Mr Chairman, I should like to emphasise what I was saying when the House adjourned yesterday afternoon. South Africa’s voters must not allow themselves to be blinded by small irritations that arise as a result of the essential changes and reforms the NP is effecting. In fact, South Africa’s voters will constantly have to weigh up priorities, and in particular they will have to guard against exchanging so-called small irritations for something of which they cannot see or imagine the end.

When it comes to finance and the economy we can merely wonder what South Africa would look like without foreign trade and export possibilities. The Official Opposition are welcome to their dreams that if they should ever try to implement their policy, it would not be to the further detriment of foreign relations, or that we would be able to get along without foreign trade. The harsh reality, however, is that if we want to maintain the desired economic growth rate in order to make provision for all South Africa’s inhabitants’ needs and especially in respect of employment opportunities, we shall have to extend and expand our foreign trade and export.

The importance of economic stability for political stability cannot be overemphasised. That is exactly what the hon the State President emphasised in his opening address and what the hon the Minister wants to achieve with his Budget.

The continued existence of South Africa will not depend only on the unity of the Afrikaners and the Whites, as the hon member for Potgietersrus likes to contend. No, Sir, no matter how important this unity is, the continued existence of South Africa will depend on the unity of moderate people who are prepared to accept the realities of the time from day to day. What happens to species that are not prepared …

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

No, Mr Chairman, my time is limited.

What happens to species that are not prepared to adapt or are incapable of adapting to changed circumstances? They become fossils. That is really a sad prospect for a party that is not prepared to try to adapt to the present circumstances in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

That is why the 1988-89 Budget, of which approximately 68% is being spent on defence, the police, education, national health, development planning and welfare services, is so relevant. That is exactly what this budget is doing to keep pace with and to allow for circumstances in the South Africa of the present. That is why I regard it as a great privilege to support the Appropriation Bill on behalf of this side of the House in the strongest terms.

Mr Chairman, naturally I am not going to react to the hon member who has just spoken. I may have a chance to do so later.

It is a privilege to be able to take part in the proceedings here as the democratically elected representative of Schweizer-Reneke. I regard it as a privilege for various reasons.

In the first place it is a privilege to succeed Mr Kobus Beyers as Schweizer-Reneke’s representative. I should like to pay tribute to him on this occasion. He was a worthy representative and a definite asset to this House. In the short time at my disposal I experienced what he meant to the Schweizer-Reneke constituency. I regard it as a challenge to succeed him in a rural constituency such as Schweizer-Reneke which makes heavy demands on its representative.

On a personal note I want to say that it is also a privilege to be able to take part here in the presence of my mother today. I should like to pay tribute to her; she has endured politics for so many years and still has to do so. The same applies to my wife for her sacrifices.

In addition it is a privilege to take part in proceedings my father took part in for 20 years. I learnt politics at his knee, and I hope that I shall be able to live up to the ideals he believed in so ardently with the same devotion he always displayed. He looked forward so much to receiving us here and grooming us in the finer nuances of Parliament, but he was not fated to do so.

Permit me then to put my point of departure on this first occasion, and that is not to claim all honour for myself, but to pay tribute to the triune God in whom I believe and without whom I would not see my way clear to tackling this new task.

In addition to this tribute, I should like to address a few words of thanks. In the first place I should like to thank all the Parliamentary officials, from the highest to the lowest. They received me here in a very friendly fashion and were exceptionally helpful and very efficient throughout. It is a great pleasure to work with such people.

I also wish to extend a particular word of thanks to the voters of Schweizer-Reneke who had enough confidence in me to send me to this House as their representative. Schweizer-Reneke is an exceptional constituency in more than one respect. All eight of the main towns have a rich history, and a close bond with the old Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek. A number of famous battles took place here during the Boer War— battles in which the fight was for the Afrikaners’ freedom and continued existence. I hope to be able to continue here in that spirit.

It is interesting that Schweizer-Reneke, with its 15 000 voters, is the Transvaal constituency with the least voters at present. Yet it has more voters than 24 seats in the Cape Province do. Whereas the Hillbrow constituency covers two square kilometres in surface area, for example, and Durban Point covers four square kilometres, Schweizer-Reneke covers 15 981 square kilometres. One can understand why rural MPs should receive travelling allowances. I do not know about the others!

This constituency is one of the agricultural constituencies with the best potential in the country, but at the same time it is one of the constituencies in which the farmers are experiencing exceptionally hard times at the moment because of seven years of drought, and in which the debt burden is exceptionally high. Even the recent good rains have not solved the problems many farmers have.

A constituency’s greatest asset remains its people, however; ardent, enthusiastic people, farming people who overwhelm one with their hospitality. They are loyal people who will not leave one in the lurch once they have offered one their unstinting support. I am proud of being associated with them, of being able to represent them in this House and of being able to fight for them. With the people of Schweizer-Reneke on my side, I am ready to take on the whole of South Africa and the world.

In addition to my responsibility to the Schweizer-Reneke constituency, I believe that every representative, each of us sitting here, has an exceptional task of serving South Africa’s wider interests in this House. When I look at South Africa’s problems in general, I believe one of the specific problems everyone in the House should agree upon is South Africa’s image abroad. It does not matter what one’s perspective is; I think we agree about the distortion and twisting of the various standpoints that also prevail in South Africa. People who have been abroad and hon members who have just returned from there will know what I am talking about, and those who have worked or lived there will know how serious the problem is. As far as the image concept is concerned, and specifically the image of a country, it is interesting to see what someone like Bernstein wrote in his book Company Image. This also applies to a country like South Africa. He wrote:

Naturally this also applies to South Africa. Everyone says something should be done about South Africa’s image abroad, and I think all of us in the House agree with that. It is a pity, however, that there is at present hardly any official foreign information service, detached from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I also want to avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate the hon the State President on the fact that with the promotion of the hon the Deputy Minister, information now has a full-fledged Minister once again. I think that is a step in the right direction, especially if the emphasis can fall specifically on foreign countries.

The question I want to answer is the following. Do modern democratic Western states really need an independent foreign information service today? Is that really still necessary in these times? If one were to make a study of this, one would see that state information services emerged as a phenomenon only in the twentieth century. Before the twentieth century there were no information services as we know them today, but changes in international politics led to the existence of foreign information services in most countries. Some of the factors which we obviously cannot deal with fully here at the moment include open diplomacy, which emerged particularly after the First World War. This in turn led to conference diplomacy with all the implications that gave rise to. Eventually things reached a stage at which a press attaché in a foreign country could issue press statements to influence the local population in favour of his fatherland which he was representing in that country. In his book on diplomacy Sir Harold Nicholson wrote the following about this development:

Today it is general practice.

In my opinion the most important single factor which makes foreign information services an essential for each modern country today, was the development of the communication media. If one makes a study of international politics, one will see that in addition to war, negotiation and the economy are used as instruments on the international level. In the twentienth century, because of the communications media, communication or information or propaganda—whatever one wants to call it—has become a new instrument on the international level. In his book on international politics, Frankel wrote the following about this:

This dimension of international politics emerged very clearly during the cold war that followed the Second World War. It is a communication war in which all countries find themselves involved.

The question now is how other countries reacted to these changes. When one looks at the United States of America, one sees that America reacted to this change in international politics, to these different factors, by establishing an independent information service in the fifties. It is an information service which reports directly to the President of America at present; an information service that is detached from their Department of Foreign Affairs, and an information service which, from the nature of the case, concentrates only on foreign countries.

Here are some interesting figures. In 1984 the American information service had 3 000 staff members at its headquarters in Washington alone, and there were 201 posts and 6 000 staff members abroad. In 1985 the official information budget, as far as can be determined, was $885 million. This was 91% more than in 1981. This is a modern Western state that regards this matter in such a serious light and which acts in this way.

Edward Murrow, a former director of the American information service, said the following about the American information service:

If one continues to seek a solution in the American service, it is interesting to find that the American service may not distribute any information in the interior; only abroad. Even during the Kennedy years, Congress had to grant permission for a film to be shown before they could eventually distribute an information film in the United State of America. Obviously the argument is that the governing party cannot be benefitted in the democratic process. In this light it may be ironic that the new hon Minister is concentrating on the interior at present, and we hope that he will concentrate on other directions in future.

In view of the changes on the international level in the twentieth century—especially the ways in which other countries have dealt with the problems of their image, and their problem of international communications in particular—South Africa dare not lag behind in my opinion. We dare not be unprofessional or be ashamed of South Africa on the world scene.

In the first place I want to appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance to place a high priority on information—especially in foreign countries—in the interests of everyone in South Africa.

I also want to make an appeal in the interests of South Africa, and here it is not a matter of personal or petty party-political reasons, for us to move in the direction of an independent information service once again; an information service which will be detached from the Department of Foreign Affairs and which can extend its sphere of activity. Irrespective of the party that will govern in future, it is true in the twentieth century that although the original diplomats were basically messengers of peace, modern diplomats and modern information officers have become generals in the cold arena of the information war—with the communications media and the word as their weapons. As far as I am concerned, South Africa must become part of this as a top priority.

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate the new hon member for Schweizer-Reneke on his maiden speech. As one former professor to another newly elected former professor, I want to say that I am of the opinion that he dealt with a very interesting subject here. Although we are sitting on different sides of the House, both of us—this applies to all of us—can make use of our knowledge to make a contribution that is in the best interests of South Africa. It is not always necessary to be destructive. May the speech he made today also serve as a pillar on which his future speeches for the advancement of South Africa may rest.

Mr Chairman, yesterday we heard two speeches by the chief financial spokesmen of the Official Opposition and the PFP respectively. [Interjections.] To summarise the criticism, this would appear to me to be a very popular Budget.

When one analyses the speeches made yesterday by the two chief financial spokesmen of the opposition parties, two themes emerge. One of them is very positive. I am referring to the hon member for Yeoville. The other one is unfortunately negative.

The hon member Yeoville said he supported a free enterprise system and a capitalistic system free of apartheid; a brand of capitalism—and I want to use the following words—that look kindly upon the underprivileged insofar as education, health and social services are concerned.

The CP did not address the economic policy of the Government. They did not address the comprehensive budget report which the hon the Minister has tabled. The CP did not state its own economic policy either, but attacked the Government on account of its “socialist” policies. They based this attack on one train of thought, namely that of taking away from the Whites and giving to the Blacks. That is their concept of socialism.

The question is whether the Government’s economic policy is based on a workable brand of capitalism and a philosophy of free enterprise with an accommodating approach, or—as the Official Opposition say—purely on socialism. The Government believes in a philosophy of free enterprise and in a workable brand of capitalism. These goals will only be attained if the economic system affords everyone equal opportunities. Those people who are unable at present to avail themselves of these equal opportunities must be educated so as to enable them to avail themselves of those opportunities. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, said in 1776: “No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable”. The question now is: What do the CP advocate? Are they in favour of capitalism and a philosophy of free enterprise for all, or may only the Whites have a share in it?

Judging by speeches made in this House and articles in the Patriot, I must unfortunately draw the following conclusions. Firstly, the economy of the country must be totally subjected to the political decision-making of those in power and be used for the promotion of a political policy, namely partition. Secondly, a redistribution of income must take place by means of the budget by taking away from the larger companies—the Hochenheimers—and giving to the farmers, the public servants and the teachers, with less assistance to the Blacks. Thirdly, it is interesting to note that the co-operatives are to be promoted as a possible counter to the private sector. That is what is stated in the Patriot. They must serve as a counter to private initiative. Fourthly, privatisation is unacceptable because the funds derived from this are to be used for the improvement of the infrastructure and the upliftment of the underdeveloped areas and, inter alia, of the Blacks in South Africa. Fifthly, the system of regional services councils is unacceptable to the CP because it amounts to a redistribution of income in order to improve the infrastructure of Black townships. The CP is opposed to this.

The CP is striving towards total partition, in terms of which the White sources of taxation may be used only for White requirements. In the process of partition no White land is to be sold to Blacks. In propagating this philosophy to the electorate, they continually state that the NP is doing everything for the Blacks. They say that the redistribution of income is leading to total socialism. The widow, the public servant, the worker and the farmer have to pay tax which is being wasted by the Black man. The CP’s criticism of the present Budget reflects these points which I have mentioned. Unfortunately the truth is not always a strong attribute of the CP’s propaganda sheets. Flagrant racism is rife. I should like to mention a few examples to hon members.

In the Patriot of 19 February 1988 it is stated in an article that 92,3% of the Treasury’s revenue is derived from Whites. Very well, the implication is made that this is income tax, but it is not stated directly.

On 25 March 1988, however, they forgot about income tax. It was stated then that 93% of the State’s revenue was paid by the Whites and that the hon the Minister of Finance was going to push up that figure. Hon members may feel free to look it up. Furthermore, tax cuts have now apparently been granted to the lower income groups, which for the most part consist of Blacks. Once again, hon members may feel free to look this up; it is there in black and white. Nowhere in this article is it stated that reference is being made only to income tax. That is the type of truth we are dealing with.

In 1987-88 an amount of approximately R14 billion was paid in sales tax and excise duty. Today the Black man pays approximately half of that, namely R7 billion. I shall come back to that later. Apart from that there is also company tax and the taxation on our mines. The hon member for Carletonville will probably agree with me that the mines could surely not get by without Black labour. He will also agree with me that the mines pay tax. [Interjections.]

The CP goes on to tell the electorate that 56 cents out of every rand the Government spends, go to the Blacks. In another article it is stated that 38 cents out of every rand go to the Blacks. That is very interesting.

Figures are not very plentiful, but we do nevertheless have certain figures at our disposal. According to the 1980 figures on expenditure in respect of the specific population groups in the field of education, health, transport and food subsidies and social services, the Whites received R440 per capita and the Blacks R80 per capita. We must remember, however, that the per capita income of the Whites is approximately 10% higher than that of the Blacks. What we are witnessing here, is a manipulation of figures and the omission of facts.

It is interesting to note that State expenditure in the field of White education, pensions and the other transfer payments, such as housing schemes, increased by R435 per capita in 1980 to R1 059 per capita in 1985, or from 14,5% to 16,5% of the total State expenditure. Those are the figures of the Bureau for Market Research; they are not fabricated.

In 1985 it was found that the per capita taxation paid by the White taxpayer amounted to R1 883 as opposed to the average per capita expenditure or subsidy of R1 059. That includes all forms of taxation; it does not include only one sort of tax, as is the CP’s method of approaching the matter.

Hon members will recall that a small percentage of the taxpayers pay the major portion of our tax. It is true that 22.7% of our taxpayers pay 69,1% of the total amount which we receive by way of income tax. [Interjections.] That figure relates to 1986-87. Hon members will therefore have to agree with me that the tax paid by a large proportion of our Whites does not cover the subsidies which they receive from the Government.

That is very interesting; we could go on like this. Let us take a look at the rest of the State’s expenditure, which amounts to R22,7 billion. After deducting the expenditure in respect of the Whites—that is to say, the expenditure in respect of the White subsidy—a figure of R3,9 billion remains. Consequently I can tell those hon members that the Whites contribute only R3,9 billion towards the Police Force, the Defence Force and the R2 billion which the farmers received in the form of drought relief, and to which the hon member for Lichtenburg referred.

The CP referred to the distribution of income as a movement from White to Black socialism. It would appear to me that the distribution of income from a rich White to a poor White person is regarded as capitalism. However, it must not go to a Black man; then it is socialism.

There is another matter which we must relate to this. The subsidy for every White child amounts to R5,50, and that for every Black child, R1,00. I must say that the position of the Black child has improved a great deal. If we further consider that many of our Black hospitals are more than 100% full whilst certain of our White hospitals are only 50% full, I ask the CP whether they are being honest with South Africa.

They must remember that there is such a principle as fairness in State financing. Do they believe in that? It is not only in the case of criticism of the Budget that the racism of the CP emerges, but also whenever inflation is discussed. The CP’s argument is that this Government’s striving for parity among the various race groups in regard to wages and salaries, is one of the major causes of inflation. That is what the hon member for Carletonville said.

Furthermore, hon members of the Official Opposition also say that the increase in the productivity of the Black man does not compensate for the increase in wages and salaries. It is interesting to note that when one makes a study of the speeches and articles of the CP, one comes across conflicting viewpoints. Their chief economic writer, Dr Berkhout, says that the low productivity of Black workers is of a highly academic nature and that the productivity of the large number of routine workers is likewise determined by the quality of management, the nature of equipment, as well as the motivation of the workers. White management therefore determines productivity.

The White voter is now being told that the real income of the White employee has decreased over the past few years as a result of the hon the State President’s policy of power sharing, while the position of the Black man has continued to improve. That is what the hon member for Barberton said. However, we must look at the real statistics. When we look at the increase in salaries and wages for Whites, we see that they increased by R1 254 per capita between 1976 and 1986. In the case of Blacks the per capita increase was R388 per month. The Black man’s average monthly income now amounts to R500, as opposed to the R1 732 of the White man. I think the CP will agree with me that this being the case, one should be more careful in making allegations regarding the cause of inflation.

Furthermore, it is common knowledge that the CP is telling the White electorate about what a large amount of money is being given to the national self-governing states. However, many of these formulas were drawn up by the person whom they allege to be their father, namely dr Verwoerd. Not many changes have been made to them. What does the aid to the national states consist of in reality? In Dr Verwoerd’s day it was agreed that if the Black states were to take over certain services such as the Police and Defence Force, that Government would give them the same compensation and assistance. It was furthermore agreed—I think the hon member for Lichtenburg is aware of this—that increases in this amount would be effected by way of an adjustment to the formula in order to adapt it to inflation. The hon member is aware of that because he dealt with the matter. In the second instance there is the question of those Blacks who pay sales tax in South Africa. The State pays customs and excise duty on certain goods that are imported for them by South Africa. We reached an agreement on this a long time ago. Must we prescribe to them how they are to spend the income they earn? If so, then there was point in Dr Verwoerd granting those people independence. Or does the CP no longer agree with him? Perhaps that is a very good question. Many of the businesses in the national states pay their tax in South Africa. That money must be paid back to them, and this is only right because it is money that belongs to them. Why, then, is there such a great fuss, when we pay that money to them, about an increase in the amounts, as well as about the way in which they spend the money?

Then there are also—I agree—development aid and subsidies. I listened this morning to what was said about the police force and the defence force of one of our national states. I do not want to mention any amounts, but I do want to ask the CP whether they would maintain the police and defence forces of our national states which are situated between Zimbabwe, Botswana and other such areas, or whether they would stop paying. Would the Black man have to pay for everything himself? After all, that is the story they are peddling to the widows and orphans. [Interjections.]

What is interesting is that the figures are not viewed in a general context. They simply quote them piecemeal. When one looks at the figure in respect of direct aid—I am not talking about the transfer payments—to the TBVC countries in 1988-89, one sees that it amounts to R1,78 billion. I think the hon member for Lichtenburg is going to speak after me; he should write that figure down. I ask him—he is a man who talks about the farmers a great deal—how much the drought assistance from 1986 up to date amounts to. It is R2 billion. How much have we appropriated for flood relief in the latest Budget? The answer is R341 million. This being so, one really must ask whether those people are honest or whether they are opportunists. [Interjections.]

The CP, with its policy of total partition, has never spelt out the economic implications of its policy. Perhaps the new hon members for Schweizer-Reneke and Randfontein, who are two very intelligent men, could spell it out to us. Their father began to spell it out in a speech here, but we have heard nothing more about what he began to say here. [Interjections.]

I have just received a note to the effect that Dr Berkhout is apparently no longer with the CP. I apologise. [Interjections.]

The weakness in the policy of the CP lies in its economic implications. Dreams do not help.

They now have Jan van Zyl once again.

Mr Chairman, I understand that Mr Jan van Zyl is apparently going to be their adviser once again. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister what the economic results of reform look like?

As it happens, Sir, I am coming to that, and I shall ask that hon member to reply to me on a few matters. [Interjections.]

What destroyed Dr Verwoerd’s visions of the future? I shall never forget. I was a public servant when the Transkei was granted independence. Dr Diederichs came to our office and said that Dr Verwoerd was going to make the Transkei independent. We sat there on the Board of Trade and Industry and said that the country could not stand on its own feet economically; that we would simply have to help them. Dr Diederichs then said that Dr Verwoerd had said that once they had political freedom, the economy would come. That reminds me of what Dr Nkrumah said: “Give us political freedom; then economic freedom will follow.” That did not happen. If economic freedom is not forthcoming, political freedom does not emerge either.

I was asked a question about reform. When one looks at retail sales in 1986, excluding motor vehicles, one finds that total sales to Whites in South Africa amounted to 45,5%; to Blacks, 40,6%; to Coloureds, 9,2%; and to Asians, 4,7%.

Today reform and economic growth have created a market for everyone in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Let us take this further, Sir. Employment in the manufacturing industry in South Africa—perhaps I may also mention this for the edification of the hon member for Carletonville—also tells its own story. In 1960 there was one White for every 1,5 Blacks in the manufacturing industry in South Africa. That situation still prevailed in the days of the Verwoerdian philosophy; the days when the hon members of the CP were all still together with us in the NP. In 1980 the situation in the manufacturing industry altered to one of one White for every 2,1 Blacks. We have Africanised in our White areas. We have Africanised in the manufacturing industry. We are also dependent on those people in the mining industry, in which there was one White for every 88 Blacks in 1960 as opposed to one White for every 80 Blacks in 1980. Here there is, in fact, an improvement.

Now you are making it even Blacker! [Interjections.]

It would appear to me that the hon member for Carletonville left the mining industry a long time ago. I understand they are now introducing mechanisation and automation in that industry. Or am I wrong? [Interjections.] Therefore, it would appear to me that the hon member no longer has his finger on the pulse. [Interjections.]

What is very interesting, Sir, is the following. In South Africa, excluding the national states, there are three Blacks economically active for every one economically active White. Can we still hold reality at bay? Dr Verwoerd could not hold it at bay. Hon members must remember that the figures I have just mentioned do not even include the Coloureds and the Asians. The CP must realise, therefore, that the Whites of South Africa can never be independent of the non-Whites of this country. Therefore, attempts to separate all our races—total partition—will only lead to poverty, not only for the Blacks but for the Whites as well.

One day I happened to pay a visit to Pietersburg. I want to ask the hon member for Pietersburg the following question. If the Government were to suspend aid to the Black states—that is, after all, what the CP is propagating—and if the Government were to reduce all the decentralisation aid to Pietersburg whilst there are, as I well know, quite a few members of the CP’s party management in Pietersburg who make their living from that very same decentralisation aid, does the hon member for Pietersburg think that would not have any effect on the Whites in Pietersburg?

But decentralisation is our policy! [Interjections.]

That is something I have never heard before, Sir! [Interjections.] It has not come up in either the CP’s speeches or its propaganda statements. [Interjections.] The NP Government believes that all races in South Africa are economically interdependent. We believe that equal economic opportunities must be created for all. However, it is no use creating equal opportunities in the same way as the Americans are doing it, whilst the Blacks simply remain in the ghetto. We must also educate the Black people in such a way that they are able to avail themselves of those equal opportunities. For this reason I agree with the hon member for Yeoville when he says that those people must be offered the correct training.

Make him Minister of Finance! [Interjections.]

The Black man who knows that he can make some economic progress in his occupation, the Black man who is able to own a house and a motor car and let his children study, will understand what capitalism and the free enterprise approach mean. Only then will the White man in South Africa be able to feel safe as well. My message to the CP is that political freedom coupled with economic chaos offers nothing at all in the way of a future for the White man. I want to repeat that. Political freedom and partition, coupled with economic chaos and Black unemployment, offer no security for our youth. The Government’s policy of a separation between general and own affairs is the only formula through which South Africa’s complex problems may be solved.

The CP is the Official Opposition. It is time they stopped manipulating figures. It is time they spelt out to us their economic policy which will ensue from partition.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister devoted a large part of his speech to pointing out the blatant racism of the hon members of the CP. I have no problem with his approach in that connection. When one looks beyond the sanctimonious claptrap, the policy of the CP is based on race. [Interjections.]

In the course of the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech in this House, he did something else as well. He pointed out to us that Dr Verwoerd had been wrong. How wrong he was! And throughout all those years, when the NP stood for segregation, partition and fragmentation, the NP was misled by Dr Verwoerd. [Interjections.] In the end, Dr Verwoerd’s vision of a divided South Africa was defeated by the reality of the multiracialism of our country. The hon the Deputy Minister’s speech might just as well have been made by Mr Marais Steyn or by one of the other people when they were still members of the old United Party and the members of the NP still believed in Dr Verwoerd. [Interjections.] This is the kind of speech that they would have made in those days. [Interjections.]

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

If the Whips will give me time for that, because my time is limited. The Whips must say whether it can be done. Sorry, there is no time for answering questions if time cannot be made available to me.

At the beginning of his speech the hon the Deputy Minister directed our attention to the speech made by the hon member for Yeoville. He said it had been a positive speech. He observed that the hon member for Yeoville had said that he believed in a free enterprise system without apartheid. Those words, “without apartheid”, are the key to the hon member’s remarks. The concepts of a free enterprise system and of apartheid are contradictory. One cannot have a free enterprise system in a country which also has the restrictions of apartheid. They are contradictory concepts. Nothing has done more harm to the possible acceptance of the free enterprise system by millions of Black South Africans than the policy of apartheid and the way in which that policy has been economically, socially and constitutionally linked to the so-called free enterprise system during 40 years of NP Government. It has done enormous harm to the possible acceptability of the free enterprise system to the Black citizens of South Africa. [Interjections.]

However, I take great pleasure in congratulating the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke on his maiden speech. Hon members may be aware of this, but I was privileged to be a member of the Class of ’58, to which his late father, Connie, also belonged in this House. I was privileged to listen to his father’s maiden speech in this House.

I just want to say that I listened attentively to his speech. It was an able and sensitive contribution. I think it was a well-considered speech which augurs well for the future of that hon member. I look forward to further valuable contributions from that hon member during the months and years to come. I wish to congratulate him in that spirit.

†I believe it is appropriate for me to make use of this opportunity to refer very briefly to the passing away of Dr Alan Paton early this morning. Not only members of my party, but a wider circle of South Africans—whether they agreed with him politically or not—will salute him as a great son of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

Undoubtedly he was a distinguished author, a wise counsellor, an incisive thinker, a fierce opponent of injustice and a committed champion of the rule of law. For many South Africans who shared his liberal values Dr Paton was a beacon of light in the dark stormy night. Far more important than all of these things, I believe that Dr Paton was a great human being who combined in a remarkable way the qualities of compassion, generosity and understanding. As a consequence of all these qualities his life and his achievements have brought lustre and honour to the country which he loved so much. I use this opportunity to pay a tribute to Dr Paton and to expressing the condolences of those of us on this side of the House to his widow and his relatives.

Hear, hear!

The hon the Minister this year made provision for an expanded Budget Speech and I want to say that I think it was very well worthwhile. It was a positive step and I trust the hon the Minister will continue with this procedure in the future. It certainly enabled the hon the Minister to expand on his otherwise attenuated overview of the general economic situation and to comment analytically and critically on a wide range of economic issues. This has been valuable in the sense that it required some selfdiscipline on the part of the hon the Minister and also provided valuable information and insight on ours.

At times I believe the hon the Minister has been commendably frank. We in these benches appreciate his frankness in regard to some of the significant elements he mentioned. I refer to two aspects of his speech in this regard. In one instance he says:

That is a decline of almost 1% per annum in the per capita GDP. He goes on to say:

I believe a Minister of Finance deserves a certain amount of commendation from the opposition when he comes along and frankly admits the failure of the Government’s economic policy over the past 5½ years as a basis for saying he wants to improve. It was a failure and if we continued on that basis we would be heading for disaster. The hon the Minister’s speech was in agreement with what I am saying.

The second point on which he was frank, was in dealing with the pressures building up for expenditure in the socio-economic field. He said:

We agree one hundred per cent with that: The pressures are going to be there. These pressures will be there because of the realities in South Africa, the maldistribution of wealth which there has been in the past, the fact that we are a partly Third and a partly First World country and because of inward migration. Yes, those pressures for expenditure on essential social services will be there. In this regard we are faced with the real dilemma. On the one hand political stability demands urgent action. In the economic field it demands the closing of the yawning gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. That is an essential part of the political problem. It requires urgent action to provide the basic infrastructure and services for a burgeoning inward migrating Black population. It also requires urgent action to create employment for the enormous number of people coming onto the labour market. I think we can agree on this although we disagree on the degree of urgency and what we are going to do about it.

I have had an opportunity on a number of times in the course of the past few months to visit the sprawling Black squatter townships that have developed here on the Cape Flats. When I went to Nyanga, Crossroads, KTC, Miller’s Farm, Khayelitsha and Site C and one sees the conditions in which the people live there, I got two dominant impressions. One is that in spite of the poverty and the problems people survive and grow even in those circumstances. This is a testimony to the resilience of the human spirit.

The other impression is, however, that unless there is rapid, massive, upward economic mobility for the people living there, an explosive situation is going to arise in a relatively short period of time. I have mentioned this just to emphasise what I believe needs emphasis, namely the urgency of creating an upward mobility for those people who are involved in the process of inward migration.

So we need all of those things. The dilemma is that at this very time when we need this expenditure we are faced with restrictions in economic growth due to sanctions, disinvestment, lack of confidence, the emigration of skilled personnel and to too large a portion of our resources being allocated to the bureaucratic public sector. That is the dilemma facing the hon the Minister and all of us.

The hon the Minister, in acknowledging this, appears to be relying heavily on privatisation. We have indicated that we are in favour of the concept of privatisation, but we also want to point out that privatisation has its very severe limitations. We must beware that it does not become a popular political buzzword. It must deal with the substance of our problems. The privatisation of parastatals in particular—except for toll roads that is the only area of privatisation which has specifically been referred to to date— such as Eskom, elements of the SATS, Foskor and Iscor will deal only with the fringe of our economic problems. In fact, in the first instance the privatisation of those parastatals will result in a shift of assets out of the public and into the private sector, but in the short term it will also result in a shift of capital out of the private and into the public sector. This is the first immediate impact it will have.

The second is that while it may and should produce greater cost efficiency, it will still not absolve the Government from paying directly or by way of subsidies for services required in terms of socio-economic demands or strategic priorities which the private sector companies would certainly not provide on the basis of ordinary profitability. The State will still have to get involved to see to it that those private sector companies are enabled to provide essential services which are not profitable in the ordinary commercial sense of the word.

While the privatisation of these parastatals will release some capital towards the Government in exchange for the Government’s releasing its assets towards the private sector, the privatisation of those parastatals does not touch in any way the rump of the Public Service or the vast bureaucratic machine that has been built up by this Government. In fact, the Commission for Administration states specifically in its report that the Public Service does not include the parastatals and therefore the privatisation of the parastatals does not touch the size or the efficiency of the Public Service.

We want to know more from the hon the Minister. We are in favour of privatisation but what about the Public Service proper? What is happening with regard to rationalisation, streamlining, simplifying and modernising? Will the Public Service itself or elements of it be privatised?

We in these benches will know that something is really happening and that privatisation has hit the Public Service when the empire of for instance the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is either privatised or dismantled. What about scrapping the duplication, triplication and quadruplication which are the essential consequences of our present constitutional system? Surely that is something which has to be considered.

To my mind there are three areas of privatisation which, in one or other way, the hon the Minister should not overlook. The first concerns privatisation in the field of local government. This is an area of bureaucracy which has been built up and it is assumed in many places that local authorities are the best people to provide services. I believe that the situation should be looked at right throughout the country to see what range of services, which at the moment are provided by the bureaucracy of local government, could better be provided by private entrepreneurs acting as agents for those local authorities. Let me say that regional services councils in particular, before they develop into new bureaucratic monsters with vast vested interests to provide services themselves, should concentrate right now on privatising the services which they are required to render.

The second area is the area of public buildings. We would like to know that there is going to be an intense and in-depth look at what the plans are for expensive, grandiose public buildings which are often grossly underutilised in South Africa. It is ironic that the weekend after the hon the State President announced a cutback package plan in another Chamber of Parliament, the Afrikaans Press, within a couple of days, announced a new R40 million building for the Department of Foreign Affairs. On the one hand there is a cutback, and on the other there is a new palace.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister to give us the assurance that he is going to investigate very deeply the question whether public servants should not be giving attention to running the country rather than to running property empires. Should they not be doing that? After all, this is their function.

Thirdly, I want to touch very briefly on the questions of universities and technikons. Yes, universities are largely private and some of them are being privatised. Technikons are in the process of being privatised. It is correct that this should be so. It will give them a creative independence and encourage the private sector to become involved. I believe this is an area in which the Government, in terms of its job creation philosophy, should not stint in financial support, because against the background of South Africa’s growing isolation and the withdrawal of foreign personnel with specialised expertise, the universities and technikons have a vital role to play in providing the scientific and technological leadership which is going to be essential if we are going to have sustained economic growth in the future. I would ask him to bear that in mind in the allocation of his priorities.

In his Budget Speech he also said that there were two fundamental realities in the evaluation of the South African economy. One dealt with the insuperable demands which I have dealt with, and the other one dealt with the fact that there are politically motivated and internationally orchestrated restrictions—the whole sanctions and disinvestment campaign. Those are both factors which have to be taken into account, but I believe there is a third fundamental reality which the hon the Minister failed to list. Looking at the realities of the South African economy, I want to read the following which should have been included in his document: “Thirdly, the policy of apartheid applied over the years has wasted our country’s human and material resources and restricted our country’s economic development, while the continuing failure of the Government to resolve the essential political issues facing our nation has created a climate of instability and has damaged, if not destroyed, investor confidence in our country.” That is a reality. It is a fundamental political reality from which this hon Minister cannot escape.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to be objective tonight when he is sitting quietly at home and to make a checklist of those factors which, since he became a member of Parliament or even since he became Minister of Finance, have damaged the South African economy, the things that have been harmful to economic growth in South Africa. I want to say that nearly every one of them has been political. Nearly every one of them has been the result of the Government’s policy, actions or political failures. The fact is that the problem surrounding this Budget debate, as in the case of the problems surrounding the No-confidence debate earlier, is that it is taking place in a political policy vacuum. As we sit here and debate the affairs of the nation, we do not know what the Government’s plans are for solving the major political problems of this country. We just do not know, and I do not think the hon the Minister knows because the hon the State President has not told him yet!

We do not know whether the Government has any particular plans for dealing with the crucial issue of political rights for Black South Africans. Since close on two years ago, when that weird concept of independent Black city states was floated, there has been a deathly hush on the scene. There has been no specific progress.

It will be no good if the hon the Minister stands up at the end of this debate and says that the hon the State President will speak at the end of the week. That is not the way one does economic and political planning. Quite frankly, South Africa cannot afford, either politically or economically, to stumble along from one Rubicon speech to another.

The sooner this Government realises that we cannot resolve the political issues of South Africa, that we cannot even get the problem off the ground, until we involve those people to whom we want to make concessions—the Coloureds and Indians in the first place and Blacks in second—in the political power-structure, the better. This Government will not be able to resolve the problems of this country on the basis of an exclusive, White political electorate. It will have to expand that electorate. It will have to bring Blacks, Coloureds and Indians into the powerstructure. If they do not do this and merely rely on the White electoral process, the forces of reaction will take over from the forces of enlightenment in the next few years.

We believe that this Government, for economic reasons as well as political reasons, has to come to terms with the reality that there is no prospect of solving the problems, whether socially, politically or economically, in terms of an exclusive White political power-structure in this country.

As far as my party is concerned, we will continue to campaign both inside and outside this House for these three things: Equal rights for all South Africans; individual freedom for South Africans; and the rule of law. We believe that these three are fundamental to stability, security and economic progress in this country.

Mr Chairman, to a very great extent the hon leader of the PFP and the speaker before him, my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, raised the same subject, the absolute necessity of economic development in bringing about a new South Africa. I want to say to the hon member for Sea Point immediately that, if he thinks the NP and the Government are of the opinion that reform can stop either at economic reform on the one hand or at constitutional or political reform on the other, he is making a big mistake. Without the least doubt, the solution for South Africa lies in total, all-embracing reform. It will sometimes happen that one will make a little progress in the one sphere and then in the other but, if we cannot effect total reform in respect of political, constitutional, economic, social and educational matters—and there are other aspects one could mention—we shall not make a success of it. Nevertheless that is precisely what this side of the House is doing.

I should like to associate myself with the two previous speakers but cast the net a little wider, that is to the continent of Africa. The most striking characteristic of Africa today, of the continent of which we form a part, is the incredible deterioration which has taken place over the past 20 to 30 years. Over the past year and a half I have been privileged to pay several visits to African countries. One is simply amazed at the starvation, the impoverishment and the deterioration one encounters in many of these countries.

When African nationalism arose, independence was in many cases granted with the stroke of a pen—in other words, political and constitutional reform on its own. No wonder a former Secretary-General of the OAU once said: “Africa is a dying continent”!

We see increasingly how Europe, the West and the East are washing their hands of Africa and simply clearing out. We dare not permit this to happen in South and Southern Africa and the solution to it lies in our own hands.

In his introductory speech yesterday the hon member for Barberton referred to two aspects involving the Department of Foreign Affairs and to which I should very much like to react in detail. He referred to the Customs Union Agreement between South Africa and the TBVC and BLS countries. He also referred to the budgetary assistance given to the TBVC countries by South Africa. I shall get round to that and I want to say immediately I was absolutely amazed that this should come from the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition with the policy which they advocate as the solution to the constitutional problems of South Africa. [Interjections.] It was absolutely astounding.

As regards the Customs Union Agreement, an agreement was concluded in 1969 which took the place of the 1910 agreement between the then Union of South Africa and the three high commission territories of Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland. The 1969 agreement, together with a memorandum of agreement, was signed by South Africa and the BLS countries on 11 December 1969.

When the TBVC countries became independent, South Africa also concluded separate economic agreements with them to make the provisions of the Customs Union Agreement with the BLS countries applicable to them too.

In the introduction to the 1969 agreement—it is the basis of this entire Customs Union Agreement—it is clearly stated that the contracting parties admit that the Customs Union Agreement of 1910 must be amended to provide for the continuation of the Customs Union arrangements under changed circumstances on a basis which envisages ensuring the continued economic development of the customs area as a whole and to ensure in particular that these arrangements promote the development of the less-advanced neighbouring member countries of the Customs Union.

That basis exists in identical form today and the principle embodied in it applies equally today. I want to repeat here today that under the circumstances it will be of no avail for South Africa to fare reasonably well while our neighbours are suffering extreme hardships. It does not help a person to go to bed in peace on a full stomach under a warm blanket while one’s neighbours suffer extremes of hunger and cold.

The very fact that certain imbalances have now arisen between total receipts from the Customs Union—the hon member for Barberton referred to certain percentages yesterday—and the payments made to certain of the partners is a fact which the Government realises very clearly. There is no doubt about it, but it does not mean that the object of the agreement has now become invalid.

The Margo Commission recommended that South Africa negotiate with the BLS countries and simultaneously with the TBVC countries on the restructuring of the agreement. There is no doubt about that whatsoever; it was stated very clearly. As a point of departure precedence must be given to the ideal of the development of the entire area, as envisaged in the 1969 agreement. This must be realised by the allocation of funds for development projects with suitable incentives and not by unconditional transfers, as was the case in the past. This proposal is in line with the so-called McCarthy Report, and I assume the hon member for Barberton is au fait with this. The Government supports the Margo Report very clearly in this regard and a working group is giving very serious consideration to it at the moment. The Government’s decision concerning the introduction of an invoice-based VAT holds important implications for South African tax relations with these countries and has already been discussed with them provisionally.

Negotiations on a new tax dispensation must relate to the negotiations of the customs agreement because in both cases the point at issue is the movement of goods and services between South Africa and these other countries. There can be no doubt that the Government is extremely concerned about the erosion of the bases of the RSA customs and excise duty in consequence of unrealistic transfers to the BLS and TBVC countries. I want to grant the hon member this. The commission’s proposals for the review of the agreement, which is already receiving attention in another forum, should therefore be taken further as soon as possible.

Having said this, I want to say at the same time that it is an irrefutable fact that the existing customs agreement, regardless of shortcomings which may exist, is one of the most effective instruments of RSA foreign policy in a regional context. I should like to concentrate on this for a while. Practically speaking, it is the most important and the most successful co-operation dispensation between the RSA and the BLS and TBVC countries. It still serves as proof of South Africa’s willingness and ability to co-operate with neighbouring countries. It provides an institutionalised forum for regular contact within and outside South Africa and for regular discussion with neighbouring countries. The Customs Union emphasises—this is so important—the interdependence of the states of Southern Africa and forms the basis of the Southern African economic community. If an ideal exists for the solution to South Africa’s problems in numerous spheres, it is that we shall ultimately succeed in Southern Africa in creating a strong Southern African economic community. At present it is essential to do everything practicable to promote co-operation across international borders. I should very much like to return to this a little later.

The Customs Union Agreement gives substance to an exceptionally advanced form of economic co-operation between the RSA and the BLS as well as the TBVC countries. Advantages derived from the Customs Union by both the BLS and the TBVC countries have to a very large extent created stability in those countries. Stability in the BLS and the TBVC countries also brings about stability in South Africa. The free traffic of goods in terms of the Customs Union Agreement makes border control unnecessary, and the attendant saving in costs means a definite advantage to both South Africa and these seven countries inside and around this country.

The existence of the Customs Union constitutes a further advantage in that, when there is an appeal for sanctions against the RSA in the UNO and the OAU, the organisations are obliged to take the social position of those countries into account. The best example I can mention in this regard is what happened a week or two ago when Botswana took a very firm stand in discussions in New York that it should not be forgotten that the application of sanctions would affect them very seriously.

The hon member for Barberton says the Government is dragging its feet in this regard. Against the background of what I have just said, it is certainly not a matter one should ride over roughshod. I have a whole list of dates here on which discussions have been conducted since the McCarthy Report appeared in 1986. The latest was 16 March, when the three Ministers of Finance of the BLS countries were here and held discussions with our hon Ministers of Finance, Foreign Affairs and Economic Affairs and Technology.

The second point raised by the hon member for Barberton and on which I wish to comment is in connection with the ostensibly enormous amounts South African taxpayers are providing the TBVC countries as well as the self-governing countries with.

A short while ago the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance spoke about R1,8 billion in respect of the TBVC countries. I want to say, however, it is really amazing that the hon member for Barberton, as chief spokesman of the Official Opposition, could make this statement. His party is in favour of the total implementation of the policy of making states independent. Surely that is so. Their policy is to apply complete partition. The NP standpoint has always been that, under certain circumstances and if certain conditions apply, it is prepared to lead peoples and nations in Southern Africa to full independence. I shall mention just a few of those conditions. Such peoples must traditionally occupy a certain area. They must have their own language, culture, history and religion. The most important, however, is that they must request it. One cannot force independence down a people’s throat. According to CP policy, it will simply continue to force independence on peoples, even when they do not request it. Even if the CP were to succeed in this, it would not be able to avoid the financial obligations to those new states.

What the South African Government is doing at the moment is specifically to fulfil its responsibilities toward these peoples, toward these new countries. Under Programme 3 of the Budget of the Department of Foreign Affairs there is an increase of R302 million in budgetary assistance to the TBVC countries. This represents an increase of 22% compared with the figure voted last year. The most important reason for this is that the financial adjustment programmes of the TBVC countries are being taken further.

Last year I had the opportunity of discussing those adjustment programmes in detail in this debate in the light of the Government’s longterm programme that was worked out in cooperation with the TBVC countries. The importance of this is to encourage those countries to enlarge their own sources of income as far as possible and on the other hand to make them less dependent on bank loans, for which South Africa has to furnish guarantees in any case.

In this connection there are two main elements, namely the financial stabilisation programmes and the economic adjustment programmes. As regards the former, the basic objectives, as I have just said, are to obtain a more realistic balance between the income and expenditure of those countries and on the other hand to decrease bank overdrafts. I mentioned the figures in the Standing Committee on Finance. I think they provide a very good testimonial of exactly what is happening here, and this is that over the past three years the ratio of budgetary assistance to guaranteed loans decreased from 65% to 35% to the current 85% to 15%. If we continue in this way with the help of the hon the Minister of Finance we shall, within two to three years, reach the ideal position in which there will be no further need for loans. It remains an unsound financial practice to finance deficits on current accounts by means of loans. This applies to us; it also applies to the TBVC countries.

The introduction of financial stabilisation programmes implies clear responsibilities which the RSA as well as the TBVC countries have to shoulder. I want to run through those responsibilities quickly. The TBVC countries will have to cause their own income to increase by 20% in the current period. There will have to be a growth limit of between 10% and 16% on their current budgets. These are conditions which have been very clearly stated to these people and in respect of which we are receiving very good co-operation. A further condition has been set. Capital expenditure must increase to a maximum of 20% per annum. The most important, and this is an undertaking the Government has given is that its budgetary assistance must increase by 25% per annum on average over a period of four to five years. This Government has virtually been able to succeed in complying with that condition under this year’s difficult economic and financial conditions. It really speaks volumes for this Government’s serious intent to discharge its obligations and responsibilities to the TBVC countries.

The economic adjustment programme is part and parcel of this effort. It was explained in detail to the Standing Committee on Finance and I do not want to go into it again now. I merely want to point out that the joint financial adjustment committees, which were established under the chairmanship of Dr Simon Brand of the Development Bank, are keeping a vigilant eye on the draft budgets and budgets of the TBVC countries. If there are deviations, they are not simply glossed over but are really addressed at the highest level; at top government level. I have a letter here which our hon State President wrote to one of these countries this past week in which he took that country’s government very seriously to task about certain situations pertaining to its budget.

A very clear understanding has now been incorporated in this agreement with the TBVC countries that, if those countries do not comply, this Government is in a position to decrease its budgetary assistance accordingly. The result is that we now have a far better basis for budgetary co-operation between South Africa and the TBVC countries. In the past such co-operation was lacking.

In connection with the lack of co-operation, I find it interesting that approximately 10 or 12 years ago the hon member for Barberton was an ordinary member when the Transkei became independent, but the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the deputy leader of the CP, the hon member for Lichtenburg, were both members of the Cabinet when those arrangements were made with those countries at that stage.

The question arises how the CP, as the Official Opposition and therefore the alternative Government, could carry out its policy of total partition without also being obliged to spend large amounts of public money in these areas and on a far larger scale than is the case at present. The Government of South Africa, under NP leadership, has pursued the policy of granting states full independence—including financial independence. It is interesting that Great Britain also granted independence to the BLS countries but retained financial control at all times, and the world did not complain about that. The world recognised the independence of those countries regardless of the control retained by Britain. We have now started following a policy of far closer financial liaison; this is a good thing and essential under the circumstances.

This provides me with the opportunity of referring briefly to the hon member for Barberton’s remark that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs had supposedly said at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance—I was present myself—that we were situated in Africa and that a 5% misuse of money was not abnormal for Africa. The hon member should read the full report of last year’s Standing Committee on Finance again. He will then realise that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs made this comment in a completely different context and that it was aimed especially at items like the provision of unproductive but prestigious assets, such as stadiums and so on, which are status symbols to these young countries.

This is not found only in the TBVC countries; one finds it throughout the world. It is also sometimes necessary for these new independent states to have these status symbols of which they may justly be proud. The hon the Minister referred to the fact that, against the perspective of events in Africa, the position of these states showed up exceptionally well.

Now that I have occupied this position for a year and a half and have paid frequent visits to African countries over the past year, while at the same time paying regular visits to the TBVC countries, I am convinced that South Africa can look back in great pride on its achievements in making these countries independent, as long as those conditions remained.

If one looks at decentralisation, the establishment of industries, the setting up of an infrastructure and the creation of employment opportunities in the TBVC countries and compares this with the poverty and hunger of many of our neighbouring countries, it is an example of what we are doing in South Africa. I do not doubt for a moment that economic interdependence is an obvious necessity for the success of Southern Africa. The ideal of a Southern African economic community is not far-fetched at all.

We shall have to work hard to replace political rhetoric in Africa with economic interdependence. The experience of recent years has taught that where it has become possible in practice to launch co-operative projects in the economic sphere, they have improved relations and communications drastically. Hon members of all parties in this House had the opportunity of visiting the TBVC countries during the past year. I cannot speak on behalf of others but some hon members were astounded at the fantastic development that had taken place there. West German and English parliamentarians visited Bophuthatswana recently and campaigned for the recognition of the independence of that state. I think this is an excellent testimonial to what this Government is doing.

What is even more spectacular, however, is the potential for the replacement of the other independent states’ political rhetoric by economic interdependence. We recently signed the final protocol with Lesotho for the establishment of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. We have entered into new agreements with Swaziland. At present we are trying to get the Cahora Basa Scheme going. These are all examples of where political rhetoric can—and must—be replaced by co-operative projects. South Africa cannot afford to have its people inhabit a reasonably affluent country while there is a poverty-stricken morass on its doorstep. South Africa must ensure that it shares its knowledge and experience with hungry, impoverished countries.

The Official Opposition is striving for an entirely untenable, unattainable policy of total partition. According to this policy of its members, they will have to force peoples to become independent. They will have to enforce it in places where traditional territory may not even exist. I am thinking, for example, of the Coloureds. That represents one side of the coin but on the other side they are not prepared to face the financial implications. They know very well that the criticism now being expressed as regards economic interdependence will have to be very much greater within the borders of South Africa if they wish for any hope of success.

The Opposition should take a look at what happened in Africa when some old colonial powers granted independence to countries with the stroke of a pen. They had certainly requested independence in the spirit of uhuru but they were totally unprepared for it. The old colonial helping hand was simply withdrawn. It is enormously demoralising to observe the impoverishment and degeneration of those areas. No wonder people call Africa a dying continent.

We may never allow South Africa to go the same way. The Government, under NP leadership, will not renounce its responsibility towards its people. The Government will develop this country for the benefit of all its people in a realistic way— with balance and impartiality.

I want to express a final thought. The best way to care for the Whites in this country is to care for everyone in this country. That is what balanced reform in South Africa is all about.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon the Deputy Minister’s last sentence. He will understand and will probably forgive me if I do not react any further to his speech, but in the limited time at my disposal I want to broach a topical matter, viz the speculation in the Press, not about the termination of the service contract of Mr Eksteen, the Director-General of the SABC, but about who his successor will be. The newspapers have not really written anything about whether or not he should go, and from a journalistic point of view I find it disturbing in a sense that the matter is not being considered in greater depth.

I think it is important to ask ourselves what is happening here, however. It is common knowledge that an investigating committee, consisting of two auditors, Messrs Loubser and Haasbroek, was appointed to investigate the financial management of the SABC. It is also common knowledge that the report was finalised and handed in somewhere. We are not sure whether it was handed in at Tuynhuys or to the SABC’s board. We also know that apparently the contents of the report reflect negatively on the present Director-General.

What is even worse is that the newspapers have not only been writing about these speculations, but have confirmed—time and again they have quoted Government sources that wanted to remain anonymous—that the speculations are correct. They are not specific, however, about who Mr Eksteen’s successor will be.

I want to explain my position. I hold no brief for Mr Eksteen, the Director-General. I know him, as I think most of us do, from his foreign affairs days, and I have had no continuous contact with him. At one stage of his term of office I did have closer contact with him, however, and my experience then was that he could react very positively and that he was really prepared to consider the problems of employees and do something about them. In fact, he was prepared to do everything possible to come to an agreement.

In my opinion it is important to take a look at what the SABC’s statute says. In the first place the statute establishes the board, which has full control over the management of the SABC. The board is not under anyone’s control or direction, but is fully responsible for its own management and control. It is also responsible for the appointment, or rather the hiring and firing, of whoever it deems necessary. This applies specifically in respect of the Director-General.

We also know that that report has been completed. The board has not met again since. The report has definitely not been submitted to the board, and to the best of my knowledge it has not been submitted to the executive committee of the SABC Board either. It has been confirmed by Government sources, however, that the speculations are probably correct, and that in view of the report, Mr Eksteen will have to leave. It has been said that remaining in office would cause great problems for him.

Let us look at the background against which the present Director-General was appointed. It is common knowledge that Mr Eksteen’s name was mentioned in this connection in 1983. This was said in the newspapers at the time, and it was confirmed from here in that his name was put forward to the then chairman of the board, Prof Mouton, and submitted to the board. The board decided that this was a good proposal, and he was appointed. [Interjections.] They were carrying out an instruction, therefore, but were quite satisfied to do so. This is common knowledge, which is undisputed.

Mr Eksteen accepted his post despite a great deal of enmity in the management cadre of the SABC. It took him four years to establish himself there. I think it is accepted, at least in the SABC, that he is relatively successful. In the first place he is successful in that he is generally accepted. In addition he submitted a five-year plan which was supported by the board at the time and which is in the process of being implemented. He also moved from a more hierarchical and almost authoritarian style of management to a more open style of management, which is generally accepted. People in the SABC were involved in the effort to improve the entire management in respect of all facets. Furthermore, in line with what the Government expected, but also with what is expected of a good manager, he has reduced the number of employees from 7 200 to 5 000 to date.

Reference is not made to these aspects in the speculations. It has been said that the report concerns the Director-General’s inability in respect of financial management. Let us look at the facts in this respect too. A budgeted loss of R42 million was submitted for the 1987 financial year. This is also public knowledge; it has appeared in all the newspapers. It was approved, but the SABC had plans on the basis of which they would be able to work this off in order to break even. This was also accepted by the board.

Eventually the loss of R28 million for the 1986 financial year was reduced to an amount of R13,2 million. The statements were tabled here recently.

I think this indicates good management, but when one analyses the statements, there are two particularly interesting items. In this connection I am referring to page 19 of the report in which additional provision is made for a depreciation amounting to R10 million. Note 4.3 about the statements spells this out clearly. A further amount to which reference is made is the provision for the increased replacement cost of fixed assets. In the past this was fixed at an amount of R8 million on an annual basis, but it has now been increased to R12 million. Together these two amounts come to a total of R14 million. If one were to set off this R14 million against the present declared loss of R13,2 million, one would see that they actually showed a working profit of almost R0,75 million.

Once again the question is where this comes from. I am prepared to wager that the decision was not taken by the SABC’s management committee. They would never have acted against the background of a directive or a confirmation of the board’s standpoints specifically to show losses. They hoped to show a profit. That was their objective, and I am convinced that this would be shown in that document if it were published or made public, because the matter must have been discussed thoroughly.

Then where does it come from? The board does have the authority—the auditors and the statements confirm this—to make these provisions. The board made provision for R14 million with the purpose of showing a loss of R13,2 million so that Mr Eksteen—the Director-General who is on his way out—would be placed in a position in which it would be easier to get rid of him against the background of his alleged incompetence in respect of financial management.

That is absolute speculation.

Sir, unfortunately it is not absolute speculation. If it were, I would not have referred to it.

The further question is where it does in fact come from. Did the decision come from the board itself, or was it taken outside the board? In other words, does the decision have a direct connection with Tuynhuys? I asked the responsible hon Minister to be here in the House today, but unfortunately he had an appointment at four o’clock.

According to my information there will be a meeting between the hon the Minister and certain members of the SABC Board in Johannesburg this weekend. It used to be the custom to communicate with members of the executive committee of the board. I should like to know who was invited to the meeting. Were all the members of the board and the executive committee invited, or were only certain members invited to the meeting? What is the purpose of the meeting and the discussion? I also want to know whether the Director-General was informed in this connection, because according to newspaper reports and his own comment, he has no knowledge of any of the things the Press is speculating about and which are being confirmed in public by Government sources.

I am not pleading for Mr Eksteen. I am talking about the fact that the SABC has come through a period of great shock with his appointment, a period in which it has attempted to rectify and orientate itself. Mr Eksteen had to establish himself and build up a new morale among the employees. I contend that the SABC will not weather a similar shock with a new appointment over the next four years. The morale of those employees will be impaired if not destroyed completely. What is needed is to build up that morale, rather than to administer further shocks to the system.

What is the true purpose of a new appointment of this kind? Nothing that has been said in public could have caused Mr Eksteen to have to leave his post so that a better person could be appointed in his place. The names that are being mentioned in speculation are not bad names, but I do not think any one of them would fare all that much better than the present Director-General, especially in view of the fact that he has filled the post for four years and has established himself in his position of authority during this time.

Nor can it be a matter of the quality of news reporting, because no one could expect the SABC’s news services to be more propagandistic than they are at present. Not even the hon the State President could expect that. Reference was made to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives. Hon members will remember the dispute when he appeared on television and the hon the State President telephoned the SABC. He confirmed that in this House, but that cannot be the reason either.

What I am trying to say is that the Government is following an authoritarian style of management and is showing no regard whatsoever for the interests of the general public or a large corporation such as the SABC. In the interests of the SABC’s employees, I want to appeal to the responsible Minister or the Government to make their position clear quickly and urgently so that we can know what we are dealing with.

Mr Chairman, I am surprised at the hon member for Randburg this afternoon because, in the first place, I think there will be a later occasion on which the matter he raised can be debated far better. There is a specific Vote dealing with the matter which will be discussed later in the session.

I am glad that I am following on him, because I am going to deal with him and his movement, the Independent Movement in general and Dr Worrall this afternoon. The hon member missed a golden opportunity this afternoon to present something of his movement’s policy, its principles and its general attitude to the solution we all seek in this country to our challenges. [Interjections.] My hon colleagues in this House have already dealt more than adequately with the CP and the AWB and they will continue to do so throughout this debate, and so I want to turn my attention to and focus the gaze of this Assembly this afternoon on the opposition to the left of the Government.

I do not intend to waste too much time on the PFP which is becoming less and less of a factor in South African politics. As so rightly pointed out by Patrick Cull in the Evening Post of 2 April 1988 in an article under the heading: “The left in disarray,” the PFP is the party experiencing haemorrhaging. Haemorrhaging, as hon members know, is not just bleeding; it is very serious bleeding—the hon member for Parktown will be able to confirm this. [Interjections.]

The latest defections were two prominent PFP councillors in Johannesburg, Sam Moss and Harold Rudolph, kicked out by the young Turks. Then, of course, there was also the expulsion of Dr Jannie Hofmeyer who happened to decide to join the NDM. So, Sir, I personally set out to discover where all this political plasma is going to and what effect it is having on the recipients. According to Mr Cull the PFP is losing support to the NDM and the Independent Party. The NRP is no more. There are one or two independent independents, and I can only describe the whole scene left of the Government as a mixture of political matchwood and driftwood.

What is the background to the discussion this afternoon? In the Daily Dispatch of 17 March 1988 the hon member for Randburg was quoted as saying that the marginal decrease in individual taxation in the Budget was a “big bluff’ to create the impression that the economy was improving when, in fact, it was not. His view is not shared by the hon the Minister of Finance, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, leading financiers or leaders of commerce and industry or, in fact, hon members on this side of the House. Our economy is soundly based and in an upward phase.

No, the real “big bluff’ was the so-called Independent Movement, started by the hon member, and later joined by Dr Worrall and Dr Lategan. This Independent Movement was going to be the political “Moses” that would lead all South Africans into the land of milk and honey. The Independents were hailed with a fanfare of trumpets by the English-language Press and were widely supported financially and blindly followed by voters on a euphoric cloud of humanism and lofty ideals. If ever well-meaning South Africans were taken on a wild goose chase or were sold a dummy, this was it. There was no practical policy. There were no concrete solutions; only nice-sounding words and phrases.

Thank goodness that the majority of the South Africans voting in Stellenbosch and Helderberg kept their heads and stood firm! I am sure that the hon member for Randburg will concede that he only made it in Randburg because the PFP decided not to oppose him, a decision now ruefully regretted by the hon leader of the PFP.

Once the dust had settled and self-interest began to show its head, what happened to the Independent Movement? The big question arose, as it always does in politics: Who is going to be the boss—the hon member for Randburg, or Dr Worrall? There was an uneasy spell for a number of months, but the pot boiled over on 7 October 1987. Following the July visit to the ANC in Dakar secret negotiations took place between the hon members for Randburg, Greytown and Durban Central. Dr Worrall said he knew nothing of this. He and Dr Esther Lategan appeared on the stage in Somerset West only the night before, and no mention was made of a split or of the National Democratic Movement at that stage.

The next day, described in the Press as a day of high drama, came the announcement of the National Democratic Movement. What political skulduggery on the part of the hon member for Randburg, as well as Dr Esther Lategan, who also took part in the launching of the NDM!

The hon member for Sea Point described the actions of the three PFP defectors as “deceitful”. The leader of the PFP in the Cape, the hon member for Constantia, described them, according to Die Burger of 2 November 1987 as “impulsive and foolish wreckers and dreamers”, as I interpret it. What political plasma! What a transfusion for the NDM! [Interjections.]

In the Cape Times of 8 October 1987 the leader of the NDM stated that the movement stood for dialogue and negotiation. If the members of the NDM cannot negotiate with fellow White South African Independents, how can they prescribe dialogue and negotiation for South Africa? [Interjections.]

Let us turn to the NDM’s manifesto, issued in October 1987, immediately after the Dakarites had joined the movement. I have no doubt that the Dakarites are responsible for 90% of this manifesto. The hon member for Randburg may not realise it yet, but he and his movement have been hijacked.

I do not have a lot of time this afternoon, so let us just look at a few of the salient points in the manifesto of the NDM. I do notice that right at the beginning on the inside cover it is said: “We welcome comments on this manifesto before members and signatories of the Movement decide on its final format.” [Interjections.] I am going to make a few comments.

The first thing of note was that the word “democratic” frequently used in Marxist-Leninist phraseology was introduced into the Independent Movements’ name. [Interjections.] This was clearly introduced to give credence to the NDM’s image for extra-parliamentary interests and purposes.

We then come to the first NDM meeting in Pretoria recorded in the Pretoria News of 29 January 1988, and I quote from that article:

[Interjections.] Let us have a look at paragraph 4 of this programme of principles. Among other things it says:

Nowhere does the document spell out how they intend to proceed with such negotiations or to obtain the agreement of all South Africans. They do not say whether they will marry the AWB and the ANC. We then come to paragraph 5.4 and I would like to read the whole paragraph. This makes for really good reading! It states:

The NDM already proposes to solve world problems, yet they cannot solve anything in South Africa. The NDM’s policy is as remotely removed from reality as deep space itself. At a time when communist forces are ranged against our country the manifesto is deafeningly silent on whether the NDM is anti-communist or not. They say they propose to tackle problems “with an open mind”. Is that an open mind to communism or an open mind to the ANC while it continues to use violence?

Equally the manifesto is deafeningly silent on whether or not the NDM subscribes to Christian principles. No reference is made to faith in Almighty God or the upholding of Christian norms and values. It is interesting to note that Mr Archie Gumede of the UDF described the NDM as a “people’s organisation”. Was that because of the use of the word “democratic”? South Africans must ask themselves what the NDM is. As far as I can establish, it is certainly at the moment not a registered political party and, if it does not register as such, it will have no future in this House. To the NP the NDM and its leader are— as Fleur de Villiers described it recently in the Sunday Times—“as frightening as a dassie”.

A dead dassie!

What about the other partner in the independent movement? After a bitter dispute—clearly over leadership of the independent movement after the election—he was left out in the political cold. The immediate cause was the acceptance by the hon member for Randburg of the Dakarites and the establishment of the NDM. Dr Worrall could not associate himself with the Black power saluting new alliance. As Mr Tos Wentzel said in The Argus of 12 October 1987 of the rift between the two:

[Interjections.] Any politician who can have the lights turned down at a political meeting, have the spotlight turned on himself and march into the hall to the strains of “Chariots of Fire”, cannot but be described as pompous and seeking glory for himself and his fledgling party, rather than concentrating on putting South Africa first.

Dr Worrall is an opportunist, but what an opportunity he missed by not continuing in the ranks of the NP and making a positive and a cohesive rather than a divisive contribution to meet the challenges of our time!

He has said several times that he has no problem with the NP policy but only with its leadership. How vain can one become! I venture to say that the hon the State President’s contribution to South Africa and all its people is somewhat greater than that of Dr Worrall. [Interjections.] Dr Worrall was one of our best ambassadors, but he has much to learn on the rough ocean of politics. Chariots of fire are not going to save South Africa. Humility, love and firmness must be our watchwords. Strong Christian conviction must be our foundation because we are not wrestling with flesh and blood but with the dark power of communism. We must resist it with all our might. If our faith fails, we shall fail, but if our faith triumphs, we shall triumph.

We shall not be saved by the liberal theology of the SA Council of Churches, the humanistic ideals of the NDM or the lofty ideals of the Independent Party, worthy as they may be. [Interjections.]

The Government is determined to proceed with reform. We shall not be intimidated by the CP, the AWB or the ANC. We can and will remove all hurtful racially discriminatory legislation. That is the Christian thing to do.

Will we have a non-racial society?

It is a fact of life that there are cultural differences which have ethnic origins in our plural society. These cannot be wished away. They must be catered for honestly and equitably in a new constitutional framework.

We have laid the economic foundation in the hon the State President’s Opening Address to Parliament and in this Budget. We shall purposefully and peacefully negotiate a new dispensation for all South Africans.

It is up to our fellow Black South Africans to come forward now, to accept the hon the State President’s offer and together to forge a new, exciting, challenging and dynamic South Africa.

I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I apologise to the hon member for King William’s Town for not reacting to his speech, because he confined himself mainly to the PFP and the NDM. As far as I am concerned—he spoke the truth— these are two parties that will become totally irrelevant in future.

I should like to refer briefly to the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance. He would appear not to understand the CP’s policy, because it is based on the NP’s policy which they have now rejected. The CP cannot accept a mixed government. The survival of the Whites under a White government in their own geographic area is the CP’s ideal, and we are prepared to proclaim this in this Chamber and from any platform.

The NP constantly accuses the CP of having a policy that is not economically feasible, but the NP cannot give any indication what their policy will cost the State, except the chaos in which this country’s economy has found itself during the past few years.

It can be asked whether the sacrifices being called for in this Budget, are being spread equally among the various population groups. If we accept that the Government’s economic policy is aimed at bringing about the redistribution of wealth in the RSA, this Budget definitely does not meet the requirement of spreading the tax burden equally. The burden on one sector of the population is becoming increasingly heavy and they find that their standard of living is declining drastically, that some of them have lost their jobs and that their businesses have become drastically smaller or have gone bankrupt. Hon members need only look at farming and the thousands of other small entrepreneurial undertakings which have experienced problems during the past three years and have even gone bankrupt. This is only happening because the Government is deliberately applying its policy in order to implement its political reform policy. [Interjections.]

The other sector of the population which must benefit from the reform initiatives of the Government, greeted the expectations arising from the redistribution of wealth, the creation of parity and the abolition of influx control like manna from heaven. This haphazard reform programme of the Government was also responsible for the large-scale urbanisation and the resultant socioeconomic and structural problems which have to be dealt with by the State, and which have tremendous financial implications which are extremely onerous to the taxpayer in the RSA.

Can the hon the Minister tell hon members of this House what the direct or indirect costs of his policy to make the urbanisation programme a reality are …

He will never do that!

… how much money has already been spent this year, and whether this is in proportion to money spent on creating White facilities? Can the hon the Minister tell the House what the contribution of that population group, which is now becoming urbanised, is with regard to their settlement and the resultant infrastructure and services which have to be provided?

One per cent!

Would he say that they are making a pro rata contribution to State revenue?

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

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I cannot reply to questions now; my time is limited. [Interjections.]

This urbanisation process has further political and social consequences, which give rise to instability and therefore also to unrest, conflict and polarisation. Can the hon the Minister give this House an indication of what it is costing the State to keep the peace in Black areas in the main, and whether those persons who are now receiving protection, make a pro rata contribution to the Treasury? The present Government’s reform policy, with the resultant redistribution of wealth and the creation of parity, had a significant effect on the productivity of the non-White community. The greatest evil is too much wastage and too high wages for too little work. The average production per worker per rand invested is hopelessly too low. To a great extent this also results in the inflation rate in the RSA rising because too many demands are being made by too many people on the national revenue and wealth.

These are all symptoms of the Government’s reform policy, with poor planning as the crux of the problem. I maintain that if the Government had linked productivity to parity or to the narrowing of the wage gap, the Government would have saved hundreds of thousands of rand which the hon the Minister could have used beneficially, for example, to supplement essential old-age pensions, instead of making these people poorer by the day. It is becoming increasingly clear that with this reform policy the Government has lost touch with the voter who voted them into power. This is the White voter, and there are very few hon members here who agitate for the White voter. The Government is so obsessed with its reform policy that it is unaware of the needs and aspirations of its own voters. No wonder that now, after the defeat in Randfontein, the NP is being attacked by its own newspapers and reference is made to the arrogance of its representatives and the fact that in its reform policy it no longer notices the needs of its own voters.

The results in Standerton, Schweizer-Reneke and Randfontein indicate very clearly that the vast majority of the White electorate are no longer satisfied to look on while their living space becomes smaller by the day, their standard of living deteriorates and they become poorer and poorer. The social and other pensioners, who until recently were strong supporters of the NP, now refuse to support the NP because without an adjustment to their pensions they can no longer make ends meet, as a result of increased rentals, services, telephone tariffs and other necessities of life. The R60 bonus for social pensioners, which is a non-recurrent payment, can barely help to defray a single month’s inflationary increases, never mind the rest of the year.

The CP’s victories in the three by-elections—in spite of the hon the Minister of National Education, who said that if we did not win the election in the Randfontein constituency by 5 000 votes, we would actually have lost. According to him we therefore have a losing vote of 3 711 in Parliament today! These wins have far-reaching implications for the NP as regards the next election. Let us consider a few of these implications.

In the first place indications are that the crown prince of the NP has become the lost son of the Afrikaner after Standerton, Schweizer-Reneke and Randfontein.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

His undisguised attempt to get the integrationary policy of the NP to work and so not incur the disfavour of his leader, totally damaged his image as a conservative Afrikaner. His attempt to wrest the support of the left wing in the NP from the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs—who is not here at the moment—failed dismally, particularly in the Transvaal.

His power-base in the Transvaal is turning its back on him. The most popular member of the NP among the left-wing voters in the Transvaal is the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who in my opinion has already surpassed the crown prince in popularity. Supporters of the NP are no longer prepared to support a sinking leader, because his reputation and his “pulling power” are waning. I have been told that of late, when this Transvaal leader holds meetings, only members of the AWB and the Police are present. [Interjections.] I therefore predict that the hon the Minister of National Education will lose his seat in Vereeniging in the next election and will have to serve in this House as a nominated member—like the hon the Minister of Agriculture—and that as a declining leader he will eventually lose his reputation.

The second important implication for the NP of the three recent by-elections in the Transvaal is the fact that whereas the Transvaal platteland already belongs to the CP, the CP’s growth rate in the urban constituencies is greater than in the rural areas. This trend is also apparent in the OFS, the northern parts of Natal and the Cape Province. One can ask: Why? Because the voters are experiencing the realities of the Government’s reform policy at first hand.

The third and most important implication of the past three elections is the support and enthusiasm over a wide spectrum of the electorate—this includes both Afrikaans and English-speaking people—for the cause and policy of the CP and the rejection of the reform policy of the NP. Not even when the NP was flourishing and at the pinnacle of its success was the enthusiasm for it comparable to that being enjoyed by the CP at the increment. I can personally attest to this owing to my long association with the NP and its organisation.

It is quite clear that the CP will not be thwarted in its determination to take over the Government of the Republic of South Africa. Indications are that the NP is aware of this because political appointments, such as inter alia Administrator of the Transvaal, the commissioners-general and foreign diplomats, are no longer being made from the ranks of the NP politicians. In other words, by-elections are no longer being held. Is this the policy of a winning party in South Africa? I would say very definitely not.

Reform requires a government through which the Whites will be protected against being engulfed in society, the economy, in politics, in our schools and in our residential areas. Reform requires that the Whites must be able to control the influx of people and combat the problem of squatting—which is still going to become the biggest problem in South Africa—in future. To the Whites of South Africa reform means certain trends in respect of race relations and responsibilities which have become totally unacceptable to the CP, for example the indefinite provision of housing to other population groups, the provision of employment and the uncontrolled growth in numbers.

Population groups that prefer large numbers, must bear the economic burden of this themselves and not shift it onto the Whites. To the Whites of the Republic of South Africa reform means that the small White population can no longer continue to pay the accounts of growing population groups. It means the damaging of property without accepting responsibility, the taking over of White facilities and the development of regional and local governments which will result in the throwing open of areas. The CP says that this is the wrong attitude and we reject it because it exceeds the limits and makes demands which obviously cannot be taken any further. Reform means that the Whites and the Afrikaners are now being transformed into another form of authority, namely a mixed government and a society in which they can realise their ethnicity only in own schools and own residential areas, in spite of the defective way in which this is being implemented.

The question remains relevant at all times: How can a small White nation of barely five million people absorb a non-White population of 15 million and expect not to be engulfed? The image being created of South Africa, is the image of one country, one society, one joint citizenship, one loyalty and one patriotism, which is blatantly and arrogantly being presented to the public by the Press, television, radio, the liberals and NP speakers from platform to platform.

This is merely sowing the seeds of confusion and doubt in the minds of White South Africans, and Beeld admitted this. Reform with such an unattractive vision of the future no longer fits in with the history and traditions of the White Afrikaner. When this happens, reform is no longer reform, but revolution. This is the standpoint of liberalism, which teaches that freedom and equality for the individual come first, and that disruption and tyranny are unavoidable. This is the course being adopted by the NP, which the White voters of South Africa are refusing to adopt.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Nigel, in typical CP fashion, launched an attack on many fronts without hitting anything. [Interjections.] Thus far in this debate this has been a characteristic of speeches by the Official Opposition. He spoke on a wide variety of topics. One cannot actually say he debated them. All one can really say in his favour is that he managed to mention a wide variety of topics in one speech. [Interjections.] There is a similarity between his speech and the speeches of other speakers on his side, which has become typical of the Official Opposition.

The hon member for Nigel alleged, for example, that it was our fault and the fault of reform that there were squatters and Black unrest in South Africa. However, Crossroads and other squatter camps here in the Peninsula did not develop after 1983. They were there long before 1983, when all those hon members were still members of the NP. [Interjections.]

Black unrest and unrest in Black schools started when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was still in control of Black education in the Transvaal. [Interjections.] This is not something which started only with the reforms in 1983. [Interjections.] Sometimes one is astounded at the logic, if one can call it that, of hon members of the Official Opposition.

The hon member for Nigel referred to the redistribution of wealth. If he will pardon me, I will get back to that later on in my speech. He spoke about disproportionate distribution of wealth between the Whites and the non-Whites of South Africa. I said that he launched attacks on many fronts, as many of the CP speakers did.

Yesterday we heard the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis of the CP. For some reason or other he accused the Government of being responsible for the interest rate being 32% at one stage. I could not follow his reasoning very well, but I merely want to say that those interest rates occurred in times of a boom, when there was a tremendous upswing in the economy of South Africa. [Interjections.] That was why we had those high interest rates. It was not because of a deterioration in the economy.

However, I want to tell him that every bank differentiates between clients as regards the interest rates they pay.

If a person is a high risk client, of course he will pay a high interest rate. A low risk client will of course pay a lower interest rate. Because the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis spoke so feelingly about these high interest rates, I assume he was one of the victims of these high interest rates. [Interjections.] Having listened to his speech and to his explanation of the state of the economy in South Africa, if I were a banker or a bank manager, I wonder whether I would even have accepted him as a client at 32%. [Interjections.]

You are very clever.

Then there was something else the hon member for Nigel was delighted about and which has also been a characteristic of speeches made by that side of the House so far. The Official Opposition still cannot quite control their jubilation at their victories in the by-elections.

With good reason.

Apparently the victories have made them so hopeful—the hon member for Nigel also intimated this—that they … [Interjections.] … even went so far as to predict that they were going to win the next general election.

Hold one; then you will see.

There you have it: Hold one; then you will see.

Order! There are too many interjections from my left. Hon members must stop this.

They already see the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as the next State President. [Interjections.] They already see the hon member for Carletonville as the next Minister of Finance. [Interjections.] In addition they already see the hon member for Overvaal as the next Minister of Law and Order. [Interjections.] Because the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis is not really a specialist in any field, they see him as the next Minister without portfolio. [Interjections.] I do not begrudge them all that jubilation because it is not going to last long. One cannot blame them. Shakespeare wrote:

I think the hon members’ hopes have already gone that far. [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir, I do not think I have the time to reply to that hon member’s question.

Those of us who have been involved in politics for long enough and who have adopted the course which the Official Opposition is now adopting for a long time—up to now and far longer than they have—know that this joy is fleeting. I think it would pay the hon members of the Official Opposition to talk to the hon members of the previous Official Opposition. Prior to the last election they also predicted that they could win between 40 and 50 seats. Sir, you can see for yourself what they look like now, and how good those predictions were.

We admit that we lost.

Very well; I did not say that the hon member did not admit that he had lost. I merely want to say that the Official Opposition can go the same way. [Interjections.] The NP is not a party that allows itself to be trifled with or that takes any election lightly. [Interjections.] Those hon members will find they have made a mistake. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately there are people who, when they see a light at the end of the tunnel, think that the sun is rising. Then they think “het daghet overal”, as the old Dutch saying has it. [Interjections.]

When are you going to make your speech, Piet? [Interjections.]

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

The hon member for Overvaal is so impulsive. When Government speakers throw a political stone in that direction, they know they are on target if the hon member for Overvaal says “ping”. [Interjections.]

I want to get back to the allegation that, because the Government wants to uplift the Third World component in South Africa, it is engaging in socialism. I want to confirm what the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance said here today, namely that if it is socialism to train and educate the non-Whites in South Africa in the principles of capitalism and turn them into capitalists instead of communists, then this kind of socialism is more than justified. [Interjections.] That is the objective. We want to turn them into land owners; we want to turn them into home owners. We want to give these people better qualifications. We want to qualify them better for professions so that they can eventually help to shoulder the tax burden in South Africa, in order to do further upliftment work.

I now want to ask the CP something. The hon gentlemen are surely going to determine a growth rate for themselves when they have their White South Africa one day.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Bethal has now made enough interjections. The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

The CP is surely going to set a certain growth rate as their goal. How are they going to achieve that growth rate? They can only do so by employing Black labour to an increasing extent, because there are simply not enough Whites to maintain this growth rate. [Interjections.] Whether one accommodates them in Black homelands or wherever one accommodates them, if it is the policy and the philosophy of a government, as it will, according to those hon members, be the policy of the CP government to look after the interests of the White population first and then look after the interests of the other race groups in South Africa, as an afterthought, then I fear for the future of South Africa. [Interjections.]

In all the great revolutions of the world it was found that there was a small minority of privileged persons who clung jealously to all their possessions and privileges and did not want to share them, and a large number of less-privileged persons who eventually objected to this in the form of a revolution.

If this is the policy which the CP is going to adopt then I fear for the future of South Africa! Our industries, our transport services, our communications services and our Public Service are going to be swarming with agents of strange ideologies.

Now you are going “ping”, Piet!

No, Sir.

I just want to tell hon members that this kind of politicking, in which the prejudices of the Whites are exploited and in which the Blacks are constantly told that they are in a less privileged position, can lead to a take-over by socialism and communism in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

I know why the CP is not keen to talk about this Budget and why they are not discussing it in detail. It is the most popular Budget we have had in this Parliament in South Africa for a long time. [Interjections.] If one looks at the positive and favourable reaction of the private sector to this Budget, one cannot but observe that seldom, if ever, has there been a Budget which has been received by the private sector with such high hopes.

3711!

For that reason we can indeed say that the private sector, because it has so much confidence in the Government’s economic policy, also has confidence in the Government itself to lead South Africa economically.

One need only think back to a few years ago when South Africa was in financial difficulties, when overseas countries withdrew their money, sanctions were introduced, there was Black unrest and there was a drought. [Interjections.] If one compares this with the situation today, one must admit that an economic miracle has taken place in South Africa.

However, this does not suit the CP. The growth rate of 3% which we now have and the economic prosperity which we are now enjoying, does not suit them. The CP thrives on economic setbacks, because it can blame the Government for them. [Interjections.] The national economic problems of this country are being exploited by them for their own party political gain. [Interjections.]

I remember the time when those events took place to which I have just referred. I remember that speakers of the Official Opposition referred to this hon Minister of Finance, who was then still new to his post, as “Onrusbarend”.

We still call him that!

However, this young Minister showed his mettle. [Interjections.] He did not allow himself to be put off by a few CPs. He and his hon Deputy Ministers and the officials who assist him, got us out of trouble. Look where South Africa stands today compared with two or three years ago. Look where we stand economically! [Interjections.] We admit that there is still a great deal to be done. We admit that a growth rate of 3% may be too low to meet the demand for the creation of employment, but I want to emphasise that we have come a long way in the past two or three years. Instead of criticising and engaging in petty politics, South Africa should thank the hon the Minister of Finance and his hon Deputy Ministers and their officials for what they have done for South Africa in this time. [Interjections.]

There are many other encouraging signs on the horizon. Although these are minor matters, they are nevertheless encouraging. We are winning back our credit standing abroad. [Interjections.] We are making other countries jealous, owing to the fact that we are such good payers. They would like to have the small foreign debt which South Africa has.

However, time will tell. When the history of the South African economy is written one day, there will be nothing but praise for the management of the NP—and for the hon the Minister of Finance in particular—and not petty political criticism.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege and a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Kuruman. Even if I did not appreciate some of his factual pronouncements, I must say I enjoyed the lighter moments of his speech and I think he made a very important point. I am sorry to see the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs leaving the Chamber. However, the hon member made a very important point when he talked about the respect for our relations with overseas countries. This is an aspect that I will be dealing with during the course of my own speech. I think we should be paying a little more attention to this aspect.

In view of odd Press reports, I want to make it clear that I stand here today with my NRP tag still on. [Interjections.] It is tattered, but it has not yet been buried. I want to make it quite clear that I am not to be classified as an independent, no matter in what form.

There was one point on which I agreed with the hon member for Kuruman—that the peaceful future of this country does not lie in the hands of Whites alone. We must not allow the irresponsible actions of the radicals to dictate the course of evolutionary change in this country.

In returning to the Budget, I must say that the more one studies the Budget and its links to the speech of the hon the State President at the opening of Parliament, the more clearly the picture emerges that the costs of governing the country are gradually assuming proportions in excess of what the economy of the country can afford. There is little likelihood therefore that the economy, despite the endeavours of the hon the Minister of Finance, will recover sufficiently to meet the growing needs of the country. This can only happen if ongoing steps are taken to reduce the actual costs involved in administration.

One accepts the fact that the tricameral system of Parliament is complicated. However, the question which has to be answered is whether the Government has not made it overcomplicated because of the duplication of so many aspects of the system. This is a development that I see has gradually being taking place, has led to greater cost and, at the same time, has been responsible for certain inefficiencies in administration.

One is also aware that the concept of own affairs is enshrined in the Constitution. It is a cornerstone of the tricameral system. However, it is essential that, wherever possible, common aspects of own affairs be streamlined and consolidated in order to minimise the overall costs of running the country. It is therefore essential that greater attention be given to the devolution of power through decentralisation, which must go hand in hand with the own-affairs concept.

Let us look at the role of ministerial representatives, as an example. Here we have a situation where these appointees have virtually no authority and are not in a position to take decisions without reference to Pretoria. It would appear that they merely act as buffers between regions and members of the Cabinet. The time has surely come, Sir, for an appraisal of the functions of the ministerial representatives, who should be given more authority in order to improve efficiency at the regional level and to eliminate unnecessary duplications.

The hon member for Yeoville, who made an excellent speech yesterday, pointed out the need to restore stability and confidence in the economy of this country. This, as we all know, is the key to economic progress. These two factors must not be seen only in the context of internal affairs but also in the international context. Any hope of significant economic growth is dependent on the amount of foreign investment that can be attracted to this country. For that reason one cannot but express alarm at the growing overseas trend to isolate South Africa from the rest of the world. We must appreciate too the sensitivity that this action is causing in those countries which still support us. I must warn, Sir, that great care must be exercised to avoid any action on our part which could be seen as taunting those friendly countries which are under considerable pressure to change their attitude towards this country.

In the few minutes still available to me, I wish to turn my attention to the question of the R13 billion agricultural debt. I raise this matter against the backdrop of the enormous task with which the agricultural sector is faced. They not only have to service this debt, but short-term commitments also have to be repaid.

I want to make it quite clear, Sir, that I am not unmindful of the steps which the Government has taken in rendering financial assistance to those farmers who have found themselves in financial difficulties in recent years. I particularly want to commend the hon the Ministers of Agriculture and of Finance for having made financial assistance available in order to keep people on the land. However, Sir, we must not delude ourselves that the overall problem will finally be solved by State funds being made available in the form of financial assistance in the short term. Such assistance, as I have said, has helped to keep farmers on the land, and of that they are highly appreciative.

But the problem is far greater and, as I see it, the time has come for the Government to square up to the fact that the deterioration in the financial position of many farmers, in the summer graingrowing areas in particular, has reached the stage where it has become a national crisis—bearing in mind the fact that debts have to be redeemed and that that can only be done from profits. So we are faced with the reality that if there are no profits, there can be no repayment. What a daunting prospect for the agricultural industry!

One must not lose sight of the fact that the debt itself is increasing ominously year by year. I do not have the time to present a breakdown of the existing debt but I should like to comment on one aspect. As at 31 December 1987, R6,9 million, or 52,4%, of the agricultural debt of R13,2 billion was short-term debt.

It is the repayment of the short-term debt that demands immediate attention. The Government must realize they have a crisis on their hands. I am not suggesting that they have not already come to that conclusion, but new initiatives and new structures must be sought which will spread the responsibility of meeting the commitments relative to short-term debt over a wider field.

With this in mind, I suggest that round-table discussions be initiated over a broad financial front, involving the Government, organized agriculture, the co-operative movement and financial institutions, including insurance companies, commercial banks and the Land Bank, in order to appraise all aspects of the agricultural debt and determine ways and means whereby resources could possibly be pooled in order to avert a possible national disaster. This initiative could have the effect of allaying certain fears that the private and financial institutions hold at present.

My fear is that agriculture will become a terminal, festering sore which, unless healed, will sap the economic energy of this country. Therefore it is essential that the root causes of the problem are tackled timeously and with the determination and resourcefulness that is required to restore agriculture to its rightful place as the major industry in this country’s economy.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mooi River has made an authoritative speech on agricultural matters and I do not intend to follow him on that subject. I note, however, that the hon member declared that he had not yet taken a decision as to his political future. At this stage he is certainly not an independent. We in the PFP, having been in alliance with this hon member in last year’s election based on the principles of the indaba, will await his eventual decision with interest. [Interjections.]

It is a feature of this debate that the NP has chosen to speak about everything except the key economic problem in this country. That key economic problem is actually a lack of long-term local and overseas investor confidence in this economy. There is this lack of investor confidence because of this Government’s failure to solve the political problems facing us. [Interjections.] Their failure to solve our political problems has led directly to such costly economic effects as sanctions, the higher cost of imports and exports, the cost of unrest, the unproductive cost of controlling the unrest and the defence expenditure that comes with it, as well as the cost of isolation from world markets and resources.

Therefore, although it is encouraging that the Government has now declared steps to fight inflation—something we have been calling for for years—it is regrettable that at the same time it has failed utterly to address the key political problems that have a massive bearing on the performance of the economy. It is such a lopsided approach that one cannot avoid the suspicion that the NP is now trying to hide behind an inadequate discussion of economic matters in order to avoid the critical choices facing them and the tensions that are alive within the NP on key political issues.

The hon member for King William’s Town spent all his time on problems which he alleged beset the parties to the left of the NP. He should read the parable of the man who lives in a glass house, because the problems that beset the NP are key, fundamental ideological problems of great importance. I would like to focus on a few of them, for example the question of what to do about the National Council, which at this stage is a complete non-starter. Some people in the NP are, I allege, prepared to try and ensure the success of the National Council by releasing detainees all the way up to Nelson Mandela.

However, there are others who are sympathetic to the arguments of the CP in this regard, and they oppose that step with as much vehemence as spokesmen of the CP. This …

Name them.

We will name them. This internal conflict, made worse by the fear of the CP’s growth, has led to a complete paralysis of the NP in respect of reforms affecting Blacks.

Another issue that is causing problems in the NP is what to do about the reduced role of this Parliament. There are those in the NP caucus today who are almost as worried as we are about the creeping military/security take-over of almost all important political decision-making.

Name them.

They would not want to be named. There are even people in the Cabinet who are worried about this. Some of the most senior Cabinet Ministers, as far as I am informed, were not even aware of the massive crackdown on the 17 organisations until they heard about it from the Press.

Another example is the release of Mr Govan Mbeki last year. Mr Mbeki’s release was clearly intended by certain high-ranking members of the NP as a gesture of goodwill in support of some kind of negotiation and possibly in support of the National Council—an encouragement for real negotiation. But what has happened? It is quite clear that the military/security decision-makers took an entirely different view of the implications of releasing Mr Mbeki, and it is they who effected the final decisions that have been taken on Mr Mbeki. I have no doubt there is deep unhappiness within the NP on that matter.

There are hon members on the opposite side who, I believe, are concerned about the fact that they are steadily being reduced to rubber-stamping ciphers of the presidential decision-making apparatus.

*It seems that the State no longer serves the people, but that the people serve the State. The people no longer govern; that is now done by the hon the State President in his personal capacity and by his inner circle. [Interjections.]

†Another question causing tension is what is happening about the Group Areas Act. We in the PFP have no problem. Quite clearly we believe that people must be free to live, play and work together without the social-engineering restrictions of the Group Areas Act. Although the NP is the architect of that Act, there are members there today who are also prepared to see it go in its entirety.

Name them.

They know who they are. At the same time that there are members there who are prepared to scrap the Group Areas Act, there are members who have the same arguments as the CP towards scrapping the Act. They are fearful of scrapping it and they do not want to do it. [Interjections.] Yes, Mr Chairman, the ones who have the smallest majorities against the CPs in their constituencies are among the leaders who are worried about this possibility.

This issue has led directly to a major confrontation with the LP and there are hon members in this House who are most concerned about the confrontation with the LP. They are unhappy about the way in which Coloured people in general and Rev Hendrickse in particular have been handled. That is a source of tension in the NP. [Interjections.] The NP is going to come with a wishy-washy compromise measure originated in the President’s Council which, I predict, is going to satisfy neither the LP nor the CP. [Interjections.]

What is to be done about the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act? That is another matter. There are members in the NP who agree with the PFP about opening beaches, for example.

Name them.

Mr Chairman, let us ask the hon member for Newton Park what he thinks. He said some very sensible things on the subject, I must say. Let us ask Mayor Henry Klotz of Durban what he thinks on the subject. They want the beaches open. They do not want the embarrassment and the scandal that a Brown South African Minister may not swim on a South African beach. It is outmoded and ridiculous, and there are members on that side who are prepared to scrap it. Yet, there are others who say the last thing they will do is scrap it. Even here in the enlightened Cape, I regret to say, the Administrator seems to hold the same conservative view.

South Africa cannot afford the luxury of waiting patiently while the NP sorts out where it is going on these critical issues.

The gathering national and international crises facing this country must force the NP to take some critical decisions on these points soon. Before too long the indecision on these critical issues which is paralysing the NP just as it paralysed the old United Party while it was still in existence, must inevitably lead to either paralysis or to splitting. [Interjections.]

The PFP has faced some problems in the past— let us be quite frank about it—but, and this is a very big “but”, the problems which have affected the PFP recently have not been caused by differences on fundamental principles. [Interjections.] Even the people who have left us, as far as I am aware, have not left us on points of principle and they are not at issue with us on such cardinal points as the need for real negotiation, real power-sharing, real democracy, and the need to scrap apartheid. [Interjections.] On those issues the parties on the left of the NP are entirely in agreement. [Interjections.] A party that has ideological tensions and conflicts within it is the party that has the problem.

Why do you not form a party…

Order! The hon member for Parow is making too many interjections.

Democratic post-apartheid South Africa is a long way away. We have no illusions about that, or about the fact that the road toward it is going to be tough. Nevertheless it is true that the PFP’s ideas are the ideas which are slowly prevailing in South Africa. It is also true that the limited positive progress towards the new South Africa which has been made is measured by the distance which the government moves away from the policies implemented by the NP since 1948. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I listened very attentively to the hon member for Constantia, who carried on like a hurdy-gurdy here, and told us all the things that were wrong with the NP Government. Everything is wrong, and his party on that side of the House has the perfect solution and the vision for South Africa.

However, let us be honest with one another this evening. Let us consider the history of that party during the past two years. After all it was the Cape leader of the PFP who was speaking. They introduced something wonderful, something called “Operation Turbocharge”. Let us take a look at this “Operation Turbocharge”. I am reading to hon members from the Daily Dispatch of 6 October 1986—this is just a short while ago. The report reads as follows:

Let us see how they say this is going to work:

He then went on to say:

[Interjections.] I will repeat that:

*At least 30 Nats are deeply concerned. They realise the party is stuck because of the broad spectrum of opinion in its ranks.

Now hon members must listen:

They end the report by saying —

He ended as follows:

His reply was:

Today I should like to tell all the hon members from the Peninsula with whom I have dealings, that they must be on the look out for other “jobs” for themselves before the next election because they are not going to retain their seats. [Interjections.]

Today I should like to confine myself to two important basic realities which the hon the Minister of Finance mentioned at the beginning of his Second Reading speech. These were already mentioned yesterday by the hon member for Newcastle …

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

I am not prepared to reply to a question.

How many seats did you win?

This quote contains factors which undoubtedly have a direct effect on the South African economy, and I should like this placed on record. [Interjections.]

Order! Let us give the hon member a fair chance.

I am quoting from the speech of the hon the Minister:

These vital points, as summarised by the hon the Minister, are extremely enlightening, particularly when one considers what is demanded and expected of the South African economy, and the restrictive external and internal factors which must constantly be borne in mind and taken into account. One is therefore entitled to ask where in the world a country is experiencing a greater and fiercer onslaught than the RSA. This onslaught is becoming more intense by the day. What other country appears without asking on the business agendas of many countries every day—countries which usually cannot succeed in concealing their own faults and inabilities in many spheres?

In the third place one can ask where else in the world a small developing country is the focal point of a conflict between the East and the West, while waging a fierce struggle against a communist onslaught which only has one objective, namely to take over their mineral wealth. In the fourth place one can also ask what other country in Africa—in spite of the venom and tyrannical attacks against our country, people are looking towards longingly and with empty stomachs. They yearn for the Republic of South Africa’s larder as well as the sophisticated knowledge in the field of technology as well as other fields.

As if these attacks and threats, and the attendant economic punitive measures are not enough, this country, and particularly this Government, on which a tremendous responsibility rests, must always take another onslaught into account as well, namely the internal onslaught. This is an onslaught by both left-wing and right-wing radicals. The onslaught is by groups that have economic and financial ideologies which can only cause this country incalculable harm and can never ever meet the tremendous demands being made on the economy of this country—particularly in the social welfare, financial, economic and political spheres.

In the midst of these onslaughts in many spheres, it is ironic that this country has remained a country of prosperity and opportunities—a country with stability, with a vigorous economy which is to the advantage of all its inhabitants. As proof of this I should like to quote from a report which appeared in The Argus of 9 April 1988, under the headline “Spending spree spurs economy”. I am quoting:

It goes on to say:

This quote again confirms that only this Government can effectively handle the economy of the country in the midst of all the onslaughts to which I have just referred. This quote is a fine testimonial to a Government which puts the interests of its country and all its inhabitants first.

As I said at the outset, tremendous challenges are being issued and demands are being made on the SA economy, in many spheres. Today I want to discuss the topic of housing, which is an aspect of the social sphere. The meaningful housing of all population groups in this country remains one of the greatest endeavours and objectives for the future. Tremendous work has been and will still be done in future in this field by the Government. In the years 1984 and 1985 the Government spent approximately R1,14 million on housing and housing infrastructures for all the population groups. However, I want to state this afternoon that it is not and cannot be expected of any democratic government in the world to accept sole responsibility in this field. The housing problem can only be solved if there is increasing co-operation and involvement from sectors outside the Government sector. Black housing in particular, which is linked to the process of meaningful urbanisation, will remain an important priority in future.

Housing remains a highly specialised field which must be handled with great dedication, and organisations like non profit-seeking housing utility companies will have to play a far bigger role in South Africa in future. These corporations have the expertise and social motivation, generate funds inter alia from their own ranks, and are therefore to a great extent independent of State financing. In view of this and considering the important social welfare task which this kind of utility company can perform, it is in the interests of the State and the country for these housing corporations to be able to provide as much financing as possible from the private sector. However, this is very difficult at present, because there is no encouragement for the ordinary donor to make donations in this regard.

Today I want to request the hon the Minister of Finance, with all due respect, to consider granting a form of tax concession to individuals or companies that make donations to housing utility companies. Quite rightly donations to educational institutions such as universities are at present tax deductible and in my humble opinion the housing priority of this country, which is becoming increasingly important, should also receive a stimulus and a greater input from the private sector.

It goes without saying that such a concession will have to be subject to certain control measures and conditions. If more people and organisations in South Africa can become involved in this important social need of our country, the State will to an increasing extent be in a position to vote more money for other very important spheres of life.

This country is rich in minerals and raw materials, but also extremely rich in human potential. We are a nation which in spite of many onslaughts and limitations are prepared to go forward to meet the future, but this is only possible if there is at all times a healthy and vigorous economy. We are a people who are prepared in spite of onslaughts to take up the challenges of tomorrow.

This evening I want to say with all due respect that we do have such a country; we do have such people, and it is no wonder that President Ronald Reagan had to report to Congress on 3 October 1987, in his report on the effect of sanctions, that they had not succeeded. South Africa will triumph. South Africa will overcome its political, social and economic problems, but only with a realistic and goal-orientated government, an NP Government, and I take pleasure in supporting this Second Reading.

Mr Chairman, I listened with great interest to what the hon member Mr Van Gend had to say about fighting elections and what he had to say about the PFP. I found it very interesting indeed to hear what an hon nominated member had to say about fighting seats in elections. I sincerely hope that he will in fact do so in the next election, and I wish him well in that regard.

He must come and stand in Constantia!

Mr Chairman, much has been said recently about NP-claims that members of the PFP, and in particular the hon member for Pinetown and myself, are trying to politicise education and are attempting to discredit the Government’s education policy. The hon member for Umhlanga recently devoted an entire speech in this House to me and to my attitude towards education. I want to thank him for this; I was indeed flattered. As is so often the case, however, he either deliberately misrepresented the facts or, as is also often the case, he failed to understand this party’s education policy.

We accept that education is of prime importance to the future of this country, a fact acknowledged by the Government, by industry and commerce, by the people of this country themselves and also by the international community as a whole. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who have received either no education at all or in fact a very limited education. That this was the deliberate policy of this Government little more than a decade ago, is a fact—the policy of giving the Black people of this country an inferior education and therefore keeping them inferior citizens. It was a useful policy for the Government to follow to further its apartheid aims and aspirations. That policy was the result of a political decision taken by this Government, as was the decision in 1976 to make Black primary schoolchildren learn certain subjects through the medium of Afrikaans only. We know well what that political decision led to.

It was also a political decision that led to the introduction of the tricameral Parliament and it was a political decision that led from there to the concept of own affairs education and to the rejection of many of the positive aspects of the De Lange Report. There is an endless list of political decisions taken by the Government which have effected and changed the structure of education in South Africa over the years.

There is no doubt that the NP has politicised education since 1948 and used it as a tool for its own gains, but now we find that politicians within that party are calling for opposition politicians to remove politics from education. They claim that it is wrong to associate the two—wrong to associate education and politics. I must say that this is very much a holier-than-thou attitude coming from that party, a party which has in fact seldom practised what it preaches.

There is no doubt that the Government is responsible for the very sorry state of Black education in this country. I acknowledge that attempts are now being made to improve the situation, that more money is being made available for Black education and that the Government has stated that it is committed to creating equal educational opportunities for all people of South Africa. We have to accept, however, that the backlog is so great and the problems so numerous that even if the Government was to treble its spending on Black education now it would take years to reach the situation where equal educational opportunities for all really do exist. I think immediately of the problems of teacher:pupil ratios, of teacher training, the desperate need for teacher upgrade, of the acute shortage of facilities and the lack of equipment etc. They are all points which the Government is well aware of.