laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Income Tax Bill [B 115—87 (GA)]—(Deputy Minister of Finance (Mr K D S Durr)).
2. (2) Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Amendment Bill [B 116—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Trade and Industry).

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Health and Welfare, dated 17 September 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Education, dated 16 September 1987, as follows:

The Committee agreed to clause 9 (a), having been given the assurance by the Department of Education and Training that—

1. (i) paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 21 of the Education and Training Act, 1979, is not interpreted as being applicable to cases where it has become impossible for the teacher to perform his duty and/or to apply for leave to the Director-General; and
2. (ii) the Department of Education and Training does indeed interpret and apply the relevant provision in this manner.

Bill to be read a second time.

Order! Before I ask the Secretary to read the first Order of the Day, I have to draw hon members’ attention to the Notice of Motion appearing on the Order Paper today.

In terms of this Notice the Report of the President’s Council on the Group Areas Act will be discussed in detail in the near future.

Under the rule of anticipation I cannot during the discussion of a Bill, prohibit members from discussing a subject which has been placed on the Order Paper by means of a notice of motion.

The Third Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill is, however, a general debate and in view of the fact that members will have the opportunity to discuss the report of the President’s Council in detail, members should consider not referring to the report during the Third Reading debate.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Owing to the fact that this year we are sitting during the second half of the year, this third reading debate on the Budget is taking place at a stage when we have already progressed far into both the calendar year and the financial year. In these special circumstances we therefore have the advantage of several analyses of the economy by various financial institutions and in particular that of the Reserve Bank which was published recently on the occasion of its annual meeting. This is something which is not at our disposal under normal circumstances, when the third reading debate takes place in the first half of the year.

I therefore do not intend to present hon members with the customary economic analysis at the beginning of the debate. Where hon members refer to the economy, I shall react to it in my reply next Monday afternoon.

Mr Chairman, what the hon the Minister has just said is quite correct, namely that we are in the situation this year that the Third Reading is taking place when much of the financial year is already past. It is therefore possible to show how the economy has performed in the first part of the financial year in comparison with the forecast the hon the Minister gave us.

Allow me, then, to begin by referring to the growth rate. In his Budget speech the hon the Minister forecast a 3% growth rate, as indeed he did last year as well. After the first four months of the financial year, however, we can say with reasonable certainty that that anticipated growth rate of 3% will again not be achieved this year. Whereas the Minister predicted a growth rate of 3%, we find that the growth rate in the first quarter of this year was only about 2% and in the second quarter it declined to 1,5%. The disturbing thing is that if one leaves out of account the contribution of agriculture, the growth rate for the second quarter has been a meagre 0,2%. Therefore there has been virtually no growth. It is therefore clear to us at this stage that the growth rate of 3% expected by the hon the Minister certainly will not be achieved this year.

I now want to refer briefly to inflation. In the past it has been suggested that the reason for our inability to curb inflation is imported inflation. If we now look at the effect of inflation on the available disposable per capita income in South Africa, we see that in reality it declined by 6,4% in 1986. It is not expected to improve this year. It seems to me as if the argument that inflation cannot be curbed as a result of imported inflation, does not hold water in the prevailing circumstances. The exchange rate of the rand has been consistently at the 48c to 49c level for a considerable time now.

Therefore it cannot be argued that the current inflation rate, which stays reasonably constant, is due to imported inflation. Therefore there must be another reason for it. If one looks at the exchange ratio one finds that it reached an absolute low in the second quarter of 1982. However, after the first quarter of 1987 it improved by approximately 20% in our favour.

Looking at the volume of our exports, one finds that it reached a low point in the third quarter of 1983, but that it improved in the first quarter of 1987 by about 50% in comparison with the third quarter of 1983. As regards our exports, however, there is no real increase, and at present there is lateral movement in this regard.

At the same time the volume of our imports reflects no growth at present. Now, it is good for our balance of payments that there is a healthy surplus on the balance of payments, but on the other hand the lower volume of imports shows that our domestic economy is not doing as well as it should.

If the upswing comes—we hope it does—it will necessarily have an effect on the volume and value of imports. We will have to take care that when the upswing comes—it will inevitably put pressure on imports—it does not in turn put pressure on our balance of trade.

I am worried about this, because is it not a fact that at the moment, due to a lack of domestic demand, we are producing below capacity as far as our local industries are concerned? Owing to the present lack of capital investment with a view to new production, we are concerned that local production will not be able to satisfy demand when the upswing comes and that it will shift to imports, a state of affairs which in turn will put the balance of payments under pressure.

As a result of the various campaigns we have had in the past, I think it is more than time for us to launch a “Buy South African” campaign to encourage the South African public to buy South African goods. The production capacity exists; the industrialists are willing and able to satisfy the demand. However, the public, especially in the circumstances in which the country finds itself at present, should be stimulated to buy more South African products.

In addition I want to say that we do not expect the South African public necessarily to buy only South African products, but that we want to encourage them to be on the look-out for quality South African products, taking the price into account as well, because we are of the opinion that the South African economy and industry, as far as both quality and price are concerned, are today able to compete with the foreign exporters to this country.

This will ensure that when the upswing comes, which we are already waiting for—there are signs of a moderate upswing; I am not denying it—our local industries will be capable of satisfying the accompanying demand.

If we look at the position of the State’s finances at the end of the first four months of the financial year, we find that the deficit before borrowing, as compared with the corresponding period in the previous financial year, shows an increase of 40%. According to the Central Statistical Service, the expenditure increased by 19,5% in comparison with the previous financial year, but on the other hand, revenue increased by only 9,4%.

Whereas the hon the Minister told us in his Budget speech that he expected a deficit before borrowing of R8,5 billion for the whole financial year, it has already exceeded R5 billion after four months. It is clear to us that if we continue on this basis, the deficit before borrowing at the end of the financial year will very probably be far more than we have expected.

We know that the pattern of State expenditure is such that proportionally more is spent in the first part of a financial year than in the remaining part. For that reason we should appreciate it if the hon the Minister, who has not given us a forecast of what he expects during the rest of the year, will refer to it in his reply to this debate.

At the moment we have a problem with regard to the question of new investments. I refer to the Governor’s address by Dr De Kock, Governor of the SA Reserve Bank:

There is a danger that the excessive buying of paper assets may take its toll.

I now want to refer briefly to a matter to which I refer virtually every year, namely the question of our customs union agreement with the BLS and TBVC countries. In the debate on the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill I referred to this matter, but I must repeat what I said, because the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, who replied to the debate, did not begin to answer the questions I put. In the 1986-87 financial year, whereas the real income from customs and excise was R4 108 million, the amount which went to those partners, if we may call them that, was R1 598 million, which left us with only R2 520 million. This year the hon the Minister is budgeting for an expected revenue of R4 500 million, but he is already budgeting for a payment to those partners of R1 880 million, which leaves us with only R2 620 million, an increase of only R100 million.

If one looks at it on a percentage basis, one finds that the hon the Minister is budgeting for an increase of 12% for the entire customs area. He is also budgeting in such a way that our partners’ share of the cake will increase by 22,6% and our part by only 4%.

The Margo Commission has already referred to this and has investigated this matter, and although the hon the Minister says that we must see the report of the Margo Commission in its entirety, I still think that this matter of overpayments to our partners can be dealt with without implicating the rest of the Margo report.

I briefly want to refer to what the Margo report says about the Customs Union in paragraph 23.67:

Mr Justice Margo and his assistants therefore find that there is no financial basis for the present arrangement, namely that it is an aid arrangement. They go on to say in paragraph 23. 70:

I think that if we want to subsidize our neighbouring countries it should be done in the proper way. To grant aid to these countries by way of an artificial arrangement—I say it is artificial and Mr Justice Margo also found it to be so—is just not good enough.

The newspaper reports on corruption in some of these TBVC countries—unfortunately I have to refer to this—are disturbing. While we read this week that it was said in evidence that an amount of R1 million was paid to obtain certain benefits, I think an in-depth investigation into this matter to safeguard the South African taxpayer is long overdue.

I realize that this is a sensitive matter which to an extent is not really the business of this hon Minister, but rather that of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and however sensitive it may be, we cannot allow the abuse of the South African taxpayer’s money which is given to these countries with the best intentions and aims, for development and the creation of infrastructure and education opportunities. Therefore we have no choice but to look into this.

I want to conclude. Dr De Kock ascribes the lack of foreign confidence in our economy to wrong perceptions about what awaits us, but he states emphatically that domestically it is the result of a lack of confidence in the political future of South Africa.

I refer briefly to what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said during the debate on his Budget Vote. He said:

He also said:

I tend to agree with the hon the Minister, but there is not only one part of the population that feels endangered and another part that feels cheated. There is a large part of the population—I refer to the White voters of South Africa—which now feels both threatened and cheated.

They feel like that because the NP Government has not played open cards with the White voter of South Africa in the past. Now that the White voter is really starting to experience what is going on under this regime, those who have warned against the disastrous course of events feel threatened. The others who have been willing to vote for the NP out of tradition now see what the future holds for us, and they now also feel threatened and cheated.

Finally, if I may, I want to say something else. Regarding the politics between left and right in this country, I think the final division has already taken place. The NP—I am not even talking about the PFP and other leftists—has irrevocably decided on one South Africa, with one South African nation, whilst in the past it had been the ideal of the NP to create separate nation states, also coupled to the concept of “people”, for each nation in South Africa. After all, that was the ideal.

The present NP is today prepared to give to each Black nation in this southland of ours its own nation state, but it begrudges the White man that option.

Mr Chairman, I just want to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon member for Barberton. As regards the growth rate I want to state categorically that the objective of a growth rate of 3% is essential, and if this can be achieved, it will certainly have many advantages for South Africa. Later in my speech I shall come back to what the hon member said about the growth rate. At the same time I shall refer to some reasons for the non-achievement of the 3% growth rate.

The hon member also referred to inflation and linked it to the exchange rate situation. I shall have something to say about that, too, at a later stage.

I have no problems with the appeal by the hon member for Barberton to buy South African. It would provide a definite stimulus for our local industries. Hon members on this side of the House support the concept of “Buy South African” at all times.

The remark which the hon member for Barberton made at the end of his speech, namely that the White voter felt threatened and cheated, is too general a statement. [Interjections.] I want to give him the assurance that the voter who has voted for the NP certainly does not feel threatened and cheated. [Interjections.] Later in my speech I shall also return to this remark by the hon member for Barberton about this state of mind among the voters.

In his speech at the opening of this session the hon the State President made the following important statement, which was quoted by the hon the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech (Hansard: House of Assembly, col 1523):

This approach has also been addressed in the Budget, and various measures have been envisaged in order to achieve this. I shall return in a moment to some examples of these measures.

I should just like to begin by making a general statement in this regard. The artificial incorporation of economic stimulants in the hope that a process will get under way is not sufficient. In the first instance a political motivation has to be present. My feeling is that too many of those involved sit back and hope that the economy will get under way and in this way permit of a political activation.

Another approach is also true and has a retarding effect on the total package of progress in South Africa. This approach is rooted in the reluctance on the part of the Official Opposition to help create a more positive and optimistic climate, a generally positive climate.

The spirit of “it is all over, after all” is being very widely propagated. The concept of negotiations and dialogue is interpreted, especially by the CP—the hon member for Barberton has just done it again—as a process of moving towards a surrender situation.

That is what you are doing.

The hon member is again saying that that is what we are doing.

Any conversation concerning possible reform is presented as the downfall of the White man in South Africa. Only the dialogue about possible reform is held up in this regard. The Government is said to have gone “soft” and is selling out the White man. That, in brief, is the sense of the broader message conveyed by the CP. They probably believe it; that is why they are selling this concept of fear to the voters.

They convey it because it is undoubtedly advantageous to them politically. The more negative the disposition of the inhabitants of South Africa, and specifically that of the White man in South Africa, the more they benefit in the political arena and the more they will hurt the NP. That, then, is also their motivation for this deliberately negative message disseminated by the CP.

That is not true.

Of course it is true!

But of course it is not true.

It cannot simply be shot down by saying that it is not true.

A negative message of “we have already been sold out” is being conveyed by the CP. Politically speaking it is probably a major sales item they wish to make much of. The question is whether South Africa can afford it.

In his Budget Speech the hon the Minister summarized it as follows (Hansard: House of Assembly, 16 June 1987, col 1523):

Here the hon the Minister really touches on the nerve of present realities. In the first place there is a need for results for progress in South Africa. In the second place there are specific prospects rooted in the needs of people, and these have to be accommodated. In the third place the call at present is for economic and social upliftment. Everybody wants training and job opportunities.

In order to provide for this, to accommodate these desires, a negative disposition is definitely not the answer in the South Africa of today.

Let us stop conveying the message of “we have already lost”. Let us think positively for a change. Let us approach the present situation as a reality. After all, it is true that there are needs which have to be satisfied. It is a fact that everybody in South Africa has aspirations which have to be addressed. For once let us tell one another that everybody in South Africa has specific needs and aspirations, and let us look for solutions to satisfy these aspirations.

It is therefore also important to introduce a willingness into our economic activities. The hon the Minister also addressed this clearly in this Budget. When he says that the private sector is still the primary creator of job opportunities, it is a message with a specific aim, namely to establish a solid foundation so that the private sector can take the lead in bringing about economic growth. I wish to agree totally with this statement. The public sector should not in the first instance be the activator of growth. The private sector will have to assume a greater responsibility in this regard. If the Government continues to provide the initiatives in this regard, it will be an artificial injection of possible growth that will not be realised in the long term.

Only one message should emanate from this House, and that is the positive message that we want to help South Africa to grow economically. The political discussion is the message that will ultimately determine the activities in the country. If we act negatively here, the reaction in the outside world, especially in the private sector, will be negative. We shall be depriving the economy of the stimulus necessary to establish business confidence, and there will still be tremendous constraints on proper growth. This negative disposition that South Africa is not doing well, which we disseminate here, may be one of the reasons why the expected growth rate of 3%, to which the hon member for Barberton has referred, cannot be achieved.

A further aspect which was addressed by the Budget is the higher rate of inflation. The hon member for Barberton also referred to that. There is a reasonable measure of agreement that this high rate should not be ascribed to the creation of demand, but that it has been put under pressure mainly by the fluctuation in the exchange rate. After the depreciation in the exchange rate the consumer price index rose from 14,5% in the third quarter of 1985 to 26% during the first quarter of the following year. When the rand strengthened against the dollar the inflation rate declined once again to 15,1%.

In order to stem demand inflation, the hon the Minister also lowered the target range of the broad M3 money supply to a limit of 14% to 18% as against the 16% to 20% range. As far as fiscal measures are concerned, various stimulatory measures have been announced. The maximum tax rate on individuals was lowered from 47,5% to 45%; a bigger rebate on the income of married women was announced; the amount of interest income exempt from tax was increased from R500 to R1 000; and the 1983 loan levy was repaid earlier. All these were fiscal steps taken by the government in order to elicit the necessary reaction.

These monetary and fiscal measures addressed in the Budget laid the foundation for a healthy growth rate of approximately 3%. All indications were that there was a possibility that this objective could be achieved, as I have mentioned. It would now seem as if this will not happen easily. Therefore one has to look for reasons elsewhere.

One reason—so I believe—is of course the lack of consumer and business confidence. Apart from the ability to bring about political involvement, there are few other reasons why this is not being realised.

The desire to reform, not only on the part of the Government, but also on the part of the Official Opposition and the PFP and, perhaps more important, the desire of the other two Houses to signify active involvement, may bring about the necessary infusion. The making of demands and the threatening boycotts as a prerequisite for taking part in discussions do not create a climate for negotiation. I really want to call on all those who are politically involved and all political parties in a spirit of political involvement to establish a powerful mechanism to activate discussions on reform.

I am full of confidence that things will only improve in future, and therefore we on this side of the House readily support the Appropriation Bill as an instrument to bring about future economic and social progress which could then result in a better constitutional dispensation, a dispensation which can satisfy to a greater extent the needs and aspirations of everyone in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is a little difficult to cover the whole field of the economy and also to seek to deal with a budget in a mere 15 minutes. Obviously one needs to be relatively brief.

However, there are two remarks which I think need to be made. Firstly, in reaction to the speech of the hon member for Gezina, I would like to say that I agree with his view that a message of positivism, a message of confidence and the message that we can help to put things right in South Africa should come from this House and this debate. I have no problem with that at all. However, I would like to read to him, if I may, a passage from an address delivered by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. In his address he said:

He then narrows it down to a particular situation. However, the message is a very clear one and that is that it is not enough for us to make “making-one-feel-good speeches” in this House; one actually has to produce results. I will come back to where I think we need to produce results during the course of my speech.

The second matter to which I wish to refer concerns two issues raised by the hon member for Barberton. The first issue was the Buy South African campaign. I wish that hon member better luck with the appeal for a Buy South African campaign which he has made today than I have had over the years when making a similar appeal in this House and elsewhere. I wish him strength in that, because the reality is that though we have appealed for this year after year we have had very little success. We had one such campaign many years ago, but since then we have been unable to motivate the authorities and the public actually to realise that by buying South African goods they are helping to keep their fellow South Africans employed. They cannot understand it and they do not appreciate it. If we can get that message across we will have achieved much. Therefore, I wish the hon member for Barberton better luck in his endeavours today than I have had in the past. He can rely on support from us with regard to any Buy South African campaign and I hope that we will also get a positive reaction from the hon the Minister.

The other aspect of his speech is one with which I particularly wish to disagree fundamentally. This is one South Africa and as much as the CP says it is not one South Africa, it is one and will remain one! [Interjections.] It is no use pretending that what exists does not exist. It is there! In fact, the main theme of my speech today is that it is our economic policy that we recognise one South Africa and that there cannot be one group of people in this country prospering while others live in poverty. One can only flourish oneself if one can uplift the country as a whole. I invite the other parties in this House to engage in a real debate on economic policy as to how we can really solve this problem in South Africa.

Hon members know—we have debated it in the past—that we have a policy which we call economic democracy. Sir, allow me to read to the House what our objective is:

I stress the word “all”—

Sir, that summarises our beliefs in this regard. I want to tell hon members that there is no way in which one section of the community in South Africa can prosper, while the others live in poverty and deprivation. The people who believe that they can live on an island of prosperity in a sea of misery are due to be drowned in that sea of misery. There is no hope if one does not accept that reality. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is going overseas to attend a meeting of the International Monetary Fund, and so are certain of his officials. I want to wish him well on that trip. However, we are not going on that trip, and I should like to give him a message to carry with him to the bankers and politicians whom he will meet on that occasion. Economic viability and political stability go hand in hand—not only in South Africa but anywhere in the world.

The growth of the economy is inhibited in South Africa not only by the absence of foreign capital in adequate amounts, but also by the need to keep the current account of the balance of payments in surplus in order to repay debt. This has certain serious effects on the ability of the country to create jobs in the face of an increasing population. Those who hinder the job creation process in South Africa, whether they be South Africans or whether they be from abroad, must take some responsibility for the consequences of hindering that job creation process. Whatever the moral implications are of isolating South Africa from long-term capital inflows, there are also long-term business considerations which the people who are responsible for these particular actions should bear in mind.

Sir, business is best done with countries which have Western-type, democratic economic and political systems. Those are the countries with which we can best do business. I think the history of the recent debt situation throughout the world shows very clearly that that is a fact. Business is best done with a country which is at peace—not with a country which is in a revolutionary turmoil.

If one takes actions which result in there being violence as opposed to peaceful change; if one encourages the forces of violence as opposed to the forces of peaceful change; and if one encourages a situation where one may well end up with a system in South Africa which is not a Western-type economic and political system then, from a purely business point of view, one has done oneself harm as a foreign banker because one has removed a very profitable market and a very profitable source of income to yourself. Therefore—never mind the morality of what one is doing and how other people are going to be affected—the fact is that one is affecting one’s own business position by encouraging forces of violence and forces which want to create a system which is not a Western-type system.

I think those who oppose apartheid in South Africa and those who want a non-racial democracy, but who also believe in peaceful change, can give the hon the Minister this message: That is what is going to be the implication of what they are doing. They should bear in mind that this is the consequence of the attitude which they are presently adopting in regard to investment.

That message does not come from the NP; it comes from peace-loving South Africans who oppose apartheid as a whole, and that is the importance thereof. It is not those who have created apartheid who take this view; it is those who have consistently opposed apartheid and seek to have it removed by peaceful means who reject this kind of attitude and draw attention to the consequences for South Africa.

One has to bear in mind that there are different agendas for different people for sanctions. There are different people who get pressurised into sanctions, sometimes against their own will. One of the things we also have to do, however, is to demonstrate that in South Africa we are really getting down to the job of removing apartheid.

The Chair has ruled that there are certain things which we cannot discuss today, but it would have been much easier for the hon the Minister if he had been able to go to Washington with a document stating that the Group Areas Act had been repealed. [Interjections.]

I want to come now to the question of confidence. We all talk about confidence and about what needs to be done in relation to the restoration of confidence in South Africa. In this regard we have to bear in mind that one cannot create confidence artificially. One cannot pass a law which says: You will be confident. One cannot just say that from now on everybody will be confident. One has to create…

Why not?

Somebody from the NP says why not. That is the problem. [Interjections.] That really proves my point; I could not have done it better with any kind of argument.

The reality is—this lies to a large extent in the passage which I quoted from the speech of the Governor of the Reserve Bank—that some positive action is needed in order to create confidence in South Africa. Let us do a little more with regard to the questions we talk about such as privatisation. We keep talking about privatisation, but where are the results? We talk about deregulation, but where is it really happening in any meaningful fashion?

One of the difficulties I have with the Government is that where they do try to act in regard to a political matter, they often spoil the whole thing by being half-hearted about it and being worried about the CP, instead of being outright and dramatic in what they do. They keep looking over their shoulder at the CP, and they do not realise that the CP are hindering them in their endeavours to create confidence that the political problems of South Africa will be solved. If one is going to keep on looking over one’s shoulder, one is going to find oneself in an impossible situation.

Another matter which relates to this aspect is the question of the promotion of exports. I think that we have got to do something more in that respect, particularly as it is clear that there is a downturn in world conditions which is likely to affect our exports even more. We shall have to be even more active in the promotion of exports.

With regard to the question of inward industrialisation we have advocated a programme for the creation of work in order to improve the quality of life, which we believe could solve these problems. However, we are not doing that, and the unemployment figures remain as they are. What is in fact happening is that every day our economic work force increases and our problem in that regard becomes even greater.

I want to touch on a current question with regard to confidence. We all know the difference between what is happening in the financial market and in the real economy—the question of the boom on the Stock Exchange. I do not mind if economic forces take their due course in regard to the Stock Exchange, but we now have a new phenomenon developing. There are people who actually want to knock the stock market in order to bring it down for their own speculative purposes.

I must say that if one has a major setback in regard to that issue, one will again take a knock in regard to confidence. Therefore, why do we not allow ordinary economic forces to operate, instead of seeking to knock down something which at least has created some confidence somewhere? To that extent it has provided an outlet at a time when other confidence factors have been in difficulty. If we bear in mind that we have that as an ordinary economic force, we will be in quite a difficult situation.

As far as the Stock Exchange issue is concerned, I want to draw the hon Minister’s attention to the fact that one of the problems that exists there is this question of distinction between capital and income, which is not solved by the Margo Commission Report. I ask the hon the Minister to apply his mind to that issue to create certainty as to what is income and what is capital so that, in these circumstances, there can be a greater ability to reinvest and to alter investments so that one does not have that situation.

Finally, Sir, I want to say that to my mind, taking into account the competing economic facts and ideologies that exist in South Africa, and taking into account the socialist doctrines of nationalisation that are being advanced, there is nothing more important than to turn South Africa into a nation of people who own part of the economy, of people who own shares—to turn us into a nation of shareholders. Again the Margo Commission Report does not provide an answer in regard to doing away with the tax disincentives so that workers in South Africa can share ownership. I believe that the answer to the nationalisation problem is not that the means of production be owned by the State, but that the means of production be owned by the people through shareholding which becomes available to every South African worker in this land of ours.

The people’s democracy.

Mr Chairman, I find it interesting that again today the “social democrat” slip of the hon member for Yeoville was showing. He started speaking about the distribution of income again because he said that after all, one group could not have all the money. He concluded his speech by saying that the Margo Report did not help the workers to buy shares. I shall come back to the hon member for Yeoville later in the debate.

I am not ashamed of being a social democrat; I am proud of it! [Interjections.]

In the economic debates in the course of this session a great deal of attention has been devoted to inflation, and the Government has been attacked in this regard. It happened again this morning. The problem of unemployment, too, has been raised several times. The Government regards these as very important priorities in combating inflation and cutting our unemployment.

The Government asked the Economic Advisory Council to carry out an in-depth investigation of the problem of inflation. However, when I look at the kind of pamphlets on inflation that are being distributed among the voters, I am astonished at the distortions contained in these pamphlets with a view to misleading the people as to the causes and problems of inflation.

I should like to deal briefly today with the reasons for inflation, the reasons for the problems we have been experiencing recently. The hon member for Barberton mentioned only one reason here. Unfortunately inflation is a disease with more than one cause. I have often asked the hon member for Yeoville, too, what the solution is. I shall come to that again today. There are no instant solutions for the problem of inflation. This also applies to the problem of unemployment. Let us be honest with one another.

When we consider the South African economy in the period 1980 to 1983, we appreciate the effect of the high gold price on our liquidity and subsequently on our demand. We can say that after that time, demand inflation played a very important role. Since then there have in fact been three other reasons that have bedevilled the combating of inflation. The one was—the hon member for Barberton referred to it—the weakening of the rand exchange rate. However there were two others as well; the sharp rise in wages and salaries over the past four to five years, and indirect tax—the increase in general sales tax.

The effect of the drastic weakening of our exchange rate was a severe blow to our economy. Between 1982 and 1985 our exchange rate weakened by 56,5% as against a basket of other exchange rates. This in fact means that the value of the rand was halved. It is interesting, however—this shows how strong our economy is—that our buying power, also as against a basket of other countries and products, only declined by 29%.

Together with the officials we adopted the method of the Howe Institute in Canada. What this amounts to is a kind of running average of the price index over six months. From this we get the good news—I want to mention this to the hon member for Barberton—that this index began to decline from the end of 1986. If one compares this six-monthly index with the ordinary monthly figures of the consumer index, one sees the movement very clearly.

I agree with him that the weakening of the exchange rate is now gradually working through the economy. However, I wish to point out to the hon member for Barberton that owing to the severe weakening of our exchange rate many of our companies have suffered major losses. The motor industry is one. Many of our people negotiated loans overseas, and those losses have had to be made up. This is another reason why it takes time before the effect of that weakening of the exchange rate really makes itself felt.

When one looks at the deflator of private consumer spending, one also finds the same thing to a great extent. That is to say, an improvement began to occur from the beginning of 1986. That is to say that the price index of the products we manufacture in South Africa has definitely increased by a lesser amount than the price index of our total consumption. Once again this reflects that effect of the weakening in the exchange rate.

There is another very interesting method, which is to consider our gross domestic product and compare market prices with factor costs. Here again one finds that over the past number of years there has been a gap. When one analyses this one finds that it is the effect of our general sales tax. It cannot be denied that our sales tax has increased from 4% to the current 12%. This has had an effect on our rate of inflation. What causes me the most concern, however, is the average wage per employee in manufacturing. In the period 1965-1974 the annual rate was 8,2%. Subsequently it increased to 15,6% between 1974 and 1983. Currently it is at 13,7%. If we compare our wage increases with those of the OECD countries, one finds that with the exception of Italy ours are by far the highest.

We must take into account that we have to compete overseas, but one cannot compete if one has this problem. We know what the problem is. I think we know what the cause is. However, what is the solution for a developing country?

†The hon member for Yeoville is a strong supporter of a negotiated voluntary price and wage restraints. According to him the Government needs to sit down with business and labour and work it out. According to him, voluntary negotiated restraints are not controls. I am quoting from one of his Hansard speeches.

*In 1985, when we tried to combat inflation with monetary measures, the hon member for Yeoville strongly objected and said that they were too drastic. He was opposed to monetary measures. He said that we should seek less stringent measures. That, too, comes from one of his Hansards.

I now wish to take the hon member for Yeoville to a country that he probably knows well.

†Israel is, we hope, succeeding in freezing wages and prices.

It is voluntary.

It is said that this is being done voluntarily, and the hon member for Yeoville would very much like to see this happening in South Africa as well, but if one analyses the situation one sees that it is not being done all that voluntarily. Emergency legislation was passed to suspend all labour agreements. We must also bear in mind that Israel has one national trade union, the Hustradid, with which all negotiations are conducted. Therefore the situation is far more simple than in South Africa.

It is also very interesting that in conjunction with this freeze, Israel has also maintained a fixed exchange rate. How have they managed that? With American aid. Perhaps the hon member for Yeoville can come with me and the hon the Minister of Finance to Washington to obtain such aid for South Africa as well. It is also very interesting that Israel’s budget deficits, as a percentage of their GDP, varied between 14% and 17%.

I think the hon member will agree with me that his proposals of voluntary wage and price freezes in South Africa are not a simple matter. We have a different trade union system. There is also a major concentration in our business structure, and this, too, makes it very difficult. On the other hand we are in a more favourable position than Israel in that we do not have such a large budget deficit. We have a surplus on the current account of our balance of payments.

What percentage of Israel’s budget is spent on defence?

I do not know what the percentage is. However, Israel is cutting subsidies drastically, because they are running at approximately 9% of their budget. I wonder whether the hon member for Yeoville would get up here and say that we should cut our subsidies, such as that on bread, as well. However, he will not say that.

†The hon member for Yeoville is a great advocate of VAT. In his speech during the discussion of the Finance Vote he said…

I am pleased that you read my Hansard.

This is the hon member’s Hansard and I quote:

The hon member for Yeoville also wrote the following about our general sales tax and the exceptions in the Sunday Star:

He went on to say:

Do you not agree?

I should now like to quote what the hon member proposed in Hansard, 1985:

The hon member goes on to point out that it is important to abolish general sales tax on foodstuffs in order to combat inflation.

Now I want to know…

Did you read The Argus report?

… whether the hon member for Yeoville and his party did not contribute towards creating these weaknesses in our general sales tax when we exempted foodstuffs from GST.

You did it only because we wanted it?

Is the exemption of those foodstuffs not the reason for the large-scale evasion of GST?

It has got nothing to do with it!

Let me proceed. The hon member is a great advocate of VAT—value added tax. He gives all his support to it and refers us to Europe.

†Now I want to ask the hon member—he can reply in his next article in Sunday Star—whether he will support us if we also apply that same VAT system instead of general sales tax. That means we will not tax foodstuffs, which is the case in Britain.

Have you seen the British system?

Yes. I checked before making these remarks.

Do you like it?

No, I do not.

Tell us why not. [Interjections.]

I will come back to that later. We will have enough time to discuss the Margo Report. I just want to point out that when the hon member talks about VAT he forgets that there are at least 12 combinations of VAT. He has not indicated to us what specific type of VAT he is supporting. There are many combinations, but we can come back to the hon member when we discuss the report of the Margo Commission.

*I now come to the next problem, namely unemployment. In August Iscor announced that it was obliged to close certain high-cost units. As a result certain people in Pretoria and Natal will be unemployed.

I have been informed that the CP is running a campaign in which it is declaring that the Government cannot offer the White worker of South Africa any security.

Surely that is true.

The CP is telling the workers of Iscor that. I regard it as a disgrace.

The steel industries in the Western World are all encountering tremendous problems as regards oversupply and cut-throat competition. The export prices of steel producers are at their lowest at the moment. However, we can congratulate Iscor on the fact that in recent times it has increased its productivity considerably. We must bear in mind, however, that no company can afford to have its expenditure exceed its revenue. I wonder whether the CP is now also going to tell its friends about the role played by sanctions in the steel industry.

And the Group Areas Act? [Interjections.]

Sanctions are having a detrimental effect on our economy. However, it is interesting that sanctions are having a particularly detrimental effect on our export industries, which employ labour on a large scale. I reiterate that sanctions are hitting our export industries that are very labour-intensive. On the other hand it is evident that the replacement of our imports is giving rise to more capital-intensive industries.

The number of registered unemployed Whites fluctuated very little between January 1986 and June 1987, and I think that this figure, namely 1,8%, is the lowest in the Western world. Our serious problem—the CP will not get away from this—is the unemployment among our Black people. More than a million—19,2% of the labour force—are unemployed. We recognise that there is a high population growth rate and an influx of workseekers, both lawful and unlawful. The current process of orderly urbanisation is also contributing to unemployment to some extent.

However, we in this House cannot get away from the reality, nor can the hon member for Losberg get away from it, that in the year 2000, at an economic growth rate of 4,4% per annum, we shall be saddled with 5,8 million workers who will not be able to obtain work in the formal sector. [Interjections.] The hon members will probably want to send them all to the homelands and cram them all in there. [Interjections.]

Today I wish to point out how much the Government is doing to combat our unemployment problem. I do not think the Government is getting enough credit for what it is doing at present to reduce unemployment in this country. We need only consider all the reports that have been drawn up, such as the long-term economic strategy of the Economic Advisory Council, the White Paper on Urbanisation, the reports by the President’s Council on the unemployment issue, small business development, urbanisation and measures that restrict economic activities; and White Papers on agricultural policy, minerals policy, a strategy for industrial development as well as privatisation and deregulation.

Over the past three years we have spent R1 billion on job creation. We have provided R750 million for low-cost housing. An amount of R50 million has been set aside to assist the small businesses in the rural areas that are facing liquidity problems.

I wish to mention some successes here, because the public must take cognisance of them. From 1 March 1985 to 31 March 1987 68,7 million man-days were worked by unemployed people on special projects. On 31 March 1987 approximately 289 000 unemployed persons were involved in special job creation projects. Since the beginning of the scheme in June 1985 and up to 30 June 1987 585 000 unemployed persons had already been trained and it is expected that this number will increase to more than 718 000 by the end of March 1988.

We can also consider the fact that the Development Bank and the Small Business Development Corporation have created 100 000 job opportunities. As far as the Republic as a whole is concerned, 257 000 unemployed persons were trained by 185 contractors and the development boards at a cost of R61,3 million during the 1985-86 financial year. This is another facet.

It is very interesting that training in 180 different fields is currently being presented at various training centres. This training also provides job opportunities for 5 000 artisans because they act as lecturers.

We could continue in this vein. The Department of Manpower is currently training farm workers to build their own houses. Payments by the Unemployment Insurance Fund have increased from R196 million in 1984 to R386 million in 1986.

The Government appreciates the hardships associated with unemployment.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether it is not correct that fewer people are employed in South Africa today than were in 1980?

Perhaps one could argue in terms of the industrial index, but then there is also the informal sector. I am informed that half of the people in Crossroads do not work in the formal sector. South Africa has always had a large informal sector. Before we can have a sound grasp of the movements between the formal and informal sectors, it is wrong to take one group and to say that the figure has dropped.

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

No, Mr Chairman, my time is running out. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister is quite entitled to refrain from answering questions. He may proceed.

The final aspect I should like to discuss is the imposition of exchange control. It has seemed to me recently that exchange control is not being taken so seriously and that the impression exists that it is ineffective. It is being said that so much money has left the country and reference is also made to the pending court cases against the employees of the African Bank.

In view of the large discount between the rate of exchange of the commercial and financial rands, this is of course an incentive to make illegal profits. However, the Government has deterrents in this regard. People can be fined up to R250 000 or given five years’ imprisonment. In addition, property and other assets may now also be forfeited.

It is also mentioned that there has been a tremendous delay in finalising exchange applications. The debt standstill imposes great pressure on the Reserve Bank and the moderate dealers, and it is understandable that there should be a period of adjustment. The Reserve Bank has appointed more staff, including inspectors, and they are also computerising in order to achieve better control of the flow of exchange earnings. Therefore I think that those loopholes will gradually be closed.

Finally, I wish to mention another misconception, which is that disinvestment has given rise to an outflow of foreign exchange. South Africa is not losing exchange as a result of disinvestment, because at the time of the debt standstill on 1 September 1985 the financial rand system was re-introduced as an additional measure and the outflow of capital was restricted. This means that foreign disinvestment now has to take place at the financial rand exchange rate—that is to say, at a discount which at present is almost 40% below the commercial rand/US dollar exchange rate. This means, on the one hand, that disinvestment is taking place at considerable capital loss for the foreign investor, and on the other hand that it is not being done at the expense of South Africa’s gold and foreign exchange reserves.

The current aim of exchange control may be regarded as the preservation of the country’s foreign exchange reserves, or their utilisation to the best advantage of the country. I should like to appeal to South African inhabitants, particularly those dealing with transactions in regard to non-residents and immigrants, to apply the exchange control regulations in letter and in spirit. Should they not do so, they will be undermining the economy of the country. We hope that they owe a greater loyalty to the country than to a client who pays them a commission.

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to follow the hon the Deputy Minister. He handles his subject in a competent manner.

Firstly I want to refer to a previous speaker, the hon member for Barberton, who critically analysed the present state of the economy in his usual competent manner. What struck me, however, was the fact that his speech was notable for its lack of any alternative economic policy. I think we on this side of the House are justified in asking him whether the economic policy of the CP is a partition policy, too.

†I then listened with great interest to the hon member for Yeoville, and I found much in his speech with which I could agree. He spoke about privatisation, the promotion of exports, job creation and about sending out a message of confidence. In regard to all these he sounded to me far more like a Friedmanite than a Keynesian, but then he told us that he was a social democrat. He spoke about one aspect of PFP policy concerning which he said: “It is our policy that all poverty shall be eliminated”. That is a very honourable and fine ideal, and when he explains to me how he is going to achieve this, I shall join his party! [Interjections.]

We have to ask ourselves in what kind of South Africa we are going to have to live in the year 2000. Our economy has a First World and a Third World component. One of the main objectives of our economic policy is going to be to see how fast we can translocate that Third World component into the First World component. We have to be realistic and accept that the Third World component of our economy is not going to disappear in 13 years or in 33 years. There are two wild cards in the pack which are going to be of paramount importance. The first is our birth rate which is assuming alarming proportions, and the second is the question of job creation.

Job creation is dependent on education, capital formation and infrastructure. It is my intention to discuss the efficacy with which our economy is dealing with the problem of job creation.

To my mind it is not the function of the State to create jobs. It is the function of the State to provide the climate in which jobs can be created. The function of the State is the equivalent of that of the signalman on the railway line. His responsibility is to enable the locomotive of the economy to proceed as fast as possible, and along the right lines. The hon the Minister of Finance was quite right when he said in his Budget Speech that State spending as a proportion of GDP was too high and that he had set it as a target to reduce State spending as a percentage of GDP from 38% to 34%.

It is very interesting to compare State spending in South Africa with that in other countries in the world. When we look at the IMF group of countries in which South Africa is categorised we will find that we are in the sub-group “Market borrowers”, which falls under the main group, “Capital importing developing countries”. We are coupled with a mixed bag of countries like Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Hungary, Mexico, Portugal and Yugoslavia. When we look at the percentage of Government spending as a proportion of GDP in these countries that are in the same niche as we are in the IMF, we see that in Europe it varies in a band from 43% to 41%. In Africa it is in a band from 30% to 32%. When we look at the developed countries in the world, however, we find that Government spending as a proportion of GDP varies between 40% and 44%, so I do not think we are doing too badly.

It is accepted in the Western World that the private sector can make use of available assets in a far more efficient manner than the public sector. One has only to look at the mess of the economies of the Eastern Block countries to realise this.

I believe we will have to take a careful look at the way we put our available resources to use and ask ourselves if we are not overcapitalising on investments that are not productive. Grandiose buildings and sophisticated roads are not wealth-producing; they are neither multipliers nor accelerators of the economy. When the composition of our spending does not result in an increase in goods and services, then we are creating an inflationary gap.

When one looks at the socio-economic demands in our economy, however, one realises how difficult it is to reduce spending. We are committed to parity in spending on education, to parity in pensions and to parity in State salaries. Where are the cuts going to come from? Many buzzwords are in fashion—retrenchment, privatisation, deregulation, user charging, toll roads and inward industrialisation—but are any of these going to get us out of the maze?

I am sure that within the broad South African community we possess the will, the ingenuity and the ability to achieve these goals. Merely staring at statistics and declaring them unrealistic is not going to solve our problem.

We need a national campaign backed by all sectors of our population groups and by all sectors of our economy to attend to these two national priorities—the creation of work opportunities and the limitation of excessive population growth.

Mr Chairman, I shall come back to the hon member for Wynberg and the hon the Deputy Minister in a moment.

Since 1982 the Government has been predicting a strong upswing in the economy of the country with monotonous regularity; and just as regularly this has failed to materialise.

Earlier this year, the hon the Minister and the Government also became very optimistic about the minor upswing which we experienced in the second half of last year. The hon the Minister probably had good reason to be optimistic, because the growth rate was 3,5% in the last two quarters of last year, exports had increased, and the Government had stimulated the economy by means of monetary and fiscal measures. Moreover, the hon the Minister made this his trump card by saying that the surplus on the current account of the balance of payments was very favourable and that South Africa was paying back its debts. In addition, interest rates were lower and the exchange rate was stronger. What is more, there is no shortage of minerals in South Africa, and there was surplus capacity. The scene was therefore set for a sustained upswing as happened in the seventies and early eighties. The hon the Minister looked forward eagerly to this fine growth which was going to take place and he announced that South Africa was going to have a real growth rate of 3% this year.

What is happening now? Now the growth rate which was 3,5% has dropped, as my hon colleague has said. In the first quarter of 1987 it was 2%, and in the second quarter it is probably 3,5%. The real fixed investment in South Africa has dropped in the first two quarters of 1987, and in the manufacturing sector the fixed investment in the last two quarters of 1986 and the first quarter of 1987 was lower than devaluation. As a result the total production capacity which the manufacturing sector had at its disposal at the beginning of 1987 has already decreased to the same level as at the beginning of 1983.

Investment in inventory has been declining since the middle of 1986, and in the second quarter of 1987 it reached a low of less than 20%. Productivity declined by 1% in 1985; and in 1986 it declined by 0,6%. After what has happened on the factory floors this year because the trade unions caused strikes, we can expect this year’s productivity to be alarming.

There is continuing unemployment. Amongst the non-Black labour force the unemployment figure for the second quarter of this year was still 3,3%. In addition the expenditure of the private consumer is rising more rapidly than his available income. Consequently, the people are still becoming poorer.

The Government ascribes all these things to external factors. Everyone is guilty except the Government. It is the only innocent party. It blames the drought and the poor prices and world conditions for these things. Surely that is not true! What is true is that the volume of agricultural production was higher this year than in the previous year, although we are still experiencing a drought. The rate of exchange has improved.

So, there are other reasons for this. After all, the hon the Minister predicted that the economy would grow, and all the indications were that it had to grow. In the past it did grow under such circumstances.

We told the hon the Minister that the economy was not going to grow. Now the Government is angry. Now they tell us that we must be positive. But what use would it be to tell an untruth. We cannot say that the economy is going to grow if we see that it is not getting fertiliser and it is not getting water and it is not being looked after properly. [Interjections.] We told the Government that this would not happen, and the fact is that once again we were right and the Government was wrong.

There are other reasons why the economy is not growing. I shall mention only the two most important ones. The first is the redistribution of income, which the Government is engaged in. It is achieving this by way of the wage gap and by way of the Treasury.

You did so yourself.

I have said before that I made a mistake and I realised I had done so. However, the hon the Minister does not realise that he is making a mistake. He keeps on making the same mistake, because he is too weak to admit that he has made a mistake. [Interjections.] I say that he is too weak to admit that he has made a mistake. That is one of the reasons.

The other reason is the political instability this Government has created in South Africa. Now I want to state that what happened this week as regards group areas and constitutional development is not going to increase confidence in South Africa; on the contrary—the hon member for Yeoville has already given the hon the Minister an indication of this—the left-wingers are not satisfied with what the Government is doing, but the Government is doing enough to destroy South Africa. Everyone knows that confidence is not going to increase and neither are investments. The Government is leading South Africa towards not only the constitutional but also the economic abyss.

That is why I say that the fact that there is no confidence is also reflected in what is going on in the innermost circles and in the hearts of the governing party.

I have here an interesting document, the minutes of a meeting of the executive committee of the NP in the Transvaal, held on Saturday, 20 June 1987, in the school hall of Menlopark High School in Pretoria. It reads as follows:

We know what it contains!

I am aware that the hon members know what it contains, but they do not have any foot soldiers left. That is the trouble. They long for foot soldiers. The minutes go on to state…

Where did you steal them?

I did not steal them!

Order! The hon member must withdraw that question.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

The minutes go on to state:

I am asking the hon members, if they do not have discipline in their party, how can they have discipline in the Government? The fact that there is no discipline is illustrated on page 2, which contains a list of 28 people who were absent with leave; 29 people were absent without leave. Nearly 60 people therefore did not even attend the meeting and were not interested in doing so. [Interjections.]

I cannot regale hon members today with all the entertaining things contained in this document, but it does contain a few serious matters too:

The points mentioned here are extremely important:

Dubbelpratery deur kandidate.

[Interjections.] They nevertheless tell us that they know where they are going and what their policy is. However, their candidates do not even know what the policy is. Other matters discussed were:

Die vakbonde word nie beheer nie.

Then that hon Deputy Minister comes along and accuses us of wandering around Iscor telling the workers that they do not have security. The worker is well aware of that. Does he want the CP to tell the worker who has lost his job that he is better off now than he was before? [Interjections.] Does the hon the Deputy Minister want the CP to go and tell the worker that it is the CP’s fault that he lost his job? Surely it is the Government’s fault, and we shall continue to tell the workers who is undermining their future. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to allege that the NP is undermining the workers?

Order! In the first place the hon member did not mention the NP’s name and in the second place the hon member may proceed.

They also said that the propaganda campaign left much to be desired because the CP did not take the blame; the CP should have said that the Government was good. They went on to say:

What did they expect? They are arranging South Africa’s funeral. Do they want a rejoicing people experiencing wonderful emotions or would they prefer a sorrowful response to such an election?

The next point I want to mention concerns teachers. They go on to say:

In other words they at least know from which quarter the threat against them is coming.

We then come to the matter of trade unions:

They therefore identify the problem themselves. They say that the perception exists that the Government cannot protect these people, and then the hon the Deputy Minister says that we are telling the workers at Iscor that the Government is the cause of their position being threatened. They identified this themselves.

They then deal with the Group Areas Act and say:

This we shall find out next week when we discuss this matter.

As regards education, they say:

Sir, I want to say: “Shame on you, you naughty children! Why are you continually at variance with the teachers?” [Interjections.]

This one is also a beauty, Sir. They say:

[Interjections] Emotions are running high. No comments were received!

Now I want to be serious. We now come to the important point concerning the “vagueness of NP policy” which was also dealt with. I am quoting:

Why did they not tell the voters frankly that they did not know what their policy was? Here they admit it behind closed doors, Sir.

That is not what is stated there!

It goes on to state:

Why did the Government not specifically tell the voters that it was seeking a change in policy? They say:

The following is an important point:

Can you believe it? [Interjections.]

That is not what is stated there!

The Government wants to get a majority of Black people to protect the established rights of the Whites effectively. [Interjections.]

Today I want to say that a people which says that it cannot and does not want to protect itself any longer and that it cannot assert itself or vindicate itself any longer, a people which says that another people must protect it, no longer has the right to exist. It no longer has the right to live. [Interjections.] I want to go a step further and say this about a Government which goes to a people with the message that it wants to get other peoples to protect it. A people which wants to live—and wants to live honourably, with an attitude of fairness towards other peoples—does not deserve such a Government! That is why the NP is being increasingly rejected. [Interjections.]

I want to ask, in view of the fact that the National Council Bill has now been introduced… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Lichtenburg may continue with his speech, but hon members must give him an opportunity to do so.

Be good now! [Interjections.]

You be honest!

Sir, we now have a National Council Bill. It stipulates that Black people outside the national states must elect nine representatives. I am now asking the NP whether the candidates who have to participate in that election must stand up on a platform and tell their voters that they are seeking a mandate from them to protect the Whites. Is that what the Government expects of those candidates? [Interjections.] They must now ask their voters: “Send me to that National Council, because I want to go and protect the Whites.”

Sir, I want to ask you what chance you think these candidates will have who have to fight an election against people who say they are going to condemn the Whites to everlasting democracy in a one man one vote society. [Interjections.] I maintain that the Government has capitulated; its spirit is broken; it is worn out. It neither wants to nor is able to govern South Africa any longer, and it can no longer protect its own people. [Interjections.]

There is another minor matter which I want to mention in passing. We come to a point for discussion which they deal with as follows:

They go on to say—

Then they say that opportunities for contact must also be created in the parental home.

Vilo wants that!

Sir, I maintain that the Government wants to throw open the schools, but because it does not have the courage to do so, it is passing the buck to the parents.

No. [Interjections.]

Now the parents are being told that they must create opportunities for contact in the home, so that once they have made such contact the parents can ask that the schools be thrown open.

That is not true.

I am asking the governing party what it expects the parents to do once those opportunities for contact in the home have been created. Must they say to their children: “Let us invite our little Black friends to visit us.”? Must they invite those little Black friends to spend a weekend or a holiday with them? And once they are there, must they say: “Friends, we understand one another very well now. We have made contact nicely; we can now marry one another one day if necessary—and in any case, you are going to protect us Whites—but we may not attend the same school or live in the same neighbourhood.”?

Is that what the Government expects to happen? That is why I say that the NP is worn out; essentially they have given up. They no longer see their way clear to do these things. That is why there is only one alternative left in South Africa, and that is the CP and its policy. [Interjections.]

What is its policy?

The Government need only look at the figures in the 1985 census, which are now being published. According to those figures the White population of South Africa increased by 8,5% in those five years and the Black population by 16%. The Blacks in the six self-governing states, however, increased by 36% while the Blacks outside the self-governing states and in White South Africa increased by only 2,7%. [Interjections.]

That is the Government’s policy.

The Blacks in KwaZulu increased by 35% during those five years, and in Natal, but outside KwaZulu, they decreased by 21% during the same period. In spite of this the Government says it is not feasible.

It is urbanisation.

And so one can go on. The Blacks in KaNgwane increased by 118% and in KwaNdebele by 82%…

Order! The hon member for Primrose must make fewer interjections. The hon member may proceed.

This census shows that an urgent desire, a natural force, is raging in South Africa, namely that people go to their own country because they wish to do so. These figures represent the period from 1980 to 1985, when the Government had already thrown in the towel, when it no longer promoted separate development effectively and deliberately, when nothing was happening and the Government said that matters should be left to take their course.

We in the CP say that we are not only going to recognise this force which is present in South Africa; we are also going to support it singlemindedly when we come to power. That is why I say that the Government is talking nonsense when it says that the CP is going to use “bulldozers” to push the people back to their own countries. They are flowing to their countries of their own accord… [Interjections.]… and we are going to encourage that process. We are going to use all the available measures to encourage this process. We are not going to do what the Government is doing now, namely luring Blacks to South Africa by means of unemployment programmes under the delusion that there will be employment opportunities for them here whereas there is already unemployment here. And if squatting takes place, a new town and a new city are created in South Africa. We are going to use all the measures such as physical planning, the budget, the urbanisation policy, and better consolidation and orderly rounding off and expansion of the Black states to promote and implement this policy.

Where are you going to get the money from?

In their hearts hon members all know that this is the only policy which can work in South Africa. In the second place the Government knows that it no longer has the courage to make it work. In the third place it knows that the CP does have the courage, and the voters realise this. That is why we are the party of the future.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon member for Lichtenburg whether I understood correctly that he suggested that there was a natural flow which the CP would orchestrate and utilize to take people back to their natural habitat.

Yes.

Then I must also accept that the people streaming to the cities at present are being forced to do so by the NP.

Enticed.

Enticed, but with what? No, this is taking place as a result of a normal economic pattern and economic process, and what is the CP going to do about those factors? Are they going to reverse them too? How are they going to deal with that pattern?

We are dealing here with a man who took from 1977 to 1982—five years—to realize that he did not agree with the NP’s policy. We are dealing here with a man who says that he was satisfied with the NP’s policy in 1977. It took him five years to realize that he did not agree with it. This morning he admitted to the hon the Minister that he had made a mistake. I want to ask him whether he is sure that he now has the correct policy, or what is he going to tell us in a few years’ time? [Interjections.]

Did you people not change your policy?

There sits another hon member who is not prepared to believe in the integrity and capacity of his people, but wants to hide behind legislation instead. The NP, on the other hand, says that we are prepared to believe in the faith of the White people who will be able to maintain themselves productively against any other population group. These are the people we are dealing with, Sir.

Now you are asking the Blacks to protect you.

Let us talk to the man who had such a lot to say about our having to live in peace. [Interjections.] He is the man who knows all about peace, because they are the people who live together so harmoniously with Mr Marais of the HNP. He knows all about peace. He is an expert at making peace. That is why he could say so much about peace here this morning. However, let us test him on the next point which he discussed. Let us ask him questions about the double-talk of which he accused the NP. Here is the manifesto of the NP.

You say so yourselves. [Interjections.]

You say so yourselves. Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, I do not have the time. [Interjections.]

Afraid!

Order!

The NP submitted this manifesto to the voters and as a result the voters returned the NP with this massive majority. That hon member quoted from those minutes and then accused the NP of certain things concerning those minutes, which he got hold of somewhere but refused to say where. Let us not pursue this matter. Let us ask him, in spite of everything he accused the NP of, by how much he won there. What was the total number of votes? [Interjections.] That is the final test. Eventually the bottom line of the balance sheet is the number of votes by which he won the constituency. Let us ask him another question. He will agree with me that by their own admission the AWB has 600 000 members.

You are guessing when you say that.

No, I am not guessing, I am merely using their figures. [Interjections.] If that hon member knows better, will he give us the correct figures? [Interjections.] My question to the hon member is why, in spite of the CP’s fine policy, only 558 000 people voted for the CP. Why did many AWB members not vote for them either? If the CP is the obvious saviour of the Whites in this country, why did not even the total number of enrolled members of the AWB vote for the CP? [Interjections.]

Let us discuss the double-talk. Will the hon member for Barberton tell us whether or not he still believes in total partition? [Interjections.] Where is the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis? The hon member for Overvaal told us it was no longer total partition. It he correct? I am asking the hon member for Barberton whether he is correct.

Make your speech.

I am asking the hon member for Lichtenburg whether he is correct? [Interjections.] How far? The hon member for Overvaal admitted that the CP stood by the 1936 legislation, but he also said that the CP would allow people of colour to buy portions of land for themselves. Now my question to the hon member is to what extent is he prepared to allow that. After all the position is that if one has a boundary and one sells that boundary farm—according to that party’s policy that can happen—one is moving the boundary forward. Now the question is whether the CP will allow that part to be sold as well. In that way the boundary will move time and again according to their policy.

You do not even have a boundary any more.

I merely want to know from the hon member for Lichtenburg whether the hon member for Overvaal is correct.

Make your speech. [Interjections.]

That is what is at issue, Sir.

Today, three months after the Budget Speech was made by the hon the Minister of Finance, and in spite of the figures the hon member for Lichtenburg quoted here—figures dating from 1985 in the main—the question arises what progress we have made and to what extent the hon the Minister has succeeded. To illustrate this I want to quote the following figures:

Then Mr Johan Louw of Sanlam said:

I can go on in this vein, Mr Chairman. The hon member for Barberton tried with the help of figures to indicate here that we had not measured up to the projections given by the hon the Minister. Taking into account the activities of the informal sector I want to refer to what Dr Anton Rupert said. He alleges that the economy has in fact fared 20% better than the figures actually reflect, naturally owing to the fact that we did not fully discount the figures of the informal sector. If we therefore add this 20%, I am of the opinion that in reality the figures look far better and that we do then comply with the projection set. In some respects we even surpassed the hon the Minister’s projection. I shall return to that later. I nevertheless think that the hon the Minister can look back on the past nine months with great satisfaction.

I now want to refer to a few other aspects, Sir. Firstly I should like to say something about reports which appeared yesterday and the day before in connection with a decision which Israel has apparently taken—owing to pressure from America, of course—to impose sanctions against South Africa. Now the question that involuntarily arises is, which is best for us—to have a friend like America or an enemy like Russia. While we are living in enmity with the Communist Eastern Bloc countries, we are surrounded by countries such as Mozambique and Angola. In Angola Cuba, a sattelite state of the Eastern Bloc countries, has amassed approximately 32 000 soldiers along the borders of our country. On the other hand, we can of course also consider how America is treating us—America, which is supposed to be a friend of South Africa. The logical question which arises here is whether, now that the Americans have proceeded to influence Israel and other friendly countries and have instructed them to impose certain sanctions against us, it would not be more expedient for us to be wary of our friends rather than of our enemies.

It may be so that the Israeli’s were forced to take this step, but it remains true that a country must put its own interests first. In view of this I should like to put it to the hon the Minister that we should at all times put South Africa’s interests first, also in our relations with Israel and America. Of course, we are not forgetting the very good relations which existed between Israel and South Africa in the past. I believe there were even special arrangements between these two countries with regard to the movement of funds and so on. Of course I am not suggesting that these special arrangements should now be abolished or even reconsidered. I do, however, think it is absolutely essential that the interests of South Africa should be explicitly placed before all other interests. Of course the same applies to our relations with America. There is an interplay of interests between South Africa and America. In this case too I am of the opinion that it is extremely important for us to treat the Americans the way they treat us.

Furthermore, Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon member for Barberton said. I also want to congratulate him and support him in the appeal he made to people to buy South African. The hon member for Yeoville expressed scepticism in this regard and said that he did not hold out much hope for success in this regard. I want to agree with the hon member for Barberton, however, that this is an appeal which should not be ignored. I should like to identify myself with this.

I should now like to discuss the influence which the bureaucracy has on our country. Figures show that we have approximately 10,3 million economically active people in this country, which represents approximately 36,3% of the total population of 28,4 million. The majority of economically active people are employed in the agricultural sector and in trade and industry, while the number employed in the public sector is fortunately the lowest. Nevertheless, the public sector represents 15,5% of the economically active population.

Is it not possible—we have already tried during the rationalization of the Public Service, but then we found again, with the political development of this country, that we needed a larger Public Service and we had greater involvement in it—or should we not endeavour, to keep a constant eye on the Public Service with a view to making it as effective as possible, but also as small as possible? When I ask for a more effective but smaller Public Service, and in this regard ask that the bureaucracy be watched constantly in this regard, and when I mention that the bureaucracy is subservient to the politics of this country, at the same time I want to mention a problem today and issue a warning that books such as the one which has been published by Dr Wassenaar, must be treated with circumspection. After all, one’s human resources—this applies to all strata, but I am referring specifically, and with great acclamation, to the Public Service—are in any case one’s greatest asset, and at the same time I want to make the point that they should be treated with very great sympathy and understanding.

Thirdly I want to mention the question of unemployment, and I want to associate myself with what the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance said here. However, I want to refer in passing to the following headline in The Argus of 17 September: “Jobless could number 10 million—economist”. I have just referred to statistics which indicate that there are only 10,3 million economically active people in South Africa. Surely one can see that this newspaper headline cannot be true. One asks oneself whether these ill-considered statements by economists, which appear in banner headlines, are really an asset in our present situation. One almost wants to go so far as to call on both the economists of this calibre who make these statements, and the media to make a greater contribution to the nation by not making such irresponsible statements.

To get back to the question of unemployment, I should like to put a point to the hon the Minister for his consideration. We have now accepted certain basic concepts. In direct contrast to the hon member for Lichtenburg, we have accepted parity as regards income and wages. Do you know why, Sir? It is because he does not have the courage of his convictions. He wants to protect himself by means of legislation. He does not have the courage nor the confidence in his own people. This party states that we are prepared to effect parity as regards wages, because we have confidence in the productivity of our people. However, we also want to give every person in this country who is prepared to be productive the opportunity to earn what he really can depending on his productivity, and to give him an equal opportunity.

As soon as we accept that job reservation has been totally abolished, we come to a very important matter, ie the abolition of minimum wages. We must realise that this is one of the reasons why there may be more than one million unemployed people. Every day I find that people in my constituency come to me and tell me they would very much like to employ five people in answer to the requests being made. However, if they were to do so within three weeks an inspector would visit them and they would be fined them if they were not paying a certain wage. They cannot afford to pay this wage and must therefore do without the people instead. The abolition of the minimum wage together with other measures which are already accepted Government policy, can in my opinion contribute a great deal towards the creation of more employment opportunities.

If we are really serious about solving the unemployment problem, we will have to speed up privatisation and deregulation as much as possible. The principle of own affairs will compel us to speed up privatisation and deregulation in the interest of all the different ethnic groups in this country. I want to ask that the Government speed up its privatization and deregulation programs as much as possible. I should like to give a practical example. A matter of close concern to me is the legal profession in this country. The work which the State has always had done by the State Attorney at official level, for example, can be given to the private sector. All that is needed is one decision by the Minister. I am therefore asking that in cases where privatisation is possible and does not require investigations and intensive liaison, it should be implemented as soon as possible.

Particularly in view of what awaits us in the next few weeks, we must activate our economy as soon as possible and as much as possible. The American Congress is due to meet in the next few weeks and the “Oliver North show” and the Iranian escapade are over now. Unless something new appears on the horizon, only South Africa will dominate their confused politics again. Bearing in mind the President’s report on the progress made in race relations in this country which has to be presented to Congress, I just want to say that I think South Africa will be on the front pages of the newspapers again within the next few weeks. We all know and believe that sanctions cannot be applied effectively against this country, but I feel we should prepare ourselves for them anyway, because the second round, which is going to be worse, is definitely on its way.

Within the next few weeks the Commonwealth Conference will also be taking place in Vancouver, and the best we can hope for is that sanctions will not be extended. However we shall still be castigated with sanctions. In my opinion the countermeasure for sanctions lies not only in avoiding them, but in activating our own economy.

The International Bank of Credit Analysis has the following to say about South Africa’s present economic position:

On account of this there are an increasing number of people who think that South African shares are a safe refuge in this situation. When one bears in mind that gold shares at present give us a return of approximately 16% and foreigners a return of up to 23% one realizes that this is a golden opportunity to make use of this. Having said this I also want to appeal to the hon the Minister, because this potential is built into our economy in contrast with a possible international explosion, to leave no stone unturned to keep the stock market alive as far as possible, and to encourage the purchase of shares in every possible way.

It is in this regard that the policy of the CP worries me. It does not move forward; it is not prepared to move with the NP and to take risks in order to ensure that in future… [Interjections]

And to capitulate.

Yes, Sir, it is only a man who is living in a dream world who can laugh like that.

The NP has a duty to the population. We have a task to perform, and that is why that hon Minister has to wrestle with problems every day of his life. Where was the CP when the hon the Minister and his department were rescheduling the repayment of the foreign debt?

I am not referring now to the hon member for Yeoville who is a very loyal man and a good South African, but who loses his way completely when it comes to internal policy and puts forward social-democratic ideas which he would never apply in his own business undertaking. I just want to tell him that I am going to attend the next annual general meeting of one of his newest companies, and if he does not give everyone what they deserve and what they need, with the emphasis on need, I am going to have a few harsh things to say to him at that meeting. I am going to remind him of his Hansard, as the hon Minister did here.

If you are prepared to buy shares, you can come. [Interjections.]

I am prepared to buy shares from him as far as his extra-parliamentary activities and standpoint are concerned, but definitely not as far as his statements in Parliament are concerned.

In conclusion I want to say that we are standing on the threshold of a situation in which in my opinion this country will find itself at the crossroads. I want to read out a quote to hon members a passage by a man who was not well-disposed towards this Government in the past, a certain Mr Mervyn King:

The hon the Minister sitting to my left here has already elaborated on this.

We have a wonderful future in this country. We have a golden opportunity in this country. In spite of the negative co-operation we are getting from the opposition, we shall make a success of this. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on what they have achieved up to now, and wish them everything of the best for the future.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed an honour for me…

You are easily honoured!

Who is not easily honoured? I am really and truly honoured to follow on a speaker of the calibre of the hon member for Vasco. I think one of the earliest experiences I had in this House was to go to a meeting of Assocom where this Government was being attacked from all sides. It was the hon member for Vasco who got up quite informally and in his very quiet way reduced all the great financial guns to peace and quiet that day. It is an honour to follow him.

The hon member for Vasco touched on many subjects in his speech, some of which interest me greatly. One of the things he touched on—and I have seen it on TV and read it in the newspapers lately—was the unfortunate business of sanctions which are going to be imposed upon us by Israel.

It was said in this House earlier this session, if I heard correctly, that we export something like R300 million worth of diamonds to Israel. I often wonder whether, when people impose sanctions upon us, they really think about their economies. I sincerely hope that nothing comes of Israel’s action, because I feel that they too might be badly hurt by the sanctions they are about to impose upon us.

I also listened to what the hon member had to say about unemployment. Unemployment is an enormous problem throughout Africa, but it has also become something which confronts the First World almost as severely as ourselves in the Third World or Africa. I read very recently that, because of a worldwide takeover by electronic equipment, something like 10% of the world’s population will soon be unemployable. It would be a very harsh solution, but I wonder if China was not correct in deciding that one had to cut down one’s population somewhere or other or face unemployment in the future.

The subject of minimum wages was also touched upon, and I recently heard about something in my own city that interested me. We have started what one might call an illegal plaza, so that certain Third World people can start up their own businesses. I think we have beaten or evaded every single commercial rule that has ever been made, but I am very pleased to say that a couple of hundred previously unemployed people are employed there.

I read last year’s financial speeches and debates in Hansard, and it pleases me to say that this year’s speeches are being made in much more favourable circumstances. It is quite strange, looking back, to see what a parlous situation we were in one short year ago. At one stage—I think it was at about this time last year—the rand sank as low as 38c and everybody thought a disaster was imminent. When one sees what vast outflows of capital were mentioned in last year’s Hansard, one is extremely concerned, even a year later, to see what happened to this country.

When one looks at the fact that we faced something like 20 000 insolvencies throughout South Africa last year, and that—I am going to mention this again later—the number this year is significantly smaller, one realises that we have come out of one of the greatest sloughs of despond that this country has ever experienced.

I would like to remind this House that just one short year ago newspapers were writing about soup kitchens, feeding children in schools and total poverty. We had sanctions and boycotts at this time last year, and I think we were all shivering in our shoes because we did not know then that we could deal with sanctions and boycotts. I would very much like to believe that we stand very much stronger this year, and that we as a country trust that we can cope with the additional sanctions and the boycotts that are about to hit us.

As a matric schoolboy at Jeppe High School, I wrote an essay—I remember it still, as will others as old as I—entitled “Sanctions are a two-edged sword”. It referred to the sanctions by means of which Britain tried to bring Napoleon to his knees many years ago; I think it was 1802. They did not bring Napoleon to his knees, and I do not think that they are going to bring us to our knees. [Interjections] Waterloo was a good 13 years later than that. [Interjections.]

One has only to look at the circumstances I have mentioned to see that the discipline that the hon the Minister of Finance has brought about in this country has succeeded in one short year in turning a country which was on its knees into one that is sticking out its chest and going into the future confidently.

The trouble is that the Budget of this country has become completely politicised. The economic attack on this country by the communists has been aimed at depriving our economy of the investments and capital that it still needs to sustain the growth rate of 5% which we need to create employment for the millions of workseekers we will have to cope with as a result of the excessive population growth that Africa suffers.

The communists and their allies in this country know that well-educated, well-housed and fully employed members of the consumer society do not become revolutionaries and active members of the ANC. They become, I suppose, what the ANC will call “fat cats” and “fat cats” do not join revolutionaries.

Early Leninism called for the destruction of hospitals, schools, clinics and churches and all other—as the communists called them—“sops of capitalism”, so that the proletariat was forced to come to grips with its own oppression.

Refined and now, sadly, successful Soviet expansionism in Africa and Asia goes much further. With the help of opposition parties and the media in the Western World it has learnt to isolate its targeted countries politically and economically so that they cannot employ, feed and house their citizens. With the help of the “useful idiots” in the West, the Soviets have reduced most of Africa to poverty, but poverty under Soviet influence.

I think it was in the long steel strike last year that Mrs Margaret Thatcher’s opposition almost unbelievably even appealed to Gaddafi for help against their own country! We must not think that we have a Press, other media and an opposition in this country that are any different from the Press, other media and the opposition elsewhere in the world. In a democratic society I think that opposition parties reach the stage where they will do anything—and I mean anything—to overthrow their own government.

Unbelievably, our opposition Press over 40 years has deliberately helped the communists in their attempt to destroy our economy.

That is rubbish!

For 40 years the opposition has propounded the propaganda that the Government is made up of a bunch of fools and that the economy is in imminent danger of collapse. They perpetually create the impression that there is a crisis, even when they use the word “crisis” very loosely. I really do believe that I can go back over 40 years and at any stage or in any year find an opposition Press report that there was a crisis and that the Government and the economy was going to collapse at any minute. That is the way the opposition Press operates in the Western World. [Interjections.]

What are the facts? The fact is that on street level we are already in a state of boom. [Interjections.] Despite the newspapers stressing the negative aspects of inflation and unemployment, the other side of the coin is already showing. [Interjections.] Trade and industry have improved considerably and inflation and unemployment are taking a back seat.

The more successful the boom is, the more problems we shall have. The unhealthy problems will be the still greater influx of illegal immigrants from those fine, racially-integrated states on our borders that cannot feed their citizens and so send them into our despicable, successful state!

A healthy result will be wage increases for our workers and more jobs. The trade unions will, no doubt, make life more difficult, but that too will be a sign of a healthy economy.

In support of the fact that the boom is already happening at street level I would like to mention the following facts. There is a record number of new listings on the Stock Exchange. I think I read this morning that there were five this week and there are 20 more in the pipeline for the rest of the month.

The Cape Town City Council announced a 30% increase in building plans for the first six months of this year. The headlines of The Argus of 13 September read: “House sales surge”. Building societies report 10% to 15% price rises. Time-sharing sales are on the rise. The building industry complains that most of the R750 million budgeted for Black housing last year went to site-and-service schemes.

In the same breath, however, they said that this year they had built 10% to 15% more Black housing units, mainly in the R30 000 to R40 000 bracket.

There are literally hundreds of companies that have reported a 20% to 40% increase in turnover and profits this year. Base metal prices have boomed. Gencor increased its attributable earnings by 31,6% to R303 million. Diamond sales are up by nearly 50%. Mining financials are up by 37%. Consol Packaging is up by 36%. Ensign Clothing tripled its earnings in the first six months. Concor Construction, which is in the worst sector of our economy, has made a turnaround of R11,6 million this year. The stock market has gained R100 million this year. Good rains have improved the earnings of the farmers and better is still to come.

Mr Clive Weil of Checkers was quoted in the Argus as having said—

At the moment there are only an average of 150 liquidations per month, the lowest number since 1981. Mr Josh Green, the economist to Mathieson and Hollidge said businessmen were asking whether the economy was picking up, just like the hon members of the opposition parties, but this was the wrong question. What they should be asking, he said, was how long the recovery would continue. The answer to that is, for quite a while. [Interjections.]

The big financial guns in this House have each analysed the records of last year in his own individual way. I should like to repeat some of the things that have been said here today and put them into one package.

The gold price has hovered around the $460 this whole month, which is 50% higher than at this time last year. Foreign reserves stand at a record level. The trade surplus for the year will be somewhere around R8 billion. We have re-established our creditworthiness in the rest of the world by our meticulous repayments. As I have mentioned, there have already been good rains, and at the end of the third quarter the growth rate stood at 2,75%. If the present level of activity is really improving, as we have seen by the level of activity on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, this rate could go as high as 2,9% by the end of the year, which would mean in my estimation that the hon the Minister of Finance was only 3% out in his expectations for the year. I think that if a man is 97% right, he is a pretty accurate forecaster. [Interjections.]

We still have to penetrate the average businessman’s negative attitude towards anything South African that is successful. I had lunch with a group of businessmen three weeks ago, and a certain Mr Armstrong, who is the manager of a giant retail store, reported to me that he was 30% up on last year’s figures. There were quite a few retailers around me and everybody murmured assent. They all reported an increase of about 30%. He said, however, being a good English-speaking businessman, that if one took into consideration inflation and price increases, they would be standing just about where they were last year.

Was he wrong?

He was completely wrong, because price increases are inflationary. One cannot take them into account twice. That means that even if inflation is ignored, that businessman is having a jolly fine year. Anywhere else in the world he would be experiencing a boom. The sort of attitude that we are experiencing in this country is, however, that an increase of 30% in one year is not enough! [Interjections.]

There is also a negative side to the boom that we are experiencing. Many shops and factories are making up for their losses over the past three years in one fell swoop. They are not expanding in a way that the present market demands, but are rather concentrating on exceptionally high profit margins in order to make up for their previous losses. One of our hon Ministers told us the other day that he kept a motorcar part in his desk in Pretoria. That part was delivered to the factory in Port Elizabeth at 68 cents. The man who brought him the part paid R85 for it! The farmers complain that they receive 42 cents for the wine in the bottle that we pay R10 for in a restaurant. Lawyers virtually never work at the prescribed rates, according to laymen like myself. Every time we go to a lawyer, they talk about a lawyer-to-client basis, with the result that the law is almost totally out of the reach of a normal human being.

To be at the mercy of private nursing homes and some of the doctors that this country has and the prices one pays for medicines, is to take a bond on one’s house every time one has to have an operation. Many of the greatest critics of Government…

Doctors, lawyers, anyone else?

… as well as politicians are among the greatest exploiters of people. [Interjections.] When businessmen in this country finally realise the boom has actually crept up on them unexpectedly and they find the courage to expand and make money out of that boom and stop trying to determine the world’s future, there will be work opportunities for millions that will be created naturally. The momentum of the boom will be fuelled by its own success.

You can’t possibly be a Jeppe old boy!

Already the local papers are carrying full pages—I think this morning there were 11 pages—of situations vacant. If this continues there will be 20 pages a day.

We will, of course, have to curb the expectations of the have-nots, but when we realise that they constitute a market for half a million houses, for instance, and will consume billions of the things we can produce, we will be forced, like any other producer in the world, to look after them.

Rome, Greece and England became great by asking their citizens to lay down their lives for their countries. We ask our entrepreneurs to lay down their money and we will become great.

Mr Chairman, it was interesting to listen to the hon member for Germiston. In the first place I was interested to learn that he and the hon member for Yeoville went to the same school. Obviously the hon member for Yeoville got a lot more out of his schooling than the hon member for Germiston. Equally obviously they must have had different economics teachers because they certainly do not speak the same language. That is to the advantage of the hon member for Yeoville.

The hon member for Germiston informed this House today not only that we have a state of emergency, but that we also have a state of boom. I confess that I do read what he terms the opposition Press, but I find that Business Day—if one can term Business Day such—of today tends to destroy the argument of the hon member. I want to quote from a front-page article as follows:

This is not said by Business Day but by Volkskas—

That is a boom!

It goes on to say:

That is the definition that the hon member has of boom conditions. If he can dismiss the difference of 3% as being relatively unimportant, then I weep for his economic ability! [Interjections.]

We are all aware of the difficult economic times that we in South Africa have been going through. The growth rate has not been sufficient to employ the growing population. Unemployment figures among Blacks in Port Elizabeth, for instance, have been as high as 56%. That is a tremendous human tragedy.

Those of us who have listened to Clem Sunter or have read his book—I hope the hon the Minister of Finance has listened to Sunter—will be aware that he talks about a high road and a low road. The high road leads to success and the low road leads to economic deprivation and despair. Broadly speaking, he says that with technical development throughout the world any country deprived of technological information cannot hope to compete in the world market.

We in South Africa have the people, the skills, the infrastructure and the raw materials, but we still need the technical knowledge to be able to become part of the world economy.

It appears to me, however, that we are on a course which is fast leading to isolation, to technical deprivation and, ultimately, to economic despair in a country more akin to the Third Word than to the First. We are aware of the disinvestment that has taken place and that is still taking place on an almost daily basis. Without a doubt, these disinvestments damage the economy.

Secondly, we are all aware of the sanctions that have been imposed against South Africa—Israel is the latest example—and anybody who has seen the recent trade figures between the United States and South Africa will be aware of the harm that has been caused to this country.

There is also a scientific boycott which, while not having the high publicity value of sanctions and disinvestment, is nevertheless damaging. I quote from the Financial Mail of September 4:

What we have to do in this situation is decide how we are to advance at the required pace. How do we reverse this downward spiral and start moving towards the high road? Our problems are caused to a very large degree by the political situation, the lack of real representation for Blacks, and the lack of any visible signs of negotiation. Therefore, anything that we can do to speed up negotiation and to make negotiation visible would certainly be in our own long-term interests.

In this regard the Government has now published its National Council Bill. The National Council is supposed to be a negotiating forum through which to achieve proper political representation for Blacks. Obviously, it is in everybody’s interests to have Black leaders of stature and who have a constituency participating in this council. To negotiate with puppets would be an exercise in self-delusion. We are aware that there are credible Black leaders who have set certain pre-conditions for their participation. Notable among these is Nkosi Buthelezi. Without doubt he is one of the most moderate, genuine leaders and with a very large constituency. Without his presence on the National Council it becomes a futile exercise. If the leader of the biggest Black grouping in South Africa is not present it is futile.

One of his pre-conditions is the release from prison of Nelson Mandela. I wish, Mr Chairman, to echo his call today and to appeal to this Government to release Mandela. I do so, Sir, not because of any “bleeding-heart liberalism”, but because I feel it is in our own longer-term interests and in the best interests of our country that this should happen. I know that I will be told that first he must forswear violence, but I do not believe we should insist on this—not because I agree with violence, but because I do believe the level of violence will not increase as a result of his release. Umkhonto We Sizwe does exist; it is a reality and will continue to use violence whether Mandela is in prison or not, and that is regrettable.

Then, Mr Chairman, there are humanitarian grounds. I shall not quote the hon the State President from Hansard now, but he made certain clear statements in relation to the release of Shcharansky, Du Toit and Sakharov. Wynand du Toit is free; so is Sakharov and so is Shcharansky, while Mandela is still in prison. Clearly, the new Russian leader has shown more humanity in this regard than our own hon State President.

I believe, Sir, that the hon the State President owes it to this House and to South Africa to explain to us why he will not release Mandela on humanitarian grounds. Let us consider the results of the release of Mandela at this stage.

First of all, it would help to minimise the harm likely to be caused at the latest session of the United Nations and at the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver; it could thus lead to the imposition of lesser or perhaps even no additional sanctions; secondly, it could create a climate of hope within South Africa which everybody desperately needs; and lastly, it could help to bring people such as Buthelezi to the negotiating table, which is obviously to everybody’s advantage.

The choice is the responsibility of this Government and this Cabinet, and I hope they will not let South Africa down.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central whom I am following in this debate and who spoke just before the suspension of business, started off his speech by quoting from a Volkskas report. He did so in reply to the hon member for Germiston who had revealed some positive aspects of the South African economy. I can understand why the hon member reacted in that way, because anything positive said about the policies of the Government is anathema to the party to which he belongs. [Interjections.] That party thrives on negative politics. [Interjections.]

I am sure the hon member will forgive me if I accuse him of selective quoting. I think that, in the jargon of the old Afrikaans farmers, he was busy with “boereverneukery”. [Interjections.] I think he should know the meaning of the word “boereverneukery”, because he has had many dealings with farmers in his business. Right next to the Volkskas report from which he quoted, is another report of FS Industries. What does this report say?

One industry has done well.

It says:

Do you own any shares in that company?

No, unfortunately I do not own any shares in that company.

There is another report from which the hon member could have quoted and that is the Sanlam report. It states, inter alia: “Sanlam predicts impetus to the economic upturn”. It then gives seven reasons for this forecast. However, the hon member and his party do not like quoting from reports of that nature. These reports are too positive.

Are you a Volkskas…?

No, I have no dealings with Volkskas. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member the opportunity to make his speech.

I have no dealings with Volkskas. I do not even bank with them. [Interjections.] What the hon member has done, is what one calls selective quoting.

The report of the Bureau for Economic Research in Stellenbosch is also available. In their report they also forecast a rise in consumer spending and especially on luxury goods.

You see, Sir, that is no good to the hon members on the other side. They want the economy to slump. They want people to think that the economy is slumping and not growing because that suits their sort of politics. [Interjections.]

I must point out to hon members that this Volkskas report was based on the first two quarters of the current year.

That is PFP propaganda. Listen to that!

No, no, I am talking about the report from which the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central quoted. I do not think the hon member for Yeoville was here when he quoted from that report.

I was here!

He quoted from that report to strengthen his argument that the economy was not growing.

But it is PFP propaganda!

Order!

I do not say it is any sort of propaganda…

Order! I am afraid when we read this Hansard, we will find that the hon member for Kuruman was the hon member who spoke least during this period. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kuruman may now continue. [Interjections.]

Thank you. Sir.

I want to point out that this Volkskas report was based on the growth figures for the first two quarters of the current financial year. Exactly the same pattern revealed itself during the first two quarters of the previous financial year. However, during the last two quarters of that financial year, we had a stronger growth rate than in either of the preceding two quarters. Therefore, this economic picture can easily reveal itself again in this coming financial year.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central also referred to sanctions. Sir, we in the NP can assure you that we do not underestimate the effect of sanctions.

However, he referred to something which is very serious, and that is the fact that we are becoming isolated as far as the exchange of technological knowledge is concerned. That is a great pity, but I must also point out to him that only this week, when a country like Spain was in trouble and did not have enough vaccine to treat the horse ’flu in their country, South Africa supplied some—this South Africa that has been cut off from the rest of the world as far as the exchange of technological knowledge is concerned.

It’s the flow-in I am worried about, not the flow-out.

Yes, Sir, but we can also brag about the flow-out. I do not have to remind the hon member that, on account of boycotts and sanctions, we started an Armscor. Today we are an exporter of arms.

So sanctions don’t worry you!

The whole picture is not as dark as the hon member wants to make out.

Sanctions have their effects, bad effects, of course, and we do not like them, but the rest of the world must not try to force South Africa in a certain direction through sanctions. [Interjections.]

Then do something positive!

Well, we have, Sir. We have taken many positive steps. However, the hon member and his party refuse to recognise that. Let us have a look at the changes in South Africa over the past three years since the inception of the tricameral system of Parliament. More than 80 discriminatory laws were scrapped but that, to the PFP, means nothing. Apart from that, a host of other measures were adopted to remove discrimination. Very recently parity in pay for public servants was announced. However, according to them I suppose that is not a positive step, because they do not mention it. Nowhere in their speeches have I heard any reference to the fact that we have had parity in pay. [Interjections.]

I cannot hear the interjections of the hon member for Pinetown…

I raised the matter but you obviously do not agree that I did.

… but I will say this about that hon member. He and his bench-mate—when I look at them—remind me of Shakespeare, who said: “He that hath a beard is more than a youth, and he that hath no beard is less than a man”… [Interjections.]… “and he that is more than a youth, I am not for him, and he that is less than a man, he is not for me”. [Interjections.] I have nothing against beards; the hon member for Pinetown must not misunderstand me. I am merely quoting this because the play from which it comes is called “Much Ado About Nothing”! [Interjections.]

The point is that with the tricameral system this Government has started on the road of change. It is determined to keep on changing things until matters are right constitutionally in South Africa. [Interjections.] Change is something that evolves at its own speed and gathers its own momentum.

Increasing numbers of South Africans across the colour line today accept the necessity for dialogue and negotiation and for collective bargaining. Consequently incomes have risen considerably. Projections in respect of revenue indicate that the amount paid in GST by Blacks is rapidly overtaking the amount paid by Whites. However, hon members in the PFP benches say that we must do something about it.

We were told this morning about poverty and unemployment in certain sections of our population, but show me the country in the world where there is full employment today. All the Western democracies have a certain percentage of unemployment.

They also have social benefits for the unemployed.

I know about all the social benefits. However, we have a large Third World component, and that the hon member for Yeoville will concede. We have got to uplift these people. Does he want us to do both, and where will we get the money from?

Then why are you comparing?

I am not comparing, I am stating a fact. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue across the floor. The hon member for Kuruman may continue.

Moreover Black trade unions have as recently as the latest miners’ strike proved that they are prepared to negotiate and take part in collective bargaining for the benefit of the members of the trade union. Much has therefore been done. I am merely referring to very recent events.

People are learning to appreciate the tools and machinery of the free-market system, but the hon members on the opposition benches want us to move just for the sake of moving.

Rubbish!

We cannot do that. It will lead to a distortion of the very market forces of the free-market system which we are trying to maintain.

Apartheid has destroyed the free-market forces.

Now I want to return to a matter we have raised on various occasions in this House, a matter about which there are apparently nothing but misgivings and in which nobody can discern any redeeming feature. I refer to the increase in the prices of shares on our stock exchange.

This morning somebody quoted here—I think it was the hon member for Germiston—that share prices had increased tremendously during the first eight months this year. The average increase is estimated at 40%, but some sectors, such as the industrial sector, showed a larger increase, namely 60%. Others, such as gold and minerals, have not done quite as well.

What are the reasons for this growth? Those who warn investors that they are going to burn their fingers are in the habit of ascribing it to the fact that investors are investing in paper, and to no other cause. Here I beg to differ.

I want to say that the increase in prices on the stock exchange can chiefly be ascribed to the following factors. The first is the increase in the price of gold. I think this is one of the main reasons for the high level of prices we have on our stock exchange today. In fact, people who perhaps know more about the stock exchange than the member for Yeoville and I, predict that these prices, amongst others the price of gold, will continue to rise steadily because pressure…

Did I say that?

No, I am referring to people who know more about the stock exchange than the hon member for Yeoville and I. [Interjections.]

They predict—if the hon member for Yeoville would like to listen, I shall repeat this—that the gold price will continue to increase, albeit slowly, because the pressure on the American dollar will be maintained. This pressure on the American dollar is caused by the deficit on their balance of trade as well as the deficit on their budget. There is no prospect of these two factors disappearing from the scene in the immediate future. This morning I read a report on the Tokyo Bank Limited in which the manager even predicted a collapse of the dollar.

Then there are those who invest in shares because they see this as a hedge against present-day inflation. As long as inflation remains relatively high I think people will continue to invest in the stock exchange.

I want to add a third factor, ie that in spite of all the somber, negative predictions about our growth rate in South Africa, growth is nevertheless taking place. The report I quoted from at the beginning of my speech is not the only proof of this. I believe that if the current stable situation can be maintained, there is no reason why our industrial sector should not undergo further growth and expansion.

It is specifically the last factor I have mentioned which is perhaps one of the main reasons why share prices are so high. You see, Mr Chairman, one should not forget that the stock exchange is a body that makes certain forecasts. It is our barometer for measuring future economic activity. If investors in the stock exchange expected share prices to rise in future, with increased dividends as a result of growth in our industrial sector and our economy as a whole, they would now be investing in shares. This is why our shares prices are rising, Sir, and not for all the obscure and pessimistic reasons furnished by hon members on the other side.

Adjustments can, of course, be made…

Mr Chairman, in the light of what the hon member has said now about the sharemarket, is he telling his hon colleagues to buy or to sell? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it all depends on whether they need money or not. [Interjections.] If I were the hon member for Yeoville, Sir, I would buy. Looking at my own situation, I believe I must sell. [Interjections.]

*Let me first complete my previous statement. Adjustments have always been made in our stock exchange. It happens periodically. However, I believe it is far-fetched to predict a collapse in the stock exchange or in share prices such as the one we had in 1969. Conditions today are so vastly different from what they were then. Let me just mention a few. In those days the gold price was fixed at, I think, the ridiculously low figure of $35 a fine ounce. The inflation rate was perhaps in the region of 6% or 7%. All those factors have changed since then. Everything is different today. We are living in a totally new era. Therefore I want to tell the investors of South Africa to have more confidence in their investments, as well as in the investment possibilities in our stock exchange. One should, of course, not go to extremes, or one could burn one’s fingers. It could prove disastrous. However, investing in sound shares has always been a solid investment in the past, and to my knowledge there is no reason why we should not continue to find it so in future.

This morning the hon member for Barberton this morning said we should buy South African because in buying South African we keep our industries going, and when we keep our industries going, they can be in production when the upswing comes. Surely the hon member does not expect the upswing to be more than another year away, at most. Therefore even the hon member for Barberton expects an economic upswing under this NP Government.

In spite of this NP Government!

Very well. In spite of this NP Government. When the economic upswing comes, it is in spite of the Government, but when there is an economic decline, it is because of the Government. This is what we have come to expect from the opposition parties in this House. [Interjections.] As I say, we are on a road to nowhere with these two opposition parties. [Interjections.] One can simply never win as far as they are concerned. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman has demonstrated that he is not the type of person who is easily bearded! [Interjections.] Of course, under those circumstances there will most probably be too much nothing about the ado! [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Kuruman made a good speech but he actually contradicted the hon the Deputy Minister who, when he spoke the other day, warned us against investing too much on the gold market.

The other point that I would like to raise with regard to this interesting speech he made is that the Government is not responsible for the factors to which he ascribes growth on the stock exchange, namely the American situation and the confidence in gold as a hedge against inflation. These are all factors that are by no means attributable to the Government.

He also spoke about the wonderful circumstances and the wonderful growth taking place in South Africa, but I have before me a publication, Finansies en Tegniek of 11 September, which reports that 17,5% more companies and close corporations were wound up in the three months up to and including July this year than in the preceding three months of February, March and April. What is more, in July of that year 203 were wound up in comparison to 159 in June this year.

The hon the Deputy Minister said in his speech this morning that the salary and wage increases granted in South Africa compared favourably with increases in the rest of the world. They have not, however, been accompanied by increased productivity. Now, I also happen to have before me an article on productivity in Finance Week of 3-9 September 1987. It reports:

This is what we heard from the hon members for Barberton and Lichtenburg this morning—

That is the current situation.

Let us just refer to another aspect; the attempt by the NP simultaneously to engineer power-sharing and to eliminate domination of one group by another in a unitary state. That attempt is clearly heading for the rocks. The brainpower and initiative of the party’s own members is totally exhausted and now they have to make use of the services of the SA Law Commission in a desperate attempt to solve this problem of theirs. They themselves cannot solve the problem of how to eliminate domination in a unitary state.

The NP has come to a dead end. It has painted itself into a corner and in the process inflicted almost irreparable damage on South Africa because it has sealed the escape routes from its clumsy constitutional model. A free sovereign people is subject to the unpredictable tantrums of someone who happens to be a Coloured leader, and it cries to Heaven.

At present we are heading for one thing and one thing only, and that is a racial federation in a unitary state. It is barely distinguishable from the notorious old policy of the United Party, a policy that was rightly condemned as a diabolical policy, and the biggest piece of political fraud in the history of South Africa. That is the race federation towards which South Africa is moving at present, in an attempt to protect groups and assure them of a degree of self-determination.

Participation is accomplished by all kinds of methods such as mixed Executive Committees, the KwaZulu-Natal Executive Committee, the racially mixed concoction that will constitute the National Council, etc. The NP is trying to reach an agreement for the here and the now and for the foreseeable future, but does not consider the South Africa of the year 2050 or 2100.

There is no peace, security and future security if that which is peculiar to the people or ethnic group is not secured to the maximum extent. In a plural, heterogeneous society like ours this can only be done by way of the scientifically based principle of the territorial imperative. There is no other unique or so-called magic formula. It is part of our history. It is part of our relationship with the Black man since we first time became acquainted with him. Borders were determined, and where they were not honoured, wars followed and when peace agreements were drawn up, new borders were established. The Fish River and the Sundays River are good examples. At the time of the Voortrekkers, borders were fixed between them and the Zulus and between them and the Matabeles. There was also the Shepstone Commission in Natal that established borders. After the Anglo-Boer War the peace agreement contained a non-negotiable clause to the effect that Black franchise was not to be extended to the northern provinces. There was the commission which resulted in the Bill of 1913, there was the Eiselen Commission and there was the 1936 Act. That was the pattern according to which South Africa confidently and consistently developed and upon which leaders built—Gen Smuts too—until the beginning of the present hon State President’s regime.

By departing from this pattern the NP has irreparably damaged its credibility. As we have said before, the Black man does not trust the NP with Prog policy. That is the problem facing the NP today. [Interjections.] Their credibility amongst Whites, however, has also vanished entirely. What did the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning say the other day? He said that power sharing had always been acceptable, but not in a Westminster system. The so-called Black council which the Constitutional Committee of 1979 recommended was supposedly an attempt to include and involve Black people in the new dispensation. This is the first we hear about that. We have always been told that they have their own structures and that they will be continuing to build on these structures.

The other day the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said that all discriminatory laws must disappear.

Hear, hear!

However, he said that he still favoured the Group Areas Act. We really do not know what the NP is going to do about this Bill. [Interjections.] It is now being said that we cannot move faster with reform. On the one hand there are those that feel deceived but on the other, those that feel threatened have to be taken into consideration. It is the typical Huntington model. A halt must be called to gain the support of the threatened group before proceeding to deceive them for the sake of those that feel deceived at present. What this amounts to, therefore, is that the NP, due to its lack of credibility and its departure from the traditional pattern of policy in South Africa, is simply incapable of persuading Blacks that the old crock in which they are travelling is going to succeed in reaching the high ground in South Africa. It is not South Africa’s traditional policy. The traditional policy has existed for 300 years, but the NP has departed from it and become totally untrustworthy in the process.

And won an election!

The NP won an election, but between 1982 and 1987 it has lost half of its supporters to the CP. [Interjections.] The reason for this is that the people of South Africa still believe in the traditional policy of separate development, of separate sovereignty, of separate territories on which each nation can develop to its full status. [Interjections.]

Take the holidays, for instance. Here again we see the two-way traffic of the NP. For example, it is being said that Kruger Day has to go. The NP has not reacted to this at all. My friend, the hon member for Lichtenburg, spoke about emotion. Here again the emotion is being taken away. Kruger Day, obviously an established, indisputable, traditional holiday peculiar to South Africa and the Afrikaner, and those that identify with the Afrikaner’s endeavour, must now make way for a colourless day not associated with any event or hero. It no longer represents a commemorative day of national unity representing a commitment to the history and tradition of my people. It is becoming a day in September, based on nothing. It is now becoming a day on which no hero can be commemorated. It satisfies nobody. The NP policy simply does not satisfy anybody. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the member for Brakpan talks as if his party won the election on 6 May. Surely that is not true, yet he makes a great fuss about it.

We are going to beat you.

Perhaps that hon member would be more correct if he said they were going to try to do it. As regards 6 May, the numbers on this side of the House speak for themselves.

After the Group Areas Act we are really going to beat you.

Order! We shall just have to wait for the results of the next election. The hon member may continue.

The hon the member for Brakpan maintains that the voters did not know what the 6 May election was all about. I think the hon the member for Lichtenburg also said it. I think it would be a good thing if we again placed on record what the issues were in regard to which we asked the voters of South Africa for a mandate. I quote from the election manifesto:

1. 1. Om deur volgehoue hervorming—voorspoed vir almal in Suid-Afrika na te streef en almal se lewenskwaliteit te help verhoog;

If I may interrupt myself, I want to say that the NP has changed, and we make no apology for that. After all, we told the voters that, and on the strength of these standpoints they once again returned us to the House of Assembly as the governing party.

The manifesto continues—

I shall return to this in a moment—

I shall also return to this aspect. The manifesto continues:

1. 2. Om selfbeskikking en ’n eie gemeen-skapslewe aan alle groepe te verseker.
   We make no apology for this, and even if we take the debate further in the weeks ahead, this is the mandate we asked our voters to give us. I quote further:
2. 3. Om die veiligheid van Suid-Afrika na te streef deur die revolusionêre aanslag teen Suid-Afrika met alle middele tot ons beskikking te beveg en te bekamp om orde, stabiliteit en vrede in die land te verseker.
3. 4. Om deur sy buitelandse beleid Suid-Afrika se soewereiniteit te handhaaf, goeie betrekkinge na te streef en geen inmenging in ons hervormingsproses en binnelandse beleid te duld nie.
4. 5. Om volgehoue ekonomiese groei, voorspoed en vooruitgang te bevorder veral ter wille van optimale werkskepping en ter versekering van ekonomiese stabiliteit en vooruitgang.

This is the mandate the NP asked for.

Let us consider the CP a while. I clearly remember that a prominent hon member of this House once said that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition would go down in the annals of history as the greatest divider of the Afrikaner this country had ever seen. I am absolutely convinced that not just the leader, but the whole CP is substantiating the words of that hon member.

No-one believes you!

I want to mention a few examples. I want in all seriousness to refer to the debate which is taking place in the DR Church at the moment. I want to refer to an article and a cartoon which appeared in Die Patriot of 5 December 1986. The title of the article is as follows: “NG Kerk staan voor toets”. Before I quote from it, I should just like to mention that possibly the hon member for Witbank as well as some of the other members of the Official Opposition will understand that the period which preceded the session of the general synod last year was a period of profound and serious prayer for intercession for the proceedings of the synod. However, what appears in this article? I am going to quote only one brief extract, and I should be obliged if the hon member or any other hon members would indicate whether or not they agree with this statement:

Correct!

That is so!

The hon the member for Witbank says it is correct. [Interjections.] A cartoon appeared in the same edition of Die Patriot. Since the hon the member for Witbank maintains that the statement is correct—it is just as well that it is on record that he said so—I want to refer to the cartoon. It depicts the DR Church in the background with Prof Heyns standing before a noticeboard on which the following words appear: “Bont is billik—soos P W, wil ek”. The petition of protest of the objectors is being thrown down a well. There is a small caricature on the side, and I would like to know if the hon the member for Witbank agrees with what was said here about the Moderator of the DR Church, namely: “Ons eie pous”. Does the hon the member for Witbank agree with that? [Interjections.]

The hon the member remains silent. That is like the CP’s policy of division and partition. That is how it is being implemented by the hon members of the CP.

I now wish to refer to another aspect, namely Aksie-Blank-Natal. The hon members of the Official Opposition no longer talk about that because it is probably an embarrassment to them. In this regard I refer, amongst other things, to a document entitled: “’n Ope brief aan alle Blankes in Natal”. Let me quote a brief extract:

The author elaborates further, and then goes on to say:

I also have before me an advertisement for a meeting in the Durban City Hall at which the hon the member for Lichtenburg appeared with the leader of the HNP, Mr Jaap Marais, and where he spoke about this Aksie-Blank-Natal.

There is one question which I would like to ask those hon members. When they talk about Aksie-Blank-Natal, which plan of action do they actually want to implement in Natal? They have a problem in this regard because the CP has one policy for Natal whilst their extra-parliamentary group, the AWB, has another plan for their Boerestaat.

They are not extra-parliamentary.

I beg your pardon. I accept that they are not extra-parliamentary.

They are here with us!

A tremendous presence!

The HNP, however, also has its own plan. They were unable to reach an agreement before the election, hence they are relatively quiet now and have nothing further to say about Aksie-Blank-Natal.

Tell us about your plan!

I informed those hon members in detail about the NP’s plan and the mandate which we asked for and were given by the voters. [Interjections.]

I wish to refer to another dangerous game being played by the CP. Those hon members are talking about White money, Black money and Brown money.

And Yellow money!

Possibly also Yellow money. They are stirring up feelings among the Whites with the propaganda that the Whites are being over-taxed in order to subsidize the Black man.

Is that true or not?

Did an hon member say it was true?

I asked whether it was true or not.

I shall come to the hon member. He must be patient. [Interjections.]

This game of arousing racial hatred for the Blacks is just as dangerous as the converse. This game is played for petty party-political gain and is not to the benefit of the RSA. We find a typical example of this dangerous style of propaganda in the CP statement made by Comdt Derby-Lewis. I want to quote from two unrevised Hansard copies of the speeches which he made on two occasions during the debate on the vote of the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. In his first speech he says:

On a second occasion, on the same day, the hon the member says:

These statements are nakedly racist statements which are designed to incite the feelings of the Whites against the Blacks and to bring the Government into disfavour with the White voters. When I make the statement that the tax system in the RSA is colour-blind I believe that there are hon members on that side of the House who probably agree with me. I see that the hon the member for Middelburg is in the House, and I think that if I were to repeat the statement which I have just made, the hon member for Middelburg would immediately agree with me.

The statement I made was that the tax system in the RSA is colour-blind. Surely that is so. According to information at my disposal, the hon the member for Middelburg was the chairman of, amongst other things, the Management Committee in Middelburg before he came to this House. According to my information, that hon member, in his capacity as chairman, agreed with the HNP mayor of the town that a certain part of the central business area should be declared open. [Interjections.] Is that correct?

That is not the truth!

As far as I am concerned, an open business area is also colour-blind. Thus the hon the member for Middelburg must please talk to Comdt Derby-Lewis about this some time.

If I may return to what the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis said, I wish to say to him that anyone who brings the question of colour into the South African tax system is a racist. The South African tax system is colour-blind and is based on a person’s ability to pay; not on the colour of his skin.

If we could just focus on this for a while, I wish to dwell on the tax principles which are normally applicable. We find that one of the most important principles on which any tax system—including the South African system—is based, is that tax is levied in accordance with the ability to pay. The ability to pay is determined by two basic factors, namely that similar individuals should be dealt with in the same way—this is known as the so-called horizontal payment ability—and that those who enjoy a higher level of economic prosperity should bear a heavier tax burden that those who are less well-off. This is known as the so-called vertical payment ability. The idea of equal sacrifice is therefore the basis of both these points of departure.

Income tax which rests on the principle of the ability to pay has a progressive scale according to which the taxpayer’s income is more heavily taxed as it increases. As a result of this principle one finds that 12% of the taxpayers in the Republic of South Africa contribute 43% of the tax revenue, whilst the lower income groups pay virtually no tax at all. This is the normal pattern in the Western World.

Furthermore, it is an established principle that the more prosperous sector of the population pays for the less prosperous sector. Accordingly, the wealthy mining magnates and businessmen, who in the past were almost exclusively English-speaking, paid for the upliftment of the Afrikaner. In fact, according to a survey made by Prof Sadie of Stellenbosch, and to which the Minister of Finance also alluded earlier in the debate, the English-speaking sector of the population still pays about 60% of all the income tax.

In this way the farmers are assisted with their tax. Accordingly the poor Whites and the elderly are also helped in this regard. At the same time the national services such as the Defence Force, the Police and the Public Service are available to rich and poor on an equal basis.

Whilst I am referring to the national services such as the Defence Force, I want to refer briefly to the Budget. The estimated revenue from personal tax for the present financial year is close to R12,5 billion. The estimated expenditure for the Defence Force—also for the current financial year—is about R7 billion, whilst the budget for the Administration: House of Assembly for the current financial year is a little over R5 billion.

What am I trying to say to the hon members? The revenue received from personal tax is equal to the expenditure of the Administration: House of Assembly and our Defence Force. What does this mean? Personal tax is not the only source of revenue; in fact, it is only sufficient for two components of the Public Service—those two to which I have referred. What about all the other departments?

The tax on mines, company tax, customs and excise and GST are all forms of income tax which must also be taken into account. All the tax sources I have mentioned are colour-blind. What we need is not merely to keep our country moving but to build a better South Africa.

I wish to refer briefly to what Dr Anton Rupert once said, and I quote:

If I may refer briefly to the aspect referred to by the hon the member for Brakpan, namely the Natal executive authority I wish to say that all that has happened there is that the de facto situation is now being made de jure.

I want to bring one interesting aspect to the attention of the House, namely that there is not a single White town or city in Natal further than 27 kilometres from the KwaZulu border. The rivers of Natal form a boundary between Natal and KwaZulu to such an extent that in many cases the middle of the river is the border.

It is no doubt unnecessary to say that when one has to contend with pollution problems, amongst other things, and one does not have an executive authority, one cannot govern a province well.

I conclude by saying that this Budget is one which provides the means, in the words of the hon the Minister of Finance (Hansard: House of Assembly, 16 June 1987, col 1524):

Without this, attempts to achieve optimum economic development are doomed to failure.

It is an honour for me to be able to speak in support of this Appropriation Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Newcastle will forgive me if I do not follow him in the argument he had with the CP. I am one of those who do not believe there is a great deal of difference, except in degree, between the two parties, the NP and the CP. I think both parties are very far removed from the realities of the South African situation.

I want to look at this debate which traditionally is one of the last major debates of the session which provides one with a useful opportunity to review the legislative programme completed in order to try to assess the direction the Government is following in the country.

Traditionally, too, this post-election session ought to be one of action, because for the most part a Government immediately after a general election is anxious to implement the mandate which it believes it has received from its electorate. When one looks back on this session and reviews what has taken place during it as a post-election session, one realises that there is very little evidence of any real enthusiasm on the part of the Government to give effect to whatever mandate it believes it received on 6 May.

The legislative programme of this session has been a totally lacklustre one, and even now as we stumble from one piece of inconsequential legislation to another, there is very little sign that this is going to change by the time the session ends.

After the election the Government claimed that it had received a mandate from the electorate for reform in South Africa. Heaven knows, if it was looking for reform, this was something which was heavily disguised during the election campaign because we know that the NP fought perhaps one of the most rightwing campaigns it has fought in the 40 years of its existence. It once again appealed to the basic fears and prejudices of the White electorate.

Immediately after the election the Government nevertheless claimed that it had been given a mandate for reform in South Africa. If they still claim that, I want to say that there seems to be a remarkable reluctance on their part to implement that mandate.

There have been the odd outbursts of rhetoric on the subject of reform, but when one looks at that record of this session one sees that there has been very little of substance which I think is shown by the very dull legislative record over the past few months.

There is naught for the comfort of people who may have been looking desperately to this Parliament during this session to start a movement back to normality, if not prosperity, for South Africa.

What have we found instead? There has been very little movement. The state of emergency remains and there is no prospect of its even being partially lifted. Economic sanctions still operate, and there are threats and evidence of extended sanctions, as we have seen in the past two days with the announcement of further sanctions to be imposed against South Africa. There is still evidence of considerable unease around the country; and there is no real sign of a revival of the confidence which we so desperately need in South Africa and which this hon Minister, in particular, so desperately needs.

The hon the Minister must be aware of this, and none of it is going to make his task any easier when he goes on his overseas mission next week or the week after. If he has to rely on this session and on the contributions of his hon colleagues to bolster the presentation of our case in the overseas money markets, this session will fall very far short of being helpful as far as he is concerned.

The finger-wagging petulance of the hon the State President in dealing with his hon colleagues in the Cabinet and others will not help this hon Minister. The sabre-rattling speeches of the hon the Minister of Defence will not help this hon Minister in the task which awaits him when he goes overseas. The slavish recommitment of the hon the Minister of National Education to own affairs and enforced racial groupings will not help this hon Minister in the task which he has to perform overseas.

The hon the Minister must know that what I am saying is correct. He knows that what is needed most in order to restore confidence in South Africa is real evidence that we are on the path towards effecting reconciliation in this country. That is really what he needs to go armed with when he goes overseas.

Before we can bring about meaningful reconciliation in South Africa, however, it is absolutely essential that we create the right climate for that type of reconciliation; and I must confess that I see very little evidence of our trying to create this climate at the present time. That climate, Sir, can only be created when the Government abandons its racially discriminatory policies such as its continued commitment to enforced residential segregation, segregation in the educational field, and separation in the political field. That climate for reconciliation can only be created when all the people in South Africa who have to be party to the negotiation to seek reconciliation feel free to enter into that negotiation via organisations and through leaders of their own choosing, and in structures which they have had an equal part in creating.

I believe, moreover, that if we are looking for the right climate for reconciliation, it is absolutely essential that the Government lay down a minimum number of preconditions for negotiation and start at last to display a far greater willingness to compromise than they have up until the present time.

In the absence of these aspects I fear that such remaining initiatives which the Government may embark upon to initiate negotiation and look for reconciliation will fail.

I believe it is absolutely essential that the right climate is there if we are to have any hope of a negotiated settlement for our problems. We must all be aware of the grim background—I think this is a question of reality, Sir; we must not minimise the task in our quest for reconciliation in South Africa—against which we operate in any quest for reform in this country.

I say this more in sorrow than in anger. Forty years of apartheid rule has left us a very grim legacy indeed in this country. That is a very tough background against which to seek change and reform.

I sat here in the fifties and saw the apartheid edifice being erected with one piece of apartheid legislation after another. It was clear then that the apartheid course was a disaster course for South Africa; and so it has been, as even hon members of the governing party now acknowledge in their heart of hearts.

Still, it is cold comfort indeed today to have been proved right in our consistent opposition to apartheid. The fact is, Sir, apartheid has left us an awful legacy in South Africa.

It is a legacy of young South Africans being killed on the border, bomb blasts in our cities and landmines on our farms. It is a legacy of division, suspicion and hatred in our country. It is a legacy of lost confidence, abroad and at home, and it is also a legacy of self-inflicted economic hardship and undermined security within our own country.

That is a tough background against which to operate, but from a positive point of view I hope that we shall be realistic and shall be able to accept the mistakes which have been made over that 40 year period. I also hope that we shall realize that we have to turn our backs totally on apartheid if there is to be any hope of a peaceful solution to the problems of South Africa. When I say we must turn our backs on apartheid I mean not just the word apartheid but the substance of apartheid. It has to be rejected in the absolute sense of rejection. There must be no half measures and there must be no obsession—as there still is within Government ranks—with own affairs or racial groupings as a solution, because that is apartheid. There must be no endless pre-occupation with tricameral type legislative bodies and machinery in order to resolve problems in South Africa. That is apartheid and that is the problem of South Africa not the solution.

I believe that we have to commit ourselves in this country to looking to the interests of individuals rather than the interests of race groups. I believe that once we have done that we shall be in a far stronger position to look our fellow South Africans in the face. I also believe that once we have done that we shall be able to find ready acceptance of South Africa in the international community.

However, the hon the Minister starts off with a tough assignment. We all know that and we wish him well, but I would have hoped that he could have gone overseas with a far more positive record that South Africa is about to change and commit itself to the road of moderation and sanity for the future.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Berea is disappointed about the actions of this Parliament and wants to have more thrust in the whole matter. I wonder if this turbo-assisted thrust will really go off as well as their own defunct election campaign did!

The hon member consistently talks about no change in this country. However, he demands action. Allow me to remind the hon member of some of the items of reform. If we look at the social side, sport has been depoliticised and has become non-racial. The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act have been scrapped. Freedom of movement has been extended to all by the abolition of the pass laws.

You are talking about last year. He was talking about this year.

Forced removals have been halted and the hon member knows that. Central business districts have been opened to all races in most cities.

Which ones?

That hon member can come to Johannesburg; I do not know whether he and the Capetonians are still way behind, but as far as the situation in Johannesburg is concerned, one can take many examples from that area.

Job reservation has been removed. On the political side the Coloured and Indians are sitting in Parliament with us.

In separate Houses.

There are also active moves to get representation for and to bring Blacks into the decision-making process in a more meaningful way. Hon members are all aware of it and yet those hon members continue ignoring the actual path of reform. On this score this Government will see to it that the pace of reform is kept up and that it will be an ongoing movement towards a better South Africa. [Interjections.]

*The financial world and economic trade are sometimes intertwined and difficult to understand. The theoretical principles of international trade are no longer necessarily applicable to the South African situation. Economic and financial terrorism, by way of sanctions and boycotts, have made the call for self-sufficiency all-important. For that reason the principle of comparative benefits in manufacture has been shifted to the background in South Africa. In my student days we were taught that by combining various production factors, one tries to manufacture a product more cheaply than manufacturers in foreign countries do. If one cannot succeed in doing so, one does not manufacture that product, but imports it. One then tries to find some other source on which one can focus one’s manufacturing, so that one can enjoy the comparative benefit it presents.

This brings us to the trade balance, and the difference between a healthy and an unhealthy trade balance. A healthy balance is sometimes erroneously regarded as a large surplus. Although this is a positive trade balance and balance of payment, it is not necessarily healthy—especially when it is associated with absolute tariff protection, in which one emphasises certain incorrect factors as a result of the protection—since this eventually leads to the mighty spiral of inflation.

Hon members are aware that we have many problems in South Africa. No country in the world is experiencing as unfair an economic onslaught as South Africa, in the shape of the sanction and disinvestment campaign. Apart from the necessity of self-sufficiency, we in South Africa have a further problem in the interwovenness of a First and a Third World country. In addition it is imperative that many employment opportunities be created on an ongoing basis.

Hon members will understand, therefore, that under these difficult conditions, we sometimes have to distance South Africa’s economy and financial world a little from the theoretic ideals. We have to pay this enormous price in order to sustain our Third World component and the demands that are made in this connection, as well as to assure our military and security preparedness. Once again the ultimate cost involved is seen as inflation, or “too much money chasing too few goods”.

The relevant Ministers and the respective departments deserve the highest praise for the extremely difficult task that is being carried out with the utmost competence in these unfavourable conditions.

There are areas in South Africa in which we can definitely increase our productivity, however. We can introduce certain measures to curb the increasing prices. May I point out that comprehensive competition in a free market situation is the only guarantee of reasonable prices and price control. There is grave concern, however, about the increase in prices and the cost spiral in South Africa, and therefore more and more demands are being made on the Competition Board. In my opinion mere supervision and control is not the solution to controlling the activities of large businesses, manufacturers and cartels. If there is sufficient suspicion that an organisation’s price structure is unfair, the best way of controlling it is by means of imports and the removal of tariff protection. In exceptional cases, especially when one is dealing with basic necessities, import levies or import tax can be lifted. This should be a big enough deterrent. For that reason we welcome the initiatives of deregulation and privatisation. The lifting of restrictions and the institution of enquiries should be welcomed.

It is interesting that many people regard the criticism expressed by the Margo Commission as direct criticism against the Government. [Interjections.] Yes, I see some reaction to this, but in my opinion the point is that it was this Government that appointed the Margo Commission. Why did we appoint that commission? We realised there were deficiencies and serious problems, but we did not want to tamper with the tax system on an ad hoc basis. It was absolutely essential not simply to make ad hoc adjustments. For that reason I am grateful for the comprehensive report and the fact that it gives our people an opportunity to comment. After this, the White Paper will be implemented. I am convinced that those sections of the Margo Report that can be implemented will be an excellent stimulant for the economy, and that this will have a significant effect on the growth rate.

Financially and economically, many bridges can be built. As the hon member for Newcastle said, money is colour-blind. For the sake of our right-wing friends on the opposite side, I want to say that there is no such thing as White, Black or Red money. I maintain, therefore, that South Africa should to an increasing extent, establish itself as a neutral and uncommitted nation. The course of South Africa is through Africa, not through the West or the East. It is essential, however, for us to outgrow the “polecat” image of South Africa, and that can only be done by continued reform and a means of liaison which will enable us to demonstrate our true reforms to the world.

I want to make it clear that we must differentiate between economic and political involvement. As far as economic involvement is concerned—those bridges that can be built—there are even foreign powers with whom we can do business at this stage. It is a well-known fact that De Beers has strong direct contact with Soviet Russia by means of the Central Selling Organisation. We also do business, in one way or another, with many of these so-called communist countries.

I come back to the argument about money’s being colour-blind. We must also look at the changes that are beginning to take place in the world. I want to refer specifically to certain statements made in Russia, which is showing a significant change. I quote from Die Burger of 24 June:

Dr Nel of the University of Stellenbosch also made a submission in terms of which certain interesting statements emerged. Although there have been conflicting signals from the Soviet Union, we find that someone like Mr Gelbst Staroshenko of the Moscow Institute for African Studies said on a certain occasion that White fears should be taken into account by minority guarantees. It sounds as if that is close to us. I merely feel that we should respond to certain signals, and that we can and must talk to these people in an economic, colour-blind way.

Mr Chairman, it is very clear from what was said from the Government side in debates on the various Votes with which we have dealt recently, but especially during the Vote of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, that White civilisation is facing one of its most serious existential crises in the more than three centuries of its presence at the southern tip of this continent.

The nationalism of the Afrikaner, the only indigenous European people on this continent, has since the earliest times been the source of strength which brought and guaranteed freedom and self-determination for the White man of Africa. It is true that it has often been threatened by, amongst others, indigenous nations, and it has even on occasion been threatened by a world power. However, those have been physical threats. One could perceive and identify them. They were there and one could combat them. Even though our people sometimes emerged from the battle injured and battered, its freedom and self-determination have time and again been regained completely.

However, what is happening now? He who destroys and sells out the birthright of our people is sitting in this Chamber today with the reins comfortably in his hands, without the majority support of the very people, the Afrikaners, that brought him to power.

I want to make a categorical statement this afternoon, and I want to prove it. Consider, for example, the situation in the Transvaal. If we look at the election result, we see—if we look only at round figures—that the CP obtained 383 000 votes as opposed to the 526 000 of the NP. If the votes of the HNP are added, that comes to 415 000 votes in the Transvaal.

Let us take a further look at the rural areas of the Transvaal. If we look at the rural voters in the Transvaal, the CP’s voting majority as against the NP was about 16 500. The total voting strength of the HNP was 13 500. If we add the two together, this means that it is about 30 000 votes more than those of the NP. That applies to the greater part of the Transvaal. The NP won only three constituencies, two with the assistance of the HNP. The vast majority of landowners in the Transvaal, the White voters who with the CP stand for an own government and an own fatherland, are therefore opposed to power-sharing and political integration. The irony is now that the Government says, for example, that it would grant independence to the Ndebele people if only it could in some way test the will of the nation. However, the Afrikaner people is being denied that right, even though it is proven at the polling booth that the majority of the Afrikaner people and of the Whites who identify with the Afrikaner, want independence and self-determination and are prepared to fight for it until that ideal has been achieved. [Interjections],

That brings the whole matter of the right to secession…

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

No, I do not have time. The hon member knows perfectly well that I do not have time.

This raises the whole issue of the right of secession. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition also raised it last week. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning fought shy of the issue by contending that the Whites do, after all, already have self-determination.

Order! Hon members on both sides of the House are still going to speak. They will have an opportunity to put their points of view.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says the Whites do indeed have self-determination, but surely that is not true, Sir. They used to have it, yes!—in a previous constitutional dispensation. They had it even in the previous century, but surely there is no question of self-determination when a Cabinet of this Government decides, for example, to postpone the date of a White election, and is then stymied in the decision it has already announced by one House of this Parliament. That is not self-determination! One House of this tricameral system can therefore veto such a decision. The simple fact is that the Cabinet is not even able to carry out its decision, but this is supposed to be self-determination! I wish to say that the people that we represent here is not interested in such a self-determination.

Hear, hear!

It is simply impossible to allow two or more different nations to obtain full self-determination and freedom in the same territory. It is not possible here, nor is there any example in the whole world where it has been possible. A people has a common destiny and is inseparably bound to a specific territory. In an article which appeared in the Tydskrif vir Rasse-aangeleenthede, for example, dr C J Jooste put it as follows, and I quote:

Surely this also holds true with regard to a people like the Jewish people, which was dispersed throughout the whole world, and which eventually came together in a territory of their own. I want to advise the hon members to go and read the book by J C Steyn, Die Verlore Vader, in which they will read how Theodor Herzl started to plead for a territory of their own for the Jews. They were dispersed across the whole world. At the time many people thought he was mad. Today his dream is an inexorable reality, just as a country of its own for our people will in future become an inexorable reality.

Power-sharing and the simultaneous protection of minorities are a pipe-dream. There is no such thing. Each participating people will continue to strive to gain the maximum power of government over the whole territory which it has to share with other peoples. I may illustrate it as follows. Sir. A bye-election was held in the Transvaal recently. A member was elected to the House of Representatives. What were his words after the election result had been announced? I quote from the Review of 11 September. He says:

Mr Chairman, everyone wants to govern this country—White, Black and Brown. How, then, is one to arrange it? The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said it was possible. He says, and I quote from Die Burger of 10 September:

This hon Minister therefore says that the minority rights of the Whites can be protected on the basis of a qualified franchise, linked to financial resources. What crazy naïveté! A typical example of the liberal philosophy, which argues that one can ensure control at least for the foreseeable future by means of one’s financial resources! No, Sir, the salvation of our people does not lie in this. It does not lie in this. It is inherent in the love of one’s own people and of everything that concerns one’s status as a people, as well as love of one’s own fatherland. It is that fire of Afrikaner nationalism that is the driving force of this party. It has borne this nation through each crisis of its existence, borne it to its ultimate victory. It remains the heart-beat, the pulse of the White man in Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is this love for our country and its inextinguishable striving for real freedom that will inspire this party towards the final victory in the land of our birth. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to dwell for a moment on what the hon member for Pietersburg said. The hon member for Pietersburg kept talking about “our people”, “this people”, “my people”, etcetera. He did not indicate, however, whether he is only talking about the Afrikaners. Therefore I now ask him whether he is speaking exclusively of the Afrikaners. [Interjections.]

You did not listen to him at all!

There is no such thing as a White people, man!

I assume that the hon member is speaking of the Afrikaners. Mr Chairman, as I stand here I cannot be anything other than an Afrikaner. I am very proud to be an Afrikaner. In addition, I just want to tell the hon member for Pietersburg that when I look around me, I do see other peoples as well. For instance I see people of Portuguese descent. I see people of Jewish descent. [Interjections.]

I must of course add. Sir, that what the hon member for Pietersburg discussed here, namely the Afrikaner people, is a serious matter. Looking back at the history of the Afrikaner people, it is interesting to note that the Afrikaner people has, as the hon member correctly noted, weathered several storms. At this moment the Afrikaner people is not, according to the definition of the election of May 6 this year, weathering a storm. The Afrikaner people—according to the definition of the hon member for Pietersburg—indeed returned the NP to this House with a larger majority than before.

Let us continue with this matter. Let us in any case take a look at the statistics he provided here. For the sake of the hon member’s own point of view he has broken up certain sections of the available statistics to suit his own purpose. He is entitled to do that, of course. Nevertheless, let us examine this. Let us take as an example an area I know. It is an area which I am trying to get to know well—the East Rand. All the indications—including the statistics we traced before the election—indicate that almost 60% of the White population there is Afrikaans-speaking and almost 40% is English-speaking. This is according to a rough estimate.

What was the result there? The CP won 2 seats while the NP won 13 seats—14 if one includes Edenvale. We must stop playing with these statistics. I will return to the question of playing with statistics when I get to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis later during the day. The hon member also addressed Prof Dirk Laurie in the newspapers and the periodicals on the matter of election results. I shall return to that when we discuss statistics.

At this stage, however, I want to dwell for a moment on what the hon member for Lichtenburg said. The hon member had a tussle here with the hon Minister for Finance. There are two points in the hon member’s speech which strike me. I want to thank him sincerely for his praise for the NP, because it is the NP’s policy he arrogated to himself when he spoke about the increase in the population and population removals. I want to thank him for that. However it can only go well up to a point, and when we have reached the point where certain people have moved to where they have to be when consolidation is completed, then there will be millions of Blacks left in South Africa who are being governed from this Parliament at this moment. We will return to that specific point shortly when we come to the economic policy of the CP.

The second point I want to quote from the speech of the hon member of Lichtenburg is the fact that he made a big fuss about how unreliable the hon Minister of Finance is. I do not have a problem with that; he may call the hon Minister of Finance anything he likes. He should, however, substantiate what he said and indicate to us on what basis he was saying it.

The point is that the hon member for Lichtenburg told the hon Minister that he had repeatedly miscalculated the growth rate. The hon Minister has correctly stated that he takes 3% as the aim for this year. In his Budget the hon Minister, on the part of the Government geared everything to the achievement of 3%. On part of the Government side the implementation of the policy regarding finances and related matters is aimed at achieving 3% growth.

However, the hon the Minister only controls part of the economy. The other part of the economy is controlled by private enterprise. We cannot take private enterprise by the throat and force it to invest. We cannot tell any user or consumer of goods and services, not even those sitting in this House, to spend or do this or that. To blame the hon Minister when private enterprise does not want to invest is, to my mind, rather unfair.

The second point, that goes hand in hand with the first, is that we do not have a controlled economy such as the communists in Russia have. This is not a socialist economy, although the hon member for Brakpan always makes senseless interjections such as “that is socialist!” or “you are a socialist government.” The hon member for Lichtenburg said it too this morning, but we do not have a communist controlled economy in this country. Surely this country has a capitalist economy, and this capitalist economy can only be boosted in certain ways. Only a communist socialist economy can determine its growth rate and achieve it.

I shall return to that just now, because the hon members of the CP spoke in their election manifesto of how they would determine their growth rate. I will also ask them what they mean by that. I think I should deal with that now and ask the hon members that, because in their manifesto for May 6 they spoke of a disciplined, stable growth rate which they would strive for. That is point 5 of their economic policy as stated in their manifesto for the past election.

That is socialism. It can be achieved with the five-year plans and ten-year plans drawn up by the Communists. There is no five-year plan or ten-year plan or state-controlled economy in South Africa. That can only be done if the State controls everything, including revenue and expenditure.

I should like to say something about the economic policy of the CP. The hon member for Soutpansberg and I spoke in the very first Budget debate this year on the economic policy with reference to the hon member’s statement that partition is the answer and that they will rectify everything by introducing “bullet trains”. Hon members will remember the famous speech in which he said that all problems will be solved with the aid of “bullet trains”. It is the so-called “bullet train” policy. In answer to a question I asked him the hon member said, and I quote:

I asked the hon member what their policy is. He answered that members of the CP would explain it during the debate. We are almost at the end of the debate and I have yet to hear a figure. We have heard much criticism of the policy of the NP and very woolly statements concerning the policy of the CP, but we have not heard what the policy of the CP will cost in rands and cents. The hon member of Soutpansberg has said that there is ample time to tell us where the money to carry out the policy of the CP is to come from. Time is running out and thus I ask the same question today.

I will tell hon members why the CP has not answered. Their policy is only a damp squib, and nothing else. Let us take a look at their manifesto and their policy as explained in their “Program van Beginsels”. The economic policy of the CP provides for the following, and I quote from page 10 of the CP policy:

That then means they will also decentralise. That is all I can deduce from it and if I am wrong, hon members should please tell me so. If that is their policy, then they are going to decentralise, and if they are going to decentralise, it is going to cost money.

I now want to quote what the great new economic editor. Dr Berkhout, wrote about decentralisation in Die Patriot on 24 April 1987:

On the other hand, a critical newspaper such as Business Day conceded a week or two ago that decentralization had succeeded in this country. I should like to know where the economic success of towns such as Pietersburg, Potgietersrus, Tzaneen etcetera comes from if decentralization is indeed such a fiasco. Where does the prosperity come from if this Government has not helped create it? [Interjections.] I have no objection to the CP voicing doubts about the NP. That is their right. But they should not violate the truth. Let me quote further from the article in Die Patriot:

What is the decentralization policy of the CP going to be? What is the decentralization policy of the CP going to be if this is our decentralization policy? Does the CP have another formula?

Now they are silent.

Yes, I hear an eloquent silence. [Interjections.]

Not long ago the CP held a congress in the Transvaal, and I find resolution No 4 under “Ekonomiese Sake en Tegnologie”, as reported in Die Patriot, very interesting:

Is that not double-talk? When the NP does that, it is bad. The CP, however, has the magic formula. What is the magic formula? I see hon members are now talking to each other now. It is good that there is silence. I take note of it with gratefulness, because they do not have answers. The CP is misleading the voters of South Africa. [Interjections.] It must stop doing that.

Let me take this accusation further. According to point no 2 of its manifesto the CP believes in a free enterprise system. If it believes in a free enterprise system, does it include Blacks and people of colour or is this free enterprise system exclusively for certain race groups? I do not believe that as an Afrikaner my fellow Afrikaners and I want to be superior and exclusive in the economic process. I think we are man enough to occupy our rightful position viz-a-viz anyone in South Africa.

Tell him, Piet!

What do the CP mean when they use these loose terms?

I now come to point no 7:

Does the CP believe in parity? Surely our Public Service can no longer be managed exclusively by Afrikaners or Whites. There have to be people of colour in the Public Service as well. Does the CP believe in parity? The hon members are as silent as the grave.

Furthermore, the CP says it is going to reduce taxes. This is interesting, because how do they want to achieve that? To me this is the most interesting point. The leader of the CP, the hon member for Waterberg and Leader of the Official Opposition, said last year on the occasion of a meeting about taxation held in Durban last year:

It does not matter to the CP whether Zandpan belongs to a holding company or not. That is of no consequence to the CP. Let us leave it at that for the moment. I should like to ask only one question: Is the CP going to kill the goose which lays the golden eggs in South Africa—the mining industry—by overtaxing it? In the quotation here it is said that the taxes are going to be increased.

Let me continue. The most interesting point is when the hon leader of the CP says the following on his economic policy at the same meeting:

The CP has no answers. Its tax scales should almost come up to ours, because as long as they are about 1% less than ours, they are acceptable. They should just not be anywhere near the NP’s. If that is how the CP formulates its policy, then it is a bad situation for it if it cannot even formulate a policy.

Piet, the commandant is here now.

I shall speak to him later; I want to dwell on another point first.

Looking at this economic policy, there is one more point which causes a major crisis as far as I am concerned. In my view, this economic policy can be described as nothing but a flight from reality. It is a lot of nice words without substance, that are dished up and sold to the voters at large.

The hon the Minister has endured criticism here from June, when he delivered his Budget Speech, right up to this day. The economic policy of the NP—however good or bad it is—is there for all to see. Now I expect clarity from all parties, including the PFP and the independents, who have even less of an economic policy than everybody else. I shall leave them alone today, however, and concentrate on the CP. The economic policy of the CP consists merely of fine-sounding escapist rhetoric.

I want to return to another matter which is at issue here, and here I refer to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis.

Comdt Derby-Lewis! [Interjections.]

Let us call him the hon former temporary Comdt Derby-Lewis. [Interjections.] I think that will be best.

Much of what is said here, is said to be recorded in Hansard. Then it is published and it is then presented by the alternative press. I regard Die Patriot as part of it, as well as the piece from which I am going to quote now. In it credibility is lent to such statements. I am now going to prove this.

I have here a booklet by the hon Mr—I shall call him that for the moment—Derby-Lewis. He calls himself “the Director of the Stallard Foundation”. [Interjections.] This is the alternative press at its best, and I shall explain why I say so. Printed in this booklet is “A message from the Director of the Stallard Foundation, Comdt Clive Derby-Lewis”. He writes about a variety of subjects, such as those I am going to quote now, but I do not simply wish to quote selectively.

The book I have before me was published in June 1986, and everything in it is viewed from a rightwing point of view and overstated. Everything to the right of the political spectrum is phenomenally good, and all the rest is phenomenally bad. Then there is the suspicion-mongering which accompanies it. In the message the hon member addresses to his followers, the following is written:

This is the type of thing being disseminated in South Africa, while the hon Minister of Foreign Affairs is fighting for us in South Africa.

Disgraceful! [Interjections.]

The hon member cannot contain himself, and he also states:

What kind of statement is this? What kind of hon member writes such rubbish? [Interjections.] Where does it come from? How can he do that to a person who was hijacked by the CP? The late former Prime Minister and State President was hijacked by them again recently when they said he was conservative, and in saying that they dragged his name through the mud. [Interjections] They apparently do that with anyone and everyone, as long as it serves their purpose.

Let me quote a few more of these untruths which were written 12 months ago. For example, they say:

The State President has appointed people, but the CP also has appointed members there. Some of their representatives took part in a debate yesterday. What untruths are members of the CP disseminating in South Africa? [Interjections.]

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

No, I shall not answer any questions from that hon member. [Interjections.]

Let us go further. Not only does this booklet level a charge against the NP—I would have accepted such a charge, because we are a political party—but people are also being encouraged in certain ways. The hon member for Yeoville has already spoken about this, and I think we are speaking about the same thing. I think we should take another look at these books which are being distributed here—“Fourth Reich of the Rich”, “None dare call it Conspiracy” and much more. As far as I am concerned this is a call by the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis to total overreaction. [Interjections.]

One one occasion the hon member decided off his own bat that the hon member for Pretoria East and myself were so-called “New Nats”. The hon member must please stay closer to the truth in this House. Not one of us have ever said we are “New Nats”, because there is no such thing as a “New Nat”. Does the hon member know what it is? It is something from the dream world of the editor of Die Vaderland who is now also in the wilderness with the Independents, but that suits the hon member.

Let me tell the hon member what the NP consisted of before 1981. It consisted of Nationalists who were satisfied, and I define them as those people who subject themselves to the leadership, and are bound by the principles and policy, of the NP. After that some of them became unhappy and dissatisfied with it. They walked out and they are now sitting on the opposite side. [Interjections.] I do not have a problem with that, because they were entitled to do so. The hon member for Randburg did the same. He became dissatisfied and walked out.

The people on this side of the House are satisfied Nationalists who abide by the policy and the leadership of the NP. If there are other people who are also unhappy, then they will follow the road the hon member on the other side has followed. [Interjections.] It is a honourable party that follows the democratic way when someone is unhappy.

The hon member Comdt Clive Derby-Lewis cannot make statements here on behalf of us all. He is not dealing with the Stallard Foundation now. That member is in Parliament now and he should stick to the rules. [Interjections.] This is not a place for firebrand (wildewragtig) politicians. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order, is it permissible for a hon member to say this is not a place for firebrand politicians?

Order! I inferred that the hon member for Primrose had by implication referred to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis as a firebrand politician.

Mr Chairman, I did not refer to anyone. My words were: ”This is not a place for firebrand politicians.” I did not refer to Comdt Derby-Lewis. Every person should figure it out himself whether he measures up to it.

Order! No, the hon member may continue.

The ones who measure up to it, should think about their behaviour for a moment. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: What the hon member is insinuating is that the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis is a firebrand politician, and moreover, he is insinuating that the hon member does not abide by the rules. I ask you to rule that that is not permissible.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

All I want to say is that every person should decide that for himself.

We are sitting here at the table where history is written, and we should accordingly act responsibly. I therefore call upon the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis to act in this way too, and not to make statements here on behalf of the hon member for Pretoria East and myself. Do you know why I say that, Mr Chairman? If he does it in that way, it gives credibility to his statement. He quotes statements from Hansard and then prints them in that blue booklet of his, this alternative press of his, and then they pretend that it is Gospel as preached by the Stallard Foundation.

The hon the Minister of Finance has in the past pointed out here that certain announcements are made here, not for the sake of the debate, but with a view to their being used and abused outside.

I therefore want this to be recorded in Hansard today so that we know precisely what the situation is. Apparently there is one, and maybe two by-elections looming in the not-too-distant future, and then we shall know exactly how to deal with this matter.

I should furthermore like to tell the hon Minister of Finance that in these difficult circumstances he should continue to lead South Africa on an economic road with this Budget. It is improving and it will get even better.

It is my pleasure to support the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon member for Primrose, when he goes home tonight, to think deeply about his speech of today and to ask himself honestly whether it assisted in any way in finding a solution to the problems of South Africa. I think he should do that for himself. The whole argument between these two parties is in my opinion of no significance whatsoever to the solution of the problems of South Africa. We have listened to it ad nauseam, and I think it is time we discussed the reality of South Africa.

Do you mean your talks with the ANC?

You Nats talk to the UDF, man! [Interjections.]

Order!

In that regard I should like to address the hon Minister of Finance directly. [Interjections.] Two years ago in the Budget debate…

[Inaudible.]

No, I am only starting with the hon Minister now.

Two years ago in the Budget debate he spoke about the health services of South Africa and called them an example of privatisation. People were very excited about them.

Today I want to ask the hon Minister whether in the privatisation of the health services in South Africa he has perhaps forgotten about the State hospitals, because today I want to make a plea for the State hospitals. Firstly I want to ask the hon Minister to vote more money for these hospital services. Secondly I want to tell him why I think it is necessary, and thirdly I want to plead with him for the better utilisation of the money that the Government gets from the tax-payers and which is utilised for the benefit of the hospital services.

I want to ask the hon Minister for more money for the hospital services, and I want to ask him directly for better remuneration of the officials who are employed in these hospital services. Secondly I want to ask him for more money for facilities, especially for Black hospitals. I specifically want to mention the Baragwanath and the King Edward hospitals in Durban. Furthermore, I want to ask the hon Minister to assist this profession in obtaining tax concessions for overseas visits and contacts so that their knowledge may be increased and their contact with the medical profession abroad may be extended. The hon Minister and his department took away these benefits, but I think it is extremely important to restore them.

Just tell me how we can prevent their being abused.

I have very little time, but I shall try to give the hon Minister an answer. It was allowed in the past, and I think nevertheless that if one weighs up the abuse and the good use of these benefits against each other, one will find that that kind of contact is very valuable, especially since we are having such a struggle these days and find it so difficult to get into other countries.

†Until recently Government-run hospitals provided excellent patient care for large numbers of people, trained doctors and nurses, and provided facilities for in-depth and vitally important medical research.

Then slowly, as budgets were cut and patient numbers increased, these services began grinding to a halt. At first the number of patients needing care increased, often at an alarming rate, while hospital facilities and the staff in these establishments remained virtually unchanged.

Initially hospitals coped by shortening the period of in-patient care and by increasing the number of out-patients seen by each member of staff. At academic hospitals teaching and research time was gradually eroded as staff struggled to maintain standards. Eventually, however, it became too much and staff members looked towards private practice or emigration.

We have been asked to quote authorities today. This is not what I say, although I agree with it. This was said by the Medical Association of South Africa in Pretoria. This is a reality in South Africa and if members of the Government or the provincial services want to disagree with it, there is no doubt there is a shortage of money in the hospitals and it is causing a deterioration in the service and a loss of manpower. That is why I am appealing to the hon the Minister for more money.

I would also like to suggest to the hon the Minister a method by which available money can be saved. I have had correspondence with the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development recently about separate facilities in Government hospitals in which he replied as follows:

*… of apartheid. There are people who are opposed to it. Most hospital patients and most people working in hospitals are opposed to apartheid in hospitals in South Africa.

†I should like the hon the Minister to listen to this—

What does the hon the Minister say there? He says this separation becomes too expensive. He admits that apartheid in our hospital services is too expensive. Therefore, where it is too expensive, he will not duplicate.

I would like to ask the hon the Minister and members of the Government: Who decides when it becomes too expensive? As I see it, it is not when it becomes too expensive, but when it does not suit the Government anymore. It can be as expensive as can be, but as long as apartheid is recognised in hospitals and in wards, it is cheap. As soon as they can bluff about this by putting a patient to sleep and, while he is asleep, operating on him, then it becomes expensive.

This is not true. We have apartheid in hospital services in spite of the lack of money in our hospitals in South Africa. The money the hon the Minister has available therefore can stop the deterioration in our hospital services and the standards of our high hospital care if the Government removes racial discrimination in the health services of South Africa.

Let me tell the hon the Minister—I have been working for 20 years to try to get this to happen in hospitals—nobody objects. Perhaps a few. I have even asked a hard, rightwing person: “When you woke up from your operation, how did you feel about the Black sister looking after you?” He said: “You know, it was difficult in the beginning, but afterwards I prayed that she would care for me.” Why? Because her nursing was so good, more gentle and more understanding. Let me therefore tell the hon the Minister again that nobody in South Africa wants apartheid in hospitals except the rightwing few. The staff do not want it, the doctors do not want it, no medical association wants it, the patients do not want it and the nurses do not want it. The only people who want it is this Government and the people on my right. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parktown says he has now become a little tired of the arguments we have with the Official Opposition in this House, because that kind of argument is no longer relevant in South Africa. However, I think the hon member merely feels a little excluded, a little neglected, because his party…

Do you think they are relevant?

Of course I think they are relevant, because that party’s policy is as dangerous to South Africa as the ANC’s policy is to South Africa. [Interjections.] That is why I say we should speak to them in this House, but the problem is that the hon member’s party has become irrelevant. We no longer pay any attention to the PFP. That is why the hon member feels disgruntled. The Coloureds and the Indians are already in Parliament, and they are speaking for themselves. The PFP can no longer speak on their behalf. [Interjections.] One of these days the Blacks will also be speaking for themselves. Then the PFP will not only be irrelevant in White politics, they will also be irrelevant in the entire South African political set-up. [Interjections.] We therefore have to speak to the CP, because their policy is dangerous to South Africa.

It is Friday afternoon, Sir, and the absolute arrogance with which the right-wing radical opposition treats Parliamentary procedures is simply appalling. [Interjections.] For example, Sir, see how many of them are sitting here this afternoon. They are simply not here. One by one they leave the Chamber to go and board an aeroplane or go wherever else they may be going, but they pay no heed to what is happening in the House.

It is just like the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke, who is that party’s spokesman on provincial affairs in the Orange Free State: When he has finished speaking, he gets up and leaves and then he has nothing further to do with what happens in the Free State. [Interjections.] It is typical of the manner in which these hon members of the right-wing radical opposition carry on.

I want to come back to the hon member for Lichtenburg, who also saw fit to leave the Chamber, and therefore the debate. This morning here in the House he quoted with relish from minutes which he had obtained in an improper manner, and tried to create the impression that the Blacks now have to protect the Whites. He tried to imply that that was one of the aspects reflected in those minutes. The NP ostensibly wants its policy in respect of the Blacks to be acceptable to the majority of Blacks, and that is why we now say that the Blacks have to protect the Whites. I am telling the hon members now that it is important to the NP that the constitutional policy should be important to the majority of Blacks. It is important not only to the Blacks, but also to the Whites that it must be acceptable to the majority of Blacks.

The hon member also quoted disparagingly that we had said it was a problem that our policy in respect of the Blacks was a little vague at present, and that we should like to have it crystal clear. We should have liked to have had a blue-print, as we had a blue-print in 1983 with the referendum, a constitution with which we could go to the voters in a referendum, a document for which we could again poll 66%—a two-thirds majority—of the votes. However, we will not fall into the trap by going to the Blacks with a blue-print to force down their throats, because then we will know for certain that it will not succeed.

We have to negotiate with the Blacks. We must go to the Blacks with an open agenda, and negotiate with them so that we can ensure that it is acceptable to them, and will eventually lead to the solution which we will find jointly. It is in the interests of South Africa that we keep the agenda as open as possible.

Of course we indicated the guidelines. That is the basis on which we held the election. We did indicate the guidelines, but we did not in addition specify the details.

But what can we say of that right-wing radical opposition today? Talking about being vague, do hon members know what chaos is prevailing in that party at the moment with regard to their policy? It is incredible. What the hon member for Lichtenburg has pleaded for here is partition, but he is old-fashioned. He says he realised after five years—between 1977 and 1982 when he was still in the NP—that he had made a mistake. Another five years have now elapsed. I think it is now very close to the time when the moment of truth will once again dawn on him. After five years he will once again realise that he has made a mistake. He advocates partition, but that is not his party’s policy, is it? His party’s policy is secession, and unilateral secession at that.

The hon member for Pietersburg advocated it this afternoon, and the hon member for Barberton advocated secession this morning. Now the hon member for Lichtenburg comes here and tells us that partition is the policy. He says the Black populations in the homelands are increasing and that Blacks can be relocated to the homelands. He says it will not be done with bulldozers, but that they will be moved economically by means of decentralisation, urbanisation, etc. Those were the methods which he mentioned here. But that hon member probably does not know what he is talking about, because the policy of the right-wing radical opposition is not to relocate Blacks. Their policy is to move Whites. Indeed, the hon member for Pietersburg referred to Israel as an example this afternoon. They must occupy a country, and it must be a majority occupation. Somewhere in South Africa a territory must be excised, and that territory must be occupied by a majority of Whites.

It is not the policy of the Official Opposition to relocate Blacks. The hon member for Lichtenburg is making a mistake if he thinks that, and he will still come to realise his mistake. He does not know what is happening to his party when he says that Blacks must be relocated. After all, the hon leader of the right-wing radical opposition did, in this House, compare themselves with the Biafrans. He asked what we could do if they, like the Biafrans, wanted to secede unilaterally.

Are we going to hammer and drive them by force into a united state or is there going to be another Slagtersnek? That is the question he asked. However, there is a veiled threat in those words of the hon member of the right-wing radical opposition, namely that he is telling his people that when they eventually want to accept the policy of the AWB of a Boer state, there will be a Slagtersnek if we in South Africa do not comply with his demands. That is the standpoint he has already stated.

The hon member for Ermelo is the one who pleads for this promised land, as the Israelis had. This is a radical change in the constitutional policy of the right-wing radical party. Then there is also Sabra’s congress, which has as aim the discussion of the best methods with which the White homeland at Morgenzon, or the Boerestaat, can be established in the quickest way. There are hon members of the Official Opposition who are going to take part in that debate. However, I am telling the hon member for Lichtenburg that the AWB members among his number and in his caucus are openly saying outside these days that they are manipulating the Official Opposition’s caucus. The hon member for Springs will produce evidence to prove this. They boast about how they are manipulating the caucus of the Official Opposition.

Where is the hon member for Lichtenburg?

There are other people who also know about it. I am referring to our old friends in the HNP which, according to a report in Die Volksblad of 12 September 1987, held its 18th wilderness congress in Pretoria recently. [Interjections.] The hon member for Lichtenburg was one of the people who said that the HNP had finally collapsed. He said that they had undermined him in a nasty way from within after the grotesque failure of negotiations and cooperation. The person that caused those to negotiations fail was in fact the hon member for Lichtenburg. [Interjections.] The HNP is accusing him of having done it deliberately, and what did Mr Jaap Marais say of this? He said they would tackle the Official Opposition at the polls. He talks about two by-elections that are going to take place in the near future, due to the circumstance of CP Members of Parliament.

There was only one of them!

I know only about Standerton, but not about another one. I do not know where Mr Marais gets his information from, but he says when it happens, the HNP will be there. [Interjections.] He also says that the HNP will participate in municipal elections on a large scale next year, and that their number one enemy is the CP, that is the right-wing radical opposition. Another interesting statement Mr Marais makes relates to the position of power that the AWB occupies in the CP caucus.

During the election the AWB were boasting about it in public. They also say that they occupy a position of power and that they are manipulating the CP caucus. Did we not see how the hon leader of that party swallowed the policy of the AWB hook, line and sinker? Within a few months, since the time they put their heads together, he has made a right about turn—from a policy of partition to a policy of unilateral secession. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Barberton also adheres to that policy now. I could hardly believe my ears when he spoke about secession this morning. He used to be a champion of partition, and for five years he explained it to us repeatedly in this House. He explained that they were champions of partition, and how it operated. However, within a few weeks the AWB succeeded in forcing its policy of unilateral secession down their throats, so that it has now become the policy of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] That is because they occupy a position of power in the CP caucus.

Mr Marais says that if the AWB withdraws from the CP caucus, the CP will no longer be the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sea Point will perhaps have the opportunity to be the leader of the Official Opposition again in the near future, because if the AWB is not satisfied with the rate at which the right-wing radical opposition party is swallowing its policy, it will simply withdraw from the caucus, and then the hon member for Sea Point can again become the leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] That is the dilemma in which the right-wing radical party finds itself today. It has no choice; it is a pawn of the AWB.

If what Mr Jaap Marais says here is true, namely that the CP will no longer be the Official Opposition if the AWB withdraws from the CP caucus, it means that at least four AWB members are sitting in the benches of the Official Opposition. At the moment there are 23 CP members here, and if four of them break away, there will be 19. The PFP had 19 members here after the election. They have lost another member, with the result that there are now 18 PFP members here. Consequently, there must be at least four AWB members in the CP.

There are more!

These hon members of the right-wing radical party who are also AWB members say that there are soon going to be more AWB members in the caucus of the right-wing radical party.

We already know a few of them, Sir. Let us see who they are. The hon member for Brits is one. Wearing a pious mask of justice he wants to advocate the AWB’s education policy of the idolisation and glorification of a people in this House. He has never denied being a member of the AWB. The education policy that he advocates here is exactly what the AWB wants. When he gets up, we hear the voice of the AWB. That is the education policy that he wants to introduce into this country, and that he will definitely want to introduce into the Boerestaat, when they wish to secede soon.

The other hon member we know about is the hon member for Bethal. He is a former UP youth leader of Tukkies, who—as we saw—as legal representative of the Bushmen and the Kavangos at one stage wanted to enforce an integrated state model on South West Africa. Today he is the ring-leader in respect of the unilateral secession and the Boerestaat. He is co-author of the work Witman, waar is jou Tuisland?. He is a member of the Supreme Council of the AWB and wants to ensure that the policy of unilateral secession will one day be applied in our country. [Interjections.] He is the member that ensures that the policy of one-sided separation becomes the policy of the Official Opposition. He is the advocate thereof.

Then we also know about the hon member for Ventersdorp, Sir. According to reports the hon member for Ventersdorp is also a member of the Supreme Council, or the Politburo, of the AWB. I do not know what they call it either. [Interjections.] However, it is this hon member who has on several occasions represented members of the National Union of Mineworkers in the magistrate’s court at Oberholzer. He is a man that advocates that there must be no Black trade unions. Meanwhile he acts as legal representative to these members of Mr Cyril Ramaphosa’s organisation. Hon members will remember that this is the body that recently organised a large-scale strike in South Africa. [Interjections.] I wonder whether the hon member also—with the strikes and so forth—acted as legal representative recently. I am certain that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition will at least allow a few Black trade unions in the Boerestaat. One can make a bit of money out of them now and again.

We now have three. The hon member for Ermelo said that he was not a member of the AWB, and I believe him. However, he is the main salesman of the AWB’s policy of unilateral secession. Now I wonder who the other member is. It cannot be the hon member Corporal Derby-Lewis. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not aware that that is the hon member’s rank. The hon member must address the member concerned by his correct title, or as “sir”. The hon member may continue.

I do not think the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis qualifies to be a member of the AWB, due to his British-Jewish connections. They are, after all, the biggest enemies of the AWB. However, he is the Official Opposition’s chief spokesman on economic affairs. When one listens to him it sounds as if he is still preaching capitalism. He is merely waiting there to start pleading for the AWB’s model of socialism, once the Official Opposition has swallowed the AWB’s constitutional model hook, line and sinker. According to the AWB’s policy of socialism one takes away from the hard-working and those with initiative, and gives to the bad and the lazy. That is his approach, and that will be his approach in future. However, he cannot be a member of the AWB; it is not possible.

One may harbour suspicions about some of the other hon members. I would not like to associate an hon member with the AWB unnecessarily, but the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis was carried shoulder-high by the AWB when he helped to disrupt the meeting at Pietersburg. That is why one could quite suspect that he could perhaps be one of the members, but due to his British-Jewish connections—as I have said—he does not qualify for membership.

An associate member! [Interjections.]

He may be the pet lamb of the AWB. He acts like that in any case.

It is comical to see how the right-wing radical party has, since the election, allowed itself to be squeezed into a can and preserved for an alien ideology. It has been interesting to observe it during this session of Parliament.

I ask the hon members of the right-wing radical Opposition to show some courage and to move away from the AWB; those are after all the words that the leader of the party uses. I ask them to repudiate the party, because the policy of the AWB, that places them under constraint—because they are being manipulated in the caucus—is dangerous to South Africa. It is in the interests of South Africa that they dissociate themselves from the AWB.

Mr Chairman, every time I hear the hon member for Sasolburg he keeps harping on the same theme. It seems that he does not even throw away his old speeches. He continues harping on the AWB and the HNP, but without the HNP he would not have been sitting there today.

Hear, hear!

He then refers to minutes which the hon member for Lichtenburg had here and says that they had been obtained in an improper way. The hon member for Lichtenburg did not obtain them in an improper way. The minutes in his possession were given to him by a Nationalist…

Who is he?

… who was still a Nationalist on the date on which that meeting was held. However, his eyes have since opened and he admitted that he had acted incorrectly.

Now one is hearing the truth!

The same hon member for Sasolburg, however, did not deny a single paragraph that was read from those minutes. Therefore it is the truth, if he was there. If he had not been there, any one of the other Transvaal Nationalists could have denied it. It reminds me of a post-mortem which was held at that meeting. That post-mortem was held by a medical doctor, whose mistakes are buried. They are not investigated. The speech by the hon member for Primrose is certainly the most hysterical speech I have ever listened to. He is scared. He is afraid of the darkness that lies ahead. It is said that one makes the most noise when one is afraid.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member saying that another hon member is afraid?

No, I am saying that he is afraid of the darkness.

Who is afraid?

The hon member.

Which hon member? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Primrose. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon member may not say that another hon member of this House is afraid.

Order! I think the hon member had better continue. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, my sympathy lies with the hon the Minister of Finance. [Interjections.] Every year the hon the Minister of Finance tries to be a prophet and to predict the growth of the economy in South Africa.

If only he were an economist!

He slips up every time, however, and he is wrong. He does not have his finger on the pulse. If we look at the growth of the economy in the late seventies and compare it to the growth in the late eighties, we see that the growth of the economy was at its peak in the late seventies. Then those hon members opposite recognised Black trade unions. Our economy has been declining ever since. The Blacks, with their strikes, are the cause of other countries and all the businessmen having lost confidence in South Africa, and this will continue…

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

No, sir, I have only eight minutes left. Until the hon the Minister of Finance tells the hon the Minister of Manpower to do his duty and clamp down on illegal strikers, the economy will not improve.

Then I want to refer briefly to the hon the Deputy Minister, who came up with such fantastic figures as regards unemployment and so on. If the illegal Blacks who are working in South Africa and the Blacks from other countries—excluding the self-governing states—are sent back to their countries, that unemployment figure he referred to would not be that high. Thousands of job opportunities could then be created for the Blacks of South Africa. It is typical of the Government that a commission or the President’s Council always has to do the dirty work. At the beginning of the year the hon the State President…

Order! I do not believe it is fitting for the hon member to make the allegation that the President’s Council is doing someone’s dirty work.

Mr Chairman, I apologise.

Withdraw it as well!

Order! The hon member for Carletonville may continue.

Mr Chairman, the hon the State President announced that there would be a holiday, known as Labour Day. He also said that this day would be the first Friday in May. At the same time, however, the Economic Committee of the President’s Council was directed to examine all the public holidays in South Africa. We have all received the relevant report. It was also said that certain days—including Labour Day—were excluded from this investigation. This day was not to be investigated.

Mr Chairman, what do we find in this report, however? The President’s Council recommends that those days specified as holidays in terms of the Mines and Works Act be taken as a basis. Remember, Sir, Labour Day is not contained therein. Should the NP therefore accept the recommendations of the President’s Council just as they are, the White worker in South Africa would once again be left in the lurch. What does the President’s Council say in this report? They recommend that with the exception of the four days specified in the legislation concerned, it should be left to employers and employees to negotiate which days would be paid holidays.

In the first instance, Sir, there would be separate industries with separate holidays. The White man in South Africa is by far in the minority in the mining industry, in the chemical industry, in the metal industry and so forth. There are more Blacks than Whites everywhere.

Those are the realities of South Africa!

The White man would once again have to accept the holidays negotiated by the Blacks, like Chaka Day and Soweto Day, on 16 June, as well as Labour Day on 1 May. After all, the White man is in the minority. He would therefore have no say. He would have to fall in with the Blacks and the traditional holidays such as Kruger Day, Founder’s Day and all those holidays which are part and parcel of the Afrikaner will belong to the past. We shall have to honour those Black holidays and their Black heroes. [Interjections] There it is again! Every time it is advocated in this House that the interests of the White man be looked after, the bunch of New Nats are shouting and one can see who the people are who make the biggest noise. In this House one hears things that would not have been said some years ago. The people on the other side of this House would not have had the honour to stay here, because then it was still the NP who looked after the White man and who believed in separate development, separate amenities and all those things. Today they are sitting there. I want to tell them if I were the hon member for Jeppe today, and I had to admit here which laws had already been scrapped, I would have let my head hang in shame because in that way I have left the White man in South Africa in the lurch and because everything he held to be right and noble had been abolished by the other side of this House.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Carletonville maintains that we on this side of the House actually go out of our way to harm the Whites, and that we no longer act as spokesmen for the interests of the Whites. That is most certainly not the truth.

Randfontein realised it too!

It is most certainly not the truth. At least there are more than 6 000 voters in Randfontein who did not realise it. The statement by the hon member for Carletonville is certainly not the truth.

The NP simply takes the view that one can best protect White rights and privileges by also looking after the rights of other people. [Interjections.] That is why we are now entering a phase in which there is special emphasis on the rights and privileges of people who do not yet have what the Whites already have at this stage. It is therefore untrue to say that we on this side of the House turn our backs on White interests.

The hon member for Carletonville mentioned the deterioration of our economy and ascribed it to the fact that Black trade unions have been recognised. However I should remind the hon member for Carletonville that the greater part of his caucus also gave their support at the time to the recognition and registration of Black trade unions as a consequence of the Wiehahn Report and the hon member knows that that is true. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Carletonville also mentioned minutes. He referred to minutes quoted here and said that these minutes had been quoted by a person whose eyes had been opened. It seems as if he approves of those minutes being quoted here.

Your scandals must be revealed.

Therefore the hon member approves of confidential minutes being read in public. [Interjections.] The hon member confirmed that here this afternoon. However we are not ashamed of the contents of the minutes and we want to make that quite clear. The hon member for Lichtenburg—who is not present at the moment—and the hon member for Sasolburg both referred to that matter. The hon member for Lichtenburg said that we now needed Black people to protect us.

That is what your minutes say.

Let me put the facts to hon members by referring to a remark I made a moment ago. We realise only too well that one is best able to protect White rights, in the constitutional sphere as well, by ensuring that other people also have full rights. The structuring of these rights must however be the result of negotiations. Therefore one needs the support of other population groups to draw up such a structured constitution. It is untrue to present this one-sidedly, depicting us as being helpless and as appealing for help to the Black people so that they can come and protect us. That is simply untrue. [Interjections.]

Order! There are hon members who are making meaningless interjections. I call upon hon members to refrain from doing so. The hon member may proceed.

[Inaudible.]

Order! Which hon member who that interjection?

I did.

Order! The hon member will kindly apologise.

I said it with reference to an interjection by the hon member…

Order! The hon member must apologise to the Chair for having argued with a ruling immediately after I had issued it.

I apologise.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it as well.

I withdraw it, but the hon member also said it, Sir.

Order! The hon member Dr Geldenhuys may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: An hon member on the NP side said exactly the same.

Order! I asked who said it. I have not received any reply. The hon member may proceed.

In the rest of the time at my disposal I wish to react to remarks made by two hon members of the CP in previous debates. In the constitutional debate the hon member for Losberg made the statement that regional services councils embodied a Marxist principle. Last week in a debate the hon member for Nigel remarked that reform in fact furthered revolution. I wish to react to these two statements. The hon member for Losberg says that regional services councils embody a Marxist principle.

I say that the redistribution of wealth is Marxist.

I shall deal in a moment with the hon member’s motivation, but he initially said that regional services councils embodied a Marxist principle. The hon member motivated this as follows. He quoted from a speech by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in which he had said that the redistribution of wealth was a fundamental principle of regional services councils. The hon member then referred to authoritative sources to indicate that the redistribution of wealth was in turn a Marxist principle, and then came to the conclusion that regional services councils in fact embodied a Marxist principle.

That is correct!

The intention is obvious. The hon member in fact wants to discredit regional services councils, and that is why he is giving them a red label.

I have perused the authoritative sources to which the hon member for Losberg referred. I cannot see how one can reach the conclusion he reached on the basis of those sources, but that is a totally different debate. I wish to contend here this afternoon that regional services councils certainly do not embody a Marxist principle. Indeed, regional services councils form part of the Government’s reform effort in order to prevent a typical Marxist revolution.

I now wish to quote from the well-known definition of communism from Die Marxisties-Leninistiese Filosofiese Woordeboek:

In fact, that is also the Marxist definition of second phase socialism. However, turning now to the New Testament, the following appears in Acts 2:45:

If one compares this statement in the Acts and this classical definition of communism, it would appear on the surface as if the communist theoreticians, including Karl Marx, borrowed this definition from the Acts. [Interjections.] A superficial scrutiny creates this impression. [Interjections.] May I rise here this afternoon and say that Acts embodies a Marxist principle, because there is reference in Acts to a redistribution of land and wealth and because reference is made to the same things in communism? No, just as little as I can make the statement that the first Christian community was communist. [Interjections.] However, that would be the logical conclusion were I to argue in accordance with the logic of the hon member for Losberg.

The distribution of wealth within regional services councils is a totally different concept to that of the distribution of wealth in Marxist philosophy. The distribution of wealth in the Marxist context is primarily concerned with the human dignity of the worker. It is not primarily concerned with the distribution of wealth, but the distribution of means of production.

Because means of production are in the hands of private owners, there has been an alienation between the worker and the product, and to do away with this alienation the means of production must again become communal possessions. Surely that is not the principle underlying regional services councils. The issue here is not one of doing away with a concept of self-alienation on the part of the worker. Surely the aim of regional services councils is not to make means of production communal possessions.

The issue in regional services councils is that revenue derived from certain levies is utilised for underdeveloped areas. Surely that is what is involved in respect of regional services councils as far as the redistribution of wealth is concerned.

If I compare that with this situation, it corresponds to a greater extent with this social emergency aid referred to in Acts than the redistribution of wealth in Marxist context.

Do you really believe that?

Of course I believe it. Not only do I believe it; it is true. Incidentally, I do know something about this subject. [Interjections.]

Any such scheme whereby a regional services council seeks to uplift underdeveloped areas and develop people is in fact counterproductive to a Marxist revolution. After all, it was Karl Marx himself who said that capitalism was the precondition for communism. Why did he say that? It is specifically in a capitalist situation that a gap opens up between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. That is why Marx devoted his energies to this gap in the capitalist system being widened. Therefore, if in a capitalist system one seeks to narrow this gap between the haves and the have-nots, then such action is a spoke in the wheel of what the communists in fact envisage.

After all, it is true that one cannot permit unbridled capitalism and that in a capitalist system one has the responsibility of seeking to prevent every form of exploitation. That is why the aim of regional services councils is to undo the very thing that is regarded by Marxists as a precondition for revolution. That is why the statement by the hon member for Losberg, however often he shakes his head this afternoon, is not valid. By means of that statement he made a deliberate effort to bring regional services into discredit.

The hon member for Nigel said that reform in fact fed revolution. He then illustrated his statement with reference to the Bolshevist and French revolutions.

And the Iranian revolution!

He included the Iranian revolution.

Despite reform.

It happened despite reform.

That is right!

That is quite right.

Yes, the hon member is correct, but there is a qualification. At a given period in the Bolshevist revolution, as well as in the French and Iranian revolutions, reform measures were no longer able to avert that revolution. However, experts are in agreement that if certain fundamental reforms could still have been carried out at the time of the Czars in Russia, one could have prevented that revolution.

These fundamental reforms referred to by experts are full citizenship rights for peasant farmers and the right of peasant farmers to own land.

The expert to whom I refer is Leonard Shapiro, in his book 1917—The Russian Revolutions. This is an authorative source on the history of the Russian revolution. He refers in particular to the reform programme of Premier P A Stolypin. He mentions that one of the tragic phenomena was that the greatest opposition to this reform programme in fact came from the ranks of the right-wing Russian politicians and the Czar. Ironically enough, if these reform measures had been carried out, they would have meant the survival of the Czar and those politicians.

It is also striking that Lenin went out of his way to undo any reforms carried out by the interim government because he realised that even at that late stage that kind of reform could be counter-productive for the revolution. We need not look for examples overseas. I could mention another example which the hon member for Losberg ought also to have no difficulty in understanding. Towards the end of the previous century Bismarck, too, averted a revolution in Germany by way of drastic reform measures in the labour sphere.

However, we need not go so far to seek examples. Turning to the RSA, we find two examples of reform measures which in fact scaled down the revolutionary onslaught. I am not referring to a revolution in South Africa. I am referring to a revolutionary onslaught.

I say that we already have examples here of reform measures scaling down the revolutionary onslaught. I can refer hon members to the Black residential town of Alexandra, and I can refer them to the Black residential town of Old Crossroads.

However, I wish to conclude with the following remark. At the end of the day reform must not take place in order to avert revolution. It may be a good instrument or it may be less good, but reform must take place for the sake of reform itself. If one does not turn to reform there is only one option left and that is the Spartan option which means that one maintains one’s position and one’s status quo to the end by means of violence, as happened in Sparta.

We can do that in South Africa, but I do not think that that is the appropriate way to go about it. Therefore reform is the answer.

Mr Chairman, with apologies to the hon member Dr Geldenhuys I should like to turn to some general economic issues.

Much has been said in this debate and in the Budget itself regarding the question of economic growth and the targeted 3% economic growth rate. It is generally recognised that this economy needs such a real growth rate in order to make some impact on the burgeoning unemployment with which we are faced. Clearly, Sir, political rights for all South Africans have to be addressed as the highest priority. If, however, we are unable to stimulate sufficient growth to fulfil the needs of jobseekers, political stability will not be achieved.

In his Budget Speech earlier this year, the hon the Minister of Finance proposed a package, one of the constituent parts of which was that real growth would approximate 3% in 1987. It is equally clear now that this growth rate is unlikely to be achieved, and that, therefore, the impact on unemployment that is required is similarly unlikely to be achieved.

I would suggest that this disappointing growth rate is largely due to the drop in consumer spending and has resulted in a continuing lack of fixed investment in our economy.

These factors are the primary determinants of job creation which in turn contributes to political stability. At a 2,5% growth rate we will probably once again see a small decline in per capita income and this is a recipe for continued social unrest. The crux of the problem is confidence—confidence of the consumer to spend and the confidence of the businessman to invest.

The hon member for Primrose correctly identified the fact that in a free-enterprise economy one cannot dictate what the growth rate should be. Nevertheless I would suggest that all the factors surrounding the economy and all the political factors involved, contribute to the eventual growth rate that is achieved. Businessmen will invest when they believe that the prospects of maintaining a reasonable level of profits exist. If those prospects do not exist no exhortations or get-togethers with the hon the State President will be sufficient. Political stability is the key for which they are looking; therefore the problem does lie within the control of the Government. Political stability stimulates investment which in turn creates jobs which further contributes to political stability.

Stability is therefore the key and it is neither fair nor reasonable to lay full responsibility for this at the door of the hon the Minister of Finance. It includes the granting of full democratic rights to all South Africans and further requires the removal of all racially discriminating legislation.

Today, attention is focused on the President’s Council debate on group areas. Whilst not anticipating the debate which is to take place in this House, I submit that unless group areas apartheid legislation is removed, we will not achieve the political stability required for our economy to flourish. [Interjections.]

In passing I wish to respond to what was said by the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning in his speech last Thursday. He said that this party was obsessed with the Group Areas Act and further, that this obsession was largely to placate so-called radical elements.

We have called for the abolition of the Group Areas Act because we are totally opposed to racial discrimination and abhor the social injustices inflicted on innocent people. This is a fundamental principle and belief of this party and has nothing to do with what outsiders expect of us. [Interjections.] I raise this matter, Sir, because unless we resolve these issues and institute a non-racial democracy, we will not achieve harmony and the resultant political stability. Without that, the economic recovery will also not be achieved.

As regards inflation, this also remains an unresolved problem. One recognises that it is not an easy problem to resolve but resolve it we must, because unless the impact of inflation is reduced, pensioners and those living close to the breadline, will find it even more difficult to survive.

There are counter-inflationary measures which can and must be taken. Administered prices must be reduced and pay increases must be kept at a moderate level. Similarly, a check must be instituted on Public Service salaries, the cost of which, it is now apparent, is likely to exceed the anticipated 12%.

Returning to the question of pensions, I believe that the Granny Bond saga which took place earlier this year was a bitter disappointment to many old people. The demand for this form of assistance was totally underestimated, resulting in an overwhelming flood of applications. The result of this has been that the scheme has already been abandoned. I ask the hon the Minister to seriously consider other ways in which pensioners can be assisted.

Well, I have already said that I am doing that. [Interjections.]

In addition, I have personally received many complaints from elderly people who are concerned because they have not received official acknowledgement from Pretoria in respect of investments they have made. Now, Sir, I know that this has been dealt with in the Press. I merely want to emphasise that many elderly people do not read the newspapers. They are concerned about the fact that all they have is a receipt from the Post Office. I ask the hon the Minister please to address this matter as one of great urgency.

An additional issue which received attention earlier during the Budget Debate was the imposition of RSC levies. At the time we were critical of the nature of these levies and the effect they would have on employment. We were also critical of the enormous cost of collection.

I would therefore merely note the recommendation of the Margo Commission that this is not a satisfactory way of collecting the levies. I find it incredible that the Government, which must have been aware of those recommendations, proceeded to collect the levies on that unsatisfactory basis. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether this means that he does not accept the recommendations of the Margo Commission? Alternatively, if Margo is to be adopted then I would assume that there has been a significant waste with regard to the costs of setting up the mechanisms for the collection of levies as instituted.

Finally I would like to make a plea for privatisation and deregulation. It seems to me that there is a need for far greater commitment to these issues than we have seen to date. Privatisation is necessary in order to provide goods and services more efficiently and at lower cost. Deregulation is required to alleviate the enormous problem of unemployment. I believe we are still not giving sufficient attention to the informal sector, which it is estimated by the Institute for Futures Research will employ as many people as the formal sector itself by the year 2000.

Currently the SBDC is mainly involved in the granting of loans. I believe that this corporation could give far more attention to developing opportunities, as opposed merely to the granting of loans. They could act as a catalyst in bringing businessmen into contact with those in the informal sector and, through the formation of partnerships, develop new businesses. I am confident that the opportunities exist, and I believe that the SBDC can play an influential role in this process.

Mr Chairman, the hon member has again tried, as the PFP usually do, to absolutize something. Apartheid is a terrible thing. Anything he dislikes is apartheid. He could not even refrain from referring once again to the Group Areas Act. It is one of the problems we have in this Parliament. On the one hand one has the CP, who want to absolutize groups and ethnicity. On the other hand one has the PFP, who say that things like groups and ethnicity do not exist. They want to absolutize opposite conceptions.

The hon member for Parktown did exactly the same thing today when he singled out two aspects in his speech. He spoke about hospitals—he referred to the Baragwanath and the King Edward hospital, and spoke about the use of nurses and the matter of separate wards and that kind of thing. Once again he absolutized it. As regards separate wards, the NP point of view is very clear. There are certain wards and circumstances in which things are integrated, if we may call it that. There are places where Coloured nurses are used in White wards as well. Personally I have no objection to being in a ward in which there are nurses of different races. The fact that I have no objection to it makes no difference to the fact, although it is preferable, and in certain circumstances even necessary, that one is treated better by one’s own people. Let me mention an example. I have an article here which was written in the SA Huisartspraktyk of August 1987 by a dr E M Mankazana. He obtained his MBCh B degree at the University of Natal.

†He obtained his DTPH and FRSH in London. His curriculum vitae is briefly as follows: After graduating from the University of Natal and after a spell at the Charles Johnson Memorial Hospital at Nqutu, he set up general practice at Flagstaff in Transkei where he worked for several years. He has been in London since 1976. He wrote this article entitled “The Patient’s Concern—the second diagnosis”. The first diagnosis is where the person has appendicitis, pneumonia or whatever.

The second diagnosis, however, concerns what is going on in the patient’s inside, and this is very important. He says among other things that—

And then, of course, the same applies to hospitals.

He goes on to quote four examples of cases that he treated where precisely this factor was very important. He says—

One of the examples he quotes is of a Ghananian lady who brought her 8 month old baby to him for developmental assessment. Among other things he asked her what the problem was. The patient’s mother said:

Later he goes on to explain by saying—

He then went on to say:

He goes on to refer to an article by Zola in the 1966 American Sociological Review entitled “Culture and symptoms: an analysis of patients presenting symptoms”, and one by Mokhobo in the SA Medical Journal of 1970 entitled “Medical history taking among the Bantu Tribes”. The point I want to make is that these scientific people—this doctor—who incidentally happens to be a Black man—says that one must take a person’s cultural background into account. One has to take into account his language and all that sort of thing. Therefore the only difference is that the NP says we know there is such a thing as ethnicity, and we take it into account.

And you make it into an absolute!

We do not absolutize it. We do not say it is the end of the story and that there may not be a Black nurse at all, or that a Black nurse may not get close to a White patient at all. We do not say that, and we do not absolutize it. We do indeed allow it, but we also take the reality into account.

The hon member also referred to the King Edward and the Baragwanath hospitals. The hon Minister of National Health replied fully to the hon member on 3 September. I have the hon Minister’s unrevised Hansard here in which he replies to the hon member for Parktown regarding the King Edward hospital and says:

The hon Minister then says further:

I cannot repair the King Edward hospital. It is not possible, because the patients have to be removed.

The Minister also said that a hospital is indeed being erected at R5,5 million, namely the Prins Mshiweni hospital. This hospital, which will have 1 000 beds, is presently being erected in KwaZulu. As soon as the hospital has been completed, patients will be moved from King Edward and King Edward will be renovated. All of that is stated here in Hansard and it is also stated in the letter which the hon Minister wrote to the hon member on 17 June. The new academic hospital which is already being planned can then also be taken further.

The hon Minister has also fully replied to him about Baragwanath hospital. The hon member for Durban North has also said ugly things about that hospital and those are also stated in Hansard. The hon Minister explained the position to him exactly, but now the hon member again comes to ask the hon Minister of Finance what the position is. He knows what it is, doesn’t he?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Langlaagte will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon member for Sasolburg in his speech earlier this afternoon, when he referred to the links between the Official Opposition and the AWB.

During the discussion of the hon the State President’s Vote earlier this session I confronted the hon members for Bethal and Ermelo with certain standpoints they had adopted under the banner of the Oranje Werkersorganisasie, and I put certain questions to them.

We have now come to the last general political debate of this session, and we have not received any answers yet. Unfortunately, these two hon members are not present either. It seems to me, therefore, that we are not going to get the answers.

Meanwhile, a much more serious matter has come to my notice, and I should like to deal with it. This is the great mystery surrounding the composition of the Official Opposition’s caucus as represented in this House. I should like to appeal to that party to clear up this mystery for us and for South Africa, for on his own evidence, the hon member for Bethal does not represent the CP in this House. I am not saying this on the basis of old evidence or gossip.

Did the Blond Spy tell you that?

No, the hon member for Bethal said so himself on Wednesday 19 August this year—a week after I had put certain questions to the hon member. That evening he was not in this House, but at Standerton, where he was sharing a platform with Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche of the AWB. [Interjections.] In fact, he introduced Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche to that audience. It is interesting that the hon member for Standerton did not attend that meeting. I do not know whether he was not welcome there. Perhaps he did not know that his colleague was there, or perhaps it going to be politically inconvenient for him in the near future to be so closely associated with the AWB, but we are certainly going to ask him for his views on the AWB standpoints of his colleague, the hon member for Bethal.

On that occasion the hon member for Bethal declared, among other things, that he was one of three “representatives of the AWB in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.] He is not a representative of the CP, therefore, but of the AWB. There we had it straight from the horse’s mouth. He also declared that he stood by the principles and aims of the AWB, and he promised on that public platform that the AWB’s representation in this Parliament would increase.

Surely it is clear now that when we talk about the Official Opposition in this House, we are dealing with much more than just the CP. We are dealing here with an opposition coalition. We are dealing here with a coalition of the right and the extreme right.

[Inaudible.]

That question asked by the hon member is so transparent that it reminds one of a bikini; it leaves very little to the imagination. I shall not allow myself to be distracted by it.

Order! The hon member for Losberg is keeping up a running commentary, and I ask him to put a stop to it. The hon member for Springs may proceed.

I want to ask the hon member for Bethal, in his absence, to have the courage of his convictions and to tell us who the other two members of the AWB in that coalition caucus are. [Interjections.] I think it is essential that he should clear up this matter for us, but he must explain something else to us as well.

The AWB rejects this Parliament as an institution and says that it is a British-Jewish conspiracy. It is the intention of the AWB, as stated in its official documents, to replace this Parliament with a so-called “outoritêre gesagsliggaam”. If, on his own evidence, the hon member for Bethal subscribes to the aims of the AWB, what is he doing in this House?

What does he hope to achieve by his participation in this Parliament and why does he want to bring more AWB members to this House? I ask the hon member—hon members should please note that I am not saying that this is so, but that I am asking him—whether they are participating in this Parliament because they want to destroy it. Is he here with destructive intentions? Is it the intention of the AWB to destroy this Parliament? Is that why he is using extra-parliamentary platforms to reply to questions put to him in this House? [Interjections.]

South Africa is waiting for its reply. If the replies are not forthcoming from him, from the frontbenchers and from the other leaders of the CP, we shall have no alternative but to draw our own conclusions from the official policy documents of the AWB.

This brings me back to the mystery concerning the composition of the Official Opposition coalition. I should like to put a few questions in this regard to the hon leader of that coalition. [Interjections.] Would the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition or other spokesmen not please inform us of the full composition of that coalition caucus? Must we accept that the claims by the Boerestaat movement that they are also represented here are correct?

And the Kappiekommando?

Repeated requests have been put to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the course of this year and of this session to tell us with which policies of the AWB they disagree. However, they are as silent as the grave. Is it because he is afraid of giving offence to his coalition partners, or because the CP secretly shares the standpoints and sentiments of the AWB? They owe it to South Africa to explain which parts of CP policy and which parts of AWB policy form the official policy of the coalition caucus.

There is one other possibility, of course, and that is that in preparing for the election earlier this year, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was so blinded by his desire to outmanoeuvre the HNP that he did not realise what a viper, in the form of the AWB, he was taking to his bosom. I am inclined to believe that this is possible, but then the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must realise that the AWB is undermining him from within, and they have declared, through the hon member for Bethal, that they will continue to do so. Unless the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition takes swift and vigorous action, he is going to be left with nothing but the shell of the tortoise. They are going to devour him from within.