House of Assembly: Vol2 - WEDNESDAY 13 FEBRUARY 1985


as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, relative to the Alteration of Provincial Boundaries Bill [No 31— 85 (GA)], as follows:

The Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning having considered the subject of the Alteration of Provincial Boundaries Bill [No 31—85 (GA)], referred to it, your Committee begs to report the Bill without amendment.



Committee Rooms


11 February 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.


as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Communications and Public Works relative to the Post Office Service Amendment Bill [No 36—85 (GA)], as follows:

The Standing Committee on Communications and Public Works having considered the subject of the Post Office Service Amendment Bill [No 36—85 (GA)], referred to it, your Committee begs to report the Bill with amendments [No 36a—85 (GA)].



Committee Rooms


8 February 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.


Mr Speaker, on Saturday, 2 February 1985, a Black policeman was found dead in Cradock. It was reported that he had been stoned and stabbed. This, Sir, was murder, and our sympathy has to go out—and does indeed go out—to his nearest and dearest.

Obviously, Sir, nothing angers a policeman more than the death of another policeman. This is the case in every country in the world.

On 5 February I went to Cradock and I took an affidavit as follows:

On Sunday, 3 February, in the afternoon, I was sitting on the lawn of my house and a police truck repeatedly went past my house. It passed, made a U-turn and returned. There were about five boys sitting outside a fence next door. The truck stopped, and police threw stones at the boys from the back. The boys ran into the yard and the police then shot at the boys. This was at about 18h30. One of the boys appeared to be wounded and struggled to my house supporting himself against the wall. When the wounded boy was at the door of my house a shot was fired and the boy fell into the house. Three policemen—two Coloured and one White—then came from the truck. I asked them what they were doing at my house. Without answering me the White policeman hit my face and then struck my chest with the butt of his gun. The Coloured policemen are known to me, and their names are Denis Taai and George Vrolik. I fell down after being struck and was told I must shut up or they would lock me up. The police then dragged the wounded boy to the truck, where they left him on the ground. H was then put into a landrover and driven away. I do not know the name of the wounded boy but his blood is still on the wall of my house and his hat is in my possession. There are two small holes on one side of the hat and a big hole on the other. I think he was dead when they dragged him away.

Mr Speaker, the violence in Cradock does not justify the breaking of the law by those whose profession and duty it is to uphold the law. I also have other affidavits that support the affidavit I have just read out. I have no doubt that violence has indeed occurred at Lingelihle township at Cradock. I have seen burnt-out houses; I have seen burnt-out cars. I have personally seen a pillar of smoke and flames erupting from a house in Lingelihle. It is the duty of the police to control that situation, but none of this justifies the incidents I have described, incidents caused by the very people sworn to uphold law and order as their duty.

Thosi Skwiyiya was 15 years old and wounded. I have personally seen the blood on the wall of the house where he supported himself as he struggled to the front door. Yet he was shot dead when patently he was incapable of escaping or harming anyone, let alone a group of policemen who were armed.

In 1983 all told 211 people were shot dead by the police and a further 368 people were wounded. These are the hon the Minister’s own figures. I am convinced from a number of affidavits I have read that the figure in respect of the wounded should be higher. Many who are wounded get treated privately because they fear arrest if they should go to a hospital. I saw in Cradock a 15 year old boy with pellet marks on his body.

The Cradock affidavits are not isolated. There are other affidavits from other areas. I am glad to see that the hon member for Uitenhage is here, because the next affidavit comes from Uitenhage.

I have lived in Kwanobuhle for about five years. I am not employed. I live with my husband who works at Goodyear where he has worked for 13 years. I have four children, the first-born is 13 years and the youngest five years. It was on Friday 11 January—I was at my home cleaning my room. It was during the afternoon before 2 o’clock. I was called by the noise outside the house—it was the noise of guns. My own children and two visitors were playing in our yard in front of my house. Our house is separated from the road by a hedge. I came out the front door and saw that the children had been shot. My youngest daughter, Nomfundo, aged 5 years, was wounded on her back and on her left leg, my other daughter, Andiswa, aged 7, was wounded on her back. At the exact time the children were shot, they were playing in the yard of my neighbour. Once they were shot they came quickly to my house.

I should like to point out here that these were seven and five year old children. The affidavit continues:

My two daughters, on reaching my house, had both fallen down in our yard. I quickly took them inside the house. The hippo had already passed by this time. There was no-one else in our street. The buses do not come down our street and I do not know of any reason which may have prompted the hippos to come. I took the children to Dr Mzimba, who examined the children, removed the birdshot and explained that they had suffered a shock.

I have other affidavits of children being shot, and affidavits relating to the death of two more people in KwaNobuhle. In total I have 13 affidavits from Cradock and 14 from Uitenhage. I have dealt with two incidents, but there are others. Will the hon member for Uitenhage, whom I respect, be prepared to visit Lingelihle with me, to see these people and perhaps to take more affidavits?

Finally, there are incidents that occurred in Port Alfred and on which a file has been prepared by the hon member for Albany. He has said to me that in his view the people he saw were decent, simple people. He should know, as he was brought up on a farm in the Eastern Cape and speaks their language fluently. I shall read from only one of the 19 affidavits in the file. I believe that this file has been handed to the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

After 5 pm on the afternoon of 6th November 1984, the deceased had come home from work. I told him not to go into the street, as there was trouble with the police. While I was in my house, he then went to the house next door. The police arrived at this time. They kicked in the door and searched the house. They found a smaller boy hiding under a pillow. This was a lodger’s child. They accused him of being a rioter and pulled him outside where they beat him. After he had told them he was 10 years old they let him go. They then re-entered the house and pulled the deceased out from under the bed. They questioned him outside the house where I could hear, and accused him of being a school-child. This he denied, saying that he had just come home from work. They then dragged him behind the house after having beaten him. There was a White policeman and a Black policeman whose name is Mcanda. They wore camouflage. I heard the White policeman say: “Skiet hom” I could see them all. The Black policeman then shot him with a gun. He fell. The policeman then shot him again on the ground. The White policeman then went to fetch the van. They loaded him in the van and took him away. I was told by the police on the morning of the 7th that he had died. There is another witness …

I do not believe that these incidents justify the kind of laughter and the behaviour we have heard from the opposite benches. [Interjections.] I have read these three affidavits to demonstrate that such incidents are not isolated but that they are widespread in the Eastern Cape. In fact, we are waiting for more affidavits from Fort Beaufort. We all know of the Catholic Bishops’ report in regard to police actions in the Vaal Triangle. We also know that some R88 000 was paid out in compensation as a result of the activities of Koevoet in South West Africa.

We know that there is violence perpetrated against peaceful people by inciters and terrorists. We need and welcome police protection from that violence. It was a tragedy in 1984 that so many Blacks were unable to complete their education and were prevented from writing their exams, but nothing can justify the actions attributed to the police by these affidavits. The type of episodes described do not prevent violence, they spawn it. The hatred and bitterness grow, and anger is the best recruiting agent for those who advocate the violent overthrow of our society.

I do not believe that a departmental investigation will serve in these cases. Firstly, comrades-in-arms tend to stick together and, anyway, there is already an investigation going ahead as a result of the Catholic Bishops’ report. Secondly, as a result of these affidavits, my hon colleague from Albany interviewed a senior police officer in Grahamstown and requested that police activity be kept to a minimum, yet further allegations of police violence were received in connection with a funeral held subsequent to that interview.

I therefore call on the hon the Minister to appoint a judicial commission to inquire into these allegations of police conduct in the Eastern Cape as a matter of extreme urgency. [Interjections.] I urge him to appoint a judge from the Eastern Cape Division of the Supreme Court, and I hope that we could have a report laid on the Table of this Parliament before the end of this session.


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


No, the hon member may not.

I would recommend that the judge be allowed to appoint an investigatory team to assist him with the inquiries. We will hand to that judge all the affidavits we have taken.

There have been too many allegations of this nature. They besmirch the name of South Africa and they diminish each and every one of us. In the Eastern Cape there have been incidents which have caused us South Africans tremendous damage. Steve Biko was an example of this.

A full and open judicial inquiry will settle this issue one way or the other. If the result vindicates the police, then we will be relieved and we will most certainly accept happily the verdict. If it does not, then the hon the Minister must resign so that we can have action to stamp out this kind of violence so that the police can be looked up to and respected by all sections of the South African community.


Mr Speaker, please permit me in the first place to make use of this opportunity to thank most sincerely all the hon colleagues who made it possible for me to serve in this House. Up to now, in the few weeks I have had occasion to be present here, I have become deeply aware that serious affairs are dealt with here, affairs decisive for the future of this country. It is a privilege and an honour to be part of this, and in this spirit I shall also attempt to make my humble contribution in this House.

In the second place I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor, now the hon member for Primrose, who filled this post with distinction. I am thankful that he has not retired but is present in merely another capacity. I also wish him well in his new role.

It is a fact that South Africa is richly endowed with reserves of almost every mineral required by the world—strategic minerals, precious metals—which are necessary to the world and without which it would have difficulty in surviving at present.

Today, however, I wish to beam the spotlight at another reserve, one which I believe is not exploited to its full potential, and that is the reservoir of goodwill which exists, a reservoir of goodwill within the country and also abroad.

I was privileged to spend a number of years abroad in the service of the Department of External Affairs and there I found a vast reservoir of goodwill towards South Africa, mostly among people who had already been to South Africa, who were in contact with South Africa or South Africans—businessmen with interest in South Africa, tourists who visit South Africa, and yet another group comprising politicians, newspaper editors and academics who feel they have ideological ties with South Africa because our orientation is anti-communistic and western.

It is my view that it is essential for us not only to exploit this reservoir of goodwill, but also to supplement it. From the nature of the case the Government and the Department of External Affairs carry out a great task as far as this is concerned. It is impossible for these bodies, however, to accomplish this enormous task alone. It is the duty of all South Africans, when the opportunity presents itself—as they travel abroad or receive visitors from overseas—to convey the realities of South Africa. We should keep these people informed of developments to counteract the negative propaganda which is disseminated about South Africa.

Within the country there is also a reservoir of goodwill that we should exploit. Last week the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs announced in the House that large quantities of money, time and manpower were being spent exploiting mineral reserves. Is it not equally important for us to expend manpower and time in exploiting the reservoir of goodwill that exists?

It is a normal human tendency to involve oneself only in one’s own small, restricted circle. I ask myself: Do we in South Africa know one another? I am not asking whether we know of one another’s existence. Do we know one another? Do Whites know Coloureds and Blacks? Do Blacks and Coloureds know Whites? We have to find ways of exploiting this reservoir of goodwill, because at the other end of the spectrum there is a powder keg. If we cannot succeed in utilizing the existing goodwill to the full, those forces hard at work and actively engaged in attempting to ignite this powder keg will find the opportunity to do so in the void that we leave by not utilizing this goodwill.

We also heard from the hon the Minister of Finance this week that we would experience difficult times now and in the future. At such difficult times one tends to be so blinded by immediate problems that one does not take cognisance of the power of faith, hope and ideals. Goodwill engenders hope. In my opinion there is no force greater than hope. Is it not true that starting with Jan van Riebeeck, the Huguenots, the 1820 Settlers and the Voortrekkers, our forefathers were filled with hope and imbued with ideals? Had that not been so, what would have happened to this country? Also within the historical context one may mention names of hopeful and idealistic people.

I shall close with the words from D J Opperman’s great poem: “Gebed om die Gebeente”. In this poem Gideon Scheepers’ mother tells the story of her son and closes with this prayer:

… dat ons as een groot nasie in dié gramadoelas
met elke stukkie sinkplaat en met elke wiel,
en wit en bruin en swart foelie agter skoon glas
ewig U sonlig vang en na mekaar toe spieël.

That, too, is my wish and my hope for this country.


Mr Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate the hon member Mr Schoeman heartily on his maiden speech. It showed sound preparation and he made a significant contribution on an exceptional subject. His extensive experience and his background, of which we are aware, makes him a good member of the House, and we shall look forward with great interest to future contributions from him. For this reason we wish him and his wife a long and happy career in Parliament.

It is obviously true that over the past few years, and especially in the past few months, elections have been held in South Africa. The Opposition has therefore had considerable opportunity to show itself as the alternative Government for this country. Nevertheless it is strange that since yesterday we have had three maiden speeches from the Government benches, and this once again shows that the South African people have great confidence in the Government. [Interjections.]

The Minister of Foreign Affairs recently quoted from a newspaper cartoon and I wish to repeat this. I am also sure that no one here is unaware who the person is who is being referred to here. The cartoon referred to a certain person and the caption read:

Ek sê wat ek nie bedoel nie. Ek bedoel ek sê nie wat ek bedoel nie. Ek sê dat ek nie sê wat ek bedoel nie. Ek bedoel ek bedoel nie dat ek gesê het wat ek gesê het nie. Daarom sê ek weer dat ek nie bedoel het wat ek bedoel het toe ek gesê het wat ek nie gesê het nie.

I believe we all know to whom the reference applies. Very true to his image, during the no-confidence debate the hon member for Waterberg—and I am grateful that he is present this afternoon—in no way disappointed us regarding our expectations of him. In that debate the hon member quoted from a statement the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was purported to have made. For purposes of my argument I wish to refer briefly to the chronological sequence of events.

On 28 January 1985 the hon member for Waterberg took the floor. He began quoting the hon Minister and made very sure the latter was listening to what he was saying. The hon member said the following (Hansard, Monday 28 January 1985, col 64):

I hope we do not again receive the reply the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning gave us earlier. He said: …

While the hon member was quoting what the hon the Minister had said, he obviously noticed that the hon the Minister was not giving him his full attention and said:

I should like the hon the Minister to pay attention to his own words.

After that he continued quoting.

According to his own approach the hon member therefore quoted directly what the hon the Minister had supposedly said. Immediately afterwards the hon the Minister wrote a note to the hon member in which he requested the source of reference of the quotation. Surely that is a reasonable request, because if one quotes somebody here, one has either to furnish the source of the reference, or if one does not do so and is asked for it one has to provide the person quoted with the information.

The hon member for Waterberg’s reply to the hon the Minister’s request was that at that stage he did not have access to the source of the reference; in other words, it was at his disposal but he did not have it with him. That is fair enough too, because it may happen that one writes down a quotation while preparing one’s speech without retaining the source in one’s possession. The hon the Minister, however, again wrote a letter to the hon member for Waterberg requesting that the source of the reference be placed at his disposal the following day. That started the treadmill. The hon member wrote to the hon the Minister regarding the first quotation, referring the hon the Minister to the Hansard of 23 May 1984 and providing the column number as well. When this was followed up, however, that quotation was from a speech made by the hon member for Bryanston in which he had quoted the hon the Minister. This is very peculiar. That must be why the hon member for Waterberg is constantly making notes— he obviously cribs references from others. [Interjections.]


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


No, Sir. There is sufficient opportunity for the hon member to speak after I have finished. [Interjections.] The second quotation …


Mr Speaker, may the hon member refer to an hon member on this side of the House as having cribbed? If you possibly still recall your student days, you will know that the word “crib” has a specific connotation.


Yes, I remember it very well. I do not believe that it can be interpreted as such in the context in which the hon member is using it here. The hon member may proceed.


Regarding the second quotation used by the hon member for Waterberg, he claimed to have asked you, Mr Speaker, for permission to give a personal explanation in the House. We should quote this personal explanation to the House as it is also most enlightening. The hon member says, inter alia, in his personal explanation (Hansard, 29 January 1985, col 115):

At the conclusion of my speech yesterday afternoon I quoted what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning supposedly said on occasion. I then criticized him on that score as well.

Then he says:

I assumed in good faith that it was correct. Shortly after that, hon colleagues here next to me …

And this is very important—hon members should bear it in mind:

… focused my attention on the fact that the words I quoted were not the precise words of the hon the Minister.

Please note, this is the conviction with which the hon member intended saying he had quoted the hon the Minister correctly but not exactly. His colleagues therefore compared the source of the reference with the hon member for Waterberg’s quotation and found that he had not quoted the precise words of the hon the Minister. Some colleague or other of the hon member for Waterberg therefore had that source of reference at his disposal. How else could they have drawn his attention to this and informed him that he had quoted the hon the Minister correctly but not in his precise words.

It is very interesting that the hon member for Waterberg is very quick to take up his pen if one quotes him incorrectly. Shortly afterwards Beeld carried an article and the hon member quickly wrote to that magazine to complain, inter alia, that they did not know exactly what it was all about. A day or two later Beeld said in a subsequent article:

Dr Andries Treurnicht, leier van die Konserwatiewe Party, het Beeld daarop gewys dat hy wel in die Volksraad aangedui het vir watter verkeerde aanhaling hy die agb Minister van Staatkundige Ontwikkeling en Beplanning, mnr Chris Heunis, om verskoning gevra het.

Beeld continued:

Dr Treurnicht wys daarop dat hy in sy verskoning aan Minister Heunis spesifiek na die aanhaling aan die einde van sy toe-spraak die vorige dag verwys het.

That is not the point at issue, however. The point is the source of reference we should like to obtain from the hon member for Waterberg.

On 1 February, during the same no-confidence debate, the hon the Minister confronted the hon member for Waterberg. He again asked—and this was four days later— whether the hon member for Waterberg could furnish the source. All he received, and I wish to quote from Hansard again, col 387 …


One of the old UP men.


Mr Speaker, it is very interesting that those hon members should refer so spitefully to old UP men. I merely wish to point out that hundreds of old UP men are serving in their branch committees throughout the country. [Interjections.] How is it that they make those people feel quite at home, while I as an old UP man am not granted the right to decide for myself to which political party I wish to belong? They will have to reply to this point I am dealing with this afternoon because they will not be permitted to get away with that. It will not help them to raise smoke screens. I wish to quote from Hansard, colomn 387, of 1 February 1985. The hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was speaking. [Interjections.]


Order! Hon members of the CP must not allow their feelings to be whipped up in this way.


Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Kuruman permitted to call the hon member for Turffontein a dirty old UP man?


Order! Did the hon member for Kuruman say that?


Mr Speaker, I did say so. In the good old days we spoke of dirty UP men and if the hon member takes it amiss, I withdraw it.


The hon the Minister then said the following:

I want to ask the hon member now whether he now has the correct reference source for his last quotation available.

The hon member replied to this, but one could not hear him because Hansard indicates that his answer was inaudible. The hon the Minister obviously heard him, however, because he then said:

The hon member says it is general knowledge. I then want to ask him which hon members of his party drew his attention to the fact that he had not quoted me entirely correctly.

[Interjections.] It appears to me the hon member for Kuruman is very keen to make a speech. I challenge him this afternoon to participate in the debate as he is apparently the hon member for Waterberg’s colleague who put him right. Let him furnish us with a straight answer to the accusation we are levelling at his leader and at him in particular. After the hon the Minister had put the question I quoted, the CP was in trouble. By way of interjection the hon member for Kuruman then said: “Make your own speech.” The hon the Minister then said:

I am asking the hon member in all fairness—certain codes are applicable in this House—which of his party associates drew his attention to the fact that he had not quoted me absolutely correctly?

To this the hon member for Kuruman answered: “That has nothing to do with you.” Now, more than 2 weeks later, I again ask the hon member for Waterberg if he has that source of reference available.


I shall be speaking just after you.


I hope that the hon member will then answer the questions I am putting to him. I now ask the hon member’s so-called colleagues which one of them put their leader on the right track regarding the source of reference. Which one of them has the courage of his convictions today to admit that he put his leader on the right track or told him that he was wrong? Not one of them. They will not admit it because there is not an hon member on that side who has the source of reference at his disposal. The hon member asked the hon Minister to pay attention to his own words. Later he said that at that stage he did not have the source of reference available. In his personal explanation he said that he had not quoted the exact words of the hon the Minister. I wish to assert that the hon member for Waterberg does not have a source of reference available. He himself concocted such a source and thought he could get away with it. The worst is that he presented it as being the truth. One simply does not quote someone if one is not sure that one is quoting him correctly. In addition the hon member’s colleagues attempted to cover his rear in the full knowledge well that they did not have a source of reference available. They are just as guilty as the hon member for Waterberg.


Mr Speaker on a point of order: A while back my hon Leader gave a personal explanation to the House. I am under the impression that he did it with your permission. He then said that what he had said at that time he had believed in good faith to be correct. The hon member for Turffontein now says that my hon Leader deliberately quoted something which was incorrect. I wish to contend, with respect, that the hon member, by implication, said that an hon member had deliberately disseminated an untruth. In my opinion what the hon member is now imputing to my Leader is unparliamentary and unseemly.


Order! I find that the hon member for Turffontein is at present making a detailed analysis of the exact circumstances which prevailed in the House. I do not think it reflects that the hon member for Waterberg deliberately told an untruth. The hon member may proceed.


Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Your interpretation is that a detailed analysis is being given, but if we recall the hon member’s words it appears that he has already made the analysis and arrived at certain conclusions. I believe these conclusions to be unparliamentary and unfair towards hon members of this House.


Order! I cannot forbid an hon member, during a debate in this House, to go into minute detail and to explain precisely, with the aid of quotations, why he maintains that a certain person’s facts were not correct. Were I to do that, I would completely smother any debate in this House. The basis on which debates are conducted is specifically that hon members may put forward everything which should be brought to light. The hon member may proceed.


Mr Speaker, the reason why we on this side of the House feel so strongly about the whole matter is that a quotation has now been recorded in Hansard, referred to by the hon member for Waterberg as being a statement supposedly made by a Cabinet Minister. Now one knows what will happen in future. The hon members of the CP will mount public platforms and use the newspaper Patriot to present this quotation as gospel to the South African electorate. This is the tragedy that has overtaken us in South African politics.

I wish to close by telling the hon members, including the hon member for Waterberg that we on this side of the House are not afraid of entering into debate with one another. When we debate with one another, however, let us do so honestly and sincerely. Let us weigh up one viewpoint against another and not proceed as the hon leader of that party was doing until we caught him out.


Mr Speaker, it has been a long time since anyone has done me such a favour as the hon member for Turffontein has. [Interjections.] Before I come to the point he raised I just want to exchange a few words with him.

Last year in this House I challenged the party to which that hon member belongs and said I would give R1 000 to the NP if it could prove that I said, in my speech on the occasion of the foundation of the Volkswag: “I am not talking politics, I am talking war.” The hon member, on 19 October 1984, in Griquatown, placed his signature on a document that confirmed that I had said: “Ek praat nie politiek nie, maar ek praat oorlog. Dr Andries Treurnicht; Stigtingskongres, Afrikanervolkswag. ” [Interjections.]

I think the hon member’s behaviour speaks for itself. I do not want to express any further opinion on it, but I think that he ought to know what I think about it.

The hon member makes a big fuss. He is now sitting there very snugly as a member of the NP. I do not begrudge him that. I am not here to talk about former United Party supporters. There are many former United Party supporters who are very devoted members of the CP because they are not integrationists, but stand for separate development. I am not running down the former United Party supporters. I do however, have a point to make when it comes to former United Party supporters who have switched and now accept integration politics. I do not agree with them at all. This is why I do not agree with the hon member for Turffontein either.

Now he sits there in another frame of mind, after having said the following about his present leader on 13 April 1972:

Ek wil sê dat God Suid-Afrika moet behoed teen die dag dat Suid-Afrika in die moeilikheid en die oorlog beland terwyl daardie Minister aan die roer van sake is.

The hon member seeks to cast aspersions on me here, but he must consider what he himself has said about the people whom he now supports. And I shall not even quote what he said about the hon Mr Marais Steyn.

The hon member quotes here what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not have the decency to quote a single word that I said, from statements I have issued. He came along afterwards and parroted the utterings of a frivolous journalist. This is what he did—he parroted frivolous journalism. Now the hon member comes and parrots it too.

I should like to go a little further. In this House we listened to a declaration by the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs. He made a statement here and gave an explanation that were accepted in this House without any outcry, argument or anything else. We accepted it and it was settled. On a previous occasion the State President, the then Prime Minister, stood up and referred, across the floor of the House, to something he had supposedly said about the hon member for Sunnyside. He said he had checked through his notes and discovered that he had made a mistake. He then tendered his apologies to the hon member for Sunnyside. The hon the Prime Minister gesture was taken as a magnanimous thing to do for a man in his position. We accepted it as such. There was no crowing about it. Nobody went into that answer.

What happened, however, after I furnished the explanation to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning? I referred here to words of his that I quoted. I said I had criticized him about them. I said it had been called to my attention that these were not the Minister’s exact words, I regretted that it happened and I apologized.

What happened then? My impression was that my apology was not only not accepted, but was flung back in my face. I think we should at least show one another the decency to accept a proffered apology. However, what happened? Not only was it flung back in my face but it was gone into further. It was, as if he had his heel on me and wanted to grind me further. [Interjections.]

There is something else we have experienced about which I want to express my strongest disapproval. Two days ago a youth programme was presented. It had nothing to do with political reporting. In that programme, however, the so-called sources that I had supposedly neglected to mention, were referred to. They were referred to in a youth programme. I object to that in the strongest possible terms. [Interjections.]

It was in an SABC youth programme. It was not an objection that I have against the hon the Minister. It is a youth programme that picked it up and, like some Springbok wing, wants to run with it. Is this how the SABC abuses itself? Does it regard itself as the NP’s henchman in that it has to score political points here? It has been our experience that hon members on the other side have said the most vicious things in this House regarding members on this side, and the following morning they are raked up in Monitor or in the Parliamentary Report. It is broadcast throughout the country as if it were the gospel. I have the strongest objection to this.

If programme leaders, such as those of a youth programme, must take part in the political game and must ask young people questions such as “Who did this?” and “Who is the member responsible for that?”, then I want to offer them a couple of very good questions that they can put to the country. The first is: Who took a document of State from the Department of Co-operation and Development and falsified it? A good question is: Who published the falsified document in a brochure? Another very good question is: Which political party is responsible for the brochure containing the falsified document? Another very good question is: Who broke a constitutional convention according to which collective cabinet responsibility exists? Another question is: What government would, without Cabinet approval, nullify a government undertaking—I am talking about the “Coventry four”? The State President said that he did it himself—just like that!

I should now like to come to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He reacted now in the way he reacted in the couple of paragraphs in which he dealt with this subject. He decided not to regard the matter as settled—it is his right to continue with it if he wants to—because in my opinion he made at least six mistakes in his treatment of the matter. At the end of the second paragraph, in column 388 of Hansard, 1 February 1985, he says:

… there is no such source.

There is such a source.

Secondly he says:

His hon colleague could not have drawn his attention to it…

My colleague did draw my attention to it.

Thirdly he says:

… because he does not have a source.

I do have a source. This is the third mistake he made.

The fourth mistake is his statement:

… that it was not an hon member on his side who drew his attention to it…

Who did then? The hon the Minister has just made four factual errors, not to say untruths.

The fifth mistake is:

In the first place the hon member’s refusal proves that he did not have a source from which he quoted me.

The sixth mistake that the hon the Minister made is where he referred to the hon member for Bryanston who was speaking at the time … [Interjections.]


Leave me out of it!


Never mind, never mind, don’t get panicky. “Hy verwys dus klaarblyklik na ’n aanhaling van wat daardie agb lid sou gesê het ek gemaak het.” The fact is, the extract was quoted by the hon member for Bryanston. He quoted the hon the Minister from a newspaper report in Die Burger of 24 February 1982. That is the source. That is what he quoted. The hon the Minister, however, made out that it was merely this hon member’s version. [Interjections.]


I am innocent, Andries.


Here is the report in Die Burger, I can show it to the hon the Minister.

I listened very carefully to the hon the Minister. I was under the impression that I had done the honourable thing by saying: I quoted something; I attributed that quote to the hon the Minister as though they were his actual words; my Chief Whip told me afterwards that they were not the hon the Minister’s own words. I though that it was the honourable thing to do to stand up here and to say: “Sir, I made a mistake; these were not the hon the Minister’s exact words.”

This, however, is not the end of the matter: The hon the Minister then claimed that I had stood up here and lied. He implied that no such source existed; he implied that I had stood here and lied. I made inquiries. This quotation was used during the debate of the Provincial Council of Transvaal by my colleague, Fanie Ferreira. It is in volume 209 of 1983, 1-7 June and the column number is 935.

I repeat that I said here that my attention was drawn to the fact that they were not the hon the Minister’s exact words. In other words, if I quoted the source, I have now qualified it and said that I am aware that even those words are not the hon the Minister’s exact words. I want to add, though: Those words, which are an account of the hon the Minister’s point of view, are a jolly good rendition of his words! [Interjections.] They include all his expressions in connection with these affairs. I think that I have hereby disposed of that explanation.

Now I should like to ask the hon the Minister; if he asks me for all my sources, what is his source for what I am now about to quote? I am referring now to a report in Die Burger of 31 October 1984. The hon the Minister is supposed to have said:

As dit waar sou wees dat mense hulle bevoorregte posisie ten koste van ander kan handhaaf—soos wat die Konserwatiewe Party met die Blankes wil doen— dan is die boodskap van Christus vals, het mnr Chris Heunis eergisteraand in Parow gesê.

I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether he has a source to confirm this. Can he confirm it from one of my speeches or can he confirm it from the programme of principles and the policy of the CP?

I also want to put the following question to the hon the Minister. He says: “The CP uses Christ as a cloak for racism.” This comes from the same report. I want him to tell me on what grounds he says this because I regard it as political smear, plain and simple. I regard that as shabby. [Interjections.]


The hon member has still not given his reference.


Sir, that hon member must be sleeping because the reference was given long ago. [Interjections.] I should like to know what the hon the Minister’s source is when he says:

Die KP het in die Parlement gestem teen die Aanhef waarin die Oppergesag van God erken word, en saam met die PFP vir ’n amendement gestem waarin die skrapping van die woorde “handhawing van Christelike norme” uit die Aanhef voorgestel is.

I should like to know what the hon the Minister’s exact source is. [Interjections.] The source that I have from a committee is that the hon the Minister voted against an amendment proposed by members of the CP who asked for the insertion of the words: “the Triune God”. [Interjections.]

I should like to bring up another matter. I should like to know where the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of National Education came by this. I quote now from the message he gave immediately before the Primrose election, and which appeared in—I think—Die Vaderland. I quote him word for word:

Die Ku Klux Klan se ongevraagde en onwelkome inmenging in sake waarvan hulle niks weet nie en niks verstaan nie, en die KP/HNP se aanvaarding van hierdie hulp.

I should like to know exactly what the hon the Minister’s source for this was. [Interjections.]

We come now to the Blue Book, which later changed colour. It later became green. In this it is like certain bruises on one’s body, that were blue at first and then became green. If ever there was a shameful publication it is this one. If even there was an attempt to smear, insult and disparage, then that attempt was made in this booklet. You know yourself, Mr Speaker, that if one climbs over a horse one will fall off the other side. This is exactly what the hon member for Benoni did. In a later issue of Die Patriot I reacted at greater length to many of the statements contained in this, but now I want to highlight a couple of them.

What I find very interesting is that in the foreword to the Blue Book the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of National Education said the following:

Die inligtingsdiens het by die opstel hiervan getrag om elke bewering te rugsteun met feite en bewyse. Sodoende word verseker dat die Nasionale Party hom nie skuldig maak aan verdagmaking en skinderpolitiek nie.

[Interjections.] Perhaps the hon the Minister believed that but, one pages through the book, one finds that a copy of a document appears on page 30. As it stands here that document must have been falsified in advance. This is not the document. If you find the word ‘falsified’ a little strong, Sir, I shall say it has been tampered with. There is no doubt, however, that, in one way or another, this document was removed from the files of the department, that someone got hold of it, and that we heard later that it had just been ‘shortened’ a little! This document was falsified and the falsified document was printed in this edition of the Blue Book.

Whereas the hon the Minister had said in the foreword that every claim would be supported by facts and evidence, in the Green Book he has disappeared like mist before the sun. After that it was no longer a fact, often that there was no evidence, now it just disappears, and no apology is made. Even the so-called correction was placed without an apology to anybody, and I was the aggrieved party. [Interjections.]


Nothing on TV.


No, there was nothing on TV. On page 3 the hon member for Benoni quotes the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs as saying:

Ek kan bewys dat Prawda dieselfde taal as die KP praat. Ek is bereid om dit dokumentêr te bewys.

Can we get a little closer to a source for that? After all, we are now so concerned about sources! Can we please have a source for that? Mr Chairman, I do not know whether you will give parliamentary permission for such a thing to be produced.

The hon member for Benoni says:

Radikalisme en die aanblaas van rassehaat het hoogty gevier in die toesprake van dr Treurnicht, Jaap Marais, en so meer.

I want to ask him: Can we be enlightened a little further? For example, can the hon member for Benoni point out to me where my speeches were full of, for example, radicalism, race hatred, and so on, and where these reigned supreme?

If other people can wax pious in this House, surely I can too. If other people can talk about reconciliation, surely I, too, can talk about it. Let me just mention the following as examples. I said:

Daardie taak en roeping is nie iets wat ons aan mekaar kan opdring nie: Dit is die wete van ’n taak en ’n roeping wat ons in verantwoordelikheid voor God het en wat ons ook teenoor die wêreld bely en uitlewer. Ons wil ons ook in en deur ons kultuurlewe en ons volksverband in die diens van die Koninkryk van God stel.

This is merely an example I can mention. Is this an example of racism and the incitement of something of that kind.

Here, for example, is another statement the hon member for Benoni makes. This statement is carried in a booklet that bears the stamp of authority of the NP:

’n Stem vir die KP is ’n stem vir die HNP is ’n stem vir die AWB en vir uiteindelike diktatuur.

How does the hon member make these things sound plausible? I said, according to that sort of logic one can say: A vote for the National Party is a vote for coalition government is a vote for the Rev Hendrickse is a vote for the nationalization of the gold mines, and so on. [Interjections.] One could argue along those lines. I am just spelling out this sort of argument.

Let us get a little closer to it. [Interjections.] In the blue booklet the author, the hon member for Benoni, wrote:

Mnr Eugène Terre’Blanche het by die stigting van die KP van die verhoog af in die Skilpadsaal ’n toespraak gelewer.

Afterwards I pointed out to him in a friendly way that the statement was not correct. Fortunately, it then vanished. But it, too, just disappeared, without an explanation.

I can continue. On page 22, under the main heading: “Indiër-immigrasie”, there is the subheading: “KP sal die sluise open”. This is a “fact” that has been publicized under the authority of the leader of the NP in the Transvaal. Then they found out that there had been a slight mistake. They found out that there had been a little mistake, and so it disappeared just like that, like mist before the sun.

He says on page 25—in the green booklet it is on page 28:

Nou sing hy skielik saam met diegene in die PFP en die HNP wat die “idee van ’n totale aanslag teen Suid-Afrika as belaglik wil voorstel”.

Can we hear what the hon member’s source is for this? I did warn: Do not try to misuse the total onslaught for political purposes within the country to force us into subjection have so that we cannot have political disputes with one another. I did indeed say this. [Interjections.] But the total onslaught—I say this to the hon member for Roodeplaat—in this country is a total onslaught by the NP on the Conservative Whites of this country, it is a total onslaught on the real freedom of the White man in this country. That is the total onslaught. [Interjections.]

These are just a few minor things that I have highlighted here. I do not think we ought to proceed in such a way as to keep crossing each other’s tracks. This sort of debate can go on ad infinitum. The point I want to make, however, is that if these hon members want to make an issue of sources, there are several sources still outstanding here. Then we can ask for the sources of all the statements those hon members made. The hon member for Turffontein does not have an answer for me. After I have challenged his party a thousand times …


I have an answer.


Does the hon member have an answer? Does he have an answer to this document which he signed, which alleges that I said: “I am not talking politics, I am talking war”? [Interjections.]


Mr Speaker, the hon member for Waterberg will forgive me if I do not react directly to his speech. But I should like to refer to an aspect of the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister of Finance which perhaps deserves a little more attention.

I am referring to the announcement in connection with two new sources of revenue for local authorities. We on this side of the House welcome this announcement. I feel it is also an announcement which emphasizes the growing role of local authorities in our constitutional set-up. When he instructed the Margo Commission to investigate this matter, the hon the Minister was pointing out the greater devolution of power in the direction of the local authorities—another aspect which emphasized the increasing importance of local authorities in our country. This House is the central authority as far as the own affairs of the Whites are concerned. But in the same way that the own affairs of the Whites are vested in this House in the central sphere, the own affairs of the Whites at the more local and regional level will, to a great extent, devolve on local authorities— which is further confirmation of their increasingly important role. In addition, we have learned during the past few weeks of probing investigations into such matters as influx control, and hon Ministers have specifically pointed out that urgent attention will have to be given to a carefully considered urbanization strategy for the future.

It is obvious that an urbanization strategy will have to be closely co-ordinated with the industrial decentralization programme which was announced some time ago. It follows just as logically that local and regional authorities will have to co-ordinate closely with this decentralization programme. And then, of course, we have not even mentioned the key role which local authorities will henceforth play in the composition of territorial and regional bodies in our country.

But irrespective of the increasing importance of local authorities, we shall also have to take into account the mere range of activities of local authorities. Irrespective of the growth in population numbers—and now I am referring only to the White population of our country—urbanization among Whites is a fact. It is a fact that today more than 90% of our population is urbanized, and that 80% of that urbanized population is to be found in four large metropolitan centres—metropolitan centres which together only comprise 4% of our country’s area.

In view of this trend, and in view of the developments in the constitutional sphere, I believe it is obvious that the days of independent city council members are rapidly drawing to a close. When one says this it is of course not one’s intention to detract from the achievements of those hundreds of council members who over the years—and today still—have made their services available to municipalities in towns and cities in South Africa under their own steam and at their own expense and have made great sacrifices at municipal level. These are people who in the past—and today still—have rendered a tremendous service to municipalities in our country.

The points of contact between the activities of local authorities and those of the central authority, the way in which the activities of local authorities are linked to the national development policy, have increased to such an extent that it is simply no longer possible for independent candidates to carry on the administration of local authorities alone.

That is why during the past few years we have seen the development of so-called unofficial party political participation in municipal elections. With the exception of Johannesburg and a few other places where official party political participation is already established, we have seen candidates stand for election as independents, only to join a very well-organized and established caucus system within the city councils after the election.


Where in Natal is there a caucus system?


That hon member who is pretending not to know about a caucus in the Durban City Council is living in a dream world if that is really what he is suggesting. The party that hon member belongs to is still taking the Durban voters to the PFP in a round about way. For years now they have been responsible for candidates standing for election as so-called independents, only to become members of the PFP caucus, which at the moment controls Durban, immediately after the election. The hon member cannot deny that the caucus procedure and discipline of the PFP in the Durban City Council after the election is just as close-knit as its Parliamentary caucus.

I maintain that because of this historic development, and because of the current development in our constitutional dispensation, the era of so-called unofficial political participation in city council elections is a thing of the past. This situation which has developed is unfair to candidates, and dishonest to the voters. This so-called unofficial participation by parties in city council elections is only to the advantage of one body, namely the political parties, because it saves them the expense of becoming actively involved in city council elections, while they still have an influence in city council matters. When I say that this unofficial system is unfair to candidates, one must take into account that nowadays city council wards are as large as constituencies were 10 or 12 years ago. In my own constituency there are two city council wards each with 10 000 voters. The entire Umlazi constituency was that size two or three general elections ago. It is simply not fair to expect candidates to incur this expense and go to this trouble as independents. The situation is developing that only affluent candidates are able to play that role.

But it is also dishonest to the voters. It is dishonest to pretend to the voters that one is an independent candidate and then immediately after an election show one’s true colours by joining the caucus of a specific party.

I believe that in this time of change and reform at every level of society in our country, the time has come for political parties to accept the responsibility resting on them as regards the direction in which they want to help to steer this country—at municipal level as well. I also believe that the time has come for political parties to say openly what their local and regional management policy is; that they will openly utilize their funds to get the best people elected to city councils; that they will use their information machinery to put across their standpoint clearly and explicitly to voters, so that those voters can vote for candidates from whom they know exactly what to expect during the next four years.

I believe that the time has almost come for the active entry of political parties into this sphere of activities, and for that reason I am grateful that our party enables our constituencies to do so and that this has already happened in Umlazi.


Mr Speaker, the hon member for Umlazi is a person who is very knowledgeable when it comes to local government matters. Today I want to join him in expressing our thanks and appreciation for the new sources of revenue which have been created for local authorities in South Africa. I come from Pretoria and in the years when the State still did not want to pay tax on its buildings in Pretoria, we found that this local authority of one of our capital cities had a hard time of it. For that reason we are glad that there is also a green light for Pretoria today. I do not want to react any further to the hon member’s speech.

I notice that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is not sitting in his usual seat at the moment. If the hon member would attend for a moment I should appreciate it because I want to react briefly to the lecture, based on affidavits, which he gave this House.

I was astounded that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central saw fit to take down … he did say he had taken down these affidavits personally, did he not?


Quite right.


I just wanted to make sure—I do not want to put words in the hon member’s mouth—who did this. Did the hon member hear these things from aggrieved persons themselves or did he use an interpreter?


Through a translator in some instances.


I accept the hon member’s reply. Why I am asking is because I want us to have the scenario right. I want to put another question to the hon member. Does he not find it strange that in the first two cases in regard to which he quoted affidavits to us, the shooting by the police took place in cold blood? This is, after all, how the hon member represented them to us and this is what is before this House at the moment. The first person who was shot, was a young man—I think he was 15—and he was shot inside the house. He fell inside the house, and the hon member said that the declarant believed that this young man was already dead when he was loaded into the back of the vehicle. That was how the affidavit read.

The next affidavit told of people being molested and shot in the backyard of a house.


I did not say it was in the backyard.


I think the hon member must read his statement again. If I remember correctly, he said “in the yard”.


Yes, but it was the front yard.


Very well, in the front yard. I accept that. If a “yard” has a back and a front, that is correct.

There is also something else I want to ask the hon member. I think he said there were 14 affidavits and he was still going to produce many more. I assume that the affidavits the hon member has here, will be handed over either to the Police or to the hon the Minister of Law and Order. Are those affidavits all from people who were molested by the police?




I am very glad about that because the hon member must tell this House today whether he was intent on investigating misdeeds committed by the police. He may reply “yes” or “no” to this question. Was he intent on ferreting out misdeeds committed by the police?




The hon member says “no”.


I went to take the affidavits.


The hon member said all the affidavits he had were affidavits from aggrieved persons in connection with police actions or from people who got hurt or from people who were involved with deaths. I also want to ask the hon member the following: Does he or his colleagues have any affidavits from persons in those residential areas whose homes or shops or other businesses were burnt to the ground and everything destroyed? Does he have any of those?




No. I just want that on record. Now I want to ask the hon member: Why not?


They did not come to me.


The hon member says they did not come to him. Now I want to ask the hon member another question. [Interjections.] I gave the hon member every opportunity when he was speaking; I think he must now do the same for me. Let us take a look at this scenario. Was the hon member at all interested in giving this House a balanced account of what took place there?


Yes, of course.


The hon member says yes. The hon member went further and said in the speech he made here, that he had seen that certain places had been razed to the ground. He had also seen that certain buildings were still burning. He said that he wanted to present a balanced account, but what did he present? He presented an indictment; not an account. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central presented a choleric, vindictive indictment of the police.


Do you not believe that some of the affidavits are true?


Yes, I believe that. I never said (a) that the hon member was not entitled to do this, or (b) that it was wrong of him to take down affidavits when he was asked to do so. I never said that. I asked the hon member whether he was interested in giving this House a balanced account. That was all I said.


That is what I did.


He says yes. He told me was there, he saw these things, and he walked away. He walked away, perfectly satisfied that he had 14 affidavits from people making accusations against the police. Now I ask you, what must the rest of this House believe when that hon member says he would like to give this House a balanced account of what happened there. Does the hon member not think it would have been more balanced if he had asked whose shops were burning down and had then gone to see whether the Police had started the fires?


I said I saw these things myself. These are not “affidavits”. I saw them.


Then why did the hon member not say so? [Interjections.]


I said that I saw it myself.


That does not mean a thing. What evidence is that? It is not an affidavit from one of the owners. Does the hon member think that those people did not also suffer harm, that no damage was done to them? The hon member did not ask them. I want to ask the hon member: When a mother’s baby was killed by stones thrown in the Vaal Triangle unrest, did he or one of this colleagues ever think of sympathizing with her, of sending her a telegram or of taking an affidavit from her? [Interjections.] I am merely asking. I do not want to reproach the hon member for not doing so. I just want us to attach a certain weight to what the hon member said here. I want the hon member to accept that this House constitutes a kind of jury. The House is here to evaluate what the hon member submitted us. Does the hon member really want us to believe that the Police only committed misdeeds there? Did the hon member question any member of that community about something good the Police did?


I spoke to the Police myself.


The hon member chose the residents as his clientele. Did the hon member say to anyone there: Everything cannot be negative. Did the Police not do anything good? It is no use his shrugging his shoulders now.

Has that hon member ever sympathized with the Police Force of South Africa when policemen and women die every year in the execution of their duties? He has never done that; nor has his colleague seated on his right. On a previous occasion I asked the hon member for Houghton whether she had ever sympathized with the Police Force and she admitted that she had not done so yet. [Interjections.]

What is more, has that hon member or any other hon member of the PFP ever tried to ascertain whether policemen had died in the execution of their duties, except of course for the cases mentioned in the Police Report. Has he ever tried to ascertain how many have died and how many have been injured. But that does not matter because certain members of the PFP are indifferent to positive actions by the police. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, you have been a member of this House since 1974. In all that time what hon member of this House has stood up and made a speech in the form of an indictment which consists solely of affidavits. [Interjections.]


Order! The hon member for Green Point must withdraw the words “belaglike vent”.


Mr Speaker, I withdraw them.


The hon member for Roodeplaat may proceed.


That is all I have to say to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central for the moment. But he must take cognizance of one thing, namely that those affidavits must be analysed. When this happens we are going to look very closely at them, particularly the language used. I listened very attentively to him.

In conclusion I should like to say something about labour matters in South Africa. Reference has been made here to certain labour matters in our country. We all know that 1984 was a very difficult year for us. But the Government continued to do everything in its power on behalf of the country, and I want to end my speech with a quote from President Reagan’s inaugural speech and apply it to our Government which is still trying to improve conditions, even under difficult economic conditions—something we simply have to do. President Reagan said, inter alia:

If not we, who else? If not now, when?

Consequently, even in these difficult times, we are continuing with the training and retraining of our work force in order to provide the best work force possible for South Africa’s industrial sector.


Mr Speaker, the hon member for Roodeplaat seems to have acquitted those people, but I am afraid that we cannot accept that. We are only asking for the appointment of a judicial committee, which would be able to give that verdict after thorough investigation; unlike the hon member, who wants to do it across the floor of the House right away. [Interjections.]

As far as the hon member for Umlazi is concerned, I just want to point out to him that the present city councils of Durban and Pietermaritzburg have already done a great deal to promote good race relations in Natal. That there is in fact an informal caucus of like-minded people may be so; that the majority of those people do have ties with the PFP is no secret. However, it is definitely not an official PFP caucus and it does not form part of the PFP hierarchy. The best proof of this, in my opinion, is furnished by the fact that a person such as councillor Klӧtz, who is known to share NP sentiments, recently became a member of the executive committee. Having learned that the NP is now going to participate, of course, we shall not be able to sit back. We cannot allow the people of Natal also to be muzzled by the National Party.

†The issue of the SA Transport Services’ tariffs should ideally be discussed under that budget. However, I am afraid that the hon the Minister did not play the game by announcing tariff increases before the budget. The travelling public was still reeling under the blow of the fuel price hike, when the hon the Minister took the cowardly step of planting a knock-out blow. What a dumb move that was on the part of a concern that is supposedly run on business lines! Did SATS not contemplate a switch to rail after the substantial price increase? What is more, I wonder if SATS carried out surveys of occupancy before and after the price hike. Surely a higher occupancy rate on commuter trains is a better way of making up deficits than huge hikes in fares which will only scare more customers away. What business concern will survive in the long run if it keeps on raising its prices during times of dwindling sales?

The fare increases have more than wiped out any incentive for people to switch to rail. For instance, the 45-kilometre round trip from Mitchells Plain to Cape Town will now cost R1,40 more per day or R13,50 more on a monthly ticket. However, to the average two and a half persons who share a car from that part of the world it will make sense to pay the 50-odd cents per day more for petrol and travel by car. Even for the one-man-one-car brigade there is no incentive, because the cost of motoring did not go up by 30% overnight as first class fares will.

The fare increases announced out of the blue further put in doubt the Government’s commitment to consensus government and the principle of Parliamentary control over SATS. I looked in vain for a reference to the increases in the annual report. The fact is, of course, that the 1984 report had already been printed when this announcement was made and it will not be reflected in next year’s report because it happened in the previous financial year. That is how the hon the Minister camouflages his increases. Furthermore, we will be debating the SATS budget when these increases are already a fait accompli. That is not consensus government; that is plain rubber-stamp government.

As regards the Government’s compensation to SATS for the rendering of so-called socio-economic services, it is high time that this is seen as an integral part of transport planning and of overall economic planning and not just as a benevolent hand-out from petty cash at the end. Mass transport systems are of economic benefit and not only of social benefit to the whole community. In South Africa we are fortunate that a large percentage of people still make use of public transport even though they may be compelled to do so. We shall simply not be able to afford a major shift to private transport by commuters in the major urban centres of this country. The quickest way to reach such a disastrous state of affairs is to follow the path of SATS which has not kept pace with the demand for commuter traffic because of prohibitive tariffs, or perhaps because of an unsatisfactory level of service or of course through the Minister’s inability to get across to the Cabinet the importance of urban transport on a mass scale.

The result is, as always, that the poor will suffer—and they are, of course, mainly those who cannot call the Government to task through the ballot box. I for one will not be surprised if they call the Minister to task in the other way, ie through stay-aways, through boycotts and through further wage demands. Before that happens, I want to make a plea on their behalf to the hon the Minister for him to moderate or to reconsider the introduction of the latest round of increases. The reason is that, as a group, the third class passengers have been the Minister’s best customers, both in terms of cost coverage and patronage. I know the generally accepted view is that the third class or Black passenger services are the main cause for the loss sustained by the passenger services, but this is not true. Yesterday the Minister tried to perpetuate that view and it is further strengthened by the way in which the true picture is camouflaged in the annual reports by crafty manipulation of the cost and revenue heads. I have prepared a table that gives the true picture. I will read but a few key figures from that. For the hon the Minister’s information I may just add that I have not sucked these figures out of my thumb and that they did not come to me as a message at Jabulani Stadium either, but are his own figures. [Interjections.] In 1983-84, third class passengers covered 32% of their total transportation cost and 41% of the cost of each journey. First and second class passengers, however, paid only 14% of the total cost and covered only 30% of the cost of a journey. Six hundred million third class passengers were conveyed by the SATS and were subsidized to the tune of R404 million, while only 106 million first and second class passengers were conveyed, who were subsidized to the tune of R373 million. Concessions to third class passengers amounted to R59 million and concessions to first and second class passengers to R86 million. The total amount in concessions to plus internal subsidization of first and second class passengers came to R459 million, and in respect of third class passengers to R463 million. We must remember that there were almost six times as many third class as first and second class passengers.


Does the hon member take it for granted that Blacks do not travel first and second class?


They are allowed to do so and a small percentage of them do. All I am saying is that third class passengers, who can only be Black, suffer the most under this system. A first class passenger journey is subsidized on average by R77 while a third class passenger journey is sponsored to the tune of R5,39 on average. This happens in spite of the fact that the third class passenger travelling over a long distance is the hon the Minister’s best customer. These passengers cover 51% of the cost of their own tickets. In spite of this, they faced fare increases of 55% during the past 18 months, and an increase of 78% since January 1983. If anything is unfair, that is.

As far as suburban passenger services are concerned, every time somebody gets into a first class carriage, his trip is sponsored to the tune of R1,95, while every time a third class commuter gets onto a train his journey is sponsored to the tune of only R0,47. During 1983-84 the first class suburban service suffered a loss in patronage of 8 million passenger trips, while the third class service gained 8 million passengers. The figures for April to November show that this trend will more or less stabilize.

Yesterday my colleague, the hon member for Constantia, made a case for the Government to seriously get to grips with inflation. One of the points in such a campaign would be for administered and controlled prices to be kept below current levels of inflation. This is indeed the case in respect of SATS tariffs, which form a major input cost in virtually every sector of the economy, as well as for many individuals. Yet this hon Minister announces increases ranging from 20% to 30% in a year and up to 60% in 18 months. Who knows what is still to come in the Minister’s main budget? I appeal to the hon the Minister to look again at these increases for the sake of those who do not have lift clubs and freeway options and who must pay the 20% whether they like it or not out of small household budgets which already have a high transport content. I also plead for those who will take the freeway option because the price of motoring did not increase by 30% overnight.


Order! I just want to ask the hon member for Greytown whether at the beginning of his speech he said that the Minister had taken “a cowardly step”.


I said so, Sir.


I appreciate the hon member’s telling me that. For record purposes I must ask him to withdraw it.


I withdraw it, Sir.


Mr Speaker, anyone with respect for history and tradition who takes his place in this House will necessarily call to mind the dramas that have taken place in this Chamber in the past, and will also call to mind the great men who played a role in those dramas. No-one taking his place here today could fail to be impressed by the fact that the present is being devoted to working on the future. Here, too, the roles are being played by great men. Therefore, Mr Speaker, you will understand, and perhaps remember, that making a maiden speech in such an atmosphere entails—to put it euphemistically—some degree of unease.

I want to begin by, in the first place, conveying my sincere thanks to hon members for the goodwill and friendliness which I as a newcomer encountered here when I became a member of this House. I sincerely appreciate it. I referred to great men who have sat in this House, and it was my privilege to serve my political apprenticeship under one of these great men. I refer to the former member for Parow, Mr Pen Kotzé. The Greeks said that many people know how to flatter, but few know how to praise. In the few remarks I wish to make about my predecessor I shall try not to flatter him. One of his outstanding characteristics, as hon members will agree, was the pithy way in which he, in his beautiful Sandveld accent, could penetrate to the heart of a problem. Apart from all his characteristics of integrity, dedication and insight, Pen Kotzé is pre-eminently a practical man. His handling of the old department of Community Development, which was generally recognized to be a very difficult portfolio, attests to that, as does his handling of his constituency and its organization. Above all, Pen Kotzé is a man who has compassion for his fellow-man. This has made him a well-loved and respected person among friends and enemies. In my opinion this House will be the poorer for his absence. On behalf of the people of Parow I should like to place on record our appreciation and gratitude for the able and loyal services he rendered us.

The word “planning” implies the timely formulation of steps to be taken to achieve a goal. In the time at my disposal I do not wish to dwell on the overall history of planning. It is as old as mankind itself. Suffice it to say that in a modern national economy it is necessary to plan in all spheres, eg in the economic, financial, security, constitutional and physical spheres. It is interesting to remember that every planning discipline extents an influence on every other discipline and therefore horizontal and vertical co-ordination of planning is of the utmost importance. The basis for all planning disciplines is physical planning, because this concerns the land and the natural resources of that land. It is the utilization of the land and these natural resources that are the determinants of the development of our country.

As far as physical planning in South Africa is concerned, we need not take second place to any other place in the world. On the contrary, we are far in advance of many countries. The National Physical Development Plan, which is at present being revised, appeared as long ago as 1975. I think we are all looking forward to the publication of the revised plan. At the regional level, too, there has been planning. Guide plans have appeared. Urban planning as well as town planning has been carried out. We in our country have a proud record of planning.

If the purpose of planning is to stimulate and regulate development, we must also say to one another that in our planning efforts we sometimes achieve the opposite of development, viz delay in development. The reasons for this are obvious. We have not always planned timeously; we have not always planned in a co-ordinated fashion; and then there is red tape. An excellent example of this is township development. There are too many cities and towns that have not yet carried out proper planning. The mere fact that an application for township development sometimes has to be referred to as many as 17 state and provincial departments indicates a lack of due co-ordination. This results in delays and a burden of interest that builds up, with the result that the end product is more expensive for the consumer. Finally, let us also admit to one another that some of our township development procedures are unnecessary and superfluous. It is not my contention today that it is only the public sector that shares responsibility for delays in the process of township development. On the contrary, the Venter Commission found that on some occasions it was certainly the lack of knowledge of the private developer that resulted in delays in township development.

In my opinion our future physical planning must comply with certain guidelines. The first is devolution. We shall have to transfer the authority to plan from the highest authority to a regional authority and to local authorities so that we may have more rapid and well-informed planning. Secondly, there will have to be co-ordination at all levels of planning, horizontal as well as vertical. Here the left hand must know what the right hand is doing. Thirdly, in our planning efforts we must work in consultation with the private sector. This applies not only to the business section of the private sector but also the general public, so that we may have inputs and proper participation on their part as well. The fourth point I want to make is that we shall have to give more attention to the availability of natural resources. For example, we must not take water to development but should take development to water. The fifth point is that we must not be inflexible in our planning. We are living in changing circumstances and in a changing society. A fine example of this is the following: Ten to fifteen years ago group housing was “infra dig”, but today it is prestige development. We shall have to make provision for these changes in our planning. The sixth and final guideline which I wish to suggest is that in our planning we should not award rights to land because if rights to land are awarded and one eventually has to withdraw those rights due to changed circumstances, this costs the planning authority money. Because it at present costs the planning authorities money to withdraw rights, they are slow to plan. Therefore we can no longer permit this in future.

I think that we are on the right track as far as our planning policy is concerned. There are areas of difficulty which are being rectified, but I believe that if we plan timeously and in a co-ordinated fashion we shall achieve the goal of planning, viz to serve as a stimulant for development, which is of vital importance in our country.


Mr Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the hon member for Roodeplaat and of every hon member in the House to certain information that has been passed on to us by the hon member for Parow. I have much pleasure in congratulating that hon member and I, as the newest member of the PFP in the House, do so most willingly. The hon member has drawn attention to the priorities of urban planning. The interesting and key phrase that he used—and I want the hon member for Roodeplaat and other hon members to pay attention to this—is that one should not be rigid in one’s planning; one must be flexible. So I congratulate that new hon member.

A publication appeared shortly before Christmas. This publication was immediately banned. However, it was then again immediately reviewed by Rapport which praised it. The ban was then lifted. The publication is called The Third Day of September, and is an eye-witness account of the Sebokeng rebellion of 1984. It is written by a young man—he is 20 years old—the son of a factory worker. The writer’s name is Johannes Rantete. I do not want to dwell on the content of the book but I do suggest that every hon member here read it. I want, however, to focus on the end because I think it says something about what is going on in this country. This is the work of a man who saw the Sebokeng rebellion from beginning to end. He says:

The South African Government can’t resist the criticisms and attacks it faces every day. The solving of the problem by means of tortoise-paced reforms will give the state a long headache. The blows from outside get harder.

Then he goes on to say something important:

What I hope for South Africa is that all the races within this country should partake in a system of government so that we can look at each other’s imperfections and guide each other in all spheres towards perfection. If we co-operate together on all levels of mutual interest to the fullest possible extent, then I cannot see any obstacle that can thwart us.

Those are the words of a 20 year old from Sebokeng.

I listened with interest to the various arguments concerning disinvestment, eg, the points raised by the hon member for Vasco at macro-level. We in this party are totally opposed to financial withdrawal. However, something must be done. The Government knows that; we know that. I want to warn the Government that, if they think they will deflect opposition by changing some macropolicies only, they are wrong. Apartheid must go, of that we must have no doubt.

To the hon the Minister of Finance I say that, in financial allocations, apartheid must go. Government spending must become non-racial. If the Government is already committed to that goal, a clear time-table must be established and here I believe, welfare payments are a good example. We say we are a compassionate society. However, we must sometimes ask whether this is a compassionate government. I should like to use the capitation grants paid to children’s homes in respect of children who have been found to be in need of care and who have been committed to institutions, as my major premise. At present that Government grant is racially divided. In this respect, I quote the following figures which are, I believe, the latest available. If they are not, then, no doubt, the hon Ministers responsible will correct them. The figures are: In respect of White children, the grant is R237,34 per month; for Indian and Coloured children the grant is R158,00 per month; For Black children the grant is R73,00 per month. I ask the hon the Minister of Finance what earthly reason there can be for this type of racial discrimination. Does it mean that a Black child is worth only 30% of a White child? That is what it is suggesting. White, Black and Brown children have the same needs and requirements, and all children in care deserve the best break possible. There have been many cases in which these children have endured hardship, deprivation and abuse. Qualified staff are required. Decent wages must be paid. What, however, is happening? Living conditions are not what they should be. The ratio of child care workers to children is totally unsatisfactory in all the homes. Poor conditions result in workers’ going on to other positions.

So, hon members have heard it from this side of the House. In a recessionary period the State must cut its spending, it must cut where it must. But the hon the Minister of Finance must beware the option to cut the soft services because they do not appear to have any strong defenders. The social-welfare net must exist. Here I urge the hon the Minister please to ignore those extreme monetarists who prate on about Thatcherism and Reaganism without looking carefully at those countries’ welfare safety-nets. There is no striking British miner’s child which is starving. Unemployed Americans go on to welfare, and they and their families receive foodstamps.

The equalization of capitation grants must become an urgent feature in the spending timetable of this Government. These comments would apply equally to family maintenance grants, foster-care grants, singlecare grants and all the other welfare payments which are racially separate in a pyramid of payments. I do not care how we see it in this country—we have become historically immune to it—but overseas it is seen as totally lacking in compassion for those of other races.

Social pensions need to be reviewed drastically. It is no use for this Government to plead that different communities have different spending requirements, as used to be the old argument. It is iniquitous that Black pensioners receive a pittance—under R70 per month—with which to try to feed and clothe and support themselves, buying from the same shops as the White pensioners on their tiny—and it is tiny—R166 per month. All pensions must be equalized and raised. Here is another area in which the hon the Minister of Finance should increase spending, not cut it.

I call on the Government to appoint one man—not a bureaucracy; we do not need that—to investigate all these racially disparate payments; to quantify the financial sums involved in equalization; to set up a clear timetable whereby the gap may be eliminated in the shortest possible time because I fear that we are seeing the gap increasing, not decreasing, as time goes by.

Towards the end of my speech, I move on to education. I would just like to draw the attention of the hon the Minister of Finance to a matter which I discussed with him last year. During the delivery of the 1984-85 Budget, Minister Horwood drew attention to the overall expenditure on education, which amounted to R4 200 million, which surpassed the previous year by 23%. Good! We praise him for that. However, more needs to be spent. What is equally important, is that the State must carefully quantify where the money is going. The HSRC Committee on Education Financing identified 20 State, homeland and independent-State bodies which distribute education moneys received mainly from South African taxpayers. It is therefore impossible to check the veracity of what Minister Horwood said, and it will be impossible to check what this Minister is going to say about education spending. Surely a simplified guide to where the money has gone—through some department—must be produced each year at Budget time.

Finally, the hon the Minister might indicate what is happening in the area of direct parental contributions. First the Transvaal Education Department passed their enabling Ordinance; then the Cape, which is due to debate it next week, withdraws it; and the Indians are due to have their parents pay. But what is going to happen to the Coloureds and the Blacks?

We need an authoritative statement from Treasury on the contribution all parents must make to education.


Mr Speaker, when we began this debate I undertook to say something about the taxation of fringe benefits when we came to the end of the debate. There is a comprehensive statement which is now being distributed to the media. However, I want to take the opportunity just to mention the details briefly for the information of hon members. The taxation of fringe benefits has been part of South Africa’s tax legislation for decades. Fringe benefits have never been tax-free; not in terms of our relevant legislation. The problem in the past was merely that they could not be properly quantified in order to achieve equity and neutrality in the field of taxation in South Africa. Because in the past, before this tax levy had been properly quantified, every individual was basically in a bargaining position vis-a-vis the local Receiver, there were many contradictions in South Africa as far as this matter was concerned. For example, people complained that a specific fringe benefit was taxed differently in different places. Hon members are surely acquainted with the whole history of what took place in the process of quantifying the entire matter.

In the whole debate that followed, specifically after the promulgation of the relevant legislation on 22 August last year, and particularly, too, after we had made certain details known in December 1984, arguments were advanced in many circles concerning the principle of the taxation of fringe benefits. It was even argued that it would be inflationary if the system were to be put into operation now. It was also contended that it would supposedly suppress initiative if the system were to be put into operation now. Thus many allegations were made and many rumours did the rounds.

Particularly as far as the latter remark is concerned, I should like to quote to hon members today a very important extract from a very recent publication by a prominent American writer on the economy. The extract is from a book he wrote for special distribution in Britain and for which he wrote a special foreword for the British edition. This man argued about the question of the creation of employment, and in the process he reviewed the American economy, an economy in which the extremely high percentage of more than 60%, I believe, of the new job opportunities created are provided by small enterprises. He compared this situation in the USA with what had happened in this field in Britain. I want to quote one of his remarks to hon members. He makes this remark with reference to the idea of employment creation, an idea which has probably seldom before been so relevant to our economic situation as it is now, particularly in the light of the present unemployment situation. I quote from Wealth and Poverty, written by George Gilder. He writes, inter alia, as follows:

To start or buy a business requires disposable personal income. That is what high personal rates …

Here he refers to taxation:

wring out of the system. British managers and executives receive pitifully low nominal incomes (Why ask for more?) but they get an amazing array of relatively untaxable perks—from company cars to business suits, from vacation resorts to scholarships, from housing to entertainment. These benefits, which cannot be saved and invested in a new company, tie down British businessmen to the existing corporate structure.

An extremely important issue that arises out of this is the following. If we really want to establish small businesses in South Africa we must give the man with a little capital the opportunity, on condition that he has considerable technological skills. He must be given the opportunity to get his business off the ground and to manufacture a highly technical or advanced technological component or whatever. I have been given an interesting statistic—unfortunately I was unable to check it—indicating that in certain regions in America—which is certainly the best example of the development of a free economy and of employment creation—the average industrial enterprise consists of only nine people.

In South Africa—with the whole issue regarding the tax on fringe benefits—it is obvious that a would-be entrepreneur not only requires capital for his enterprise, but might well have to get his hands on R500 000 or R1 million which he could invest to be able to give the few employees he wishes to employ—who will also be highly skilled technologically; after all, that is the direction we are moving in—the fringe benefits that they are able to obtain elsewhere. For example, they require of their employer a car, a home loan and even a new wardrobe at the start of every season. The company hires or purchases all the necessary clothes for a specific executive official and his wife. They then wear those clothes and discard them at the end of the season, whereupon the company has to provide them with a brand new wardrobe. This is an example of the kind of fringe benefits that people are claiming.

This necessarily raised the following question. In South Africa, where we take so much trouble to launch business enterprises, where we may expect dramatic developments in the informal sector shortly, it is undoubtedly, seen in this light, as well that we should put paid to this matter of fringe benefits without delay, and that we begin to build sense and quantifiable remuneration into the South African economy. After that one can start to compare people with one another. One will then be able to say: My total remuneration is Rx—no more. Then there is no possibility of concealing all the things that can be concealed at the moment.

It has been argued by hon members in this House that times are so bad at present that the Government should rather not come up with taxation of fringe benefits as well at this time. However, if we could allow that cup to pass from our lips, what would the influence on the Treasury be? The hard reality is that according to the calculations we performed last year we should have to sacrifice at least R500 million. On top of that we have not even started to phase in the taxation on fringe benefits; the phasing-in of fringe benefits taxation which must in any event come at some stage. After all, we have not yet begun to build up a data basis on which to carry out proper planning of revenue. Since then a vast number of new housing and vehicle schemes—you name it—have originated. As a result we are faced with the immutable fact that we have to introduce it in one of the most difficult economic times. One is then confronted by the only alternative, viz to make it as easy as possible for people, in this period of transition, to adapt to this new taxation.

However, the question is how this is to be done. One does so by determining the value of the asset on which a person receives a fringe benefit. The question is also how easy it is for that person to get rid of that asset if it should come to that. In my opinion no Government could ever be so stupid as to introduce a system which would make it even more difficult for people to acquire a house than it is now. Therefore taxation on houses as fringe benefits will be phased in over a period of seven years. The recommendations of the Margo Commission—that we have also accepted—were that this period be retained, that in terms of low interest loans the phasing-in period should be seven years, that new schemes should not be permitted, but that new entrants to recognized schemes could in fact be admitted. By “recognized schemes” is meant those schemes that were already in existence on 28 March 1984. In the second place it is specified that those people who receive a housing subsidy also qualify for the phasing-in period. We decided in the Cabinet today to go even further than the Margo Commission recommended because many people would suffer a certain degree of disruption. We are now providing that the people who received subsidies through approved schemes—that is to say, schemes that existed on 28 March 1984— could also qualify for the phasing in. This is going to mean that people who have thus far paid tax on that fringe benefit will now enjoy the benefit of the phasing-in. However, the fact is that if we had chosen the other side, we should have caused so many problems for certain people that real hardship could have resulted, and that is certainly not what the Government intends with the phasing in of tax on fringe benefits.

As far as motor cars are concerned we said last year that there was no point in artificial juggling of figures. Rather take the true value of the motorcar. The Margo Commission stated further that keeping a car entailed a fixed cost component and a variable cost component. We have now also published the information down to the finest detail, but I am not going to deal with that now. Be that as it may, in accepting that we are going to use market-orientated amounts, it is necessarily the case that a phasing-in period of two years would impose an exceptional burden on such people; we knew that, but we were awaiting the reaction, and as in the case of housing the matter was referred to the Margo Commission with the request that they prepare their representations, and even debate the matter in order to reach a conclusion. They recommended that we phase it in over a period of five years, and the Government has accepted this. [Interjections.] Therefore it will be phased in over a period of five years; 25% in the first year and 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% in the subsequent years. We could not support the idea that for certain luxury cars, very expensive cars, special provision had to be made for this to be done even more slowly. I do not think that that would be fair. We preferred to accommodate this need by extending the phasing-in period.

A third aspect which came to our attention was that certain problems also arose with regard to soft loans—that is to say, loans at a low interest rate or even at no interest—because many people used soft loans to purchase motorcars or to operate a vehicle scheme. Other people used the soft loans to purchase houses; in other words, as a kind of housing scheme. Others, again, used it as an incentive for their top management to purchase shares, which is a very good basic principle. Other people quite simply used it to make money. It is well-known that one person obtained R3,5 million from his employer at a minimal interest rate. He invests that money and goes to town with it. The proceeds he puts in his pocket.


Is that the man from Escom? [Interjections.]


It was definitely not him.

This kind of thing has meant that the person who negotiates to convert part of his taxable income into a non-taxable fringe benefit gives himself a salary increase at the expense of the other taxpayers, because if the Treasury loses taxation and it has specific commitments, it has to meet those commitments by generating additional revenue. These negotiations on and manipulation of fringe benefits have meant that a far heavier burden has consistently been shifted onto a certain group of people who have not had this manoeuvrability in their remuneration packages.

Nor can we say, however, that we are phasing in soft loans without considerable disruption over a period of two years on the benefit calculated at the official interest rate of 18%. We do not want to price the top people, the people who have initiative, the people who are entrepreneurs and who create job opportunities, out of the market, and we appreciate that basically they are the battery that gets a machine moving in a country and that create job opportunities. Is it realized that they are the people who usually already have a large housing loan? Usually they are the people who travel in luxury motor cars. Usually they are the people who have soft loans of one kind or another with a view to the purchase of shares or for whatever purpose. Nor do those soft loans only go towards the purchase of shares; they are also granted to Philemon Mazamba who borrows money for his grandmother’s coffin, or something of that nature. There are also many cases deserving of compassion as far as these soft loans are concerned. Such loans can be paid off gradually.

Since we do not wish to cause disruption at the top of the scale, the bottom or in between, we have decided to phase this in, too, over a period of five years instead of two years. The taxation of soft loans as it stands today will therefore be phased in over a period of five years at the same percentage applicable to the vehicle scheme that I have just mentioned.

In this instance, unfortunately, we are unable to accept new entrants, not even in the same way that we accept new entrants to the housing schemes, something I omitted to say. New entrants to the housing schemes are unfortunately unable to qualify for a subsidized amount of more than R50 000. That is how the Public Service scheme works.

Of all the schemes we have seen, the Public Service housing scheme is the weakest of the lot. It is interesting that people always point their fingers and say that the public servants laugh all the way to the bank, whereas the truth of the matter is that the housing scheme of the Public Service is in fact the one with the least favourable conditions. That is why we took this scheme and said that we accepted the proposal of the Margo Commission that new entrants to housing schemes should only have R50 000 subsidized. A new entrant can of course obtain a larger mortgage, but only R50 000 of it qualifies for either the lower interest rate or the subsidy payment.

As far as soft loans are concerned, from today new entrants are not being admitted. In that context, to achieve an equitable balance within a specific organization it will be necessary to change the specific schemes such as vehicle schemes and so on.

Ultimately the system of taxation must treat the general public in South Africa, whoever they work for, on an equal and equitable basis.

Then there is one final concession that the Government has made today, one which was not before the Margo Commission. We are exempting the lower income groups, people who earn R8 000 or less in cash, from taxation on fringe benefits. This means that in those cases deserving of compassion in which large organizations—here one calls to mind, say, the State itself and parastatal organizations—have helped the lower income groups to obtain homes, we can accommodate them and exempt them from that tax. Above R8 000 the tax on fringe benefits is phased in. The benefit above R8 000 is reduced by R1 for every R1 with which R8 000 is exceeded, but that is a technical point. This is a technical phasing-in which will not mean that people will cling to R8 000 because they are hesitant to accept an increase of R100.


Does that apply to all fringe benefits?


It is a temporary measure to assist those who have housing benefits. However, such a person must be a bona fide salary earner; not a self-employed person.


What about unmarried people?


Is that his total income?


My colleague asks about unmarried persons. I shall reply to the hon member for Yeoville in a moment, when I deal with the taxation of unmarried people. No special provision has been made for unmarried people who receive fringe benefits. The value of the fringe benefits is merely calculated on the basis of that percentage that is taxable. It is added to his income and is then included in the table, as would be done in the case of any other person.


You mean that it is a fringe benefit not to be married?


As matters stand at present, it is a fringe benefit to be married, because the adjustment of the scales due to the phasing in of taxation on fringe benefits has not, in my personal opinion, treated unmarried people very well, and we are looking into that. The hon member for Yeoville referred to that in his speech and I want to give him the assurance that we are looking into the matter. We ourselves found this to be the case.

I should like to thank the hon member for Yeoville and other hon members who were so friendly as to congratulate me on this first Appropriation debate. I can assure the hon members that I appreciate their interest and “meelewing”, particularly in the one translation of the word, ie sympathy. In that regard I appreciate the “meelewing” all the more.

†In referring to what the hon member for Yeoville said in his speech, I should like to start off by referring to his remark that the Government has no plan. I want to remind hon members that when in the short term rather dramatic things happen on the financial scene, it is necessary to adjust certain measures in the short term as we do from time to time. Fundamentally, however, in the longer term our objectives are clearly defined. We will reiterate them and present them to Parliament again in a concise packet on the occasion of the Budget Speech. I want to remind hon members that we do have an economic development plan, the details of which are clear. They are published and updated from time to time.

Last year this House approved a Bill which has in the meantime been enacted and put into operation. It brought about the State President’s Committee on National Priorities. This committee, which has already met, promises with the assistance and the guidance of the Central Economic Advisory Service to play a most important role in future in determining our priorities. We have finite revenues, but infinite demands, and therefore we shall have to introduce a system of priorities. There is no longer a possibility that we shall be able to satisfy even partly certain demands. We shall have to cut out completely certain demands on the Treasury. In the process of doing so, we shall most certainly have to get our priorities in order. In order to do this, one does need certain tools, and I am confident that the tools that we have created and that will be put into use will certainly contribute towards achieving that end. However, that end cannot be achieved within a matter of months. This is a massive State in terms of its responsibilities, in terms of its various permutations and combinations of expenditure, and also in terms of the demands made by the general public on the State. We have, however, over a period of many years developed certain procedures; we have established certain rights which the public have now become entitled to, and we shall have to go about rearranging our priorities in the most circumspect way.

However, I can assure the hon member that on Budget Day we will give it to him again concisely. I do not think that it is fair or that it is in the interests of South Africa to go on asking us to spell out our plan. We have our planning and we adjust it from time to time. I think, therefore, that it is unfair to suggest that we have no plan at all or that we have abandoned the plan that we published previously.


Will you bring private persons onto the President’s committee for priorities?


There is also an opportunity for private persons to make a contribution, but that is still in the offing.

Reference has been made to the payment of bonus cheques. Here we have an interesting situation. I was not aware of the fact that public servants who should receive their bonus cheques in January, February and March were actually only receiving them in April. This state of affairs came about in 1979-80. At that time public servants received their bonus cheques on a fixed date, say in September. In that year it was decided that a public servant would in future receive his service bonus cheque, which is a 13th cheque, in the month of his birth. However, certain bonus cheques had already been paid in that financial year and the decision to stagger the payment of these cheques from January of the next year therefore brought about the situation where those people whose birthdays fell in January, February and March had already received their bonus cheques in the previous year. Phasing in the new system at that stage meant that these people had to be paid retrospectively in the new year, to be fair to them, otherwise it would have meant that they would have been taxed on a double bonus instead of only one one. It would also have meant double expenditure for three months’ bonuses, which could not be afforded by the Treasury then. We are still faced with that problem on these two very accounts. [Interjections.] I do not want to anticipate the budget, but I can tell the hon member that we tried this year to phase out this strange situation of paying January, February and March bonuses retrospectively in April. It was, however, not possible as it would have meant an additional R150 million or more, and this we could not afford in the 1985-86 financial year. However, we will try to rectify the matter as soon as possible. When we began cutting down the budget, that was one of the first priorities to fall by the wayside.

Whenever we adjust this position, we shall also have to consider very carefully the tax position of those officials who will then be receiving two cheques in one tax year.


You told them you were going to do it, and then you told them you were not going to do it.


Yes, we did give advance notice to the Commission for Administration in order to alert staff members to prepare themselves. I do not apologize for this state of affairs because in no way can we finance that additional adjustment—and it is merely an adjustment—in the present circumstances, and that is why we abandoned that idea. Whoever gave the hon the member that letter, unfortunately did not give him the update. Maybe the hon member should approach him for an update. [Interjections.] I do not mind, but these are the facts. I also do not foresee any change in the situation during this year, but if purely for the sake of sound accounting, we will do our level best to bring about that adjustment in the next round of budgeting.

I agree with the hon member for Yeoville that we need protection against usury in this country. That is why the Ladofca arrangement provides for a maximum percentage of interest that may be charged under certain conditions of sale. I have no intention of suggesting that we should abandon that arrangement. I am in full agreement with the hon member on that score.

The hon member also said that GST should not be increased. I think he should address the hon member for Pinetown and the hon member for Cape Town Gardens on this matter. They have asked us for a lot of extra money and I do not know where we are going to get it now that we have already given away R500 million with the phasing in of fringe benefits tax.


Is this going to be your excuse for increasing GST?


Maybe, maybe not. [Interjections.] The hon member made a plea that the allowance for married women should be increased. I think that that is fundamentally the logical thing to do while we are awaiting the final recommendations of the Margo Commission on separate taxation. This is a very interesting matter. While we in South Africa are investigating the possibility, which in many respects has already become an inevitability, of taxing married couples separately, other countries which have separate taxation are investigating the possibility of joint taxation for married couples.

*Therefore there is certainly no rest to be found in marriage.

The hon member for Smithfield made a very important contribution in spelling out very clearly the effect of the drought and the low gold price on our economy. I cordially congratulate him on having warned against the pessimism that many people have been displaying. In my opinion it is most regrettable that several people are talking us into a recession. Hon members will recall that last year there were people who said that we were experiencing one of the deepest depressions—not even a recession—that we had ever experienced, and then we closed the year with a real growth rate of 4% in our economy. I must say that this is a recession to be proud of. However, we must not allow ourselves to be paralysed by talk. South Africa’s economy has tremendous potential which, with the right attitude and the right policies, can be unleashed, and we are determined to put it in order.

The hon member for Sunnyside then took the floor. I should just like to say to that hon member that he must not allow himself to be misused by his colleagues into making personal attacks using a lot of newspaper cuttings. We sat and watched them. They do not care in the least that the hon member made a fool of himself in this House. While it was going on I assisted him by sending him another newspaper cutting. Before he says such things in future I want to ask him to permit me to help him, as I helped the Pressmen who wanted to write things about me, ie by providing them with all the information, because I have nothing to hide. I shall invite him to come and call on me, with the greatest pleasure. Last night I looked at my notes and made a few notes about the hon member for Sunnyside. I wrote down exactly what the hon member for Turffontein said. I do not believe that, basically, the hon member for Sunnyside has any evil in him; he has merely been misused. I want to make this point: I think they misused him to get a lot of half-truths and incomplete data into Hansard so that they could use it. [Interjections.]

Listening to the contributions on finance made by the hon members of that party one could have laughed if it had not been so tragic.


What is it? [Interjections.]


I am still coming to the hon member for Langlaagte. I have considerable appreciation for the first part of his speech and I shall reply to him in that regard. However, I just wish to say this—and I think that my hon colleagues will support me in this: To think that speeches such as those made yesterday should stand on bookshelves throughout this country, throughout the world; the bookshelves of people who make a study of South Africa and consider what its leaders say; that is a tremendous problem for South Africa.

I want to say something about the accountants. I am conducting a very serious discussion with the accountants. Last year we carried out a check at the Johannesburg Revenue Office, which has more than 80 000 companies on its books. A special team perused the tax assessment forms of companies. These companies submit tax returns in terms of an Act that we administer. They are certified by public accountants as having inter alia made due provision for taxation. In the 17 000 perused—I concede that this was not an adequate and random test—we found almost 4 000 mistakes, and the upshot of this was that in fact there was R250 million in additional taxable income. I do not wish to contend for a moment that public accountants did this wilfully, nor do I wish to say that fraud or negligence was involved. All I said to them in the discussions that I held and am still holding with them is that we must reach an agreement of some nature with that honoured profession with regard to their responsibility to the State and other taxpayers. In the process we observed a certain phenomenon which applies not only to the public accountants but also to the accountants of the relevant companies. We must eliminate this phenomenon. Instead of regarding all legal expenses, all travelling expenses etc as deductible without further ado, a certain method of operation, possibly by way of precedents, etc, must be built into the process in terms of which these items are taxed, because as the situation stands at present this kind of expenditure is simply regarded as deductible, and the onus is placed on the people of the Receiver of Revenue to ascertain where it has been wrongly done. I do not think that this is fair, and in my opinion an honourable agreement can be reached to deal with this problem.

If, in the endeavour to eliminate specific tax problems, I make certain statements and take the matter up with a certain profession, I believe that I am acting in the best interests of the country, but what is more, that I am acting in the best interests of the man who filled in his tax form honestly, the ordinary worker who does not have an opportunity to make a mistake, deliberate or otherwise, and in that way to withold R250 million of taxable income, viz R125 million in tax, from the Treasury. I do not think that that is just, nor do I think that it is to anyone’s credit. If hon members of the CP wanted to reproach me in this regard then they must go with me to the people who fill in their tax forms honestly, so that we can hear what they say about the fact that the fat cats get away with something they ought not to get away with.


Is the hon the Minister going to investigate the activities of the relevant accounting firms and companies, and is he going to clamp down on them properly? We believe in fairness and justice and we want to know from him whether he is going to do so.


The hon member knows as well as I do that if we discover a flagrant offence we have the power to act. What we get, however, is not white or black, but grey. For this reason we must reach an agreement. I concede at once that an accountant’s primary duty is to give his client the best possible advice. I concede that point to anyone who knows anything about this matter. I just think that we must have an arrangement to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen. The fact that R250 million in taxable income would not have been taxed if an official had not traced it, to my mind constitutes evidence that ethical and professional norms are not being properly applied.

†The hon member for Umbilo apologized for his absence. He complained yesterday of not feeling very well and we will excuse him for being unable to attend today. I have a high regard for the things the hon member said during his speech. He said we should return and stick to the verities of hard work, careful spending and saving. Later in his speech he made a very important point when he said that we must live within our means and buy cash. Credit also has its place in a sophisticated society. Without credit the average man cannot purchase something of real material value. However, a careful person plans his credit in such a way that it does not unnecessarily burden him and disrupt his normal existence. However, we have found, and it is clear from the statistics that we have available, that in the second quarter of last year South Africa experienced a negative saving. This is absolutely disastrous.

By the way, talking about savings, in the same book to which I referred earlier when I quoted from Gilbert, the author makes a very interesting point in regard to savings. He says that savings in the USA were a lower percentage of disposable personal income than in the UK, and yet there was much more job creation in the USA than in the UK. He argues that the reason for that was that the savings, although a sizeable percentage, were channeled into the hands of financial institutions in the UK instead of being channeled directly into the hands of real entrepreneurs, or being made available to the entrepreneur himself. This is a very interesting point and it certainly deserves further investigation in South Africa.

*I associate myself with what the hon member for Hercules said yesterday. It is plain fact that the expenditure of money by a person who has an absolute and direct interest in it, is optimal in comparison with expenditure incurred on his behalf, whether by the State or by anyone else. Therefore I think that the hon member made a valuable contribution to the debate.

The hon member for Paarl identified a triumvirate with his reference to a three-legged pot, viz the partnership between the public and private sectors and the public. He said that the State should set the example. He set a praiseworthy ideal. We are trying to set as good an example as possible in the next budget. This is not easy, but we are doing our best. There are certain factors in South Africa that make it very difficult to state without further ado that Government expenditure will be curbed. Every school child who enters a classroom carries in his satchel another fraction of school-teacher, another fraction of brick, another fraction of wood, another fraction of head office staff, another fraction of computer, another fraction of research, another fraction of university and university college. That child—whatever population group he belongs to, but particularly among the Black people who are entering education in their masses—who enters the classrooms entails direct as well as indirect cost, which imposes a constraint on the budget. All these costs have to be covered. One cannot summarily cut down on any of these costs.

We must also bear in mind that we in South Africa have to deal with an economy that is being pressurized from all quarters. We have said before that if it had been possible to buy our armaments without the premium, if it had been possible for us to buy our nuclear fuel without being obliged to manufacture it ourselves at astronomical marginal expense, and if we did not need to stockpile these massive amounts, we should have had billions of rands at our disposal to do what the Opposition is always advocating.


Simply get rid of apartheid.


It is the easiest thing in the world to say that we should obtain the extra money by curbing so-called ideological expenditure. However, the naked truth is that hon members of the PFP know as well as we do that if we were to implement their policy in this country tomorrow, the attitude of the Western countries would not change towards us by an iota. [Interjections.]


That is not true.


If they say it is not true they must tell us what policy of theirs leads them to believe that. The policy of the PFP is not the policy that will result in the arms boycott against South Africa being cancelled. Those premiums that I refer to and that can be dropped are therefore our joint problem because if our policy causes it, then their policy causes it to an equal extent. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Paarl went on to make an important point when he said that many people live too well. I think that we on this side must say that if one earns one’s money and spends it wisely one can live as well as one’s income allows one to. I think that we must say from this House that we do not begrudge anyone his good life as long as he earns his money fairly, as long as his productivity is right and as long as he makes reasonable provision for the future so that he is not living well on credit. I think we must take care not to bring about a psychosis in this country of no longer wanting people to live well. An interesting point that is also made in the book to which I refer is that in the thinking of the Western world the error has occurred that a State can be rich without individuals being rich, that a State can be well-off without certain individuals being well-off. This is a very important idea which we must bear in mind. There must be provision in our economy for the man with initiative and drive to be able to make his money, to get a fair price for the risk he takes and for the 18 to 20 hours a day that he works. That is why the tax investigation that is in progress at the moment is of such crucial importance for South Africa. Our system of taxation, too, must make this more possible in future than it was in the past without resulting in encroachments and distortions which place too heavy a burden on the people lower down the scale.

†The hon member for Yeoville also referred to local government taxes. The fact is that the policy of the Government, as accepted and understood today, is one of devolution of authority and power and devolution of responsibility. If that process takes effect, obviously local authorities must also have the authority and the ability to levy taxes. The hon member made the point, a valid point on the face of it, that we pretend to be cutting Government expenditure but are in fact cutting it here and spending more there. The fact is that, if we are able to reduce Government spending by transferring responsibility for certain expenditure to the regional committees and by getting them to spend money on the strength of taxes levied in their areas, we have certainly done a service to the administration of this country. Certainly, it is not the idea that we should keep our expenditure constant while developing those other revenue sources. It is, however, a hen-egg situation. We shall first have to create the bodies concerned and create the legislative powers for them to carry on.


Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he does not regard Government expenditure as being Government expenditure at all levels of government, including the expenditure for which the authority has been devolved to semi-autonomous or local bodies? The lump sum of expenditure at all levels is “Government expenditure”, whether it is expenditure at the top, in the middle or at the bottom.


Certainly, but the hon member knows as well as I do that when Government involvement in the GDP is calculated, here and elsewhere in the world the figure used is the expenditure of the central Government. One does not add to it the expenditure by the provincial councils, the municipalities, etc.


One does. It includes all Government expenditure.


In purely scientific terms the hon member is correct, but, certainly, it will be to the advantage of the taxpayer in a particular area for him to see the relevant portion of Government expenditure in the broader sense, as the hon member himself defined it, spent in his immediate area and for him to be able to exercise much closer control over that expenditure. I think that that leads to much better administration than if it all flows from the central Government.


But this involves money additional to the money that is being raised already.


Certainly it will be additional to an extent but, as regards those revenue sources, the Government will pay into them because the Government is also active in certain fields. To the extent that organizations, institutions, and particularly companies, pay, the expenditure will be deductible. In this case also, the Government contributes. The essence of the matter, however, lies in expenditure. The purposes for which expenditure is incurred and the results of that expenditure will be much more closely linked to the taxpayer. Consequently, the taxpayer will be able to exercise a much greater direct influence in this regard. This is the thinking behind the whole concept of the devolution of power. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Hillbrow argued that there could have been no worse time than the present for introducing the local authority taxes. I agree with the hon member. However, I would like him, when he next speaks, to suggest an opportune time. People sometimes argue that the opportune time for levying taxes is when things are going well in a country. Surely, however, a tax can be an extremely inflationary measure in such circumstances, because things are going so well then that people are simply compensated for a loss in revenue. Sometimes it is necessary for a tax to bite into the standard of living of the people in the country; otherwise it would be possible to make loans. Why does one pay taxes?


Levying tax is not inflationary, really.


I said that it is inflationary under very special circumstances. Generally speaking, certainly, a tax is non-inflationary, or deflationary.


May I ask the hon the Minister a question.


Yes, in a moment. If I understood the hon member for Hillbrow correctly, he argued—and I quote him; I tried to write down what he said—that “soon we will not need to spend R4,5 billion on the provinces”, and asked: “Why levy a tax now?” Mr Speaker, the R4,5 billion which is being spent now by the provinces will not disappear when provincial government disappears. Education will not disappear. Instead of channelling the funds there, the funds may be channelled for example to the alternative second-tier government or wherever. Hospitalization will not cease. The building of roads and hospitals, inter alia, will not cease. So the money will still be spent. Thus, I cannot for the life of me understand the reasons for the hon member’s argument. If we could save R4,5 billion by abolishing provincial councils, we would, I think, be strongly tempted to do so tomorrow. [Interjections.] However, there is no way that we can continue to run the country under such circumstances.


I just want to tell the hon the Minister that it is common cause that, in all four provinces, there will be no provincial councillors. There will simply be an Executive Committee. Local Government is already part of the central Government, and other functions will be delegated to other bodies. Is the hon the Minister not prepared to agree that that R4,5 billion will be reduced by at least that R800 million which he is looking for as a result of the Croeser recommendations?


Certainly, the R4,5 billion will be reduced; but, as I understood the hon member, he argued that virtually everything would disappear.


No, I did not say so. [Interjections.]


Then I understand the hon member I must agree with him that, certainly, when the provincial councils are changed or when rationalization takes place, certain savings will be effected. However, I do not agree …


May I ask another question?


No, I think I have answered enough questions.

I do not agree that we should postpone the implementation of the tax until the completion of that process. There is no way that we can leave the Black local authorities without a decent source of revenue. As things are at the moment, we have these councils, they are keen to go ahead and do something on behalf of their communities, but they do not have the means right now, and it is important that we provide the means for them so that they can develop their communities in accordance with the mandates that they received from their communities.


May I put a question to the hon the Minister?


I do not have any more time, thank you.

*Mr Speaker, I should very much like to convey my sincerest congratulations to the hon member Dr Venter for the outstanding maiden speech she made. I am sure that we on this side of the House, her colleagues, not only appreciate her always immaculate appearance, but will also in future have the utmost appreciation for the intellectual quality of the contributions that she will undoubtedly make in this House.

I wish to thank the hon member for Langlaagte for the sympathetic approach he addopted towards me yesterday as a newcomer to this post. I want him to know that I appreciated it. It was in shrill contrast to his colleague in front here; perhaps he should inform his colleague somewhat in that regard. I just want to ask the hon member to take a careful look at how the mechanism of the financing of imports and exports works. As he presented it here yesterday I do not think it is quite correct, and therefore the conclusions he drew were incorrect. I want to ask him—I am not going to try to give him a lecture on the matter—just to look at that; if he does he will interpret it correctly. [Interjections.]

Secondly the hon member warned us on this side of the House that there was a feeling of: “You have a countdown of 5 years only”. I want to give him the assurance that we are still negotiating foreign loans for periods considerably longer than 5 years. Not long ago there was a time when it was difficult even to obtain a repayment period of 5 years.

There is another aspect of foreign loans. We must not think that foreign loans of 20, 50 or X number of years are easy, because no country wants to link itself to the finances of another country for such a long period. What the hon member should bear in mind, however, is that even if the period of that loan is 5 or even 3 years, we really have not yet had any difficulty rolling over that loan and extending it for a further period of 3 years and then another 3 years, etc. If we consider how many such loans we have rolled over in the past, there are some of them that are growing a beard already.


That is why they are getting so afraid of you: It is all that rolling over! [Interjections.]


Mr Speaker, I do not think that the hon member quite understands the meaning of the word “roll over” in that context. [Interjections.]

†Mr Speaker, the hon member for Constantia apologized for his absence. However, in his absence, I want to refer to a remark he made when he said: “The reduction in the inflation rate is a matter of will power.” To a certain degree the hon member is right. However, I want to challenge him to quantify that willpower in terms of interest rates and of unemployment. I mention only two of the disasters which can eventuate if one exercises too great a will power in killing inflation over too short a period of time. I want to submit that for his consideration.

A second point which he made that I would like to refer to, is the following: While he was speaking yesterday, the Governor of the Reserve Bank issued a statement. The hon member for Constantia was referring to the money supply when he said that we had thrown up a smokescreen, connecting the money supply with the velocity of money. My reply to the hon member is that there is no way one can separate those two entities. One can have a massive money supply; if it does not move, however, it does not move. Then it has no role to play in inflation. On the other hand, a rapid velocity in one’s money supply, a rapid turnaround 10 or 12 times per year paints a completely different picture, even with a much smaller money supply. Whilst he was speaking, new figures came out, and I want to quote some very briefly to the hon member. It is very important to note this, as I am quoting from the statement of the Governor of the Reserve Bank, as follows:

During the month of December 1984, M1, M2 and M3 showed seasonally adjusted annual rates of growth of only 14,4, 2,7 and 4,5% respectively.

This has to be compared with rates of increase over the 12 months to December 1984, of 34%—it is now 14,4%; 25,8%—it is now 2,7%; and 23,2%—it is now 4,5%. That is the seasonally adjusted figure on an annual basis. What is in effect happening is not only that the velocity is slowing down but also that the money supply is showing a dramatic decrease. This is a good sign for the economy of South Africa.


At last!


The hon member for Hillbrow says “At last”, and it is true. We have had a problem bringing it down, but in addition to what has happened so far we are waiting for the De Kock Commission to submit its report, and to identify in the process new tools, which have not existed so far, to bring the money supply under much better control. I believe that that will come soon.

The hon member for Constantia made another point and said: “There can be no real economic growth with double-digit inflation.” This is patently untrue. Many countries—I have a whole host of examples here—have had substantial rates of real growth during periods of double-digit inflation. I do not want to go into greater detail as far as that is concerned.

*The hon member for George—I think that this is the first time in many years in the history of our country that the words “the hon member for George” have been used in this House—definitely spoke with considerable authority about his constituency and about an industry which is of great value for his constituency. I should like to congratulate him on his speech. The hon member also mentioned an industry which is of great importance to his constituency. All that we can say to him from the side of the tax collector is that we wish him everything of the best with all the business enterprises he wishes to launch there, which will not only cultivate the product he discussed but will also process and apply the final touches to that product so as to produce final consumer products. We shall smile all the way to George if that can happen there. We congratulate him on a fine contribution.

The hon member for False Bay yesterday made an extremely important point when he said: “The economy cannot be bluffed.” I think that that is one of the truest remarks yet made in this House about the economy. “The economy cannot be bluffed”. If anyone has not earned with his hands the money he puts in his pocket, the cruel beast of the economy gets hold of him. There are only two alternatives; either he must improve his productivity or production so as to be worth his money, or else the value of his money will drop to adapt to his deficient production. That is how simple it is. The economy does not allow itself to be bluffed for long, and we can learn from that statement made by the hon member for False Bay that a finger points at everyone in South Africa, because we have an inflation rate of 13,3%. There is no doubt about the fact that the cost pressure component of inflation creates a tremendous problem for him, specifically due to the fact that there are people who do not earn the money they are putting in their pockets. This really creates a tremendous problem for us in combating inflation as a whole. The hon member went on to make the point that we are too dependent on revenue from gold. That is quite true; not only from gold domestically but also from gold as an owner of foreign exchange. If our exporters are not going to compensate for the problems we are experiencing at present, then we are in difficulties.

†I think the hon member for Cape Town Gardens made a very important point when he said—and I agree with him—that there were many indirect factors, particularly in Black education, which made it extremely difficult for the child to perform to the best of his ability. The hon member pointed out that the child may, for example, be hungry or cold. However, that does not happen only in the case of Black children. I have been to a school in my own constituency which has to feed children in winter. I do think, however, that this factor which he mentioned is a very important one. Perhaps at some other time that particular aspect of the debate can be taken further because it is no use eventually spending more than R1 000 on a child, purely on education, when the child is, on account of indirect factors, not really in a position to respond to it adequately.

Business interrupted in accordance with Joint Rule 43(2).

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—99: Alant, T G; Aronson, T; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Botha, C J v R; Botha, J C G; Breytenbach, W N; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, H S; Conradie, F D; Cronjé, P; Cunningham, J H; De Jager, A M v A; De Klerk, F W; De Pontes, P; Du Plessis, B J; Du Plessis, G C; Durr, K D S; Du Toit, J P; Fick, L H; Fouché, A F; Geldenhuys, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Grobler, J P; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P B B; Jordaan, A L; Kleynhans, J W; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Landman, W J; Le Grange, L; Lemmer, W A; Ligthelm, N W; Lloyd, J J; Louw, E v d M; Malan, W C; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, W D; Miller, R B; Morrison, G de V; Munnik, L A P A; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Poggenpoel, D J; Pretorius, N J; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Rencken, C R E; Schoeman, H; Schoeman, S J; Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Simkin, C H W; Smit, H A; Steyn, D W; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, K D; Terblanche, A J W P S; Thompson, A G; Ungerer, J H B; Van Breda, A; Van den Berg, J C; Van der Linde, G J; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Merwe, C V; Van Eeden, D S; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J (Rosettenville); Van Staden, J W; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Venter, A A; Venter, E H; Vermeulen, J A J; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Volker, V A; Weeber, A; Welgemoed, P J; Wessels, L; Wiley, J W E; Wilkens, B H.

Tellers: J P I Blanché, W J Cuyler, W T Kritzinger, C J Ligthelm, R P Meyer, and L van der Watt.

Noes—40: Andrew, K M; Bamford, B R; Barnard, M S; Barnard, S P; Burrows, R; Cronjé, P C; Dalling, D J; Eglin, C W; Gastrow, P H P; Hardingham, R W; Hartzenberg, F; Hoon, J H; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Malcomess, D J N; Olivier, N J J; Page, B W B; Raw, W V; Rogers, P R C; Savage, A; Schoeman, J C B; Scholtz, E M; Schwarz, H H; Sive, R; Slabbert, F v Z; Snyman, W J; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Tarr, M A; Theunissen, L M; Treurnicht, A P; Van der Merwe, H D K; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Rensburg, H E J; Van Staden, F A H; Van Zyl, J J B; Visagie J H.

Tellers: G B D McIntosh and A B Widman.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill read a second time.


Message from the House of Delegates informing this House of the concurrence of the House of Delegates in the Resolution relative to the appointment of a Joint Committee to inquire into and report upon the desirability of repealing, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949, and section 16 of the Immorality Act, 1957.

In accordance with Standing Order No 19, the House adjourned at 18h32.