laid upon the Table:

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

1. 1. There shall be paid on compassionate grounds out of the State Revenue Fund to F S C Sugden, formerly a teacher in the employ of the Transvaal Education Department, a pension of R4 142 per annum with effect from 1 September 1987.
2. 2. There shall be paid, as a special case, to L C Marais, formerly a port steward, South African Transport Services, a cash amount equal to the difference between the cash amount which would have been payable in terms of the Railways and Harbours Pensions Act, 1971 (Act No 35 of 1971), to him on 1 October 1977 had he retired from service on that date as contemplated in that Act and the cash amount which was paid to him on 1 April 1974 in terms of that Act.

Report to be considered.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Pensions, dated 18 September 1987, as follows:

1. (i) that it is unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitioners be entertained: Booyens, J J; Coetzee, J; Essop, Amina; Fortuin, S J; Gibson, J L; Goodall, B B; Kubisko, J; Meyers, C J P; Nel, D U; Oldfield, G N; Sauerman, Hilletje S; Strydom, W J J; and Van der Walt, P A; and
2. (ii) that it has been unable to complete its enquiries into the petition of Cloete, J, and recommends that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Pensions at an early stage in the next session.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, the hon the Leader of the House did not manage to convince us on Wednesday, 16 September, that this is the way in which Parliament should be conducting its business. I am referring to this stop-start way in which we are conducting our business here so slowly, in that the House of Assembly sits for a few days and then adjourns so that we can wait for the standing committees to conclude their work. I am not going to enter into all the relevant arguments. I do not want to elaborate on them. I do not think that Parliament is doing meaningful work on this basis, however. We are not being productive, and that is not what was envisaged initially.

Speak for yourselves! [Interjections.]

No, Sir, it is not a question of our not being productive. We are prepared to sit tomorrow. [Interjections.] If the hon members of the NP are prepared to sit tomorrow, we shall be here. We shall be here to proceed with our business tomorrow. We are also prepared to proceed with our business on Wednesday. It is not a case of our being unwilling at all. It is the hon members on the opposite side of the House who are not ready at this stage for Parliament to proceed with its business tomorrow.

They are not doing their work! [Interjections.]

Order!

The work is being held up in the standing committees because the Labour Party is not prepared to respond to the NP’s call for consensus. That is why Parliament has to wait for the standing committees to conclude their work. The delay is being caused by between 50 and 100 hon members, whereas Parliament consists of 308 hon members.

Mr Speaker, this is not productive. It is not meaningful. That is why we shall not support the motion under discussion.

Mr Speaker, you will be aware that, like the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, we also objected the last time such a motion was moved—that was the motion that this House adjourn over Thursday of last week. I agree that at that time the hon the Leader of the House could perhaps have informed us more fully of his intentions and plans, and got it all over at once. However, he has chosen to come back again today to move that we do not sit tomorrow and the next day.

This is an indication that last time he moved such a motion, their planning was in such a fluid state that they could not even give us the information then…

Two days notice.

… that he did not want us to sit on Tuesday and Wednesday this week. This is once again an indication, as I said last week, of the lack of organisation and the lack of planning that goes into the debates in this House, particularly at ministerial level.

Why are we not sitting? Basically it is for two reasons; either the legislation is not ready to be discussed, or there is no Cabinet Minister available to pilot the legislation through the House.

There is a third fault, however, and it is a very, very basic one. It is the fault of this ridiculous system of the tricameral Parliament. This whole system is based on deceit—it is based on the deceit that in fact we are a tricameral Parliament with the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians having an equal vote. The reality is, however, that the vote of the White voter is the only vote that actually counts, that actually appoints the Government and is effective in this so-called democratic system. As long as we have a political system of this nature I believe we are going to find that Parliament operates in fits and starts and does not effectively accomplish what it has to do, which is to process the legislative programme with efficiency and expedition and in a democratic manner. Therefore we in this party will be opposing this motion.

Mr Speaker, I shall be adopting the same attitude as I did before and supporting this motion.

I do not subscribe to the view of the hon the Chief Whip of the PFP that the tricameral system is a hoax. He made a statement which implied that the other two Houses have no status in this tricameral system. If there is one place where all three Houses do have equal status, however, it is in the standing committees. Therefore I think we have to be patient when work is being held up at standing committee level.

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

No, Sir, I do not want to take a question now.

If this leads to a more efficient system, I think we have to accept the fact that there will be odd days when we will not necessarily have to go to the beach but when we will be able to do other work which we have to do.

Mr Speaker, the problem of the hon the Chief Whip of the PFP is that he is still tied down to the old Westminster system. [Interjections.] He has not yet come to fully understand the impact of the decision which we took to move away from the Westminster system.

I want to thank the hon member for Mooi River for his support once again as well as for the motivation which he gave. He is absolutely correct when he says that in the standing committee system there is full opportunity for all members of Parliament to influence all decisions which are taken, and that we should be patient and allow the committee system to come fully to fruition. To my mind the standing committee system has already made a contribution to better legislation. To run down this system is in my opinion to act against the interests of South Africa.

Who ran it down?

We take cognisance of the fact that when it is necessary for the committees to sit, in the interests of the work we have to do, the Official Opposition as well as the PFP, with their small numbers, apparently want to sit in the House of Assembly at the same time. If that is their attitude, we shall do so in future. If they call that “stop-start”, we shall make it “start at all levels”. The committees and the House will sit. [Interjections.] It is a misrepresentation to say that we on this side of the House are not prepared to sit tomorrow and on Wednesday.

We are accommodating the PFP.

This is really a gesture to accommodate the smaller parties so that their numbers will not be depleted in this House while they are participating fully in the committees. [Interjections.]

Secondly, Parliament’s business will be continuing tomorrow if four committees will be sitting simultaneously. Almost all the important office-bearers in this House of Assembly and in the other Houses serve on the one committee, viz the Standing Committee on the Standing Rules and Orders. The Standing Committee on Education, the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal and the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development will all be sitting tomorrow. Five standing committees will be sitting on Wednesday, viz the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Cape Province, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry, the Standing Committee on Justice, and the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs. To regard that as a very small percentage…

Usually they sit in the mornings.

They have the whole day in which to sit. They want to conclude their work, after all. This attitude of the opposition is simply a lot of fuss about nothing. We feel that it is in the best interests of the system we are developing here to establish the tradition that it is not always necessary for the whole of Parliament to sit during a session while it is conducting its business.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—95: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, P J; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Brazelle, J A; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Coetsee, H J; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, L; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; De Villiers, D J; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, B J; Du Plessis, PTC; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hardingham, R W; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, TAP; Lemmer, J J; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Retief, J L; Schlebusch, A L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Steyn, D W; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van Heerden, F J; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, LM J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanche, J P I; Kritzinger, W T;

Ligthelm, C J; Meyer, W D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Thompson, A G.

Noes—31: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Beyers, J M; Burrows, R M; Cronjé, P C; Dalling, D J; De Jager, C D; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Hulley, R R; Jacobs, S C; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Pienaar, D S; Schoeman, C B; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, RAF; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Snyman, W J.

Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker, one of the advantages of speaking first this afternoon is that I will not be caught in the crossfire between the NP and the CP. This crossfire along with endless sterile debates have been a dominant feature of this session of Parliament. These debates may be relevant to the White voters on the Transvaal platteland but have nothing whatsoever to do with the problems or the challenges facing the 30 million South Africans who are living in modern multiracial South Africa. This has been the nature of these debates.

I have listened very carefully to my hon colleagues on the right, the CP, and I have heard them exploiting sectional and group emotions to the utmost; they have done that well. I have heard them playing short-term White party politics, and that they have done well. I have listened to them embarrassing the NP, and at times they have even done that well. However, I have not heard a single constructive proposal from the CP that is in the overall interest of the people of this country. It is a purely sectional party standing for sectional interests in this country.

During this session the NP has clearly shown that it is angry with the CP. “Hulle is vies!” This is not because the CP believes in apartheid or because the CP yearns for separation or partition.

The hon the Minister over there said he also believes in partition. [Interjections.] It is not because the Nationalist Party, or rather the CP, wants separate development.

National Party!

I was in Durban this past weekend where the NP put the words “Nationalist Party” up for a meeting to be held in a suburb of Durban. [Interjections.] They must get used to that themselves.

It is not because of these things but for a simple reason that the CP refuses to learn the lessons which the Nationalist Party is being compelled against its will to learn viz that however great a White government’s commitment to apartheid is, apartheid simply cannot work in the South Africa of the 1980s or the 1990s. It simply cannot work. Whether one likes it or not, apartheid—whether evaluated in terms of segregation or in terms of domination—is going to be swept aside by the forces of history—social, economic, demographic and political—that are being generated from within the South African society.

In terms of political philosophy—and I have listened very carefully for the past four months—the CP and the NP have very much in common. Both of those parties would prefer as their first choice a divided South Africa rather than a united South Africa. That would be their first choice. Both would prefer a segregated society to a shared society. That would be their first choice. Both would prefer apartheid if apartheid was possible. That has come through time and time again through the debates in this House since the time of the NP Federal Congress in Durban.

The difference between these two parties in essence is that for the CP apartheid still remains an opposition dream whereas for the NP apartheid has been shattered and has become a Government nightmare. That is the only difference. The objectives are still the same but for one it is the dream of the future whereas for the other it is the nightmare of the reality of South Africa.

Herein lies the dilemma of the NP. Its leaders still continue to mouth platitudes about self-determination in a society that requires effective sharing.

The hon the Minister opposite will recall the maintenance of full self-determination for all groups on as many levels as possible as being the declared policy of the NP. All political entities constituting the Republic shall have legislative and executive structures of their own choice for self-determination at all levels of authority. That is the very clear thrust of the NP.

The NP—while it is committed to an old-fashioned philosophy—senses that apartheid is dying and it does not know what to put in its place. It remains attached to a political philosophy which it knows deep down inside is no longer an attainable reality. This is why reform has not been a dynamic process directed by a determined Government but a hesitant and tortuous response to the pressures of the South African society. That is why this Government is simply unable to capture the imagination of Black and Brown people in South Africa, even when it goes for reform. Look at the shambles that is developing around the Group Areas Act. Even when the NP moves away from the Group Areas Act it is unable to capture the imagination of the Brown people of South Africa.

Even though the NP has said it is going to take certain steps with regard to the National Council Bill, it can get no exciting response from the Black people of our society. This Government is simply unable to give this nation a lead. After 40 years in office it has incurred the ignominy to having to govern South Africa, not only by Parliament, but by emergency regulations.

We have been told repeatedly that the economy is poised for an economic lift-off and that all that is needed now is confidence in the future. I want to put this to the hon the Minister: Why is there a lack of confidence in the future? Why does the Governor of the Reserve Bank repeatedly say that all we need is confidence in the future? Why does Volkskas say that the economy has started to flounder and what we need is an upswing in business and consumer confidence? Why does Bifsa have to say:

There is nothing wrong with this country and there is nothing wrong with its people. There is nothing wrong with the country’s infrastructure or its resources.

What is wrong is the inability of this Government to lead South Africa to a secure future. What a searing indictment of the Government that is! What a reflection it is of its inability, in spite of its majority on 6 May, to manage the political processes of this country in a way in which ordinary people will have confidence! I want to tell hon members of the NP to remember that in spite of their massive victory in a White election on 6 May, the reality is that they remain a minority government in South Africa. That is why there is a lack of confidence in their ability to govern properly.

Because of that we are now trapped into an economic growth rate which was expected at the beginning of this year to be something around 3%. It is now going to be nowhere near 3%. When we listen to the hon the Minister opposite, what is the response we get from him? His response is, “Well, it is too bad.” If our economic growth rate is 2,5% or 2% it will mean that our economic growth over the past four years…

Who said: “It is too bad”?

The hon the Minister must explain what they are going to do about it.

Who used the words “too bad”?

I am saying the Government’s whole attitude is, “Well, that is too bad.”

You are giving false information!

I am telling hon members that the attitude of the Government is that “it is too bad”. [Interjections.] If that is not the case the hon the Minister must explain to us this afternoon what he is going to do to show that it is not too bad and what he is going to do to improve on it.

If that is what his target is we will end up with an economic growth of, 3% for the past five years, while the average population growth over the past five years was 2,5%. This is a situation of South Africa heading for economic disaster with reduced living standards and massive unemployment staring the next generation of South Africans in the face. If the hon the Minister says it is not question of “too bad” we ask him what he is going to do to restore the confidence that there should be in the future of South Africa. With what policy are they going to lead the people of this country?

The hon the Minister of Finance is not only the Minister of Finance; he happens to be the head of the NP’s division of information. I believe here is an opportunity for him to clarify certain things and to help to extract this Government from the mumbo-jumbo of its past and state its point of view on key issues that are relevant to the future of South Africa. What are the “givens” in South Africa? What are the things from which we cannot escape? First of all, it is the fact that we have a single economy which functions on an increasingly racially integrated basis. There is nothing that can undo that.

Secondly, we have a constitutional structure where 20 key portfolios are classified as general affairs, ie they are supposed to apply equally to all the citizens of South Africa.

Now we have a proposal by the Government to set up a council to plan and prepare a constitutional dispensation “which provides for participation by all South African citizens in the processes of government”.

These are the realities against which we have to ask certain questions. The first question I want to put to the hon the Minister who is head of the NP’s information section concerns the Government’s talk of full “self-determination of groups on as many levels as possible”.

The hon the Minister sitting just in front of him has repeatedly stated his objective of getting more and more self-determination for people by way of own affairs. I want to put it to the hon the Minister that given the realities of South Africa, what are the areas of government which the Government today offers on the basis of full self-determination for the separate racial groups? What are the areas of government that are available that have any substance in terms of political power?

When he tries to answer that question he will realise that self-determination in the context of modern South Africa is merely a gigantic bluff in order to try to outwit the CP with their out-and-out policy of partition and racial domination in South Africa.

A second question I want to put to the hon the Minister is the following. When we talk of minority rights or individual rights or group rights, the hon the State President made a very significant statement earlier. I read it out in an earlier debate. He said, and I quote:

I now put it to the hon the Minister that in the light of the realities of South Africa, in the light of the hon the State President’s statement in this House that cultural, language and religious rights will be protected on a non-racial basis, what are the so-called collective or group rights in South Africa which this Government, in spite of the hon the State President’s statement, says it has to protect on the basis of compulsory race or group membership? The Government must spell out these rights and tell us what they are. I believe that when one starts spelling them out they will have less to do with rights than with the exclusive power and privilege of one group over another in South Africa.

There is also a third question. The Government says it wants to negotiate a new constitution through which all South Africans can participate in the process of Government. At the same time, however, various Cabinet Ministers, from the left to the right and from the right to the left, have stated that there are certain things that are non-negotiable. I want the hon the Minister, as the chief information spokesman for the NP, to answer the following question here today: What are the things that are non-negotiable? What are the issues that are negotiable and what are the non-negotiables as far as the NP and the future constitution in South Africa are concerned? He can smile now, because I know he will not give an answer. I say that he will not give an answer to this question because he does not know whether he will be repudiating half a dozen other Cabinet Ministers in terms of the answer that he is going to give.

Until the Government deals with these specific questions, clears the air and gets rid of the ambiguity and double talk, real negotiations will not start and a lack of confidence will hang like a dark cloud, not only over our politics, but also over the economy of South Africa and depress the standard of living of millions of ordinary South Africans.

So we are facing a low economic growth rate. I ask the hon the Minister: In view of that unsatisfactory growth rate, can we still afford the Government’s high spending on certain ideological commitments? I want to repeat what the hon member for Barberton said in this debate and what the hon member for Berea said in the Foreign Affairs debate. Can South Africa afford to pump millions of rand of taxpayers’ money into states like Ciskei and Transkei without any guarantee that that money is being properly used or controlled? Can we continue like that?

With massive unemployment staring South Africa in the face—in fact there are fewer jobs available in South Africa now than there were five years ago—can we continue with the Government’s ineffective and inefficient decentralisation schemes? R700 million a year, Sir! I notice from the latest issue of Business Day, that there is at least to be a full probe into the Government’s regional development in the Natal area. I want to know from the hon the Minister whether this is a forerunner. Is he prepared to investigate the effectiveness of the Government’s regional development schemes around the country? I ask this because those regional development schemes were devised before the pass laws were repealed, before the real process of urbanisation got under way, before influx control was lifted.

While the questions of decentralisation and of rural development remain factors, surely in view of the urbanisation that is taking place, the focal point is in the cities—in housing and in services and in job creation in the cities of South Africa. Mr Speaker, we ask the hon the Minister to come clean, to tell us the truth about the Government’s commitments in relation to minority rights, non-negotiables and the new deal for all South Africans. He must forget the ideological past and realise that in this time of a low growth rate in South Africa we have to apply ourselves, more vigorously than we have in the past, to housing, to infrastructure and to job creation in the cities.

Mr Speaker, I think this House has cause to take cognisance of some of the statements made by the hon member for Sea Point. I agree with him 100% when he talks about the fact that we are going to get nowhere in this country, either internally or internationally, unless apartheid in its factual form is completely and utterly abolished. I believe the sooner we realise, when we talk so much about a new South Africa, that the one thing the new South Africa is going to be without is apartheid, the better it is going to be and the sooner we will find solutions to this country’s problems.

Mr Speaker, I also agree with the hon member in regard to the point he made in connection with the need for confidence to be restored to this country. I do think we must also be aware that we cannot run away from the fact that there is a growing ostracisation of this country by the outside world. This is going to have a braking effect on our economy and on our whole development.

Mr Speaker, I have very little time, but I do want to deal with a particular point that I feel has not been dealt with fully in this debate. I want to refer again briefly to the severe hardships which the agricultural sector is experiencing in regard to the rebate on the purchases of agricultural diesel. I was reading an article in a well-known agricultural publication. Its apt heading is: “The diesel débácle”. What is of concern is the fact that discussions in this regard have been taking place between the SA Agricultural Union, the Department of Customs and Excise and the Department of Trade and Industry for over a year. In other words, problems have been known to exist for some considerable time.

Mr Speaker, I want to ask the following question. Why was action not taken earlier against those who were contravening those regulations? Why has this been allowed to drag on year after year until, all of a sudden, we are faced with a position in which the whole basis of the discount and the rebate on fuel for agricultural purposes must now come under such severe pressure?

I also want to point out that the regulations, as they are being applied at the present time, are having a very harmful effect on the whole of the agricultural sector.

May I draw attention to the fact that the estimated discount on purchases of agricultural diesel is in the vicinity of almost R370 million. What is more important is that the estimated cost of financing these purchases is almost R4 million a month. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to do what he can to simplify the procedures that are being applied to make it easier for discounts to be reclaimed but, above all, that payments be made as expeditiously as possible, and not necessarily from the point of view that the discounts will be paid back over a set period of some six weeks. This is the content of my appeal.

Finally, before I resume my seat, I want to point out that in a Press statement the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance indicated that certain offenders, who contravened the regulations previously were going to be prosecuted. I would ask the hon the Minister to give an indication as to what prosecutions have taken place, what effect these are going to have, and why prosecutions were not instituted earlier in order to avoid the difficult situation that applies today in regard to having to now claim the rebate on diesel for agricultural purposes.

Mr Speaker, I shall leave it to my hon colleague to reply to the pertinent issues raised by the hon member for Mooi River.

The hon member for Sea Point must find his own cure for his frustration at being caught up in the crossfire between this side of the House and the CP. He is in that crossfire because he and his party failed to attract sufficient support in the general election. He failed to attract sufficient support because the PFP chose to ignore the realities as seen and felt by the electorate who elect us to this House.

He asks what the group rights are which the NP wants to maintain. Surely he has read our manifesto. Must I spell it out for him?—

[Interjections.] It is clear what we are talking about when we talk about group rights; it is the hon member who refuses to accept the necessity of those group rights, not only for the Whites but also for all other minority groups, if we want to attain an atmosphere of close co-operation on matters of common concern among all the peoples of this country.

*I want to come back to the big fuss the hon member for Lichtenburg made on Friday about the minutes of a Transvaal executive committee. What a pity that someone who has as much talent as the hon member for Lichtenburg has, takes part in such destructive, petty politics. He is beginning to resort to the political style the HNP used against him in Lichtenburg for so long. Mischievous but malevolent abuse of a confidential document has become the style on which the hon vice-leader of the CP bases his contribution to South African politics.

Where is that document?

I shall get to the document.

I should like to tell the hon member that there are many of us on this side of the House who have been watching the political degeneration of the hon member for Lichtenburg with a measure of sadness.

Surely you should be pleased about it.

His transformation from being a practical, constructive person working towards practicable solutions, which is what he was when he was still with us, to being a destructive, negative battering-ram is reminiscent of Jekyll and Hyde. [Interjections.]

Let me explain the essence of the minutes of the Transvaal executive committee from which he quoted so lavishly. The meeting had only two objectives. The first was planning with a view to extending the clear majority support the NP had received on 6 May. The second was in-depth reflection on the question of how the NP can make an even better contribution. We are not apologizing for reflecting on the future. I think it is high time the CP searched its own heart and began to question the negative, destructive part it plays in South African politics. I was ashamed on their behalf when the hon member for Sea Point attacked the CP about the destructive part they play in South African politics and they did not say a word because they knew he was telling the truth. For the sake of South Africa, we in the NP want to make sure that we effectively combat the pernicious political influence of the CP on innocent voters. [Interjections.] For the sake of South Africa we want to take those voters along with us on the course of lasting negotiated reform.

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

No, Sir, I do not have much time.

You have the State President to protect you.

I shall deal with that statement in due course.

Pernicious is a strong word, but I used it deliberately. When a party does what the CP does, it deserves that kind of terminology.

Two examples from the hon member for Lichtenburg’s speech are good illustrations of the CP’s technique of confusing the voters. In the first place he took a single sentence from concise minutes which were a summary of a long and in-depth discussion and wrested it out of context to create a completely erroneous impression. I want to read the sentence in the minutes, which have not yet been agreed to:

This is not a very good summary of what was said. [Interjections.] I am going to discuss it as it stands, however. What does the hon member for Lichtenburg make of this sentence? I want to quote his interpretation, the interpretation upon which his whole argument rests. He said:

I am not the one who says that; that is what you say.

That is what the hon member said. What a disgraceful distortion that is of what was really said, however. What did the hon member omit? The crux of the statement, viz that a majority of Blacks should be persuaded to participate in a new dispensation. [Interjections.] We said: “Hul ondersteuning te gee aan ’n bedeling” which would have certain consequences for the Whites as well. He deliberately omitted this, however. Surely that is reprehensible politics. [Interjections.] It is a complete untruth to say that that sentence means that the NP wants the Blacks to come and protect the Whites. That is typical petty politics. What is the CP going to do now? They are going to let this untruth multiply, and are going to use it to confuse and mislead innocent voters.

Let us test the real statement in terms of the CP’s own policy. In the first place I deduce that the policy they advocate protects the Whites’ established rights. The hon member for Lichtenburg is nodding his head.

I am not nodding. I am not saying anything.

But do they not want to protect the Whites’ established rights?

I shall reply to you.

Secondly, they want to do so in an attitude of “regverdigheid teenoor ander volke” (justice to all other peoples), in the words of the hon member.

Thirdly, they do not want to apply force to people of other races. He waxed lyrical about their “flowing” of their own accord and said that they would not bulldoze anyone. They do not want to apply force.

In the fourth place they want to establish a dispensation which will give everyone freedom within his own sovereign fatherland. That is their policy. They want to preserve the Whites’ established rights, their sovereign freedom as they call it. They want to do this in a spirit of justice for all, not a spirit of force, and they want to give those rights to everyone.

Surely that is not the dispensation we have at the moment. They want to establish a new dispensation in their way and in terms of their policy. That is exactly what those minutes say. They want to get a majority of Blacks, Indians and Coloureds to co-operate in a dispensation which will protect the Whites’ established rights effectively as well. We do not differ on the fact that this should be done, but on the form such a dispensation should take. There are fundamental differences about what can work in this connection and what cannot.

The simple fact that this argument confronts us with—this is what was at issue in the Transvaal executive committee—is the following: The salvation of Whites, Blacks, Indians and Coloureds is contained in a new dispensation. The existing status quo must be changed.

You are not bluffing anyone.

The CP wants to change that dispensation. The CP wants to establish sovereign states and peoples which do not exist at present. The CP wants to change the status quo.

Secondly, a new dispensation must provide advantages for everyone who takes part in it; for the Whites, but also the various other peoples. I want to say today that if such a dispensation deprives the Whites of their freedom, prosperity and security, if it hands them over to domination by others, or if it destroys their established rights, the NP will not agree with it. When the NP says no to this kind of dispensation it is speaking on behalf of the vast majority of Whites.

But not on behalf of the Afrikaners.

That is why a new dispensation must give effective protection to the established rights of the Whites in order to succeed.

On the same occasion and a number of other public occasions, I also said, however, that ultimately a new dispensation would have to be acceptable to a majority of the other population groups as well. That is why it is necessary for any new dispensation to comply with their reasonable aspirations. If a new dispensation entails continued White domination, it will not work and they will reject it. If it means continued backlogs as far as they are concerned, backlogs which cannot be eliminated, they will reject it. If it does not give them sufficient opportunities, they will reject it as well.

It is at this point that the CP is trying to exercise a pernicious influence on our electorate. They know that there will always be millions of Blacks here in White South Africa—as the hon member called it—no matter how many Black people they settle in the national states. When we push them on this point, the CP admits this, but when they talk in public, and here as well sometimes, they ignore that fact.

Then they do what the hon member for Lichtenburg did again on Friday. They create an image of everyone moving out of White South Africa with a smile. They will simply “flow” away and the problem will disappear with this so-called “flow” and without great expenditure. Those who stay behind—those whom the CP is not going to “bulldoze”, as they put it—who, with the Whites, have to keep the factories, mines, farms and offices in White South Africa going, will not flow anywhere, however. They will simply stay where they are. That is what the hon member for Brakpan said in a television interview during the election.

The CP does not know what they are going to do with these people who are not going to “flow”. [Interjections.] They have no policy in respect of those people that makes any sense. They have not begun to think of a dispensation which takes this simple reality into account. [Interjections.] If we have to talk about vague policies—they say the NP executive committee is lacking in detail—the CP has a gigantic problem. They are not only vague; they do not have a policy on this important matter.

We shall see in Standerton.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is going to speak after me. I challenge him to stand up and tell us in clear terms for once in his political career—he has 25 minutes in which to speak—what his policy is going to be on political rights for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians, who—according to what he says—are going to be permanently in the Southland he wants to create. Tell us about that. Must they always be satisfied with a kind of second-class citizenship? [Interjections.]

Does the hon member for Losberg, who has so many solutions, not want to reply to my question? Must they always be satisfied with a kind of second-class citizenship, or is the CP going to deprive them of their citizenship against their will and classify them as migrant workers? I have an idea that that is what they intend to do. If that is so, is that going to be just and equitable, as the CP says it wants to be? Is there any possibility that this will get the support or co-operation of a significant percentage of them? The CP wants to deprive these people of their trade union rights, it wants to push them back to lower wages, to take away their citizenship—so it seems to me—and tell them they will stay here forever, because it suits us to have them working in our factories, but that they will have not the franchise, apart from municipal franchise. That is a recipe for revolution. [Interjections.] The CP, which has no policy on one of the most cardinal problems in South Africa, is at a loss for words.

I want to tell the hon member for Lichtenburg that the NP does not need him to come and prompt us when the interests and the future of the Whites are at issue. We are prepared to make any sacrifice for that purpose. We are sick and tired of the hon member’s unfounded denunciation and vilification. It is he and his party who are gambling recklessly with the Whites’ future in their urge to get at the NP.

He must stop hiding his party’s lack of solutions behind aggression and petty politics. The untruths that the CP is spreading about the NP are like the house built on sand in the Biblical parable. The CP’s house of cards, of emotional rabble-rousing and distorted misinformation, will collapse when the full truth catches up with them. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister of National Education reminded me of the words from Shakespeare—“The lady doth protest too much”. The hon the Minister is obviously somewhat unhappy with the performance of the hon member for Lichtenburg. I do not want to neglect to call the hon member for Lichtenburg a battering ram, and I think this is exactly what happens with the attacks on the NP’s lack of policy. One does not have to be a tremendous battering ram to knock down that little wall.

The hon the Minister of National Education says that the NP stands for the vested rights of the Whites. However, they have already taken away the established rights of the Whites up to the highest level. The Whites had a sovereign Parliament. In accordance with the draft legislation on the new dispensation introduced by the NP, the legislative authority would have been vested in the House of Assembly. The NP took this away. While we are still debating it, it has been referred to another committee.

The NP Parliament is systematically occupying the White area with Black residential areas. Hon members may ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning about that. They are planning to establish massive residential areas in White areas.

Are you going to take them away?*

They are not there yet, but the NP is planning to establish them there. Then they still speak of the vested rights of the Whites!

The rights of the Whites were vested in this Parliament, as a sovereign body. The NP removed them right up to the highest level. One of the most important issues for every people is the seat of the highest authority over it. The NP has taken away the right of people to decide on that for themselves.

The hon the Minister speaks of profound reflection. The NP will certainly have to reflect very profoundly if they want to reply to the questions that we have put to them. One of those questions is how they are going to prevent the Whites from being dominated in a Black majority state in South Africa. They have not given us that answer yet. They are playing with a concept like “consensus”, and they are speaking about the attitudes of people that will have to change. In the very best Christian spirit it still always remains true that a people demands for itself the right to be governed by its own people and that it not be dominated by another people. [Interjections.] On that minor point the hon member and I may perhaps still differ.

I should just like to refer to the hon leader of the PFP as well. The hon member said that the CP had not yet learnt the lesson that the NP had learnt. I do not know if the NP has learnt the lesson yet, but I think the hon leader of the PFP has not yet understood the language of the verdict of the general election. His party received 288 000 votes. He comes along and speaks of our representation and our support in the urban areas, but in the urban areas in Transvaal we received slightly less support than the total number of votes received by his entire party.

The hon member says we are involved in a dream and the NP is involved in a nightmare. Personally, of course, I prefer a dream to a nightmare, but we are not dealing with dreams. I want to tell the hon member that what he regards in our case as a dream, is a quest. The factual examples of this in the world are as real as the formation of separate states in Europe, which came into being over the dead bodies of millions of people. It is as real as the quest for partition in Belgium, as the independence of the BSL countries and of Bophuthatswana, Venda, Ciskei and Transkei. These are facts and realities. To the people who say we should look at the realities, we say these are the realities!

To the credit of the NP, particularly of the NP as it was in the past, I say that it created those realities. Now it is fleeing from them and one now finds hon members on that side of the House who sneer when one speaks of partition, self-sufficiency and independence.

One of the most important issues at stake in the debates during the past session was the struggle to formulate a policy. Let me state here and now that if the CP is struggling with a formula for healthy co-existence, for the exercising of political authority and for real and meaningful self-determination, the NP is also struggling with this. I think it is struggling even more with it.

Let us summarise the basic points of departure of the NP. They can tell me if I am wrong. The basic points of departure of the NP are a general franchise, general citizenship, equal treatment and equal opportunities, a right of veto for specific Houses with regard to certain sections in the Constitution, one central authority, one defence force, a preponderance of general affairs, and own affairs, subject to general legislation. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Oh, the hon the Minister could surely just peruse Schedule 1 of the Constitution to see how many laws there are which he can claim are own affairs laws and how many laws are subject to general legislation. Surely this is true. He must now tell me that that is not true. Surely it is so.

We on this side of the House have said that with this as the background we are heading for the domination of the Whites by a non-White majority in our own fatherland. If this is all the same to hon members, they should understand that it is not all the same to us. If the journalists say they have already accepted the possibility of a Black majority, then it is they who have accepted it. The hon members on this side of the House have not accepted it.

Let me now say—I do not want to make too much of a fuss about this—that as long as I breathe and as long as I have the opportunity I shall fight against that direction the NP has taken. [Interjections.]

The NP also states that it is against domination.

Very well then, it is against domination, but we tell them that they are not in a position to stop it. Their little ideas to prevent domination have run out. When we ask the NP how it is going to do this, there is a deafening silence. [Interjections.]

We have said that this is the abandonment of own political authority and the recipe of the NP does not provide a guarantee against domination. The fund of new ideas of the Government is exhausted. They speak of equal treatment and equal opportunities. Those are the words used by the hon the State President. Does that mean that the individual vote of a Black man is accorded a value equal to the voting power of an individual White man? If there are 20 million of them in the same state as opposed to 5 million Whites and they have equal meaning, equal treatment and equal opportunities, where will that leave us? The simple logic of numbers then tells us the NP is taking us on the road to a Black majority in South Africa, and therefore the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was correct when he said that if one shares power with the Blacks, it is inevitable that one is going to have a Black majority government. This is the serious issue in South African politics and it is this seriousness that we emphasise and with which we ask the Government what it is going to do with the future of the White man in this country.

We said that in terms of this a Black president becomes inevitable and with the tremendous powers that the State President has in the new Constitution, he has the power to determine what an own affair or a general affair for the White people is. I just want to mention one example. According to that recipe of the Government for an undivided state with joint decision-making up to the highest level—up to all levels—a non-White could qualify for any executive post. With respect, a Black could become a Minister of National Education in the hon the Minister’s place.

Or the State President.

He could become State President; that I have said. He could become Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, he could become Minister of Manpower, he could become Minister of Defence—you name it! [Interjections.] All those posts, that are of the utmost importance in the meaningful self-determination of any people, could be occupied by a Black, Coloured or Indian. If that is acceptable to the Government, then so be it, but to this side of the House it is not acceptable.

The Government—I almost said with absolute naiveté—states that the Official Opposition shares power with the Government. Have we now come to such foolishness? The other statement is that the autonomous self-governing states are an example of power-sharing. That is what Ivor Benson called “Newspeak”; now that is what I call a new language.

We are part of this Parliament and the highest authority is vested in this Parliament. Therefore when power is discussed, we are part of an institution that has the highest power. However, to say that the CP shares power with the Government is too crazy for words.

There is tremendous confusion in the vision of the NP. Surely it does not see the present unitary state as a permanent goal. I refer to the following. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning stressed that the Black peoples can become independent, but may also remain as they are if they prefer. They therefore have the best of both worlds. They even have the right to secede.

When we asked if that meant that the Whites could also secede, he explained to us that the Whites already had self-determination and that it was not necessary, as it were, for them to secede. In the mean time the question still remains. If a Black people can secede from the existing Republic of South Africa, do the Whites in principle have the same right? If not, it is blatant discrimination against the Whites in their own fatherland.

I want to discuss the multicultural approach. Today in politics emphasis is placed on reconciliation, multiracial Government through negotiations and mixing. This is evident from the media such as the TV and the newspapers. We have propaganda for the mixing of races in the name of good relations. We see this in the newsworthiness of a mixed marriage and how it is popularised.

I do not want to take up the time of the House with a lot of quotations, but what we have heard here about a multicultural approach does not make much sense. I should like to quote what a well-known philosopher of culture said, and I refer to Richard Weaver. He says:

He continues:

I quote him with approval because I think this is a healthy philosophical approach to culture.

I also want to say that the approach and the statements of the NP have created expectations amongst moderate and radical leaders which cannot be fulfilled. The Government does not intend to fulfil them. The moderate leaders understand a unitary state to mean equal treatment and equal opportunities. They understand it to mean a state in which the majority of the population will form the politically dominant power and make the final decisions. They expect a preponderance of power with no exclusive rights for Whites with regard to own residential areas, own schools and an own House of Assembly or an own Government. The moment one speaks of that, it is repugnant to even the most moderate of the so-called moderate leaders.

One also comes up against a leader such as the Chief Minister of KwaZulu who says they will sentence the Whites to permanent subjugation in an open democracy. Those are not moderate people. That person has been led to expect that through his participation in a unitary South African political system, his numbers will enable him to sentence hon members and me to continued subjugation in that kind of state.

What are you going to do then? [Interjections.]

In conclusion I should like to put the case of the CP on certain issues, particularly as far as the idea of an own fatherland under an own government is concerned.

The CP regards it as being of particular significance that the Bible emphasises the unity and the diversity of the human race. Let me say at once that it is not my intention to provide every measure regulating separate development or whatever, with a text from the Bible. That is not necessary, it is not possible and it is not my aim. However, I say that we attach particular significance to the fact that the Bible emphasises the unity and the diversity of the human race.

Secondly it means something to us that the Bible traces the historical facts and events of the distribution of humanity throughout the world in different residential areas and countries to the dispensation of God. I do not want to enter into a debate with church bodies, but it is very interesting to me that the same church is quoted time and again as having adopted a standpoint against apartheid. In Kerk en Samelewing, the decisions of the general Synod, there are standpoints based on principle which lead to conclusions different from those the church itself reached in other paragraphs. I shall just quote three of these for hon members. In paragraph 107 it is said in respect of four texts that are quoted—and I am not reacting now to the hon member for Mossel Bay’s exegesis the other day—that in all four of these texts, Genesis 10 and 11, Deuteronomy 32 and Acts 17:

I asked the church leaders how on earth they could state, in the face such a verdict by their own church, that any kind of separateness is in conflict with the Bible. It simply does not make sense. In paragraph 110 two Scriptural lessons are referred to and it is stated:

The will of God is therefore evident throughout the events of history. In paragraph 310 it is written:

I do not have permission to identify the particular clergyman here, but I think for the sake of the truth…

It is probably Willie Lubbe.

I think for the sake of the truth I must state here that that man twice told me: Andries, you can use Kerk en Samelewing to defend partition! I told him that I knew that, but that it did not comport with other later statements and decisions of his own church. He told me twice: “You can use Kerk en Samelewing to justify partition.” [Interjections.] Yes, I am dealing with this, because it concerns certain people’s objections that separate development is supposedly not morally justified.

I go further, and I want to say that we therefore regard it as normal and necessary for the healthy separate existence of peoples that there will be separate territories for different people.

Fourthly, it is our firm conviction that the Afrikaner people, and the other Whites who are associated with us, have the right to self-determination in an own country. This therefore means an own country under an own government. We make that claim and I am stating it here this afternoon. Our people has an historic and established right to territory.

Where?

I just want to quote a few sentences from a speech made last weekend by Prof Van der Wateren:

He continues:

That is according to the approach of the NP.

This is an academic who has adopted this standpoint.

Furthermore I want to say that all of us, including the NP—I am referring particularly to the NP—agreed with Dr Verwoerd when he said that in the end we would prefer a smaller South Africa, which was White, than a larger South Africa ruled from scratch by Blacks. [Interjections.] Everyone agreed with this.

We also agreed with the hon the State President—he was still Deputy Minister of the Interior at the time—when he spoke of Dr Verwoerd’s idea of a state within a state. In connection with that he said (Hansard: House of Assembly, col 108, col 6053):

We all applauded him then and said that we should pursue this vision of the future.

We on this side of the House have no intention of lightly selling out the territory of our fatherland. [Interjections.] We shall definitely not sell the land from under our nationhood. However, we accept that the borders between our fatherland and the areas of other nations will have to be adjusted, particularly to prevent us from being dominated in a unitary state by a Black majority.

We also say that we regard the allocation of 7¼ million morgen of free land to Black nations in terms of the 1936 legislation as the final area of land that will be given free of charge out of the pocket of the taxpayer of the RSA to Black nations. As far back as 1936 the NP had objected to the handing over of this land to the Black states free of charge, and it was of the opinion that the land should rather be bought. That was apart from the reservations it had about the £20 million and so forth that was to be injected into the economy. Our standpoint is that any further addition of land to the Black states can take place by means of the exchange of land, and also by the purchasing of land. However, this should be strictly subject to the decision of the White Parliament which watches over the White survival and our White fatherland. [Interjections.]

To ensure a White majority occupation in our own country, we are in favour of the demarcation and delimitation of Black townships in the RSA, and the cultural, social, ethnic and political linking of their inhabitants to units, areas and political structures of their own ethnic groups or peoples.

They reject that. [Interjections.]

The hon member says they reject it. My people reject being dominated by another. [Interjections.]

Those hon members should tell us if they cannot see the distinction. There is a difference between an approach of we are all only one state and it does not matter who governs me, and the standpoint of the CP that states we have a claim to an own territory and an own government in the same way as other nations have that same claim in principle. This is the difference. [Interjections.]

According to our standpoint this means that certain Black areas will have to be excised from the RSA to eliminate the political say of and power-sharing with Blacks. [Interjections.] Will hon members please just listen.

If in its election manifesto the NP has told the voters that Black metropolitan areas can become autonomous and that if they want independence it will not be refused them, the CP states that the NP wants to create a large number of independent states, or according to the recipe of the NP, a large number of independent Black states can come into existence here on the doorstep of Johannesburg and elsewhere. If this is the approach of the NP surely it is frivolous to accuse the CP of wanting to excise certain areas to prevent us being dominated by a Black majority in our own fatherland. Whites have the same right to claim their independence within their own country as any other people that has already exercised this right and whose right is recognised and is still being recognised by the NP.

The hon State President asked whether I would sit down with the Government and Black leaders to divide up the country. I said I was not interested in that idea of a unitary state as if the entire South Africa was placed on the table and there were no established rights. I said that there were territories in South Africa to which Black leaders have no claim. I contend…

Where?

The Chief Minister of Lebowa, for example, does not have an equal right to the land in the PWV area. The chief minister or the president of Ciskei and Transkei do not have equal rights to the land in the constituencies of Helderberg or George or wherever. That is why we say that there will be negotiations on boundaries, but we are not prepared to negotiate our right to an own territory where only the Whites govern.

Mr Speaker, the hon Leader of the Official Opposition was his old self again this afternoon when he had to reply to the questions put to him by the hon the Leader of the House. With his slippery arguments he skirted over everything. Then again, as usual, he set up his own Aunt Sallys with regard to NP policy, shot them down himself and recklessly flirted with the concept of Black majority rule by simply attributing it to the standpoint of the NP. We want to tell the hon leader and his party that we reject that insinuation with the contempt it deserves.

This afternoon the hon Leader of the House spoke about the vested rights of the Whites. Then the hon Leader of the Official Opposition came along and said that the NP had already taken those rights away.

But surely that is so!

Those rights have not been taken away. The hon the Leader can go and examine the Constitution of 1983, which is supported by two thirds of the White voters of South Africa. The established rights of the Whites as a minority group are very clearly spelt out in it. We therefore also reject that argument of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition with the contempt it deserves.

[Inaudible.]

The question put by the hon the Leader of the House to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was how the CP made provision for the aspirations of people of colour and what rights the CP was going to grant them within the so-called White homeland which they advocate. The replies given by the hon Leader were neither here nor there. What surprises me—I say this with great respect—is the fact that this afternoon the hon Leader of the Official Opposition chose this House as the place to engage in an argument with the DR Church of South Africa. [Interjections.] Surely the DR Church is not the only church in South Africa. [Interjections.] Why does the hon Leader of the Official Opposition not enter into an argument with other churches in South Africa as well? Why, for example, does he not go and fight with the Gereformeerde Kerk as well, which, for example, only has one synod? Is that power-sharing? Is that integration in the Gereformeerde Kerk? [Interjections.] Why does the hon Leader of the Official Opposition not do that? However, he comes to argue here with people who cannot defend themselves or put their arguments here.

No one is even listening to you!

However, Sir, allow me this afternoon to focus on one particular aspect of the vagueness of the CP. This afternoon the hon Leader of the CP once again contributed to this. He asked why, if other peoples in South Africa can secede, the Whites cannot secede as well. This is a very important remark of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. I want to ask him this afternoon whether it is the policy of the CP that the Whites in South Africa should secede and establish a separate homeland.

We are asking you people those questions. [Interjections.]

The hon Leader must tell us this, because this is the question to which he owes this House a reply. [Interjections.]

You really would not understand even if we explained it to you! [Interjections.]

If the Whites are to secede, how are they to secede and where are they to go? [Interjections.] I must say that up to now the CP has not spelt out its partition policy clearly to South Africa—not to mention, of course, the feasibility of that ridiculous approach!

However, I shall tell hon members why they cannot give details of it. They do not have unanimity on their policy of partition in their own ranks. They are merely an alliance, an alliance with one common goal. That is to fight the NP. There are very clear conflicting points of departure in the ranks of the CP. On the one hand we have the old guard in the CP—I want to call them that—which clings to the basic Verwoerdian philosophy with which, after all, everyone in South African politics is familiar. The hon member for Soutpansberg, I think, is a disciple of that. Every time when one speaks of partition, he harks back to the standpoints of Dr Verwoerd. That is the normal Verwoerdian philosophy—maintain South Africa as a White area, develop their homelands, make them independent and then link the political rights of the Blacks in that area to the homelands. All that has been added now is that—this, after all, is what they said—when the land is purchased in terms of the legislation of 1936, further meaningful consolidation by means of exchanging and buying out land will have to take place.

The other side of the coin, at least as far as this unholy alliance is concerned, is the new thinkers, the new exponents of the policy of the CP. Moreover, it seems to me, after having listened to the hon leader of the Official Opposition this afternoon, as if the hon member for Ermelo’s standpoint is gaining ground in the CP. He is gaining the upper hand. This afternoon was certainly the first time that I have heard the hon Leader of the Official Opposition beginning to argue in the vein in which the hon member for Ermelo thinks. [Interjections.] I think the hon member for Ermelo ought to feel very happy. He is succeeding in hijacking the CP for the kind of alliance of the AWB, the Afrikaner-volkswag and so forth. It seems to me as if the standpoint of Sabra, too, which we read about in the newspapers this morning, is gaining ground in the CP. [Interjections.]

I just want to deal briefly with those arguments. It is about the new idiom in which the CP is talking—the Boerestaat of the AWB, consisting of a part of the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal. I think the hon member for Bethal would feel very much at home there if the CP accepted a policy of that nature. I noticed that he shared a platform with Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche the other day. The authors of the book Witman, waar is jou tuisland?, amongst others the hon member for Ermelo and his kindred spirits, also form part of this picture. It seems to me it is beginning to correspond with the standpoints that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition began spelling out in this House this afternoon—the standpoints of majority occupation in areas excluding the Eastern and Western Cape and Natal; an assurance policy for the White man, a place to where he can secede—to use the words of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition—in a smaller, but chiefly White-occupied South Africa.

Besides this the hon Leader still drags Dr Verwoerd into this matter. Sir, Dr Verwoerd made that statement in the days when the quota of land in terms of the legislation of 1936 had not yet been purchased. The land in terms of the quota of 1936 was purchased long after Dr Verwoerd’s death. Moreover it is in that context in which Dr Verwoerd spoke in those years.

Where were you at the time?

However, another very interesting point arises here. I refer to the standpoint of Sabra about which we read about in the newspapers this morning. With regard to this I quote from this morning’s addition of Beeld:

This is the line of thinking on that side of the House that one reads about-

He then goes on to say the following. Please, note, he says “met die gepaardgaande vrywillige wegtrek van ander volke en groepe.”

Now the hon Leader of the Official Opposition comes along this afternoon and says that the national leader of Lebowa, for example, has no claim to the PWV area, whereas according to the Sabra Congress they said that the PWV area specifically had to be left out of the future “Afrikanerstaat” because it is impossible to change that place.

The standpoints of the Leader of the Official Opposition in connection with this smaller, but White South Africa are very interesting. Now one also begins to understand why he made that statement in Leadership South Africa about more land that has to be negotiated for the Black peoples of South Africa. Now you will see, Sir, how the hon members will backpedal this afternoon when they have to give us answers on these matters. I assert that there is total division in that political party on this standpoint which they put to us.

I want to ask the hon Leader of the Official Opposition whether he is prepared to repudiate that book Witman, waar is jou tuisland because such a large group of people in his party are co-authors of it. [Interjections.] I ask the hon Leader of the Official Opposition whether he is prepared to repudiate the contents of that book, or will he accept it? [Interjections.] You see, Sir, one cannot talk to these people. What they say is very slippery.

You are being silly now.

I am being silly now! In other words, am I to understand by that that the hon Leader does not accept it?

You are still being silly. [Interjections.]

This is the difficulty one has with these hon members. After listening to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition this afternoon, and after listening to the statements of the AWB and the Afrikaner-volkswag as well as those of Sabra, I want to conclude with the words spoken by the hon member for Pietersburg when he said in this House one day: “Omdat die Regering nie die grense van die tuislande bepaal nie, moet elke boer in hierdie land ’n vraagteken plaas agter die kaart en transport van sy grond.” This applies to the road on which the CP now wants to lead South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I shall have to leave the hon member for Turffontein to conduct his private war with the CP. I would have left the hon the Leader of the House alone as well, but I do feel that I must remind him—unfortunately he has gone out now, so let me remind his colleagues—after the somewhat self-righteous speech that he made, that it took the NP 31 years to accept the inevitability of recognising Black trade unions, 37 years before they accepted that the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act were not preserving White civilisation in South Africa, and 38 years to accept the permanency of Blacks in urban areas. It is only now, almost 40 years after the NP has taken power, that they are really recognising—although they are doing very little about it—the need for political rights for Blacks who live outside the Black homelands. It took 40 years before these ineluctable facts were accepted by the NP. Therefore he need not be so self-righteous about the CP. They may be slower thinkers; they are also slower movers. However, the NP has no record for speed in this direction either.

I want to remind hon members that it is just on ten years ago—in the budget debate—that I warned this House that a menacing campaign had commenced in the USA and was gathering momentum; that the campaign had already been very successful in isolating South Africa, both in the sporting and cultural fields, and was now aimed at the economy in order to pressurise US companies to disinvest from South Africa, to persuade states, cities and universities to divest from companies doing business in or with South Africa, and to persuade the US Government to impose sanctions against South Africa. I might say that all these efforts were directed against the apartheid system and not against South Africa per se.

I warned then that unless fundamental changes were introduced by this Government, and unless the Government desisted from its more offensive practices of detention without trial and forced removals, the campaign would not only achieve success in the USA, but would also spread and intensify elsewhere, affecting our relationships with other countries as well. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must converse more quietly while the hon member for Houghton is making her speech.

That, of course, is exactly what happened. I may say that any ameliorating effects that might have been achieved by some of the reforms mentioned in the House by the hon member for Jeppe on Friday have been totally obscured by the scenes of ongoing violence in the townships and increasingly oppressive measures taken by the Government, culminating in two states of emergency and the detention of thousands of people without trial in the Republic.

Doing business in or with the Republic is just not worth the candle any more for American companies. The hassle factor has become much too great. As we all know, about 100 US firms, some very large and others not so large, have already withdrawn from the Republic and more are considering doing the same thing. Cities and states have divested from companies doing business in or with the Republic to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. The possibility of widening the scope of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act which was passed by Congress last year is, I believe, on the cards, and the same applies to actions already taken by the Commonwealth and by the EEC against the Republic.

Now you are confirming the massive onslaught we are always talking about?

This is not a massive onslaught. Most of it has to do with what this Government does or does not do.

Despite all the warning signs I detect a state of euphoria permeating the ranks of Government members. This was epitomised by the starry-eyed, optimistic speech made by the hon member for Germiston last week. The CP, of course, is simply noisily defiant about everything which is happening abroad and would happily retreat into its White homeland and revert to an 18th century subsistence economy. That would suit them very well indeed. To them anything would be better than having to face the integration which is in fact inevitable.

What factors have encouraged this optimistic outlook? I believe they are the rise in the price of gold, the feverish activity on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and recent reports in the Press that the sanctions campaign in the US is running out of steam and that the Commonwealth countries are seeking remedies other than sanctions such as increased aid to the Frontline States.

Do you believe that the Prog policy will satisfy the outside world?

I shall answer that question in the course of my speech.

Then, too, there is comfort to be found in the fact that although South African exports to the US have decreased by 45% according to the latest figures, the Republic’s overall trade figures appear to be up—due, I would say, more to the weak rand and not to the volume of exports or the fact that alternative markets have been found or that ways of sanctions-busting have now been successfully implemented.

There is also the very satisfying and comforting conviction that what South Africa has done before she can do again—the prime example being, of course, Armscor. We are always being told that despite the mandatory arms embargo instituted against South Africa by the United Nations in 1977 this country has survived and has effectively overcome that embargo and has, in fact, become an arms-exporting country. What we should remember, however, is that there was no cost factor involved in the establishment of Armscor. The sky was the limit as far as the availability of money was concerned. What should be remembered, however, is that if the Republic were to be denied access to all high technology from abroad, the cost of substitution would be prohibitive even if local expertise were available to achieve such substitution, which I doubt.

I have to say that I do not share the optimism of Government members and I do not relish the idea of returning to the ox-wagon existence as envisaged by the CP. I believe that 1988 is going to be a critical year for South Africa especially as far as our connections with the US are concerned. What happens there will undoubtedly affect our relations with the Commonwealth, the EEC, Japan and Israel. 1988 is the year of the US presidential election.

I believe distractions caused by Irangate and the Gulf crisis will not prevent the issue of apartheid from becoming one of the major factors in the US election campaigns. We will find that congressmen from both the Republican and Democratic Parties will vie with each other in proposing further punitive measures against South Africa. If a Democrat is elected president, not even a presidential veto will be forthcoming.

Sanctions will be tightened to strangulation point. That will make the task of Mrs Thatcher and Pres Kohl of West Germany even more difficult in withstanding pressure for further sanctions against South Africa.

And we should give in to that pressure?

I grieve to think of what the effect of all this is going to be on unemployment in the Republic. We are already faced with an enormous problem caused by escalating unemployment. It must get worse as the sanctions net tightens. According to Dr Ronnie Bethlehem of JCI there are 4,5 million people unemployed in the Republic at present. He predicts that if the existing situation of low economic growth—about 0,5% per annum over the first half of this decade—and the high population increase of nearly 3% per annum referred to by my hon leader continues, the number of unemployed will reach—and I hope hon members will listen to this—7,8 million by the year 2000 without sanctions. With sanctions, Dr Bethlehem reckons the number of unemployed will be over 9,8 million people.

And if we go for Black majority rule it will be even higher. [Interjections.]

By far the greatest number of these, will be unskilled Blacks. The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance (Dr G Marais) reeled off a barrage of figures on Friday to show that South Africa was coping with the present unemployment problem. [Interjections.] I wonder, does he believe that this Government, or any other government for that matter, would be able to cope with a highly explosive and dangerous condition created by such vast unemployment, especially in the absence of a proper social security safety net which we do not have in South Africa? It conjures up a picture fraught with danger, of growing urban unrest and increasing crime.

I believe this session should have been used as a blocking mechanism against further punitive measures against South Africa. Instead Parliament, as the hon member for Berea pointed out, has failed to indicate any intention of fundamental political reform and thus has provided no ammunition for those who oppose sanctions against South Africa in the United States or anywhere else.

Moreover, the state of emergency continues; at least 1 500 people are detained without trial; Mandela and his fellow prisoners still languish behind bars; and the Group Areas Act remains on the Statute Book.

I now want to answer the question of the hon member for Jeppe. The Government complains that it is faced with moving goal posts and there is some truth in this. I want to tell the hon member, however, that reasonable people, both here in South Africa and abroad, do not aim at reducing South Africa to a wasteland. That is the aim of revolutionaries only.

You could have fooled me.

Anything fools that hon member because he is such a fool! [Interjections.]

To me it is suicidal for South Africa not to take the necessary steps to avoid the sort of traumatic future that I am tracing this afternoon.

So we must give in to blackmail as well!

I believe that those steps are the abolition of legally entrenched race discrimination, the restoration of the rule of law and the extension of political rights to all citizens, with checks and balances to prevent the excessive use of power by the majority. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the House of Assembly witnessed a remarkable display this afternoon in that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Houghton spoke on the same afternoon. When one listens to the speeches of both hon members, it is almost unthinkable that they both represent part of the reality of the South African political scene. One would almost think that they are representative of different parts of the globe. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition represents a segment of the White electorate which accuses the NP of doing too much in the field of reform; of undermining the interests of the Whites by giving up and handing over all the rights to which they are entitled, to Black South Africans. The hon member for Houghton, on the other hand, accuses the NP of effecting reform on the basis of the standpoints it adopted 31, 37, 38 and 40 years ago. It is impossible to reconcile these demands of the two hon members, the hon member for Houghton and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

If one listens to their claims, and observes how each of them is encased in a dream world, it is understandable why they adopt the positions they do in the House of Assembly. The hon member for Houghton devoted the greater part of her speech to the onslaught in the international sphere. She mentioned the fact that years ago we were warned against impending disinvestment and that further steps against this country were being considered if we did not succeed in solving our domestic problems. What is the fundamental test one should apply, however? The test is not what demand is made by the international community; the test is what is attainable within the reality of South African political society.

If one notes that the demand made by the international community is none other than a Black majority government here and now, it is a demand we cannot meet. We are not indifferent to the demands of the international community, but if the demand is: “Mandela or Tambo in Tuynhuis; otherwise sanctions,” then we choose sanctions, because we think we can solve the problems of this country peacefully and press on by forming a bulwark of people to resist violent attacks on us. We are by no means indifferent to what the international community puts to us, but our reply is that we in South Africa will do what the inhabitants of South Africa demand of us. In the final instance we shall do what we ourselves place on the agenda—what South Africans place on the agenda—and we shall not give in to a demand by the international community.

No one believes you!

I hear the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke saying that no one believes me. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke is the last person I would ask to believe me. The fact of the matter is that he must go and see what the demands of the international community are, and what our reaction is to their demands. He will then realise that I am merely stating the truth here.

We have two arguments in particular with the PFP and the hon member for Houghton. That hon member is of the opinion that if we were to abolish detention without trial, we would find favour in the eyes of the international community.

Of course you will!

Of course that is not true. It would only be seen as a meaningful step in the eyes of a group of people. What are the internal consequences, however? The internal consequences are that we believe that this security situation—as intolerable as we may find detention without trial—cannot guarantee the safety and security to which the inhabitants are entitled. For that reason we introduced a state of emergency, and detention without trial is one of the elements in the Government’s arsenal in maintaining law and order in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The mandate the Government received, is a mandate to continue to maintain the safety, peace and security of all the inhabitants of South Africa. One cannot look at this in isolation, since we are also striving to extend the reform processes in an imaginative and dynamic way.

In the first instance we steadfastly believe that one cannot build this country’s future on discriminatory practices. One cannot deny or take away anyone’s rights, and for that reason we believe we are leading South Africa along the path of power-sharing and consensus.

It is no use shouting that we will not be able to scale down the polarisation that exists in White politics with the usual rhetoric. We shall have to demonstrate that power-sharing is attainable and that we can ensure the safety and security of all our inhabitants by means of that peaceful process.

We are absolutely convinced that this process is the only path along which we can lead South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I listened to the hon member for Krugersdorp, and there was nothing new in the scope of his speech. It was yet again a question of his inability to reconcile the CP on the one hand and the PFP on the other. He should not attempt to do so either, because we are so diametrically opposed to one another that we shall never find common ground. However, the governing party is trying to sit on two stools and is eventually going to fall between them.

I should like to approach the matter I want to touch on from another angle. As I understand it, the Government is seeking a solution for what it calls a unique situation in South Africa, which is the only one of its kind in the world. It says that a unique solution must be sought for that unique situation. It has apparently not actually found that solution yet, and it must sit down at a table to find it. The Government’s approach in respect of this situation is that we are ostensibly a White minority group in this country, and that we are an undivided South Africa.

According to them everyone must acquire equal political rights in this country. This statement implies that South Africa is in no way unique, particularly when it is compared with Africa. We have innumerable examples in Africa of a similar situation. We can start with the French in Algeria, who were a small minority group compared with a large Black majority group. The same situation existed in Mozambique, Kenya, Angola and Rhodesia. How did the world view this situation? They saw it as a White minority group which wanted to entrench itself in a privileged position and wanted to continue ruling. The world considered this to be inexcusable and morally indefensible.

The arguments of the Whites in those countries were that if they did not have a say in the government of those countries, the economy would collapse and after that there would be no question of political freedom, and chaos and famine would prevail. All these arguments were advanced and proved correct, but in spite of this the situation continued to exist, and the Black man insisted on and acquired the power in those countries.

As far as the world is concerned, there is quite simply no acceptable situation in which a Black majority is prevented from making use of the only weapon at its disposal, namely numbers. This gave rise to a battle cry and a psychological onslaught in those countries, and the answer came from their side. The purpose of the onslaught was to achieve a system of one man, one vote. Then efforts were made by the minority group to seek answers. In those countries efforts were also made to allow the Whites by means of constitutional manipulations to retain their right to govern jointly. It was also argued that a strong defence force could prevent such a take-over. That situation simply indicates that the situation in South Africa is by no means unique.

How is South Africa seen by the world? The world sees South Africa in the light of apartheid, and as far as the world is concerned apartheid means a White minority governing a Black majority. Put another way, if a small White minority governs a Black majority, one has apartheid. That is why the NP is not achieving any success when it says that it is moving away from apartheid, because the world attaches a different connotation to the concept of apartheid from that attached to it by the NP. That is why they achieve no success when they make an offer to share power, because there is no moral basis on which they can tell the world that they will share power on their own terms with the Black majority. The NP either has terms or it does not. After what we have heard today, it seems to me that certain terms still exist, but they are not feasible ones.

The Government’s policy is placing a weapon in the hands of the enemies of the country because the policy is not defensible on moral grounds. Their policy is the weapon being used against us. As is the case elsewhere in Africa, here we have a White minority which wants to share a land with others and still wants to retain its controlling power.

The only really important difference between us as Whites in this country and the other Whites in Africa is that we have our own indigenous Afrikaner people in this country. We are not colonists or settlers. We originated here and were born here. Here we developed our own nature and our own character. The Afrikaner as a people is recognised throughout the world. The Afrikaner people fought a war. Its existence is recognised. The UN recognises the rights of nations, but not the rights of groups. The Lusaka Manifesto of 1969 also recognised an Afrikaner people in this country, with a right of existence in Africa.

I therefore maintain that the people in this country are being deprived of the only weapon they have in their arsenal when the Government’s policy turns our people into a mere group and no longer a people. [Interjections.] The Whites in South Africa are indissolubly linked to the Afrikaner people. If the Afrikaner people does not survive, the other Whites who are seeking their own exclusivity in this country will not survive either.

There are those persons who do not understand this, as is apparent from the speeches of the hon the leader of the PFP and the hon member for Houghton. They do not understand the concept of a people. It no longer even exists for them. It is not in their thoughts. It does not exist in their vocabulary.

That is why a man can stand up here—as the hon the leader of the PFP did—and talk about these concepts as if the word “people” is something from another world, something which does not exist, or something which has no foundation. We want to tell hon members that this is not true. For those persons who merely exist as fortune seekers, who merely exist as profiteers, there is no foundation. They do not need a people, and that is why they can argue as they do.

As far as we are concerned, far more is at stake. Our entire existence as a people is at stake, and there are those persons who want to move in this direction with us and who view this situation in this light. We need our own land to ensure our existence. We need our own government as a basis on which to build. Only then can we exist. There is nothing which is not feasible in what we want to do. All that is missing at the moment is the desire of hon members on that side of the House to continue to exist as a people.

We on this side have no problems. Hon members must not see in us lightning conductors for their own shortcomings, and criticise us about our policy. That is all they are doing. These hon members must examine their own consciences to see whether they still have the will to survive. Is mention still made of an Afrikaner people, because if hon members no longer mention this, they will not survive with us in this country. We want to tell them this. We on this side of the House have this desire and the people outside are also joining us in increasing numbers. They also have the desire to survive, and that is why we will continue with this matter.

We will fight with our own idealism the ideal and the idea of foreigners who want to take us over, and it is on that basis that we will defend our cause.

Mr Speaker, it is very interesting that the hon member for Ermelo becomes so excited about his and his party’s Afrikaner orientation, and this afternoon I want to tell him that I and many hon members on this side of the House do not take a back seat to that hon member and his party when it comes to being emotional about being an Afrikaner. [Interjections.]

There is one thing I am sure of, and that is that we cannot resolve the future of South Africa merely by laying claim to being Afrikaners. We can only resolve the future of South Africa if we have enough confidence in our status as Afrikaners to sit around a table with other people and negotiate man-to-man on the future of South Africa. I think that is the difference between the NP and the Official Opposition.

We are the party that has been saddled by the voters of South Africa with the responsibility of working out a future dispensation for this country and its people. The directive we received from the voters was not a directive of a sectional nature. It was an all-inclusive directive, which cut across the boundaries of language and culture and peoples in this country. However, the point is that the directive we received was to negotiate a solution whereby everyone living in this country could live together peacefully and could build a better and more prosperous South Africa.

In this regard, as a representative of this side of the House, I do not want to run away this afternoon. The NP is prepared to accept its responsibility. The NP is prepared to accept the challenge of South Africa, and if we have to we will even drag the hon member for Ermelo and his party with us to overcome those challenges facing us and find solutions to our problems.

The hon member for Losberg must not talk so much. He owes this House an apology, and I am referring to Hansard: House of Assembly, Friday, 5 June 1987, col 928, in which he reacted to the speech of the hon member for Uitenhage and made the following statement:

This is an absolute distortion of the truth, because the proof is sitting right in front of me that the CP did not win in De Aar. In the second place, if the hon member for Losberg was suggesting that they had won at the polls in De Aar, that is also incorrect. In De Aar 1 098 Nationalists voted, as against 786 CPs. [Interjections.] In Noupoort, the other railway area in that constituency, 304 people voted for the Nationalists as against 273 who voted for the CP. [Interjections.]

I am quoting these figures because the Official Opposition is out to prove and is claiming that they enjoy the support of the workers in South Africa. This afternoon I want to tell the hon members of the Official Opposition that we cannot lay claim to the support of certain sectors of the people in this country in the hope that we can muster political support in this way and as a result of that political support achieve success in the negotiation process. When we act as the Government, and when the Official Opposition speaks on behalf of their supporters, they must accept one thing, namely that we talk across the broad spectrum of voters who voted for us in this country.

I want to come to a second point, namely that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred here to the policy document Kerk en Samelewing. He said that one could deduce from this that partition was in line with that policy document. I do not want to become involved in a dispute about Kerk en Samelewing this afternoon with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, but the point I want to make is the following: Why is there such utter confusion…

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member, but earlier in his speech he referred to a deliberate or calculated distortion of the truth by an hon member. Did I hear the hon member correctly?

Yes, Mr Speaker, that is correct.

The hon member must please withdraw that, because I consider it to be unparliamentary.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

I should like to know from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition why there is such utter confusion amongst his supporters. On the one hand he gets to his feet in the House this afternoon and tries to justify his policy of partition with reference to Kerk en Samelewing, whereas on the other side of the spectrum a group of his people have broken away from the Church to establish a new church. I feel that before the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition wants to prescribe to us in this House on negotiation and on bargaining on a future direction for South Africa, he must go back and speak to his own people for a change and see whether he can not put them on the right road. [Interjections.]

A great deal has been said by the Official Opposition about an own territory for the Whites. I want to refer to the speech of a certain Mr B J Viljoen, at the Sabra Congress, at which he said the following:

He went on to delineate an area, most of which is in the Cape. He said the PWV area was out of the question and could not succeed. He said the following about the delineated area:

That is what Mr Viljoen said. I am not suggesting that the delineated area is the area the CP have in mind, but one thing is certain, namely that I cannot believe that this Mr Viljoen would have stood up at a Sabra Congress and suggested an area with the least viability as a possible core area for a White homeland, as a solution.

This afternoon I want to tell the CP one thing. They can argue as they please, but they must stop giving the people in the Transvaal rural areas the idea that that area will be a core area of a future White fatherland in South Africa.

This cannot work. That party owes it to South Africa and to the voters of South Africa to tell us once and for all by what methods they will achieve majority occupation in those areas they would like to consider a core area for White South Africa. I believe we can go forward to meet the future and can even hold a discussion with one another across the floor of this House on a future dispensation. However, then we must learn at least to treat one another logically and correctly.

Mr Chairman, you will forgive me, but this tribal war that we are witnessing this afternoon unfortunately leaves me somewhat cold and I am very reluctant to interfere. I have always believed that when the big guns of the Afrikaners aim at each other, it is best for the “Engelse” like me to duck. [Interjections.]

Occasionally I have read with interest the columns written by Mr Ken Owen in Business Day. He will be pleased to hear that some of what I shall say this afternoon is at least influenced by what he has written from time to time. In principle the PFP cannot support the proposed postponement of the general election in 1989. Ironically, however, after the NP the main beneficiary of the postponement—if it happens—will be the PFP.

Of course, because you are going to lose half of your seats.

We need time to regroup, to reorganise and to reconsolidate our support base. [Interjections.] There is also much work that we must do in the educative field among our electorate. [Interjections.] There are, for instance, many misconceptions among our supporters which must be dispelled.

They understand exactly!

The first misconception is that unless negotiations with the ANC are started at once—and this is certainly desirable—revolution is imminent and virtually certain. This, in fact, is simply not true.

Since the very first outbreaks of violence in Soweto 11 years ago, the NP Government has faced everything that an incensed urban Black populace led by a heavily Marxist influenced party and supported by a somewhat cynical outraged world opinion, has thrown at it; and the Government has survived. However, White South Africa has not survived undamaged. We have sacrificed and are sacrificing much of our parliamentary tradition. We are continuing to lose irreplaceable talents and skills. We have conscripted our young men into a fighting machine. Our civil liberties have been violated and almost destroyed. Our living standards have dropped and our vision for the future has clouded over. However, despite all this, White South Africa—as people have come to call it—has survived. Moreover, it has done so without using much of its available weaponry. Almost all of its whole armoury has been held in reserve.

Let us look at the balance sheet. There is no overall martial law. Newspapers, although severely restricted, come out daily and people travel without permits. Food and fuel are not rationed. Foreigners enter and leave our country freely. No effective curfew exists. Protests have been inhibited, but then a heavily chloroformed White South Africa long ago discarded this form of activity as a means of political expression. The army intrudes into our civil life, but this is hardly noticed in everyday life except in the townships.

Tell us about the neck-lacing.

That hon member must listen carefully to what I am saying.

Certainly world pressure upon South Africa has been a failure. Sanctions have led to a loss of Black jobs and have led to more profits to a leaner, smaller-based South African business community. Inflation and sanctions together have bred poverty and something else that was not foreseen, viz much Black anger being overtaken by the apathy of Black hunger.

The emerging Black trade unions will not provide the answers. Instead of gaining in power through prosperity they will lose members as unemployment bites. They will lose influence as unemployment takes root. Jobless Blacks will queue for appointments at the doors of the SA Police and the army, and will help to uphold an order with which they do not agree. However, they will queue for the jobs.

ANC bombs will not bring down this Government, neither will they bring this country to its knees. They will, however, serve to promote an even more authoritarian government than we know today. Already we have a State President who brooks no opposition—he is a leader who keeps his party together by a mixture of patronage and fear. [Interjections.] The news is managed and the SABC is kept firmly to heel, sometimes by means of personal intervention by the hon the State President, as we saw only a few weeks ago.

What is worse is that much of the country and its hapless population have been consigned to the delegated, undemocratic and corrupt control of the Sebe’s and the Mantanzima’s, and also the Mphephu’s of Venda. KwaNdebele will soon follow that miserable path. It is a myth that the Government’s actions or lack of action will lead to stability.

On the other hand, violent revolution does not lead to stability either. Certainly violent revolution in this case will not lead to true liberation. Revolution and violence will lead rather to greater counter-violence, internecine strife—epitomised by the rampage of the Witdoeke—and yet more misery.

What messages are available to us from all of this? I am convinced that in all that is happening in our country there are messages to be absorbed by all of us, no matter what our colour, affiliation or political beliefs may be. To the supporters of the violent struggle the message is that that struggle will fail. While the violence continues, though, it will breed an even less tolerant, less flexible, and more neurotic society. While the revolution will fail, however, the cause of freedom for all should not and need not fail. That cause must succeed. Once the country can be diverted from arming itself, and once the siege of the townships has ended, then I believe that unstoppable pressures will provide keys to a new society in our country. Opportunities abound. Education will open doors to better jobs, to the professions, to the Public Service, to the trade unions, to new political platforms, and even to power. A violent revolution in South Africa is not necessary. Given the dynamics of our country the moral revolution makes radical and permanent change inevitable.

There is a message for those who support the UDF, the passive partner of the ANC. The UDF has little to show for its years in the struggle. Most of its leaders, or at least some of them, are in jail. While the UDF therefore decides and elects to stay politically pure and aloof, others will dictate the future in our country and the UDF will remain impotent. The message for the UDF is that it must get involved, even in the structures within the system it hates so much. If it does, new and democratic processes will be released which will for ever kill this ridiculous, racially focused tricameral system. There are, however, no quick fixes and no short cuts to a non-racial democracy.

In South Africa today there is a message for the White Nationalists and the White NP as well. It must be obvious to hon members sitting on the other side of the House that reform has come to a grinding halt. Of new ideas there are precious few. The hon the State President I honestly believe can take the NP no further. He has run out of both steam and of credit.

You will still see a lot of steam!

The message is this: Do not think of planning for the post-apartheid era. Rather start with something more practical, something more imminent. Think rather of planning for the post-P W Botha era. It is no big secret that already an informal backbench organisation within the NP is canvassing support for the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs as the next State President. [Interjections.] Of course the backbenchers who are doing this will not have a clear field, and the internal NP struggle is hotting up. [Interjections.] The NP parliamentary Whips are the agents of the hon the Minister of National Education in this campaign. They obviously wield a lot of influence within the party. [Interjections.] I do not know… [Interjections.]… I know what is going on in that party, but I do not know who is going to win. I do not know who is going to win this struggle.

Order! The hon member may continue.

I do not know who is going to win the struggle, but I do know that it is good that the process of leadership renewal has started. The power struggle has begun. It should be hastened, for once the change of leadership is a fact, a new beginning can be made with greater energy in trying to come to terms with what is needed to bring peace, racial harmony and prosperity to our country.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sandton has the cheek to say that this party on this side of the House has a leader who can only keep his party together by fear. [Interjections.] The hon member speaks for a party whose leader does not even attempt to keep his party together by fear or any other means.

Any political observer who has watched the PFP over the past 12 months has seen the complete paralysis which has overtaken this party, a paralysis which started before the election of 6 May.

It is quite clear that many hon members of that party agree with the financial editor of The Natal Mercury who, a week or so ago put the question:

That is the PFP—

It is very clear that many hon members of the PFP have already adopted that stance. Is there any other explanation why the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central last year or earlier this year said that if he had to choose between Mr P W Botha and Chief Buthelezi, he would choose Chief Buthelezi?

It is quite clear here that it is not a question of the personalities involved, but that the hon member and others like him…

That was very personal.

… have chosen the cause of Black nationalism.

I need not dwell again upon the already well-known salutes we have seen on the part of hon members of the PFP, the conferences in Dakar etc. Only in the past few days have we seen another example of the way in which the PFP no longer creates the impression of a coherent, purposeful, parliamentary party, but of one whose members simply go in all directions.

When Mr Graham McIntosh, the ex-MP for Pietermaritzburg North, ducked his military duties, he grabbed the headlines in no uncertain fashion. Over the weekend in the Durban newspaper the Sunday Tribune he again referred to his call-up as being racist and being aimed only at Whites. There again we find the indication of choosing the cause of Black nationalism.

However, that is not all. Talking about the PFP as a divided party, a party running in all directions, I was absolutely astounded and could not believe my eyes—but it is here in front of me—about what that gentleman has to say about a frontbencher, a leader in his party, and about the patriotism displayed by him, namely the hon member for Yeoville. I believe Mr McIntosh is still a prominent member of the PFP and a PFP leader, because after all it is in that capacity that he is quoted by the PFP supported newspapers.

He said—it is here in the Sunday Tribune of 20 September:

The hon member for Yeoville was gentleman enough to say that he would rather ignore that unbecoming remark. I think that that is magnanimous of him.

What is the attitude of the leader of that party and the hon member for Yeoville, however, about this sort of remark coming from a senior member of the PFP? The very thought that I could say anything like this about one of my party’s leaders and still believe that I could be welcome in my party, is preposterous.

Is it possible that a party with prominent members who get rid of this sort of muck can sit in this House and then come and tell us that they profess to be an alternative government for this country?

Mr Chairman, very little time is left for my speech, but I want to react briefly to the speech made by the hon member for Krugersdorp. He made the statement that the NP will comply with the demands of the South Africans internally, but not with the demands of the outside world. I want to say that there is no fundamental difference between the demands of the people in the country and the people in foreign countries.

†The people internally want the vote, and they want full citizenship rights and to be able to participate in the highest forums of this country. The NP has denied the people that down all the years.

Do they want Mandela in Tuynhuys?

Leaders of the Black people have said that they want Mandela out of jail. [Interjections.] The international community say they want Mandela out of jail. There is no difference between those two demands. The NP has consistently refused to meet that demand.

Business interrupted in accordance with Rule 47.

Mr Chairman, three hours from now members of our party and I hope to be in the air on our way to the IMF conference.

I therefore want to make haste, so as to try to do justice to hon members who participated in this debate. Firstly, I want to extend my sincere thanks to all hon members who participated. At times it was a very interesting debate. Like any other debate, it did have its drab patches. In particular, I want to say thank you very much to hon members on this side of the House who always tried to do justice to this debate, which is a very important political and economic debate at the end of the session.

Once I have dealt with a few of the matters hon members have raised, I should like to quote from a statement I hope to make available to the media. It is a statement which is simply meant as a guide to our delegation. I am therefore going to try to react briefly to the contributions of hon members. I shall do so seriatim, in the order in which hon members spoke.

The hon member for Barberton referred in the first instance to the question of 3% growth. The hon member for Lichtenburg, who is not in the House at present, also referred to this. The hon member for Lichtenburg said that I had made an announcement that the growth rate would be 3%. Firstly, that is not true, and secondly, if anyone makes an announcement that the economic growth rate is going to be a particular percentage, he should have his head read, as former Minister Hendrik Schoeman used to say.

What I did say, is that the indications are—I invite hon members to go and look at the Budget Speech—that the growth rate will be 3%. The year is not over yet. We shall await the final verdict of time. The 3% is not a target which the Government or the Minister of Finance or the Department of Finance sets. We do not have a regulated, controlled economy in that sense of the word. In one’s fiscal and monetary policy one makes room for handling a 3% growth rate. I hope this will be the last time we debate about this unnecessary thing.

If it were possible for me, the Government or the department to predetermine the growth rate and to ensure that it happened, we would not have chosen 3%. We would then have chosen a growth rate which would help to solve the country’s problems properly, since to anyone who knows anything about the country, 3% is an inadequate growth rate.

My hon colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister Dr G Marais, dealt with the whole question of inflation, and I do not want to refer to that any further.

That hon member, as well as the hon member for Yeoville—he apologised for not being able to be here this afternoon—spoke about a “Buy South African” campaign. With all due respect to the hon member for Barberton, what I could not understand was that in the course of three paragraphs he first said that he was concerned that our industrialists did not have the capacity to meet a large demand, and that we would therefore have to import and that the current account of our balance of payments could consequently be jeopardised, and a few sentences before or after, he spoke about a “Buy South African” campaign. With all due respect, that is rather contradictory.

No, no.

Oh yes. Now just listen to that brilliant economic comment on this matter. [Interjections.]

A second-hand car dealer.

I want to tell the hon member for Barberton that the Government and I share his basic sentiments regarding a “Buy South African” campaign. Now the fact of this matter is that by far the greater part of our import account is spent on capital and intermediate goods. The things which are visible to us and which irritate us the most, are imported cheese, chocolates and that kind of thing on the shelves. It is true that these are particularly visible, but we must see to it that we do something more in this regard than merely encouraging our people to buy our own products. We have specific international agreements which regulate this.

The only point I want to make is that even if we were to buy far more South African goods and limit the ordinary consumer goods we import to a minimum, our import account, seen as a whole, would still be very large because we import capital and intermediate goods. I have no argument with him about the sentiments, however.]

I just do not know whether it is really worth spending millions of rand on such a campaign at this stage, when the exchange rate really makes it prohibitive to buy certain imported goods. We have no argument with that, however; the Government has supported it before.

The hon member spoke about the growing deficit before borrowing. Of course! After all, a deficit before borrowing grows each year with the additional budget, because usually one’s estimates of revenue are reasonably close. However, if one’s estimates of revenue were a little high because the economy as a whole did not grow as one expected, or the revenue was so segmented that it did not produce the revenue, one’s deficit before borrowing is also going to grow by that smaller amount. However, I am not at present in a position to be able to tell the hon member by what amount it is going to grow. All I can tell him is that we are going to be doing our first revised budget at the end of December, and our second revised budget at the end of January, and that we are trying very hard to keep that amount as low as possible. A country is a living organism, however, and we cannot for the sake of being accurate, in other words, to get the deficit before borrowing exactly right, suffer major damage in respect of other things that arise and which we have to finance. We have to make a choice. Either we have to endure criticism because we were inaccurate with our predictions about what has to be financed during the course of the year, or we have to neglect to finance those essential things. We must maintain a healthy balance between the relative damage we are doing.

I want the hon member to consider—this is my personal standpoint of which I am trying to convince my hon colleagues—that as far as State expenditure is concerned, we are doing this country more harm by trying to finance additional services than by forgoing certain services. I want to ask hon members on both sides of this House, as well as the other Houses, who are so quick to stand up during a discussion of the Budget and ask for some service or another in their constituencies, to bear this in mind. Hon members must assist us by telling us what we should forgo if we have to introduce or extend a particular service in their constituencies. The purse is empty as far as additional expenditure is concerned. We in the Treasury are no longer prepared to incur additional expenses without further ado. It requires all-round financial discipline to get the finances of this country onto a sound footing. This is a harsh reality we shall all have to accept. In the process we shall have to scale down certain services and dispense with others. There should at least be unanimity about that across the floor of this House.

The hon member spoke about the customs union. That matter is being renegotiated at present, and I do not want to say more about it, since it is sub judice.

The reason our partners get more than we do is simply that there is an escalation clause. The purpose of that escalation clause was to bring about a better distribution of economic development. The hon member for Sea Point spoke about “the dismal failure of the decentralization policy”. We can say what we wish in this country, but if we are not going to get a better balanced economic development, we are going to have insoluble economic, social and constitutional problems. The simple truth is—it is a reality, and it is as plain as a pikestaff, but the PFP refuses to see it—that the PWV area cannot be developed any further in a meaningful way. The most important problem we are facing is that there is no water. Already we have to go and buy water in Lesotho, and take water from the Tugela River.

The policy of decentralization makes immeasurable and indisputable sense in South Africa. The agreement with regard to the customs union has to be negotiated on the basis that it makes a contribution to a better distribution of the economic development in South Africa. This was in fact its original purpose. We cannot simply shoot it down. This customs union agreement is of enormous benefit to our industrialists, who can export free of charge to the customs union partners. It is a very important benefit for members of the customs union to be able to export to one another without additional levies. In that respect the RSA in particular enjoys a very big advantage.

I thank the hon member for Gezina, who emphasised a positive approach. With regard to the growth rate he rightly said the private sector also has a big responsibility to do its share, so that we can achieve our goals with regard to the creation of employment and the accompanying economic growth rate.

†The hon member for Yeoville asked what the results in connection with privatisation and deregulation were. We published the White Paper on deregulation and privatisation but when it comes to privatisation in South Africa, we do not have a clear-cut case such as in the United Kingdom where one has to deal with a situation where many successive Labour Governments nationalised certain interests. We do not have a similar situation. When we look at privatisation in South Africa—and I agree with him that we must make South Africa a nation of shareholders—we must go about it in a very circumspect manner. I do support his basic idea, however, that we should be a country of shareholders.

*I thank my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, for his excellent exposition of the question of inflation and unemployment, as well as his handling of the question of exchange control. I do not wish to add anything to what he said.

†As usual, the hon member for Wynberg made an outstanding contribution to the financial and economic debate. I want to thank him for it and I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments he expressed. [Interjections.] He said, and quite rightly, that it is not the function of the State to create jobs, but to create the climate for the private sector to do so. There is nothing to replace that innate ability of the market to allocate resources optimally. Once that allocation of resources has taken its course I believe the private sector will have the ability and the motivation, on the basis of profitability, to see that that allocation of resources is used optimally on the basis of good management and the pursuit of the profit motive.

Why not also leave decentralisation to market forces?

If the hon member wants to ask a question, why does he not stand up and show some decent parliamentary manners? [Interjections.]

I agree with the hon member for Wynberg that we possess the wealth and the ingenuity to solve our own problems. We are doing that and, given time, history will recognise the massive contribution that many people have made towards getting the South African economy through what is certainly its worst period in our entire history.

*I just want to say one thing to the hon member for Lichtenburg. I assess his information and the contributions he made in these debates on the basis of a report which appeared in Die Patriot. In that report this authoritarian statement is made:

They actually quote the IMF—

They then go on to say:

What has happened here now? The IMF has a complicated procedure whereby it converts a country’s gross domestic product into dollars. It also provides a number of recorded data to make countries comparable with one another. The gentleman who wrote this report, however, saw fit to use not the 1982 exchange rate, but today’s exchange rate for his calculations.

The simple Std 6 arithmetic applicable here, is this. If one had a relatively strong exchange rate against the American dollar in 1982, compared with today’s exchange rate, one could have had an enormous decline in one’s GDP, in terms of dollars, even if there was a real growth in one’s GDP, in rand terms. We have always said that this was a difficult period in our history, and we do not deny the simple truth that our per capita income declined from R2 063 to R1 950 in that period between 1982 and 1985. That is a drop of 5,5%. The CP’s arithmetic gives them a figure of 25%, however. That man also says that their calculations now give them a figure of almost 30%, and that this will continue. I want to tell hon members something about the man who does these calculations. I am not going to mention his name, but it is blazoned abroad that he is a big economic boffin whose photograph adorns the CP’s publication and who writes their economic commentaries.

Another sour-mouth economist!

This man has done these calculations and made these comments now, but they are in accordance with what I had published in our propaganda journals and about which I argued in this House earlier this year. It is either stupidity or deliberate disinformation.

Now I want this gentleman, who wrote this report with great fanfare, to solve the problem for us. He must tell us why he works with figures in such an amateurish way. If he works with figures in such an amateurish way, I am very pleased that we are rid of him, because he used to be in our department. [Interjections.] However, if perhaps his calculations were correct, and he allowed himself to be misused by the CP in this way, I am even more pleased that we are rid of him.

I have experience of economists within and outside the department. Last week we again had an intensive two-day discussion with economic advisers from outside. I have experience of the integrity of economists. I just want to say that this man must either start studying his arithmetic at primary-school level again, or he is allowing himself to be misused for deliberate disinformation in a way that points to a lack of integrity. He must tell us in the next edition of Die Patriot which of the two he is doing.

After this man had already left the service on early retirement, he came to my office and said that he wanted to tell me something. He then admitted that it was really he who had been writing in the HNP newspaper under a nom de plume the previous few years. [Interjections.] This is the man who writes this kind of thing.

I want to reiterate that if the CP misleads the voters like this in respect of quantifiable, verifiable facts, and tries to put them on the wrong track, we must know what diabolical things they try to do with the voters in respect of those policies of theirs which cannot be worked out arithmetically. Just look at what they try to make one believe concerning the question of the removal of numbers.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has a numerical problem with the Black people. He measures their voting power… [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I have very little time. The hon member can put that question in writing in Die Patriot. I shall reply to him in writing in Die Patriot, but then he must just explain to us whether what is going on here is a case of stupidity or deception. [Interjections.]

It seems to me that the CP has trouble with numbers, because their hon leader has problems with the number of Black people. He now has to try to reduce their numbers artificially, since he does not see his way clear to sharing power with them. Therefore, come what may, their numbers have to be reduced so that the Whites can be in the majority. He told us his story today.

It is a very good story.

That hon member says it is a very good story. Shame! [Interjections.]

The hon leader had better also tell us next time what is going to become of the millions of Black people who live outside the areas he wants to excise and who are always going to be part of those rural areas.

Having achieved what was practicable—and how many times have we said that we have no intention of undoing it—we had to depart from the traditional path. The reason for this is that if one sees that one’s formula has worked up to a certain point with four independent states and six self-governing national states, but there is still a problem, one does not try to do this fancy footwork in an effort to play with numbers. One faces the problem and tries to solve it in a responsible manner. [Interjections.] After all, the simple truth is that the Black man is and remains an integral part of the total economy of this country. Their children were born on farms, and are not all going to become urbanised. That story of linking up is not going to work. If it was going to, why would we have abandoned it as a policy? After all, we would have implemented it. [Interjections.]

You do not have the will to do it!

The hon member for Losberg reminds me of someone I used to have dealings with. Hon members who have been in this House for some time will recall that there was a fellow here who, like the hon member for Losberg, also knew everything. In the Lobby he was known as Botterbulletjie. [Interjections.] His party also used him as a know-all in interjections, and to make a useless little speech now and then, just to fill a gap or two. [Interjections.] The hon member for Losberg still has a great deal to learn. Nevertheless, he appears to be an expert in every field. Sometimes I sit here and listen to him. I want to tell him to go and study the history of the “botterbulletjies” who preceded him. Perhaps then he will come to his senses. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, I do not want to go into detail concerning what the hon member for Vasco said. He made a very constructive speech. He said that we must continually keep an eye on bureaucracy. I am convinced that we are taking a firm hold on this matter by way of a number of processes that are in progress at present. Nevertheless, this goes hand in hand with the reduction of services. Unless a department and its Minister are prepared to tailor their services to a budget on a properly financed basis, we shall never succeed in overcoming the problem of overspending, and the question of a bureaucracy which is far too big, is never going to be solved. We must therefore display the courage and discipline to fit the services to the framework of what we can afford—making provision too, of course, for proper staff numbers and proper financing to run them. I think this links up with the statement the hon member made in this regard.

†The hon member for Germiston made a good point and I shall refer to it in the remarks that I shall be making shortly. He said that well-housed, well-educated people do not join revolutions. I fully concur with that.

He also said there was a boom!

I just want to remind the hon member for Berea that I concurred with that particular point made by the hon member.

That there is a boom now?

Mr Speaker, let us leave that for the moment. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Germiston said that his experience was that the boom was already on the streets and that it may not yet be reflected in the figures. Now that is obviously a subjective observation and I should like to comment on it when I have the figures at my disposal.

As far as the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is concerned, I want to leave him in the capable hands of the hon member for Kuruman who not only dealt very adequately with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, but did so with a style and aplomb which I think did justice to the front bench on our side of the House. I think the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central will agree that what the hon member for Kuruman said was certainly a jewel and we shall all remember it. It was quite a fine piece of parliamentary debate.

What are your thoughts about releasing Mandela?

I have often said that the whole question of Mr Mandela’s release or his continued imprisonment is a delicate matter which is best handled by the Head of State. It is not for me to comment from the sideline as far as that particular sensitive issue is concerned and that is a line of policy which I think the hon member would do well to consider himself. [Interjections.]

*I am not going to react any further to the hon member for Kuruman, but I just want to say that I greatly appreciate the fine way in which he contributed.

The hon member for Newcastle made an important statement, and the hon member for Losberg takes it amiss of me for giving him something of a dressing-down (’n bietjie in sy hare inklim).

There is so much of it! [Interjections!]

Mr Speaker, I just want to tell the hon member that I did not mean it personally or literally. [Interjections.] I am sorry; I did not mean it personally.

The hon member for Newcastle spoke about the redistribution of income. I was sitting in this House one day when the hon member for Losberg said that a progressive tax scale was not a redistribution of income. To the best of my judgement, he said that a progressive tax scale—in other words, a scale in terms of which one’s ability to pay means that with every consecutive notch of one’s income, one gradually pays a higher rate on that notch—is not a redistribution of income. Did I hear the hon member correctly that day?

[Inaudible]

He says the redistribution of income is a Marxist principle. He did say that, but he does not want to admit it. If one therefore puts two and two together, one finds that he is denying a basic economic truth, since a progressive tax scale, as used in all civilised countries of the world, is a redistribution of income. True, in terms of modern tax science, it is in fact a very clumsy way of doing it, and the Margo Commission also says that when one truly redistributes income, one should not do so on the income side, but on the expenditure side.

What do the Marxists say about that?

I have no better answer to the hon member’s question about Marxism than that of the hon member Dr Boy Geldenhuys. On Friday he made a speech which everyone who thinks about these matters should keep on their bookshelves and read from time to time. It was a reference speech.

The hon member for Losberg speaks of the redistribution of income as a Marxist principle, and he is also opposed to the regional services councils. They are therefore also Marxist now! The simple truth is this. The implication of what he is saying is that if, for example, he had the power to tax Whites completely separately, in terms of their philosophy, he would not have a progressive tax system. He says it is a Marxist principle. He therefore rejects the idea that one pays income tax according to one’s means. Now, he is shaking his head in denial.

It just surprises me!

I want to ask him to rise and tell us what the CP’s policy is on progressive tax scales and the redistribution of income by way of income tax. He must tell us how he sees regional services councils.

The simple truth is that the purpose of regional services councils is to assist areas which are underdeveloped. One has a concentration of business undertakings in the White areas. One has light, and even heavy, industries around the White areas, which have made a tax contribution to the coffers of the White local authority over the years. If one accepts the principle that one cannot sleep whilst one’s neighbour is hungry, and if one wants to get a region as such on a balanced footing, where the difference in people’s standard of living would not be such as to cause tremendous tension, unrest, and so on, one must look at that region on the basis of creating a source of tax which can channel development capital to where it is most needed at that moment. The moment one begins doing this, one gives communities and areas a boost. Eventually they will become self-supporting tax entities, which will ultimately make the tax burden distributed in their favour swing back to the other side. That is the simple truth of this matter.

†I come now to the hon member for Berea. The hon member has a long association with public life and he has involved himself in the cardinal issues of policy and politics in South Africa for a very long time. However, I wonder if he really understands how much harm he is doing this country when he continuously denigrates any recognition of the diversity of South Africa and labels it apartheid. [Interjections.]

The hon member’s reaction shows that he has no appreciation whatsoever of what he is doing. There is no system in South Africa that will escape the reality of group protection and group representation. As long as that is labelled apartheid, internationally speaking South Africa will not move away from that final doom that has been pronounced over it on account of apartheid. [Interjections.]

If that hon member moves in international circles he will know that one is continuously bumping up against this condemnation of apartheid. [Interjections.] Let us take a simple example. The Australians have a small minority of Aborigines, yet they have a Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Now is that apartheid?

They all vote.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member tries to argue himself out of it, but the blatant truth is that the Australians felt it necessary to appoint a specific Minister with a specific brief to look after the interests of the Aborigines. Secondly, they had the audacity to make it a White Minister. They did not even try to find an Aborigine to do it, but found a White man to do it. That is the kind of apartheid which is tolerated internationally, outside of South Africa, while we are being forced in another direction.

They vote! They are on a common roll and…

Order! I think the hon member for Houghton has already made her speech this afternoon. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Jeppe pleaded for unconventional trade in the sense that we seek trading partners where we have not sought them before. I do not wish to comment on that, since I think he himself understands that this is a sensitive matter. However, the world at present is such that in a country like Australia, the Labour Party was able to pass a resolution at their conference in Tasmania in July 1986 which reads:

†That is the masquerading of morality for the sake of protectionism.

*We have to retain and promote our export trade, and we often have to traverse unconventional paths in the international world.

I thank the hon member for Primrose most sincerely for an excellent speech. It is a speech one would also do well to go and read again. It is interesting, however, that if one looks at the CP’s economic policy at the level the hon member did—I made a note of that here—one finds that all nine of them deliberately ignored him at that stage and sat and spoke to one another. [Interjections.] Yes, that is precisely what happened.

I think the hon member for Langlaagte replied in full to the hon member for Parktown. I cannot do better, and I have no additional comments on that matter.

The hon member for Sasolburg put his finger on a very tender spot, as did the hon member for Springs, concerning the question of whom is represented in this House by the hon member for Bethal, and even the hon member for Ermelo. That is a very interesting question the hon member asked. If they were to decide to leave because they argue with one another, like the right-wing radicals do from time to time, the hon member for Sea Point will be sitting in the bench of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition again.

You are a left-wing radical.

The hon member for Carletonville apologised for not being able to be present. All I can say about his speech, is that he said one true thing. He said that in all industries everywhere there was a majority of Blacks, and he referred specifically to the mining, chemical and steel industries. If this is true, as far as I am concerned it only goes to show even more clearly how unworkable the policy of the hon member’s party is.

†I was amazed that the hon member for Pinelands said the Minister of Finance should look at other means to assist the aged and that there had been no reply from the department with regard to certain applications that had been made.

I asked you to speed it up.

I want to mention two things.

Even in this House we have said repeatedly—it has also been reported in the media—that we terminated the Granny Bonds on the basis of honouring our commitment to the financial sector, and that we were looking at it with a view to try to accommodate it in next year’s Budget. We have said that over and over again but the hon member does not know about it.

Secondly, we issued a specific statement which was widely published that there is a backlog as far as the processing of applications is concerned. We are dealing with it as rapidly as possible. We made a special announcement in this regard. I am not prepared to appoint more staff for the period in which we are handling that particular issue. [Interjections.] He said something that is true: Political stability is dependent on a high economic growth rate. As far as that is concerned I concur wholeheartedly with him.

*I thank the hon member for Langlaagte for his contribution, which dealt specifically with a matter to which I have already referred.

†The hon member for Sea Point failed to distinguish between business confidence and confidence in the political situation. Obviously there is an interplay and an interdependence between these. However, when Dr Gerhard de Kock refers to confidence—I am trying to get the attention of the hon member for Sea Point—…

He is listening.

… primarily he has in mind the confidence that the investor sees. The investor, first of all, looks at return on capital, possible profit, repatriation of his capital, repatriation of the proceeds, and so forth. That is primarily what is meant when businessmen and economists talk about confidence, and not in the first place what is going to happen with the Group Areas Act or something like that. [Interjections.] Obviously there is an interconnection and I have conceded that but the hon member failed again to distinguish between the confidence of the businessman and confidence in the political situation.

I also want to say to him that he owes an explanation to this side of the House. Where did any one of us ever, either through a pronouncement or through a gesture or through some action, imply that we considered it “too bad” that the economy did not grow? That is a terrible indictment! That is a terrible accusation that he is levelling at us.

I find it sad that a former Leader of the Official Opposition should avail himself of that kind of completely unsubstantiated remark in a debate such as this. If it were possible for this Government to inject whatever was necessary into this economy tomorrow to get it to grow at a higher rate, we would do so. [Interjections.]

Spell out your political plans.

The fact that we cannot do it because we do not have the economic means at our disposal to do it, does not mean that we have the attitude of “it is too bad”. [Interjections.]

You are running away from the political consequences.

I take it amiss of the hon member for having availed himself of that kind of terminology. [Interjections.]

I think my hon colleague replied adequately as far as his other questions are concerned.

In reply to the hon member for Mooi River, as far as diesel is concerned, we are talking about rebatable diesel. It does not only concern farmers. There are many cases. Does he really want me to stand here and cite case so-and-so and case so-and-so?

What action have you taken?

There are many cases that we have lost in the Supreme Court. Recently we had three cases in court—my hon colleague there is much more au fait with this situation because he deals with it on a day-to-day basis—where it was impossible for us to get a conviction or where we were battling to get a conviction.

If a person who uses rebatable diesel, at the time of ordering it, designates the purpose for which he wants it and in the process of running his business of whatever kind—farming, fishing or whatever—he deviates and we discover it, it is impossible for us to get a conviction. He just stands up and says he is sorry, it was a mistake.

If, however, on the basis of having used it, he makes a declaration about the purposes he has used it for, then, if there is a falsification, we will experience no problem in obtaining a conviction. It is as simple as that.

May I ask the hon the Minister whether he has given any consideration to what applies in England in regard to the different colouration of diesel for agricultural purposes and other purposes? [Interjections.]

One of my colleagues here wants to know if the hon member is a racist because he is referring to diesel of different colours! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, my colleague and the officials went into this very thoroughly. As far as my knowledge goes, various uses are being fuelled from the same tank. My hon colleague also looked at the Australian system. I can give the hon member the assurance that we try our best to make it as simple as possible with the least amount of hassle for everyone, but we are not prepared to deviate from the fundamental viewpoint that in the case of a transgression, we want the information in order to obtain a conviction. If we can overcome that particular problem, and at the same time simplify the system, we are only too willing to do it.

*I referred briefly to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Really, there is one thing that is troubling me a great deal, and that is that the impression is being created that because we no longer support the CP’s kind of partition at this stage, we now want to undo what has been achieved with separate development thus far.

That implication is a lie, and I do not think it is fitting for someone like the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to use that untruth by implication. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it right for the hon the Minister to say that the implication of a statement made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is a lie?

It is in order. The hon the Minister may proceed.

In conclusion I just want to make this one statement. I would like…

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Minister said that a statement my hon leader made was a lie.

No! No!

Yes, Sir. He said that my hon leader was implying that the NP was no longer standing by their old policy, and that was a lie. He made the statement that what my hon leader said was a lie. He did not say that it was a lie by implication. He said my hon leader’s implication was a lie.

Order! The hon the Minister said that the implication was that it was a lie. I have already ruled that I find it in order. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Therefore it was a lie.

Order! What did the hon member say? The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Before referring briefly to a few matters in connection with the IMF story, I just want to put one question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. If we look at the map—he speaks of exchanging land and says that the further addition of land to the national states will take place on the basis of the purchase of land—I want to ask him to start enquiring amongst his colleagues whether they are prepared to enter into an exchange transaction. I think Barberton is particularly well situated for incorporation into KaNgwane. However, I am sure the hon member for Barberton is not at all enthusiastic about that exchange. [Interjections.]

What will you give me in exchange for it? [Interjections.]

He has supplied the answer himself!

With a view to next year’s debates, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may as well go and ascertain which of his hon colleagues are prepared, in the interests of the people, in the interests of survival and all the fine things about which they so piously preach to us, to relinquish the White areas adjacent to those Black areas, or where there is a relative concentration of Black people, for example, Morgenzon, in an exchange transaction. We could then speed up this matter considerably. If we knew now what they are prepared to give up, we could incorporate that information in the process of negotiation in which my hon colleagues who are negotiating with the Black people are involved. [Interjections.] We could send it to the commission immediately, and the commission could proceed with this process of negotiation at once. [Interjections.] After all, they think they are going to take over the Government. At the stage at which they think they are going to take over the Government, we could already have made a lot of progress in doing their job for them. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I cannot help thinking back to 1984, when I had the opportunity to go to the IMF for the first time. Hon members will recall that at that stage we had to take extremely drastic monetary measures to curtail that mini-boom which arose from overspending at consumer level, because there were problems with the current account of our balance of payments, and with inflation. At that stage those monetary measures, as supported by ensuing fiscal measures, were really prohibitive, and they demanded a very high price. Fortunately they were shortlived, since by the end of 1985 the bank rate had already dropped from 21,75% to 13%. 1984 and after could therefore be typified as the period in which we implemented our restrictive demand management. We went to the IMF under difficult circumstances at that stage. Subsequently we implemented a restrictive fiscal policy in our Budget. However, it became clear that the economy would not get under way on its own, and in September 1985 we once again voted R500 million, on the basis of both taxation and socioeconomic expenditure, to see whether we could not get the economy moving. We could describe that year as a low point. In that period the growth in the gross domestic product dropped to a meagre 1,5%.

That was a turning point, however, and expectations clearly improved from then on. Shortly before we left for the IMF in 1985—the following year—we had to go and face our banker friends, as a result of the unilateral debt standstill arrangement we had to announce. That was very difficult for us. That unilateral debt standstill announcement had a political flavour, within the context of a large-scale withdrawal of capital from the developing countries. However, it was very difficult for all of us to approach the IMF with a debt standstill having just been announced.

Then, in 1986, we took further steps to stimulate further what was by that time already evident—a budding growth in the economy. We gave particular attention to the so-called supply side at that time. We put tax measures into effect which brought relief, the 7% surcharge was abolished, we introduced a 5% rebate on net personal tax, and we increased tax-free earnings on interest. In the middle of 1986, however, it was clear once again that after all we had done monetarily and fiscally, the economy was still moving forward relatively shakily, and that it was very sluggish.

We consequently pumped a further R1,2 billion into the economy, again by way of a stimulation package. Once again it was on the basis of tax relief on the one hand, and specific goal-oriented socio-economic expenditure on the other. The result was a modest increase in the gross domestic product. It was very little, but eventually we had a firmer base on which our economy began to function.

As far as that time is concerned, it is also important to note a general slowing down in world-wide economic circumstances. We have just received the 1987 report of the IMF. It is interesting, because here we have the world’s best professional people, and their estimate of economic growth was not accurate either. This slow-down in the growth of the industrial countries has undoubtedly also had an effect on our growth, and we cannot simply ignore the negative effects of this, together with certain internal factors which are still causing problems.

What is particularly interesting, is that in certain European countries unemployment has stabilised at a high level of 10,7% of the labour force. The Budget deficits of the central governments of the developing countries amounted to an average of 4,5% of their GDPs in 1985, and increased to 6,2% in 1986. Once again, this was a trend we could not escape, and it therefore happened here, too. The same also applies to the three largest industrial countries, which are also experiencing deficits on their balance of payments.

Our Budget this year was once again a continuation of this twofold policy of ours, and we therefore again placed considerable emphasis on tax relief—the so-called supply-side economics. Although a number of months still remain, there are certain indicators that are very positive. We are encouraged by this, but we do not want to become ecstatic.

An exceptional feature of our economy has been the current account of our balance of payments. In 1982 there was a deficit of R2,2 billion, whereas last year a surplus of R7,2 billion was shown. Over the past year we have doubled our foreign exchange reserves, from R3,2 billion to R7,1 billion.

Thus there are a number of economic indicators, as we leave this evening for the IMF conference, which place us in a much better position than we have been in any previous year in which I was privileged to attend. Our debt problem has been solved for the time being, and a great deal is happening in our economy which indicates to us that we are on the right road and that we must continue to build cautiously in order to achieve a firm economic growth rate which we believe is around the corner. After all, a modest growth rate is better than no growth at all.

We must therefore commend all those who do their share in various fields of our economy. Our present economic circumstances are encouraging, and show that our economy has resilience and is adaptable. If we can get our country stabilised in the economic, constitutional and social spheres, our economy can only prosper.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.