here. I also want to say …

On a further point of order, Mr Speaker: With all due respect, that is not a precise version of what the hon the Minister said. He very clearly referred to the CP in the same spirit as the ANC. [Interjections.] On a previous occasion we had the same problem, and he then wrote a letter of apology the next day.

Order! I asked the hon the Minister to repeat what he said. I listened to it, and I find that the hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I want to tell those hon members that they must reflect. They must not further the interests of the ANC here in South Africa in this way. They must not play into the hands of the ANC in this way. [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir. Surely these hon members know that they are deliberately wasting my time now. Perhaps I would have had some time left if the hon member for Overvaal had not put so many useless points of order. I would then have been able to reply to questions.

You will do so tomorrow, Pietie.

I want to go further and say …

It hurts, doesn’t it? [Interjections.]

Yes, they are hurt, Sir, I realise that.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Minister stated categorically that a party in this House was furthering the objectives of the ANC. [Interjections.]

Order! I have already given my decision in that regard. My decision is based on the way I understood what the hon the Minister said to me, and on the basis of those words and that point the hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to tell those hon members again that they must reflect. They must not be guilty of advocating a dispensation in South Africa which will be to the benefit of the revolution and which can further the interests of the ANC. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister is now stating it very strongly, and also by implication, that such actions on the part of hon members of the Official Opposition are furthering revolution in South Africa. That is not parliamentary, and I want to ask the hon the Minister to withdraw it.

Sir, if it is being implied that I am saying that those hon members further revolution per se, then I withdraw it.

Thank you very much.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon the Minister, in respect of this side of the House and specifically the CP as the Official Opposition, insinuate that we are supporting the objectives of the ANC? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Losberg must please listen to the debate! If he had been listening, he would have known that I discussed this very matter with the hon the Minister, and that I received the co-operation of the hon the Minister in that he withdrew any insinuation in respect of or with reference to the hon members. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The point I want to make, Sir, is not that these hon members support the ANC. Their policy, however, is conducive to a climate which will benefit the ANC in South Africa [Interjections.] That is the point, Sir. The actions of those hon members are furthering the interests …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: With all due respect, the hon the Minister is evading your ruling.

Order! The hon the Minister did not say that the actions of the Official Opposition furthered revolution. He said it furthered the policy of the ANC.

[Inaudible.]

Order! No, it is not the same as saying that an hon member of this House or a party represented here is furthering the objectives of revolution. There is a big difference between policy and the furthering of revolution, that is why my ruling is that the hon the Minister may proceed, and I do not allow the hon member his point of order.

The policy of those hon members is furthering communism!

I realise of course that the hon member for Overvaal frequently has many problems understanding a matter quickly, but I sympathise with him. We are not all quick on the uptake. Perhaps I should explain it again to the hon member. I am not saying that the hon member or his party furthers the ANC, but I am saying that the policy that party advocates, which culminates in racial polarisation, racial tension and depriving coloured people of their rights, is preparing the seedbed for revolution. It furthers the position and the cause of the ANC in South Africa.

I now wish to discuss this question of the impoverishment of the Whites further. The facts of the matter are that in 1980 the average monthly earnings, in the non-primary sectors of the economy, of a White person was R744. In 1981 this had increased to R1 731. Consequently the average wage of the White worker rose by R887 during those eight years. Correspondingly the wages of Blacks, in absolute terms, rose by R306 compared with the increase of R887 in White wages. It is quite simply untrue to allege that the Whites are becoming impoverished to the benefit of the Blacks in this country.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 30 and motion lapsed.