Mr Chairman, when I was speaking yesterday in relation to the NP claim that the PFP was attempting to politicise education, I pointed out that it was in fact the NP that, since 1948, had used education as a political tool, and had in fact done so for their own political gain. Even today it is still continuing to do so. [Interjections.]

Before I continue to address myself to this particular point, however, I want to comment briefly on the latest development in the unfortunate conflict between Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the hon the State President. I refer of course to the letter received by the hon the State President yesterday from Archbishop Tutu, in reply to his letter of 16 March.

The conflict between the church and the State is most unfortunate and can, in both the short and the long term, have severe consequences for this country. It is obviously a conflict which receives much publicity in the Press and which is of growing concern to many South Africans of all race groups.

When the hon the State President sent his letter to Archbishop Tutu on 16 March all hon members of Parliament were issued with copies of that letter on the same day—in fact, Sir, within hours of the letter being sent. I want to ask the hon the State President today why we did not receive copies of the Archbishop’s letter yesterday, and whether we are in fact going to receive copies at all so that we can study that letter carefully in conjunction with the hon the State President’s original letter. [Interjections.] I believe this is an important point indeed if we are to be enabled to draw our own conclusions as members of Parliament, independently of the political comments which accompany these letters when they are printed in the Press, as they have in fact been. [Interjections.]

It does concern me that the hon the State President’s letter was addressed to members of Parliament immediately, and yet we have not yet received copies of the Archbishop’s reply. [Interjections.] This would smack to some extent of political prejudice which should be avoided at all costs in a conflict that has the potential magnitude that this particular conflict has, and which could have the most unfortunate consequences for this country.

In the short time left to me today, I wish to return briefly to the question of education. I referred yesterday to the fact that the present sorry state of Black education is the direct result of NP political decisions over the past 40 years. The differences in standard between White and Black education are so great and the divisions are so deep as a result of the decisions of the NP that the task ahead of equalising education is now of gigantic proportions. The solution cannot and will not be provided by insisting on a policy of own affairs education with its separateness and strong apartheid connotations. A solution lies rather in a concerted effort on the part of all race groups working together, and in the interests of the country as a whole, to reduce as quickly as possible the problems and shortcomings that exist in Black education. This requires not only money but the genuine desire on the part of the Government and its many officials to eradicate problems as smoothly and as efficiently as possible and to establish the mechanism whereby equal education opportunities can be offered to all children in this country. However, this can only happen once all education has been demarcated a general affair under the control of a single Minister of Education, and educational facilities including empty or nearly empty training colleges and schools are declared for the use of all race groups.

In this House yesterday, for example, questions were asked by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens in regard to the number of Black and White teachers who graduated last year in teacher training courses, and the number of vacant places in Black and White training colleges. The replies to these questions show quite clearly that racism in education continues to flourish in this country. Until the political decision is taken to end this state of affairs there is no hope that Black education will attain the standard that is required in this country.

The hon member for Umhlanga claimed recently that the PFP intends turning the whole issue of own affairs education into a political battlefield. However, I wish to point out to that hon member that it is in fact his party which turned education in this country into a political battlefield in the first place, a battlefield in which, unfortunately, not only verbal shots have been fired.

I wish to remind hon members on that side of the House of the unfortunate circumstances that led to the Soweto riots in 1976, and much of the unrest in this country during the 1980s. It was in fact that party’s education programmes and policies that gave rise to much of the unrest in this country. [Interjections.] What the hon member for Umhlanga must realise is that while we are all concerned about the education of our own children—that is our responsibility as parents and as concerned members of our community—at the end of the day it is all the children of South Africa who require an education of the very highest standard we can offer.

Own affairs education and the present structure of education in South Africa can never give this. If we do not progress rapidly towards a policy of real equality in educational opportunity using all the resources at our disposal, it will not just be our children who will be the losers but it will be this country as a whole.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban North has commented on the NP’s politicising education and making it a political battlefield. However, need I remind him of his political role within the NTS while he was headmaster of a Durban high school? [Interjections.] Now that the teachers in Natal are being agitated towards revolt, I sincerely hope that the two former NTS members representing the PFP in this House, the hon members for Durban North and Pinetown, are not leading this revolt. [Interjections.]

I think that would be extremely irresponsible, and it would be political opportunism of the worst kind. [Interjections.] I shall give them the benefit of the doubt anyway, and we shall wait and see. [Interjections.]

Read your own speech of two months ago!

Order! We must maintain some semblance of order. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South may continue.

Mr Chairman, I will continue with matters more appropriate to this debate.

It is a great pleasure for me to participate in this debate in support of the Appropriation Bill before us. The scene was set when the hon the State President gave his opening address to Parliament earlier this year, and I think the nub of the plan put before us then was that South Africa should live within its means and should privatise and deregulate. I do not think anyone can gainsay the fact that this reassertion of financial discipline takes a courageous course.

This approach has since been endorsed by the non-inflationary Transport Affairs and Post Office Budgets, in which no tariff increases were announced, and now it has been backed up by the main Budget which prescribes the medicine of economic frugality. This will no doubt set the economy on a path towards planned prosperity which, I think, can be sustained for years to come.

The reaction of the business sector, financial critics, academics and the media, while expressing reservations, has been surprisingly favourable. Those giving evidence to the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I have the honour to be a member, were almost glowing in their praise. There were, of course, those who had their own particular lobby or legitimate queries requiring attention. I believe those have been adequately dealt with in the most comprehensive report and recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance.

At this juncture I would like to join other hon members in congratulating the hon member for Vasco, who is chairman of that committee, on his outstanding leadership.

The Official Opposition’s reactions to the Budget have been much as expected so far. It seems to be a crime for any hon member of that radical right-wing party to give any praise to the Government. Ignoring the larger issues, they have attacked the small issues at random, conjuring up racist ghosts. I do not think they have contributed anything positive in this debate.

On the other hand the PFP, particularly through its chief spokesman on finance, the hon member for Yeoville, has adopted a far more responsible attitude, and I believe some very relevant points have been raised. It is the hon the Minister’s prerogative to reply to this debate, but I would like to comment briefly on one or two of the issues raised.

The hon member for Yeoville mentioned that there was Black rejection of the free enterprise system, as Blacks perceived it to be the preserve of Whites. I think that was a sweeping statement, and is hardly factual. There is a growing body of Black businessmen and entrepreneurs who are showing very real business skills and a noteworthy success rate, and the statement made will do nothing to improve intergroup relationships or local and foreign investor confidence.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to this Budget as one of more guns than butter, and the hon member for Constantia alleged that the cost of defence was very high. I think this is a perception that the PFP tries to foster with its support of the End Conscription Campaign. [Interjections.]

What are the facts? Defence expenditure expressed as a percentage of State expenditure dropped from 18,4% in 1977-78 to 14,4% in 1986-87, or from 4,8% of GDP down to 4,2%. The estimate for 1988-89 of some R8 billion is equivalent to 15% of estimated State expenditure, or 4,2% of GDP. By contrast, the education Vote of 14,9% of State expenditure in 1977-78 has increased to a healthy 19%, and is approximately the same for 1988-89. I hardly think that is a case of more guns than butter. [Interjections.]

This Budget contains the essential elements of supply-side economics, reduced spending and modestly lower taxes. I think that was the essential spur to Britain’s seven years of unbroken economic growth. The important thing about this Budget is not what growth it will ginger up in the year ahead, but the strategy it contains for the future.

Even the Financial Mail which, I believe, in recent years has been viciously and blindly critical of almost every Government action, financial or otherwise, has come out in very positive support of this year’s Budget. The hon the Minister can take a bow at the words of the Financial Mail, and I quote:

Without a doubt the strategy set out in the main Budget of last year is now bearing fruit, and we have seen an improvement in the growth rate and a falling inflation rate. For a government that has in the past frequently been criticised for what has been called grotesque overspending, a very modest 2,1% net excess expenditure on the total Budget for 1987-88 is not only gratifying but also I believe proof of financial discipline. The latest quarterly bulletin of the South African Reserve Bank for March 1988 reveals that the strengthened trend in domestic output and expenditure is still substantially intact, this in spite of floods, the weakening of the gold price and other non-controllable factors. Certainly I believe this is a case of hats off to the hon the Minister and the Department of Finance.

There are certain grey areas in the taxation proposals contained in the Budget and the White Paper on the Margo Report. Among those proposals, I believe, there are items which require greater clarity, and perhaps further investigation and revision. I feel there are question marks being raised by tax experts on the question of SITE, ie the standard income tax for employees. While I believe the system will bring considerable relief to married couples, it appears to contain elements of uncertainty and unfairness; I believe that the tax is final and non-refundable. Perhaps the option of submitting a return should apply, as available at present. SITE only applies to women, although they could be the major breadwinners. There is also uncertainty in the application of or splitting of pension and retirement annuity deductions in respect of the incomes of married persons.

The second item to which I would like to refer concerns part-time farmers and the horseracing industry. While the application of certain bloodstock schemes is being abused to the detriment of other taxpayers, I think clarity is sought on the application and effects of livestock valuation or deduction of capital expenditure on so-called ring-fencing schemes. The proposals as they stand could have a detrimental effect on the multimillion rand horseracing industry.

Of course, no tax reform commission can provide final answers, and so the formation of a tax advisory committee of the hon the Minister of Finance is most welcome. One thing is for certain: The private sector could not have been given a greater opportunity or a fairer chance to make a more meaningful contribution to tax reform.

I would like to deal briefly with one matter, while I have the time, and that concerns some of my views on sanctions and disinvestment. The antiSouth African lobby is at it again, but I think our opponents are unlikely to enjoy anything like the same easy ride they successfully negotiated in October 1986 when they pushed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act through the US Congress and Senate. However, they are going to try. The World Council of Churches, backed by the famous Archbishop Tutu, has announced from Harare that they will send an Eminent Church Persons delegation to the United States, Japan, Britain, France, Belgium and West Germany to press for stronger economic measures against South Africa.

What a loyal South African he is!

Yes, a very loyal South African.

The main anti-South African lobby, Trans-Africa, has declared all-out war on Republican presidential candidates opposing mandatory sanctions. However, let us have a look at what really happened. I think that the people they try to help have been hit the hardest. The majority of the 145 to 150 US corporations that have pulled out of the country have sold their plant and assets to South African businessmen at knock-down prices. Most continue to sell their products to South Africa, while abandoning the so-called Sullivan Code pledges to press for Black advancement and White change.

How does the Black community view the situation? Recently three Black business executives visited the United States to investigate the disinvestment campaign on homeground.

In summary—I do not have much time—I wish to mention that a document prepared and presented in the United States stated that the disinvestment campaign was totally out of touch with reality and with the prevailing needs and aspirations of the Black community. It noted in particular that disinvestment merely provided an outlet for moral feelings without improving the situation of Black South Africans. Because Black Americans are being discriminated against in their own country they have extended their fight to South Africa. Many Americans are not aware that South African Blacks are allowed and able to run their own businesses.

Finally, I wish to say that the problem is that an oversimplified equation is made. Americans think that if one is against sanctions or disinvestment, one is for apartheid. They should stop thinking in such stupid and simple terms and open their eyes to reality.

I believe the NP has opened its eyes to reality and has done so for a long time. The others here seem to be groping blindly in the dark—I am referring to the opposition parties. The NP believes in co-operation and co-existence and an ongoing policy of social and economic reform. The 1988 Budget is designed, I believe, as yet another step on the road to such reform. I therefore have pleasure in supporting the Second Reading.

Mr Chairman, I had difficulty following the hon member but I did hear a few noises to which I shall react promptly. The one is that he made some passing references to radical racism on this side of the House. He spoke about the NP’s eyes having been opened to realities and others whose eyes have not yet been opened. I think that in the meantime there are some realities that have begun to get through to the NP, too, which they had not previously realised they would perceive.

He referred—in that regard I should like to associate myself with him—to a remark made by the hon member for Durban North, who in turn had referred to the current tension between the hon the State President and a certain spiritual leader in South Africa, Archbishop Tutu. I do not intend taking sides in this matter except to make a few remarks.

Typical! You never do that! [Interjections.]

If the hon members would only listen, we would not have to contend with unnecessary reaction on that side of the House. There are specific aspects in regard to which I will take the side of a cleric against a politician, and there are some respects in regard to which I would disparage specific political standpoints. Please just listen—perhaps those hon members will agree with me.

We on this side of the House do not welcome tension between political parties and religious organisations. Secondly, I want to say that religious leaders and clerics undoubtedly have the right to their own political standpoints and to specific group loyalties. I am a politician and I have my specific loyalties to certain people, and I think I can justify them.

I want to make another statement, which is that we are certainly opposed to politics being prescriptive in regard to the church and of the church being prescriptive in regard to politics, because as far as we are concerned these are two autonomous spheres of life, each with a specific sovereignty within its own sphere. However, that is not to say that there are no points of contact or that it is not possible for the two to have anything to say to one another, but basically it is a matter of two spheres of authority that stand side by side and from a theological point of view both are servants of God and they must view their calling in that light.

I do wish to make the statement that the religious or spiritual leader must not seek to be a co-ruler of the country. I think Archbishop Tutu has gone a very long way towards offending against that rule. He has come forward with statements, political standpoints and advice for the Government and whoever else, which fall far beyond the jurisdiction or competence and authority of a spiritual leader. If a spiritual leader wants to lay down all kinds of political prescriptions he is fully entitled to do so, but then he must not expect them to be recognised as religious authority which cannot be questioned. Moreover, I wish to say that if a spiritual leader enters that terrain he must know that if he expresses what is simply yet another alternative contentious political viewpoint, it cannot be regarded as ex cathedra and will be questioned.

We on our part would prefer an exchange on the basis of equality between spiritual leaders and believing politicians, and to see whether one cannot come to an agreement on that basis.

I think that the recent political events have already received attention in this House. I wish to refer to some of them. I wish to refer to certain accusations levelled at the opposition by the NP and to certain related matters.

The political events of recent times have in fact been disparaged by the NP as if they are no longer relevant and as if we are now engaged in more serious matters and are supposedly no longer living in the past. We are not future-orientated.

That is just the point. When we ask what the future orientation of the NP is, that is the point at issue and it is against that background that the lesson of the recent by-elections must be seen. Whether these things are relevant or not—the NP can regard them as irrelevant if it likes—the PFP has shown itself to be the spectator in these three recent by-elections and as the one that is irrelevant. The CP has proved certain things in this regard.

To begin with I wish to mention some very striking points. For example, the outcome of 6 May 1987 was, in the first place, shown to be not merely a freak event in the political history of South Africa. Since it is true that majorities have been doubled, tripled and even quadrupled, it was far more than a mere moral victory.

A second fact that emerges is that the CP is now far more than a rural party. It has shown that it is finding a response among the blue collar and blue overall people of the urban areas because those people seek a political party that looks after their existential position—in which their existence is at stake; in which their future is at stake; in which their jobs are at stake; their wages and salaries and so on; their security in the future—not only as individuals, but also as people belonging to a community and as members of a specific community and a specific people.

The White worker or employee seeks such a political party. For many years the NP was the mouthpiece of the worker—for, let us say, that category of voters—but this is no longer the case. Those people seek such a political party and the message and the language of the CP has elicited a response from them. To an increasing degree the CP is enjoying the support of those people as the party that affords them guarantees for the future in the social and political and even in the economic spheres.

Thirdly, voices within the NP are complaining and thereby in fact admitting the political impotence they observe within their own ranks. Some months ago a prominent member of the President’s Council and a member of the NP remarked to one of my friends, when they were discussing the by-elections in Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke, that “we are going to lose”. He asked “What are we to fight them with?” After all, one cannot enter a political struggle, in which one seeks the votes of people, and tell those people: “We offer you as a community and as members of a specific party no prospects for the future nor a future of freedom. All we offer you is the appeal to come to rest. Just accept reconciliation and be happy in a situation of steadily increasing integration, power-sharing and multiracialism.” For example, people in Randfontein were asked: “Vote for us, because we admit that your residential area can gradually become greyer and greyer. Your people may be asked to vote on whether that residential area should become nonWhite.”

That is untrue.

Why should it be untrue? I refer the hon member of Bethlehem to the speech made by the hon the State President in this House last year. [Interjections.] The hon member for Bethlehem should really wake up.

If such a vote were to be taken in such an area and they were to vote that this area could be grey or non-White, then the Minister tells them: “Then we shall help you move.”! [Interjections.] In fact, the NP candidate in Randfontein had to admonish his own party after the by-election and say that he did not have enough answers for the voters and that there were political points concerning which there was no clarity. I think the hon member was perhaps more honest that he ought to have been in the circumstances, because by saying that he caused his own political party embarrassment.

The ordinary man in the street maintains that there are things that are really ridiculous. For example, the NP consistently maintains that there will be no fourth chamber of Parliament, but in the same breath one hears that Black people, Coloured people, Indians and Whites will decide jointly at all levels, up to the highest level. One hears that they will participate in the legislative and executive authorities. One Minister maintains that the Black people will also have to agree to legislation.

The ordinary man now asks one how the Black people will participate in this decision-making process if there is no fourth chamber. It is decision-making in a legislative capacity in a house or body, as well as in the executive. Is the Cabinet to consist of people who sit in Durban, for example, but not here in the Cabinet? Such a person is a Minister, but he does not sit with the others in the Cabinet. Can such a person be a member of the legislative authority? Nevertheless, there is no fourth chamber for him here.

I wonder where that kind of consultation will take place. Is this a body that will float in the air somewhere? From somewhere in outer space the three chambers sitting here will have to hear what the other body has to say about legislation. [Interjections.] It is these things that cause the ordinary man to say that this is ridiculous. It makes him think that the Government is misleading him or is concealing certain things.

I have before me statements by the hon the Minister of National Education—he apologized for not being able to be present this afternoon— concerning the issue of the fourth chamber, but he has no reply in this regard. He merely says that they are negotiating on the matter and that they will come up with an answer as soon as possible. That answer simply does not appear.

What is striking—and I pity the NP for this—is that its own media are writing it off. They are criticising it in a way which I am tempted to say even the CP could not do. [Interjections.] The NP’s own media are writing it off. Its own dogs are biting it viciously, and those bites hurt.

By way of illustration I want to refer to a newspaper that I do not read every day—nor, may I say, do I regard it as gospel. I refer to an editorial in Beeld entitled “Randfontein se Foute” and also the column “Lood se Praatjies.” I do not always enjoy these little talks, but I did find this one quite amusing. I want to quote from the editorial of 31 March on the subject of what causes a voter to feel antipathy towards the party that he has probably been supporting for years. The newspaper contends that there are people that use to vote for the NP but that have developed an antipathy towards that party. They are about six years behind us.

They have become nauseous.

Yes, they are sick of that party. [Interjections.]

The newspaper makes a second statement and refers to the extremely expensive and top-heavy governmental structure imposed on the taxpayer. It then goes on to speak about another reproach that was heard in Randfontein, namely that the Government takes little or no notice of the standpoint of the ordinary man and that it has adopted the attitude that it knows best what to do and that it need not motivate or explain its actions, however out of the ordinary they may be.

This constitutes a tremendous accusation. This is an editorial in a newspaper that used to try to keep the NP going, but has now become one of its severest critics. For example, it is proposed in the editorial that the top-heavy governmental structure be pruned with a panga. It states that the Government has little or no awareness of the standpoint of the ordinary man and that the Government adopts the attitude that it knows best. It goes on:

It goes on:

Indeed, that is what we have felt over the past years. We were still in the NP when we began to get the feeling that there really were some Ministers who appeared on television night after night. This happened to such an extent that one day one colleague asked another one whether he was ill. His colleague said that he was not ill, but what did his colleague mean? The latter replied: “I did not see you on television last night! [Interjections.]

It is the Government’s own dogs that are biting it and telling it that it has ridden the SABC into the ground and exploited it for the benefit of the NP and now this was boomeranging. Flesh and blood can no longer tolerate it; it is counterproductive.

It goes on:

A responsible newspaper editor wrote this. He stated that the party he supported did not know where it was heading. [Interjections.]

Order!

Probably the very best is this extract from “Lood se Praatjies”. He states:

He refers to the uncertainty in White ranks. If there is one party that in fact wanted to say to the NP: “Friends, there is uncertainty about the course you are adopting”, then it is the CP. Here Beeld agrees with us. “Lood” agrees with us. He quotes T S Eliot: “The end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started.” That is very interesting. Then he goes on:

What a discovery! This side of the House has consistently stated that if you deny the Afrikaner people, the Afrikaner people wreak revenge on you at the polls. Now Beeld is becoming the mouthpiece of those Afrikaners who are disillusioned and are saying that the NP no longer offers the Afrikaner people security. Do hon members know what it says? It says:

In other words, a newspaper is telling the NP here that they are coming apart as far as Afrikaner security is concerned. They are coming apart! This is process of that disintegration that is taking place here and they must go back to the starting point. The starting point is the logical and social, political point of departure in South Africa, and those are the realities about which those hon members have so much to say.

One of the realities is that what we have here is not merely a diversity of peoples; there is an Afrikaner people here and an English-language community that is associated with them, and that refuse to be dominated or to be guided by the Government in a direction that will lead to Black majority rule. [Interjections.] Those are the realities. Because the Government was unable to perceive those realities, these three by-elections have told it that it must wake up and come to its senses, because it is coming apart.

He goes on:

How often did we on this side of the House not point out to hon members during the discussion of the new Constitution the tension between own affairs and general affairs and how ultimately in the long term, less and less would remain of own affairs, in the whole system of the new constitution—the entire structure—if one no longer had the majority in the decision-making body. The ordinary voter perceives this and confirms it by no longer casting his vote for the NP.

He then states:

The difference is that not only does it lose intellectuals to the left; it loses them to the right as well, to the CP. More and more people are thinking intellectually about the issues—the constitutional issues and the practical political issues that the hon member for Bethlehem and I have to consider together. As regards the practical political issues an intellectual tells us that if he has a choice between the feasibility of the NP’s policy and the feasibility of the CP’s policy he regards the CP as correct. [Interjections.] We could continue in this vein.

Now he maintains:

That is the despondency in the ranks of the NP. They say: “Stop the bus, I want to get off!” [Interjections.] He goes on to say:

That is the Dr N A K van der Merwe syndrome. Ladies and gentlemen, he goes on to say … (I beg your pardon for saying “Ladies and gentlemen”; I addressed a meeting last night…)

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Deputy Minister can see that I am in my element. [Interjections.]

Then he does offer them some comfort. He says:

[Interjections.] No longer merely a Transvaal problem!

Ook die Vrystaat en Kaapland is bewus van ’n wind van verandering. Transvaal is bloot die koorsblaar.

In other words, the NP is very fortunate. [Interjections.] They are not merely losing an arm, they are going to lose a leg as well!

A certain “Realist”, from I think Worcester, writes in the newspaper that it is a locust plague that is afflicting this country. This locust plague cannot be stopped in the Free State or in the Orange Free State; fresh outbreaks are occurring in the Cape as well.

Of course, we on this side of the House like this kind of locust! [Interjections.]

There are a few other matters I should like to mention. I have spoken about the media that are beginning to write the NP off. I wish to make a further statement. It is becoming very clear that the newspapers that support the NP are becoming increasingly irrelevant in determining public opinion. They are becoming increasingly irrelevant. How many people in Randfontein read Die Vaderland, Die Transvaler and Beeld? Perhaps many of them did read them, but those newspapers did not answer the people’s commonsensical question: “Where is the final decision on my future taken?” In terms of the course taken by the NP, that will ultimately be decided by a Black majority government. We of the CP say that we do not want any Black majority government over our people! We do not begrudge self-government for Black people, but we just want to be governed by our own people! [Interjections.] That is the basic choice; that is where the people stand. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to a few items of NP propaganda against the CP. The one is the accusation regarding racism. I make the statement here from this bench and bearing in mind my responsibility in this party that if racism means that one idolises oneself and one’s own people and that one must uses one’s position and one’s people and one’s status to trample upon, humiliate and oppress the interests and rights of other people belonging to other peoples, then we, too, are opposed to racism and we condemn it.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon member is speaking about my people I want to tell him that if there are members of the CP who think too much of the Afrikaner or the White man, that applies just as much to NP members. [Interjections.] Those discussions occur everywhere. People say they vote for the NP but then they speak in racist terms. I am not generalising now. I am merely saying that there are such people on both sides of the political lines. We say that it is wrong to deliberately benefit one’s own people at the expense of others.

However, I want to ask since when race-consciousness has been a mortal sin; and not merely race-consciousness. Since when has it been wrong to try to preserve and perpetuate the identity of that race group to which one belongs? Someone has written:

What is wrong with that? In every race or ethnic group there is a lawfulness of inclusivity and of exclusivity. The moment one speaks about identity one is speaking exclusively. This means that there is a certain group or community of people that naturally belongs together and want to be together. In order to protect that identity they claim the right to take steps to do so. [Interjections.]

Why put it into law?

There we differ from one another. The question is: “Why put it into law?” I am not of those who believes in the aphorism “law and government are necessary evils—the less thereof the better”. Nor do I say that there must be as many laws as possible, but it is part of the cultural calling and cultural right of a people that it can take specific steps to protect its identity and its rights. [Interjections.] We believe that is right. Not every individual needs this, but we say that such measures are necessary. [Interjections.]

I want to refer hon members to a Dutch author, Dr Abraham Kuyper—I had the privilege of having him as the subject of my study—a former premier of the Netherlands and a well-known theologian. He says the following:

He maintains that the race difference is too general and too comprehensive to allow of “levenseenheid”. I agree with that.

However, I want to refer to what two people on the South African scene have said about this. We have the example of Professor Hoernlé of the University of Cape Town and I quote what Van Wyk Louw had to say about him. He says that Hoernlé wrote in his South African Native Policy and the Liberal Spirit:

Die “klassieke” Europese liberalisme het sy ontstaan gehad in lande met ’n homogene rasse-of volkesamestelling; dit is in die multinasionale Suid-Afrika byna meganies ingevoer sonder om die toepassing van die beginsel weer van nuuts af te deurdink.

That is Prof Hoernlé’s commentary on the introduction of liberalist thinking into South Africa from racially homogeneous European countries. Van Wyk Louw’s comment on this in Nasionale Liberalisme on page 107 is:

He is referring to the liberalists—

I think this quotation from Van Wyk Louw is worthy of consideration. I shall concede to the hon member Prof Oliver—he has pointed this out to me before—that Van Wyk Louw also said other things. I know he also said other things, but he motivated this in a specific way. He pointed out that in a clash between nationalisms—that is to say an Afrikaner or broad White nationalism as against an African or other nationalism—only two choices are possible—either there are separate territories or else the smaller groups are dominated by the majority.

We say that once one loses political control, then in the long term one loses everything. If one loses everything, that also means that in the long term one loses one’s identity as belonging to a specific race, group or people. Then one can no longer protect that identity because one has thereby forfeited the lawful means or machinery by way of one’s power-sharing dreams, and so on.

We are sometimes accused of living only in the past. We are not ashamed of what is good in the past, because we are convinced that if one wants to give a specific people that has in the course of history acquired a distinctive character—that has been formed on the anvil of history into a unique people—if one wishes to give such a people a vision of the future, one sometimes has to look back to see where they came from.

I contend that there is no greater or stronger political future orientation and political motivation than that of the CP in the sense that we wish to restore political power for and over the White man in his own Parliament with his own Cabinet and in his own fatherland. It is with a view to this vision of the future and this future orientation that we organise politically and fight elections. We are increasingly gaining the support of the White voters for that vision of the future.

The CP is already achieving one of the most significant changes in South African politics. I refer to the restoration of the Whites’ confidence and self-respect alongside—I do not mean over— that of the non-White communities. I refer, too, to its endeavour and commitment to achieving the constitutional self-determination of our people in our own fatherland.

What mistake do certain NP spokesmen make in this regard? The hon member for Innesdal has said things in this House which have caused me to wonder whether he wishes to wipe out the past entirely and whether he is orientated to the future alone. I have no problem with the orientation to the future, but what I do find fault with is when someone wishes to ignore the past—including that which was good in the past, whereby the present has come into being. I am the last person to contend that everything in the past was good. If I were to maintain that, then I would have to maintain that what happened in February 1982 was good. After all, the existence of my entire party represents resistance to the things that happened then.

Although not everything in the past has been good, it is wrong to ignore those things that happened in the past whereby one has developed one’s own being and one’s own personality, whereby one has assumed one’s correct form and whereby a community has developed, and seek to forget those things. My time has expired; otherwise I should have liked to elaborate on this further.

Mr Chairman, before I react to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition I would just like to make one remark in relation to the hon member for Durban North, because I find it amazing that the bona fides of the hon the State President is brought under suspicion by that hon member whilst at the same time the holy Tutu is defended unreservedly in this House. [Interjections.]

*This afternoon I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that we have no fault to find with pleas in this country for White political rights and when the fears and the demands of the Whites in South Africa are mentioned. However, I am surprised that when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition rises to his feet in this House, he never talks about the aspirations of the Black people and the other communities who also live in South Africa. [Interjections.]

We were elected by the Whites; not by the Blacks.

You lot are fighting for them.

Order!

There hon members can hear their argument. They say that we are fighting for the Blacks. They give absolutely no recognition to the aspirations of other people in this country. They are selfish and fight only for their own interests, and if one adopts that course in South Africa, one eventually comes up against a brick wall. [Interjections.]

The simplistic political cliches by means of which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tries to conceal the actualities and realities of South Africa, were the order of the day again today. As usual he set up straw dolls, such as the fourth chamber, and then knocked them down himself. And this afternoon he himself gave examples of the false evidence the CP were giving the voters of South Africa.

I want to give an example, Sir. This is rather interesting. This afternoon the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that the CP had told the White voters in Randfontein that they should remember that the residential areas could gradually become grey.

But that is true! [Interjections.]

That is what they told the people there. [Interjections.] Sir, this was deliberately done and, as far as I am concerned, it was wonderful proof of the way in which the White voters in South Africa were being misled and deceived by the CP. [Interjections.] I wish that hon member who is making such a noise would keep his mouth shut, Sir; then he would fare far better.

Order! I cannot allow this stream of interjections. This must stop at once.

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

Sir, I am not going to reply to any questions. The hon member can make his own speech in his own time; there is an entire week for debating.

What is the truth …

You are an old UP supporter!

Yes, Sir, but I was a good UP supporter, and he was a bad Nationalist. [Interjections.]

What is the truth with regard to the Group Areas Act, Sir? I want to ask the hon members of the CP to be decent and reread the speech which the hon the State President made in this House on 5 October 1987. The hon members of the CP should read that speech and we can then put the standpoint of the NP to the voters of South Africa in a fair and just manner.

They will never do that!

The hon the State President raised three important points in that speech. The very first point he raised in that speech, after the President’s Council had investigated and reported on the entire problem surrounding group areas, was that the vested rights of the Whites had to be protected.

Secondly the reality that there was a need for the creation of grey areas in South Africa was recognised. The third point was that areas existed in South Africa whose character had changed so much that this had to be looked into as well. [Interjections.]

That is what the hon the State President said, but one should also read further. The hon the State President spelled out very clearly under which conditions consideration would be given to a request by a community or by a township developer to have such an area declared a grey area. Now I should like to put a question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. The hon the Leader of the NP in the Transvaal told the voters of Randfontein that if the voters of Randfontein and the inhabitants of the White residential areas in Randfontein did not want to apply to have their residential areas declared grey areas, the Government would recognise this and respect it.

You lot are making Hillbrow Black!

Why must the voters of South Africa be deceived by the CP? [Interjections.]

Let us take another example, Mr Chairman. The fourth chamber …

Talk about Hillbrow now!

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

Yes, Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Overvaal must wait a moment— we are not yet finished with him. We will still get around to him. He must go and ask his nephew why his credit standing got so mixed up with his own. He has such a big mouth about the morality of other people and the Government, but I think he should take a look at the skeletons in his own cupboard for a change.

Stay out of my past! [Interjections.]

Let us consider the matter of the fourth chamber. The idea of the fourth chamber is being held up by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Turffontein must pardon me for interrupting him, but he must give me an opportunity to make a quick observation. We appreciate a remark which is appropriate, but we cannot go on like this. [Interjections.] Order! The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

The idea of a fourth chamber is being held up here by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as the only mechanism which can possible exist through which people can be given a political say in the process of joint decision-making. [Interjections.] This is being held up by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as the only mechanism, and it is not true! It is simply not true. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition insists that the Whites want to be a part of their own people, and the CP is ostensibly finding favour with the electorate of South Africa. [Interjections.] In the course of my speech this afternoon in fact I want to deal with the false hopes which the CP are giving the White voters of South Africa. [Interjections.]

A matter which remains in abeyance thanks to the slippery nature of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, is a clear standpoint on the relationship between the CP and AWB of Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche.

What about the NP’s relationship with the Blacks? [Interjections.]

This afternoon in this House …

Order! The hon member for Carletonville will make no further interjections during the course of the speech of the hon member for Turffontein. He has now made quite enough interjections. The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Carletonville referred to Fiela se kind the other day. He looks like Fiela’s brother to me. [Interjections.] The sanctimonious remarks … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I request that you rule that remark by the hon member for Turffontein to be out of order and order him to withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! I request the hon member for Turffontein to withdraw that remark.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it and I also apologise for it. [Interjections.] I must nevertheless say that matters are made extremely difficult for one when one is trying to make a speech in this House under such provocation, and this while we claim to be a Western country with decent, civilised people. In the meantime one has to deal with people like those sitting here in the benches of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: What the hon member for Turffontein has just implied is that we in the CP are unacceptable, uncivilised people, who are not decent and who do not belong here. [Interjections.] I believe that is extremely unparliamentary and I request you to order the hon member to withdraw his words and apologise to us. [Interjections.]

Order! I request the hon member for Turffontein to withdraw the remark he made unconditionally, and without qualification.

Mr Chairman, I did withdraw the remark and apologise.

Not the last remark! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Did you order the hon member to withdraw the remark to which I have just objected?

Order! I did not take cognisance of a remark make by the hon member for Turffontein. The hon member for Overvaal must tell me precisely what he is objecting to.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Turffontein referred to those of us in the CP as uncivilised people, who are not decent and who do not belong here.

Hear, hear!

Do you hear that, Sir? An hon member has shouted “hear, hear!” This has the same implication as the words of the hon member for Turffontein. I am an hon member like all other hon members here. The same applies to all the hon members of my party. No one therefore has the right to use words which have such a negative connotation. I request you to protect our party and to order the hon member for Turffontein to withdraw that remark.

Order! I shall examine Hansard to ascertain which remarks the hon member for Turffontein made and give my ruling later. The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

A matter which has remained in abeyance, thanks to the slippery nature of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—I am repeating what I said earlier—is the adopting of a clear standpoint with regard to the statements of the AWB. This afternoon the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said very sanctimoniously in this House that he condemned people who preached racism and who referred in a derogatory manner to other people in South Africa. I shall still get to what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said, and I should like to hear his comments on the remarks made at the polling booth during the by-election in Randfontein.

While the CP are participating in the democratic parliamentary processes in South Africa—sometimes very half-heartedly, I must say, particularly considering their behaviour on the standing committees—they are nourishing a serpent in their bosom, which rejects democracy and wants to establish an Afrikaner dictatorship in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Are you a member of the AB?

The hon member for Bethal has just said something. If the hon members of the CP do not understand properly, they would do well to ask the hon member for Bethal and the hon member for Ermelo, because both of them are aware of the soul and the crux and the point of departure of the AWB. [Interjections.] The hopes being raised and created among the White supporters of the CP, are also partially being raised and created by their brothers in the AWB.

The question remains where one draws the line between those two groups in South Africa politics, because while this Government—I say this without fear of contradiction—representing the majority of White voters of South Africa, together with millions of people of colour, is making serious efforts to achieve political reconciliation, it is astounding to watch the radical left-wing and the radical right-wing groups in South Africa forming a proverbial laager and preparing themselves psychologically for a confrontation situation between Blacks and Whites in South Africa.

The ANC alliance already finds itself in direct confrontation with the authorities, while the AWB alliance, with veiled threats and intimidation politics, is not far from it. I maintain that the false Utopias and expectations of these elements in South African politics are tragic and dangerous. In the same way that the SA Communist Party, the ANC and the UDF grouping, together with the frontline states and many elements in the Western departments of foreign affairs, are creating utopian expectations in the Black communities of South Africa, we find that the AWB, Volks wag and CP grouping is creating false expectations in the White community of South Africa which they, could never make a reality, even if they could come into power.

Unfortunately there is a dangerous psychosis and a dangerous perception among supporters and fellow-travellers of the radical left-wing groups as well as the right-wing groups in South Africa that the promises being made by these charismatic politicians can become a reality in South Africa. In this way there are expectations among the left-wing groups in South Africa that with the aid of economic sanctions, with the aid of isolation at other levels and with the aid of terrorist weapons the so-called “Pretoria regime” can be forced to its knees overnight and that without “apartheid” Southern Africa will become a Utopia.

In consequence of a few successes in by-elections the Official Opposition is representing itself as the alternative government. In this regard I merely want to say that there are also expectations in the AWB, Volkswag and CP-inspired camp that White “baasskap” and—pardon me, but this is the terminology which the AWB uses— “kaffer op sy plek” politics and absolute authority await them under a possible CP government. It is about this that I want to cross swords with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Official Opposition this afternoon.

In the recent by-elections there was a blatant and reckless exploitation of White emotions and White sentiments. I want to qualify this because the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition asked us what was wrong with emotion and sentiment. We are not opposed to emotion and sentiment; we are opposed to its political exploitation for party political gain without taking the interests of South Africa into consideration.

This exploitation again showed its true colours in Standerton, Schweizer-Reneke and particularly Randfontein. The successful CP candidates tried to brush aside the influence and the contribution of the AWB with its blatantly racist element and its reckless intimidation. In Standerton, Schweizer-Reneke and Randfontein they would seem to have had their collusion with the CP condoned. Nevertheless, some of those candidates—they are now new hon members in this House—are extremely concerned about the AWB element in the CP. The hon member—I do not want to refer to him because he has not yet made his maiden speech but I suppose I can refer to him as a candidate in the by-election—brushed aside the influence of the AWB. He did so in a Press report and alleged that the AWB was actually meaningless and had very little influence.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it within the rules of this House and the behaviour of a “gentleman” to refer to an hon member who may not defend himself?

Order! The hon member for Turffontein referred to the CP candidate in Randfontein. The hon member may proceed.

*Mr J H VAN DER MERWE; Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: That person is the hon member for Randfontein, and he is here in the House. Now the hon member for Turffontein is attacking him before he has made his maiden speech and before can open his mouth. I think that is unfair and cowardly, and I think you should request him to withdraw it.

Order! The hon member for Turffontein qualified his statement. He may therefore proceed.

On behalf of the hon member for Randfontein, I say that is untrue.

The hon members are very sensitive about this matter, because there are members of the AWB in the ranks of that party. However, there are new hon members here who, as I accept with great respect and appreciation, are not very happy about the influence of the AWB in the CP. [Interjections.] I feel sorry for them, and I hope that in future they will come to their senses and stand up and be counted, because their leader is not prepared to stand up and repudiate the AWB. However, perhaps some of these younger members will be prepared to do so. [Interjections.]

I knew the late Dr Connie Mulder and I had a very good relationship with him. I can mention in passing that Dr Connie Mulder sent for me in 1977—I was out of politics at that stage—and asked me: “Would you not like to stand as a candidate for Mr Myburgh Streicher’s party in Rosettenville?”

Dr Mulder was not perfect.

That hon member must wait a moment; I am still discussing him. [Interjections.] Dr Mulder said to me: “Stand as a candidate there. I know in what direction you are heading, and that you are going to join the NP, but stand there as a candidate for the South African Party of Mr Streicher, and we will stand a better chance of winning.” Do hon members know what he said then? He said: “Because I can then send Oom Sporie van Rensburg to Jeppe, and get rid of Koos van der Merwe.” [Interjections.]

This afternoon I want to tell hon members that at some stage or other Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche of the AWB is going to demand his pound of flesh, and I should like to be there to see it. [Interjections.] I think the hon member must go and pay his ally. [Interjections.]

What am I talking about when I express my concern about this serpent in South African politics which has a hold on the CP? [Interjections.] I had occasion to ask Randfontein voters who had indicated that they were going to vote for the CP the following question: “Why are you going to vote for the CP?” One of these was a Mr Martens, and I shall give hon members his telephone number, but I received the same reply on three occasions. He said to me—I apologise, but these are his words I am quoting—“I am voting for the CP, because they are anti-Kaffir”. [Interjections.]

Many Nats say so too. [Interjections.]

The perception is being created that the CP will turn South Africa into a White area; the CP will remove Black people from our system; the CP will give the White man absolute authority over himself. [Interjections.] These are typical examples of the false hopes being created among the White voters of South Africa. In the same way that the left-wing elements are creating expectations that without apartheid there will be a Utopia in South Africa, this expectation is developing among the White voters of South Africa in respect of the right-wing groups.

I can give another good example of blatant intimidation. One is almost ashamed to refer to this in this House. Last week Friday Dr Boy Geldenhuys came to see me. He said he had never experienced anything like it in his life before.

Is he looking for a “job”?

The hon member must forget about looking for a “job”. Some of the hon members sitting over there are also going to lose elections. They must not think that they are never going to lose another election.

You too!

I already have done so, and I came back again. [Interjections.]

Dr Boy Geldenhuys told me that AWB supporters of the CP were standing at the polling booths in Randfontein in full regalia with their weapons, badges and so on. The voters arrived to vote, and they were told: “Kaffirs that side; Whites this side”. [Interjections.] These are the politics we are dealing with in South Africa, which is coming from supporters of that party. [Interjections.]

I want to say something else now. The hon member for Overvaal is sitting there sanctimoniously. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Overvaal—ask the hon member for Jeppe—stood on the steps of the Johannesburg City hall when the referendum was being held and shouted to Blacks, Coloureds and Indians who were walking past: “Come and vote. The NP wants you to vote.” Do you know, Mr Chairman, those people were embarrassed because they had come to the polling booth to vote? The hon member is nodding his head; he is confirming what I said. I think that is a disgrace. We do not need such politicians in the politics of South Africa.

This afternoon I am asking the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—he owes South Africa and this highest authoritative body a reply— whether this is the attitude which should be cultivated in a country like South Africa with its diverse composition. Is this the spirit which must prevail where people of different communities and cultures must live together in peace in Southern Africa? For that reason I want to express my concern this afternoon at the false expectations and the utopian solutions of the CP.

Then the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said this afternoon he found it amusing that newspapers which supported the NP suddenly passed disparaging remarks about the NP which did not have a plan. I want to tell hon members that I find it amusing that the feasibility of the CP’s political policy was held up here this afternoon by its hon Leader as a better proposition than the NP’s policy. [Interjections.] Before we get carried away by utopian points of departure, let us acquaint ourselves with the reality in South Africa. [Interjections.]

We make many political speeches in this House. I want to recommend to hon members that they do themselves a favour and reread a few speeches made in this Parliament during this session, inter alia the speech of the new hon Minister in the Office of the State president entrusted with Administration and Privatisation, which he made this year during the No-Confidence debate. Go and read that speech! Go and read the speech made here yesterday afternoon by my good friend the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance.

Let us get back to the reality again before we get ourselves and the voters of South Africa excited about ideas which cannot be realised in South Africa. The permanence of an increasingly large Black population in our metropolitan areas makes arguments in connection with political linking on ethnic grounds, majority occupation— this is the terminology being used by people on that side of the House—and a separate White fatherland increasingly irrelevant and irrational in the political debate of South Africa.

For that reason I want to appeal this afternoon for racial harmony in South Africa, for tolerance, a good attitude, mutual respect, sympathy and rapprochement between people in South Africa instead of the blatant encouragement of hatred, contempt, superiority and self-righteousness at the expense of others and absolute authority without fairness towards other people in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I want to quote something here which I have quoted before in this House. There is a philosopher named Bill Irvine who once said: “Those who ride the wind, will reap the whirlwind.” One can translate this into Afrikaans as follows: “Dié wat die wind najaag, sal die warrelwind oes.” I want to tell hon members that this is what is awaiting the CP. [Interjections.]

Oh, Sir, there is yapping from the left-wing politicians in South Africa, the PFP. I want to tell you that if we held an election tomorrow, they would return with less than half their people. [Interjections.]

Let us tell each other the following this afternoon: The wrong attitude, false expectations and emotional exploitation will lead to anarchy and chaos and will be fatal to the whole of South Africa and all its people, and not only the AWB and the CP and the Afrikaner Volkswag. The atmosphere being created among our White compatriots in the milieu of the AWB and its fellow-travellers, will be cast in the teeth of the Official Opposition. They will have to accept responsibility for this, unless they are prepared, like these younger members, to try to dissociate themselves from the AWB.

I hope I still have a minute or two left. Let me say a final word about the matter of partition. It is interesting that the hon members of the CP are saying less and less about partition. [Interjections.] The hon member for Barberton, who has just said something there, was very sensitive and nervous yesterday about of the arguments of the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance on partition and its implementation in practice in order to make it a reality.

He did not speak yesterday.

No, he sat here during yesterday’s debate; I did not say he spoke.

I want to ask the hon member for Barberton something, because I think he is still a reasonable hon member of that party. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member whether the CP is in favour of total partition, partial partition or optional partition in South Africa. [Interjections.] They sound almost ashamed of this policy, because the upshot of the argument of the CP concerns the problem of numbers. After all, they tell us we are in trouble, because if we do not implement partition in South Africa, we will have a Black majority in the White part of South Africa, and if the Blacks are in the majority in South Africa, one must give them political rights. They set up straw dolls and then knock them down and tell us that if they have political rights, we are going to be in the minority. This is, after all, basically the argument we hear from those hon members. [Interjections.]

The Black people total 21 million today, but by the year 2000 they may possible total 50 million. They cannot be crammed into 13% of the geographic area of South Africa. Some Black people will remain in the White parts of South Africa. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition came here again this afternoon with fine words. I think the hon the Minister of Finance said at one stage that he was saying that Mesopotamia was so beautiful. Everything sounds so wonderful when he is speaking. [Interjections.] He says: “We want to govern ourselves.” Who wants someone else to govern us? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the commencement of his speech the hon member for Turffontein made reference to some of the comments made by the hon member for Durban North earlier this afternoon, relating to the exchange of correspondence between the hon the State President and Archbishop Tutu. I want to put it on record that the hon member for Durban North did not in any way challenge the bona fides of the hon the State President. All he was doing was indulging in the practice—maybe it is an old-fashioned practice which is not always recognised by hon members on the Government side— of asking that the principle of audi alteram partem be observed; in other words, that the other side should be heard. The point he was making was that a letter which the hon the State President had sent to the Archbishop had been distributed to members of Parliament, and he asked that members of Parliament be allowed to see the Archbishop’s reply to the hon the State President.

Quite apart from that, one listened to the hon member for Turffontein, but there is not much in the speech he made that one can comment on. He succeeded once again in dragging this debate back to the level where he is most at home. Both he and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition took us back to the old “broedertwis” between the NP and the CP. I wish to say that while that may have relevance to those two groups, their constant reference to the “Afrikanervolk” and to who represents the “Afrikanervolk” and who not, really leaves most of us cold.

I wish to say this to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition: There is a far broader community in South Africa than the “Afrikanervolk”. There is a broad South Africanism. There are people who do not belong to the “Afrikanervolk”, but who are desperately concerned about their future in this country, South Africa. I believe that this Parliament owes it to the broader South Africanism that we should devote our time to considering the interests of all the people of South Africa, and not just particular groups, as is so often the case in this House. [Interjections.]

I believe that none of this debate helps the hon the Minister of Finance in any way with the very considerable problems which he has in trying to increase productivity in South Africa and in trying to raise our standards of living in this country.

We know that he faces enormous problems and that he has produced a budget which has had a mixed reception. We on these benches have endeavoured to give credit where credit is due in regard to this Budget. We have acknowledged the long-term aims which were dealt with both by the hon the State President at the time of the opening of this Parliament, and also in this Budget, giving particular attention to the political and social circumstances which obtain in this country at present. We believe it represents an attempt to bring some discipline into our financial and fiscal affairs. We have acknowledged that and we have given credit in that regard, but it is in the perspective of what is possible in relation to the political and social circumstances in South Africa that this Budget must be seen.

I cannot wax as lyrical as some of the hon members have—in particular the hon member for Kuruman who yesterday described this as the most popular Budget in years. I am afraid I cannot join him in being so lyrical about this Budget. I think this Budget has been seen by the business community as being in general a workmanlike attempt to bring some order into our financial affairs, given the siege situation in which this country finds itself at the present time. In other words the Government, having succeeded magnificently in painting South Africa into a corner very largely isolated from the international community, is now trying to bring some sort of fiscal order into that corner. However, it goes no further than that and that is why I say that this is in many ways a siege budget. In the very nature of things it has to be a siege budget, and if that is what South Africa needs at the present time, then I concede that the Budget goes some way towards filling that need. However, I believe that is the limited perspective in which these measures must be seen.

The hon the Minister is fully aware that our economy remains very largely hamstrung by our political and international situation. He must be aware of that every year he tries to draw up the Budget. Therefore, while it is right and, in fact, vital that we should do our utmost to increase our economic growth by regulating and by ordering our internal economic affairs, we must realise— to be realistic—that we can never achieve our full potential unless and until we can break out of the isolation into which this Government’s political policies have forced us. That is why there are severe shortcomings in this Budget—shortcomings which we have endeavoured to list in our amendment. That is why the aged and the underprivileged in South Africa are not properly catered for, as we aver in our amendment. That is why health services in South Africa are woefully inadequate. That is why there are serious shortcomings in education in South Africa. That is why there is a growing crime rate. The Government must ask itself why it is that there are these patent defects in our budgeting.

I believe that one of the reasons is that the Government feels compelled to favour its priorities in its allocation of funds by means of expenditure on items which must be inflationary but which are made necessary by the failure of political policies to bring about order inside South Africa and international acceptance and credibility beyond our borders. On the one hand in this country we are therefore burdened with these things—with having to find this expenditure— while on the other hand, because of our policies, we deny ourselves the overseas confidence which otherwise would be with us if our political policies were more acceptable.

These issues are what must hang like an albatross around the neck of this unfortunate hon Minister in his attempts to bring about long-term stimulation of our economy until this Government mends its political ways.

Yesterday I was amazed to hear hon members of the Government, in their lyrical tributes to the hon the Minister of Finance, make such proud proclamations. I quote the hon member for Kuruman, who made a very entertaining speech. One enjoys listening to that hon member, but he got carried away with himself yesterday.

He said proudly: “Look where South Africa stands today.” Those were his words. He then went on to say: “We are busy winning back the confidence of the outside world.” [Interjections.] What arrant nonsense!.

Where South Africa stands today is in the dock of almost total isolation from the international community. We are excluded. One needs only to leave South Africa to find out how unacceptable we are to the international community in almost every sphere. We are excluded more and more as time goes by. Ask our scientists, ask our sportsmen, ask our academics, ask our businessmen where South Africa stands today. I want to say to the hon member for Kuruman to go overseas to feel for himself the value of the rand at 4:1 in terms of sterling in the United Kingdom and over 2:1 in terms of the American dollar. That is where we stand at the present time. Does that look like “winning back the confidence of the outside world”?

No, whatever this hon Minister’s intentions are, I want to say to him that if he is trying to restore the confidence of the outside world in South Africa, he is being sabotaged daily by his own colleagues in the Government. If he is trying to restore confidence, he is being sabotaged by his own colleagues every day of the week.

Let me say that that situation applies equally to the well-intentioned South Africans including hon members of the PFP, my own hon leader and the hon member for Houghton in particular, who do their utmost to resist sanctions around the world. They are being sabotaged by the NP Government. There is no doubt about that.

Let us take a few recent events alone. During this critical time insofar as South Africa’s standing in the outside world is concerned, we have had the banning of 17 organisations on 24 February. There was the notorious watergun episode outside the St George’s Cathedral here in Cape Town. We had the “do your damndest” outburst at the United Nations. In their timing and their effect these were major disasters for South Africans who are trying desperately to restore overseas confidence and to resist the sanctions campaign.

I am sorry for this hon Minister and I express my sympathy for him every year. He never responds very graciously to it but I am really very sorry for him because he has to carry out a tremendous task in the face of almost impossible obstacles created by his own colleagues. The incidents that I have mentioned were major disasters for ourselves, for those who are trying to build up overseas confidence in South Africa, and they were also major disasters for our friends overseas. These are governments and friends in other areas who have stood steadfastly by South Africa in the face of very severe pressure to join the pro-sanctions forces.

If these negative actions can be likened to acts of sabotage against South Africa, then equally, the lack of any realistic, positive action on the part of the Government to produce realistic reform can also be likened to acts of sabotage.

One looks in this regard again to evidence of meaningful negotiation to bring about real reform in South Africa. We look to the Government’s reaction to the continued existence of the Group Areas Act, the whole question of beach apartheid and to the question of giving direct representation to the majority of South Africans. These matters constitute the bottom line when it comes to confidence in South Africa. I believe that until we address these issues we will never be able to achieve the economic prosperity which should be our right.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to spend too much time on the speech of the hon member for Berea this afternoon. I merely want to single out one statement that he made and react briefly to it. The hon member suggested here that the expenditure in respect of apartheid was the chief cause of the problem of inflation with which we are faced. That was a superficial, unwarranted and irresponsible remark. What is true is that it is difficult to combat inflation in circumstances in which a compassionate government recognises the social needs, the educational needs and the other needs of underprivileged people and does something about those needs.

This Government has a proud record when it comes to the upliftment of underprivileged people, and they are getting too little credit for it. Of that I am convinced. Even in these difficult circumstances I am proud to be part of a Governing party which has to combat inflation even as it is engaged in upliftment.

I have begun to develop a problem in politics. Over the past month or two in this House I have had misgivings when I listened to speeches of certain hon members of the Official Opposition. These speeches unsettled me very much. They were often characterised by such a strong tone of confrontation, such a strong undertone of aggression, such an element of irreconcilability that they made me feel uneasy about the future of our country. [Interjections.]

I represent thousands of young voters in this House, probably more young voters than any other hon member of this House. These young people that I represent shy away from both the politics of the left-wing radical movements and those of the right-wing reactionaries. They are people who still believe in this Parliament. They are people who depend upon the hon members here to lay the foundation on which they can build a peaceful and prosperous future for themselves. They are people who are seeking hope for the future.

They visit me often; they talk to me, because they are also concerned about what will happen. I tried very hard to answer the question of whether we as members of Parliament are worthy of the trust of the young people. Unfortunately, I cannot reply to that question with an unqualified “yes”—the debates of the past two months did not give me a reason to. Rather, the dissension in White politics which is being revealed here, gave me reason for despair. I even began to doubt whether democracy still had a future in our country.

I want to say immediately, however, that I still believe that democracy has a future in our country and that it will still thrive; but then we will have to become serious about it and start working towards it. We shall have to work hard for it. There are also those unchangeable factors about which one can seldom do anything, but which threaten the survival of democracy in South Africa, factors like our heterogeneousness or our cultural diversity. That is the one sphere in respect of which the rest of the world will be hard put to outdo us. Such plurality does not exactly enhance the functioning of democracy; no one is arguing about that.

Furthermore, the question remains as to whether our economy can withstand the tension that accompanies the broadening of democracy. Eminent political writers have made the categoric statement that the survival of democratic institutions is primarily dependent upon a highly developed, modern economic sector, an advanced industrial sector, and a relatively even distribution of wealth. It is quite obvious that, with our enormous Third World Sector, we shall have difficulty in complying with these requirements. Once again, we shall have to work hard towards that.

There is, however, one major obstacle on the road to greater democratisation in our country, and we can do something about it if we foster the will to do so. I am referring to the polarisation of our society, generally, and our politics, in particular, including the politics conducted in this House. If we are really concerned about the future and if we do not want the existing system to crumble completely, and if we are serious about avoiding further fragmentation and instability, we shall have to dispense with the politics of extremism which we conduct in this country and also in this House.

In this respect I want to talk today about the politics taking place in this House. If we cannot be more tolerant here, if we cannot achieve a measure of reconciliation here, how will we ever reach a settlement with the millions of people outside who cannot be excluded from political participation indefinitely? [Interjections.]

If we want to move closer to achieving reconciliation and if we want to improve the level of debating here, we shall have to comply with a few requirements. The most important of these is that we shall have to concern ourselves with the fundamental political realities in our country. We have to evaluate our ideals, our wishes and our desires according to reality. We shall have to determine what can and what cannot be achieved. We have to determine what can and what cannot be done.

In this respect I want to turn my attention to the Official Opposition. I want to ask them whether they cannot now begin to discuss rationally the practicability or impracticability of their policy. It is in the interests of the country that they do so. After all, those hon members represent the alternative Government of the country. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon members of the CP today that I have compassion for them when it comes to their feelings. I understand their aspirations and I understand their ideals. After all, I too am an Afrikaner, like most of them. During the recess, however, I had another look at that party’s programme of principles and policies. I read it carefully and with an open mind. I wanted to understand it, but unfortunately I still cannot understand how they are going to implement their ethnic relations policy by means of the instruments of democracy that they will have at their disposal.

Then you do not belong with us.

Let us confine ourselves to a single fundamental and evident aspect of their policy. Let us focus the discussion on that for a moment. After all, people vote for that party at elections inter alia because that party has given the undertaking that a CP Government will repeal the present Constitution. The question is simply how they are going to do it. How are they going to do it when section 37 (1) of the Constitution provides that Parliament shall consist of three Houses, viz the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates? How are they going to do it when section 99 (1) prescribes that section 37 (1) cannot be repealed unless a majority of the total number of members of each House agrees to that? How are they going to do it? Perhaps they know about a method of which I am not aware.

Unless a method is revealed, however, people will continue to believe that those hon members—and they are highly educated, learned and intelligent people—know that the policy that they are propagating cannot be implemented, that they know it cannot be implemented in a democratic way, and that that is the reason that they are avoiding a debate on it.

The unavoidable question then arises. It is an important question as far as our future is concerned. What value, if any, do they attach to the retention of democracy in the future South Africa? I get this oppressive feeling that they do not attach much value to it. I need to be convinced that the contrary is true, because I do not want to live under the conditions brought about by totalitarian government or authoritarian rule.

What do we have now?

I shall turn to that hon member and his kindred spirits in a moment; I just want to address myself to the PFP first.

I want to tell the hon members of the PFP that I sympathise with them. An unfortunate thing happened to them. With the passage of time they succeeded in convincing quite a number of our country’s most visible political and academic personalities to accept their basic standpoint. One would have expected those who were convinced to become loyal disciples and supporters of the PFP. That did not happen, however, because those who had been convinced turned their backs on their teachers.

During the recess I also had time to study the manifesto of the NDM and the declaration of intent of the Independent Party and, honestly, I cannot see why the leaders of those two movements did not rather join the Progs openly. At least that could have contributed to a lower level of confusion than is presently prevailing in our politics.

Still, I know why the NDM and the Independent Party have dissociated themselves from the PFP. They have done so because they know that when the full consequences of their policy are spelt out, the way the PFP has spelt out theirs, the Whites of this country will avoid that policy like the plague.

They have now come forward with the same concepts and the same terminology as the PFP have been using for years, but they are cloaking these with vagueness in the hope that by doing so they will confuse people into turning away from the NP and from the Government so that the Government can be defeated. [Interjections.]

In this regard those two movements are following exactly the same strategy of vagueness that the CP is using, and they are doing so with precisely the same goal, viz that of defeating the Government.

Their approach is a destructive one. Everything that exists, will first have to be destroyed before something new can begin. The PFP, the NDM and the Independent Party have exactly the same point of departure as far as constitutional change in this country is concerned, viz the right to the formation of groups by means of voluntary association. That is why they all advocate the repeal of the Population Registration Act and other laws. [Interjections.] All three of them have the same end result in view, viz a so-called non-racial democratic South Africa. They have precisely the same aims, and there is no difference in their ultimate goal.

Considering the composition as well as the distribution of our population, all that means one thing in practice, viz unrestricted Black rule with limited so-called guarantees to the Whites, mainly with regard to their language, religion and culture—whatever that may mean. I do not know what the future is going to bring, nor do I know what may still become possible … [Interjections.] … but I do know that in today’s circumstances, with all the insecurity and the tension which is rife, the majority of the White voters in this country are definitely going to reject the option being put forward by the PFP, the NDM and the Independent Party. However unrealistic it may seem to some people, most of the Whites would rather follow the CP’s path, which is leading to nowhere, than to follow the path of the PFP and the others, because they regard that path as one that will definitely lead to disaster.

One cannot blame the Whites for doing that because the left-wing parties are, in fact, expecting them to risk a leap into the unknown while hoping for the best. The voters will not do this. The Whites in this country will not destroy the things they know in the vague hope that the unknown will perhaps be better. Whether one likes it or not, if the Whites do not want to move in a particular direction, change in this country will not take place on a democratic basis, because the Whites are in possession of the thing that has to be divided and/or shared, viz political power. Where do we stand now?

You stand for racism!

The CP’s policy and that of the left-wingers cannot be democratically implemented; that is so. Only the NP remains, and we say that change must take place, but that the point of departure for change should be the things we know. Our point of departure should be the population groups as they presently exist, as they are visible, as they are in reality …

Is that not racism?

This point of departure is also the one that the majority of Whites in this country still accept as a reasonable one. If South Africa seriously considers that democracy in this country will have to be broadened in order to include more people, that it has to develop and grow, and that this broadening process has to take place in a democratic way, the existing group will have to be used as the point of departure.

That will have to be the basis of our process of development. There is no other way of doing it. [Interjections.] I cannot elaborate on the entire model here, because my time is limited. I shall make use of another opportunity to address hon members on that. The fact is, if our point of departure also appears to be impracticable, then in all probability South Africa will not be able to change democratically. That is the reality, and that is why I am making an appeal to the opposition parties this afternoon to give the NP’s approach and point of departure a chance.

Another 40 years!

They should discuss and debate this with us, and they can criticise our handling of it. They can suggest improvements and then negotiate with us on that, but they should at least give it a chance, because it is probably the only hope we still have of a democratic future for our country.

Mr Chairman, it is very pleasant to follow up on the hon member for Stellenbosch, and I want to congratulate him on the excellent contribution he made here this afternoon. The hon member is a very stimulating and honest political thinker, and it is always pleasant to listen to his speeches in and outside this House. In the course of his speech the hon member referred to the fundamental political realities of our country and our time, and in the course of my speech I should very much like to associate myself with some of the things he said.

Recently hon members of the Official Opposition have been boasting loudly of the election results in the by-elections in the north of the country in which they succeeded in retaining certain seats. Hon members carried on as exuberantly and excitedly as frisky young goats on a kraal wall. Their entire attitude exudes an arrogance which does not befit hon members of this House or members of the Afrikaner people. This arrogance is not only directed at their fellow-Afrikaners in this House but also at the voters of our country. [Interjections.]

We know what burning issues there were in the recent by-elections. Viewed superficially, we know what solutions the CP dished up to our voters, and I want to refer to only a few of them.

In the overall political sphere they advocated the policy of partition. They promised social pensioners a livable pension; farmers were promised that their debts would be written off; taxpayers would receive appreciable tax relief and salaried staff appreciable general increases. These are only a few of the CP promises to the voters of our country. If these CP promises were to be carried out, this Parliament would have to budget and pay for them. As we have already pruned all the Votes to the bone and can go no further, there is only one source where the money for this could be found, and that is in increased taxes. Surely hon members of the Official Opposition would not want to deprive the Defence Vote of the money with which to carry out their promises, still less the Votes of Law and Order, Health or Education.

You people waste money.

Ultimately they could therefore only do so by means of increased taxes. What is more, in accordance with their policy and standpoints there would not have been regional services councils either where businessmen, farmers and industrialists could have helped to bear the burdens which have been mooted in that sphere. That is why we can safely calculate the direct impact of CP policy on our Budget as follows. As a first step, company tax would have to be increased by at least 15% for the first year, for a start, and then a further 5% per annum for a few years afterwards. Personal tax would practically have to double.

That is nonsense.

How else are you going to do it, Cas?

How else? How else does the hon member want to do it? If the hon member says I am being absurd, Sir …

You are being ridiculous!

… and if he says that I am being ridiculous; he may rest assured that, until such time as hon members of the CP have spelt out the full consequences of their policy to us, I am being neither absurd nor ridiculous.

Spell out your policy to us!

The marginal rate of taxation, which at present comes into operation at R80 000 taxable income, would have to come into operation at approximately R40 000 taxable income. Our concession to married women would have to be suspended and, last but not least, to carry out all these promises of the CP and to realise the ideal of partition as well, a new form of taxation would have to be introduced—partition taxation. Partition taxation would have to come, in which case those hon members would have the opportunity of testing the opinions of taxpayers to see how many South Africans are really prepared to pay for the CP policy of partition.

If we take a closer look at CP policy and try to bring it home visibly and almost tangibly, I want to apply it to an area where I grew up and where I still live today, an area which I also represent in this House. That is why I listened with so much attention to the speech of the hon member for Swellendam yesterday. The hon member then …

Tell him what a good MP you had when I was still your MP.

Sir, we could perhaps disagree.

The hon member for Swellendam then referred to the various options in regard to where the so-called Coloured homeland of the CP would have to be established. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition once said that the Cape Flats could become a Coloured homeland. Historically the Cape Flats is defined as an area extending from Muizenberg, through Wynberg, Claremont and Maitland to the boundaries of Parow and Bellville and then south-eastwards through Kuils River to Eerste River. This includes, inter alia, the D F Malan Airport and also the Philippi agricultural area—the vegetable larder of Cape Town. What is of importance is that if the Cape Flats were to become a Coloured homeland in terms of such a policy, it would result in the effective isolation of the Simonstown Naval Base from the rest of White South Africa.

If this policy were to be implemented now, the first consequence would be that a series of White residential areas on the Cape Flats would become part of that Coloured homeland and therefore also, according to the policy of the Labour Party, Coloured or mixed residential areas. Here we are speaking of residential areas such as Muizenberg, Lakeside, Plumstead, parts of Wynberg and Claremont, Kenilworth, Rondebosch, Pinelands, Wetton, Ottery, Lansdowne, Maitland, Goodwood, Vasco and Parow Valley. An entire series of White residential areas would ultimately become mixed as a result of CP policy.

It is no coincidence that the CP advocates that standpoint, because it is in line with the AWB standpoint. The AWB’s Mr Jan Groenewald said on 29 May 1986—at that stage he was the deputy leader of the AWB:

That appeared in Die Burger of 31 May 1986. [Interjections.]

If this CP policy were to be realised, not only would those White residential areas on the Cape Flats be jeopardised, but a considerable number of White schools would also become mixed schools in terms of CP policy.

What is your vision for the future?

If one takes a quick count, there are more than 40 White schools which would be jeopardised in this way. I want to enumerate a few of these schools here. There is Voortrekker, Maitland, Plumstead, Windsor, Ysterplaat, Zwaanswyk, Alpha, Ferndale, South field, Sunlands, Goodwood and Goodwood Park. These are only a few of them. Yes, one could also add Parow Valley and Ruyterwacht.

I notice the hon member for Barberton is smiling. We enjoy it when he smiles because these facts remain until the CP defines its policy to us and clearly tell us exactly where the boundaries of its Coloured homeland will be drawn. [Interjections.] That is why we say to the voters of the Cape Flats and False Bay that this will specifically be the effect of CP policy regarding the False Bay constituency and the Cape Flats.

Cas is fidgeting again! [Interjections.]

Yes! [Interjections.] That is why I can state with certainty today that the CP advocates mixed residential areas and mixed schools. [Interjections.] I enjoy it when the hon members laugh.

We are laughing at you! We enjoy your absurdity! [Interjections.]

If we want to be absurd, let us take absurdity to its logical conclusion.

But you are definitely being absurd!

I am not being absurd. [Interjections.] I am not being absurd. The hon member for Barberton can prove me absurd by identifying the boundaries of their Coloured homeland on the Cape Flats for us. [Interjections.]

When we discuss CP policy and the creation of Coloured homelands and partitioning, I want to ask hon members of the CP what is to happen about the following matters. We have not even discussed the partitioning of the Defence Force or the Police Force; neither have we discussed the partitioning of the Treasury yet. Would those hon members kindly tell us how they want to partition the Treasury? How do they propose disentangling our single interwoven economy and dividing it up among the respective population groups? Hon members of the CP are silent now, Sir. They have apparently never thought as far as that. Or do hon members perhaps refuse to admit the consequences of their own policy themselves? [Interjections.]

Hon members of the CP are advocates of dialogue behind closed doors with members of the other colour groups in the country. They will hold discussions with those people behind closed doors. This means that the country is not permitted to know what is being discussed, besides the fact that the country is not permitted to know with whom they are talking.

But your own Ministers do that!

Of course, the people with whom discussions are held—the members of the other populations groups—have to remain unidentified.

Do you talk to the Blacks in public?

Let us note the consequences of CP policy. The CP will have to reach joint decisions with the other colour groups— joint decisions in every sphere. Let us examine local and regional levels. Whites and Coloureds and Blacks and Indians will have to sit together round a table and come to decisions on sewerage, roads, electricity, water and recreational facilities. That is a fact. It is one of the fundamental realities to which the hon member for Stellenbosch referred.

Those decisions will have to cover who will pay for what and how the income for it will have to be generated. After all, we share our roads, our electricity supply, our water and our sewerage systems. Those are certainly communal services which are used jointly by Whites, Coloureds, Blacks and Indians—common to all. If the other communities, as they make use of these communal services jointly, should one day decide not to pay for them, I want to know whether hon members of the CP would close the roads, cut off the water supply and close off sewerage pipes.

What would the CP do if those others, in turn, cut off its water supply? What would the CP do if the roads were closed to its members? What would the CP do if they closed off its sewerage system? [Interjections.]

Let the hon member on the other side shake his head; I enjoy it. I repeat, if we want to be absurd, we can take absurdity to its logical conclusion.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition asked earlier this afternoon what course the NP had in mind for the future. As a counter-question I ask what the CP alternative is as regards the Black people. Politics cannot be conducted in this country in three-monthly phases; neither can politics be conducted in phases of three or 13 years. Our politics are long-term politics and that is why I do not find it strange that there appears to be no progress in the political sphere as regards Black people—as is being said. As far as I am concerned, I would not find it strange either if we did not progress over the following 30 years to the extent that many people expect of us. [Interjections.] I shall not find this strange. One fact I can predict with certainty is that no other party in this House will progress faster with the political development of Black people then specifically the NP. We are too inclined to view our politics, in the short term, on a three month or three-year basis.

The CP cannot escape the logic of politics; the CP cannot continue to deny reality. The CP cannot deny that in the economic sphere it will have to negotiate, together with other population groups in this country, on taxes, standards of education, the police, water, defence, health, the airways, agriculture, transport, fisheries and even influx control. What is this but a form of powersharing? When that day dawns, perhaps the hon members will tell us it is a form of healthy power-sharing.

I wonder what the bodies will look like which the hon members of the CP will have to establish to carry out their negotiations. How will they be constituted? Where will they hold sittings? What will their powers be? Who will preside? What will the Constitution look like in terms of which they will act?

This is why I say the CP policy of partition inevitably has a very strong element of powersharing built into it, power-sharing from the highest to the lowest level. That is why I ask why the CP refuses to discuss or spell out these consequences. Why is the CP ashamed of its policy? Why does the CP conceal the consequences of its policy from voters?

This is why I say the CP policy and its programme of principles are a master plan for political fraud. It is the greatest political swindle this country has ever experienced. [Interjections.] The CP is dishonest with our voters. The CP creates suspicion and confusion. The CP is guilty of a political breach of faith toward the country. The activities of the CP are playing directly into the hands of this country’s enemies.

Wonder of wonders, the CP succeeded in recognising our country’s problems. Any one could do this, but when they started thinking of solutions, the mental effort became too much for them and they simply blew a fuse. Now they are living on in darkness. That is why they say our future lies in the past. If I had to compose a credo for the CP, it would read: “Do not believe, just fear”. [Interjections.]

As if all this were not enough, the CP has now become the political wage-slave of its former political postilion. That is why, as a Nationalist, I choose the honest approach of the NP. [Interjections.] The NP admits that the country has problems and also admits what those problems are. The NP has made great progress toward solving them, as evidenced by this tricameral Parliament in which members of the CP actively participate. The NP is also prepared to seek and negotiate solutions with the Black people for the sake of our country. This is a reality no political party in this country can get away from.

Mr Chairman, I listened to the hon member for False Bay with considerable interest. I must say that I agreed with him up to a point when he talked about the impracticality in financial terms of implementing CP policy or, as it has not been spelled out, as much of that policy as we are aware of. However, he became bogged down in a particularly convoluted kind of logic when he decided that the CP was the party most likely to bring about mixed residential areas. What a terrible thing!

That is Nat logic.

Then he went on to say, as if this was a terrible thing, that the policy of partition had an inbuilt power-sharing factor. We in this party believe in power sharing. We can but wish that the party on our right did, in fact, believe in power sharing, or even that the NP did so. Regrettably, however, it does not. [Interjections.]

We have seen from the NP’s recent actions its total failure on the path of reform. This is where I feel sorry for the hon the Minister of Finance who is piloting this debate. Having listened to the speech the other day of the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare who is now Minister of Administration and Privatisation—in NP terms it was a fairly liberal and reform-oriented speech— I must say that I believe that the reform process is bogged down. Reform is not taking place, and nothing is further from the minds of the NP bosses at the moment. They are interested in dealing with the CP. The battle is to determine who can look most right-wing to the voters of South Africa, and I find this most depressing. The whole movement towards reform has come to a standstill, and this is indicated from Government level all the way down the line.

So often very small things indicate where we are going in South Africa, and I want to tell a story about a small thing which happened in Johannesburg and which, I think, indicates what is happening to the reform process.

Early in January of this year, I was informed that a major police swoop on street hawkers was taking place in the area around Johannesburg station. When I arrived there, I discovered members of the Johannesburg traffic department tidying up the remains of hawkers’ stalls, but by then the raid was over. There was still, however, a large crowd of hostile onlookers who were very angry indeed.

I questioned the young plainclothes man in charge of the operation, and he told me that the Johannesburg traffic department backed by a SAP contingent had carried out the raid, and that a considerable number of hawkers had been arrested and taken away in police vans to the traffic department offices where various charges were being laid. I was able to talk to eye-witnesses about what had transpired, and the story they told was a very ugly one. The raid had been conducted with a large show of force. There were hawkers who had been handled roughly when arrested, and the manner in which the raid had been conducted was apparently resented by the onlookers who had gathered to watch the forces of law and order in action.

Extraordinarily enough, while this raid was being conducted, senior members of the traffic department as well as city council and other officials were attending a major conference organised by the African Council of Hawkers and Informal Business and directed towards relieving the plight of hawkers. To conduct a raid of this nature while talking to the hawkers’ representatives appears to me to be the height of cynical behaviour.

The reason I have told this story is to illustrate a point. Whereas the Government may talk loudly about the encouragement of Black entrepreneurs, the encouragement of small businesses, the need for Black participation in the free enterprise system and the need for building better race relations, the reality down the line is very different indeed. At every level of government officialdom does not appear to be getting the message. I believe that if the Government is sincere in what it says it must start by educating its officials, be they employed directly by the State or at provincial or local government level. It is a very sad fact that the more liberal sentiments about reform that come from the mouths of some hon Ministers and other hon members in this House are proved incorrect and they are discredited because of the actions of sections of the bureaucracy.

In this particular instance I approached the town clerk of Johannesburg who very courteously told me that he would investigate the matter and come back to me. This he did not do, but I was appalled several days later to hear that another similar raid had taken place and that hawkers were again being harassed. This appeared to me to be a discourteous if not very rude and insulting way of telling me that my representations as a member of Parliament would have no effect on their actions and that I should mind my own business. I think the whole affair was to be deplored and was a blot on the name of Johannesburg.

When one looks at the results, they appear to me to be the following. Firstly, hawkers, who are small businessmen and who are providing a much-needed service to Black commuters using Johannesburg station, were arrested and threatened in a very ugly manner for breaches of municipal by-laws which appear to be unnecessarily harsh. The manner in which the raid was conducted was unnecessarily tough when one considers the minor nature of the offences, namely hawking without a licence and staying in the same spot for more than two hours.

Secondly, and possibly more importantly, there was a feeling among the hawkers themselves that authority was using its power against them because they were Black competition for White storekeepers in the area.

Thirdly—and this the hon the Minister should pay regard to—the expressed Government policy to encourage the development of Black entrepreneurs was disregarded completely.

The manner in which the raid was conducted could only have done harm …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask whether we are discussing the budget of the Johannesburg city council or the Budget of this House? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member, who has just raised a point of order, should realise that this debate is traditionally the debate in Parliament which covers a very wide field and does not only deal with financial implications, but also with policy implications. I would have thought that with his background he would know something about the traditions of Parliament. [Interjections.]

The manner in which this raid was conducted could only have done harm to race relations and I do not believe that this sort of thing is conducive to helping the reform process. The rudeness and aggression of the municipal authorities can only be deplored. If sentiments of reform are to mean anything, they will have to be put into practice at every level of government, including municipal level.

I want to come back briefly to a matter, because I do not have much time at my disposal, about which I spoke earlier in the session, namely the plight of squatters, specifically in the Witwatersrand area where there are upwards of one million squatters. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made quite clear the stance of the Government with regard to forced removals. He is on record earlier this year as saying that the Government had never said that there would not be any more forced removals and that what the Government had in fact said was that there would be no more forced removals for political reasons.

Meanwhile the forced removal of squatters continue and such actions destroy any chance of anybody believing the Government when they talk about reform. When human beings have their houses demolished around their ears, the world can only look at what is happening in South Africa and say that nothing much has changed and that apartheid is alive, well and flourishing in South Africa. Frequently, again, such removals result from actions taken at municipal level.

It is municipal authorities who are responsible for the brutal ejection of homeless people. A case in point right now is the situation in Thokoza near Alberton where homeless people are again being threatened with ejection.

If we are going to make a success of any reform process this kind of thing has to stop. Squatters must be free from threats of demolition, arrest, prosecution and jail. A society which continues to allow this continued destruction of homes and property is not a moral or Christian society, and as long as this Government continues to allow this inhuman treatment of human beings it cannot be called a Christian government. It is an immoral government, pursuing an immoral policy which I find disgusting and shameful, as does the rest of the world.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bryanston referred to a number of local aspects. He referred to the hawkers. I also intend to refer to a local aspect but one that will certainly have wider implications.

The hon member also accused this Government of being involved in a fight with the CP to win back rightwing votes. He accused this Government of abandoning reform. I would submit that the clearest and the most incontrovertible proof of the fact that this Government is involved in negotiation and reform is the fact that there are no clear-cut and exact particulars available of a proposed dispensation for the involvement of the Blacks. [Interjections.] That, I would submit, is the clearest proof that this Government is involved in reform and negotiation.

In the no-confidence debate of some 10 weeks ago I dealt with the unrest situation in Pietermaritzburg and I emphasised the complexity of the situation, as well as the extreme difficulty of the situation, and I pointed out the reasons for this. I also pointed out that because of this it was going to take a very long time for the situation to be brought under control. I am very grateful to report today that the unrest in the townships and the rural areas around Pietermaritzburg has virtually ceased, that for the past month and a half we have had virtually no incidents, and that peace and calm has returned to the area.

Hear, hear!

I would like to make use of this opportunity on behalf of the people of Pietermaritzburg of all races and all communities to thank the SA Police, the police officers and the men who have brought about this peace and calm at great personal sacrifice and with great courage. The sacrifices I am referring to were sadly confirmed early this morning again when two brave policemen lost their lives in a grenade attack near Mphumalangu, which is not in the Pietermaritzburg area but between Pietermaritzburg and Durban, near Hammarsdale. I would ask whether this is not an indication that these people were on the point of moving into Pietermaritzburg to foment unrest in that area again.

The police brought about peace and calm at great risk to themselves. They manned temporary charge offices and outposts 24 hours a day in outlying areas, to be close to the people who could possibly lay a charge. By their actions they also convinced the people that they were sincerely interested in them and in their needs. At this stage it may be too early to give a detailed account of the reasons for the unrest and why the police were able to put a stop to the unrest so relatively soon, but one of the clear indications is that the community immediately identified with the police and responded to the appeals of the police to provide names and to indicate who the intimidators and the criminals were.

There is no question about this, because if that had not been the case then the police would not in such a short time have been able to bring the situation back to peace and calm. Once again this is dramatic proof that the people in our communities of all races want to live in peace and harmony and not unrest, intimidation and violence. If they are given a reasonable chance to participate with the police they will certainly do so to bring about harmony in their communities. I would like to thank the SA Police once again for their efficient and balanced actions in bringing about calm and peace in Pietermaritzburg and I want specifically to thank Gen Wandrag and Brigs Buchner, Viljoen and Kotze in this regard.

*The one prominent aspect of this Budget is that the Government is serious about combating inflation. It is very clear that the time has come to do so and that we can grant priority to this matter. During the past four years we have dealt with sanctions, boycotts, credit withdrawals and unrest, and as a result growth and the provision of employment have had to become priorities. We have had a much more stable situation lately, also because of the Government’s competent management of the situation, which was not an easy one. We can therefore give priority to this matter now.

During the past one and a half years our exchange rate has been stable, our balance of payments on current account has been positive for the last 12 quarters—there may be danger signs nevertheless—and our capital accounts and reserves have improved dramatically. Our gross domestic product amounted to 2,5% last year, with an annual basis of 5% in the last quarter. The chances look very good for an improvement this year. Unemployment has dropped considerably. It is very clear, therefore, that this is the appropriate time in which to give top priority to this problem of inflation.

This is also one of the reasons why this Government has not announced general salary increases. It is not easy for a Government to do something like that. It is not a popular move, nor is it politically advantageous, as we have experienced during the past few weeks. It is in the interests of the country, however, and the time is ripe for us to increase and consolidate buying power and the value of our monetary unit. It is clear that the Government has made a contribution in this connection, not only by means of the Budget, but also in that there were no increases in transport or postal tariffs. The petrol price has been stable for some time, and there is no excessive pressure on the capital market, with the result that the interest rates will not increase.

With all due respect, I want to submit that in light of this the private sector now has an obligation to play its part in bringing inflation under control. It must not only express its intention to do so, but must do something about it, and must be seen to be doing it. There was a report on the news on television last night that the Bureau for Economic Research at Stellenbosch had predicted significant increases in consumer goods prices in the near future. There have also been rumours of general salary increases in certain banks and insurance companies. I can see no reason whatsoever why the consumer price should increase by more than 10% in these circumstances.

As I have said, the exchange rate and the petrol price are stable, the market is good, wage demands ought to be brought under control, and the interest rates are stable. It is an ideal situation in which the retailers should do their duty as well.

I want to ask the hon the Minister of Finance to give the House the assurance that retail prices will be monitored closely. If the growth in retail prices does not drop significantly, or if the profits of chain store groups continue to increase as tremendously as has been the case recently, we shall have to accept that we have an oligopolistic situation in this country. The Government will have to implement strong measures, which we did not want to use in the past, in order to control this situation in the interests of the country.

Order! Hon members are talking too loudly in the House and must stop doing so immediately.

I should like to refer to the fact that there are certain hon members in the CP who obviously do not agree with CP policy. I am referring to the hon CP members who are also members of the AWB. [Interjections.] It is clear that those members of the AWB do not agree with CP policy in many respects. I want to refer to important matters in any political party. The AWB is in favour of an Afrikaner Boerevolkstaat which has seceded from the Republic, for example, something quite separate in other words. The CP says it is in favour of partition, in other words various homelands which will receive independence, whereas they themselves will remain part of the Republic. That is how I understand matters.

The AWB stands for a one-party dictatorship. Just like the people in the parts of Africa north of us, they agree that parties merely divide a people and that is why their state must have only one party. As I understand them, only Afrikaners will have the vote. They will have one vote, whereas AWB members will have an additional vote.

What about the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis? [Interjections.]

He will probably receive a co-opted vote.

I assume that in this connection the CP is in favour of a democratic, multiparty state.

Let us take a look at their economic policy. The AWB is in favour of a centrally controlled economic system. They also say that land can be confiscated and handed out to other Afrikaners. I assume the CP is still in favour of a free economic system.

It is clear, therefore, that on these matters of principle which are of fundamental importance to a political party, the points of departure of the AWB and the CP differ completely. [Interjections.]

One cannot serve two masters; one cannot accept two standpoints. Either one rejects one or one rejects the other, but one cannot endorse both. Surely that is clear. The facts are irrefutable: The two principles are contradictory and one cannot accept both. In such a case only two possibilities remain. The first is that the AWB members in this House endorse the policy of the CP and not that of the AWB. In that case they are members of the AWB in name only and do not support the principles of the AWB. The other possibility is that the AWB members in the House endorse the AWB’s principles and not the CP's principles. It is one of these two possibilities. In that case they are members of the CP in name only. I want to suggest that the AWB members explain the situation to this House. I think the leaders of the CP must tell us which possibility is the factual one; whether they are members of the CP in name only or members of the AWB in name only.

Membership of both is simply not possible. These principles—these important principles—are contradictory. One cannot accept both these principles. One cannot accept a centrally directed economy and a free economy. Nor can one accept a dictatorship in a one-party state on the one hand whereas one wants a multiparty state on the other. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is not possible to endorse both these points. [Interjections.]

Order!

I contend that it is not possible to accept both these principles, except if principles are not what is at issue here. Of course that is the other possibility. With all due respect, I contend that that is the situation in this House. It is not a matter of policy as far as the CP is concerned, because if it were, we would have had clarity about these matters. To them it is merely a matter of opposing the NP. To the CP-AWB alliance it is not a matter of a better South Africa; nor of finding solutions to our problems, because then at least they would have come forward with possible solutions to our problems. So many hon members made it clear today that no possible solutions to our problems were being put forward. [Interjections.]

An example of this is the tricameral Parliament. After all, there is no alternative solution that can accommodate the aspirations of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians. [Interjections.] Many of the hon members sitting on that side know that this solution was not found easily. It took years, and it required a lot of fighting and hard work. All the possible solutions were considered, but no other solution could be found.

I want to suggest that the CP wants to break down what this side of the House has built up over many years and for which no workable alternative solution exists. To the CP-AWB alliance it is not a matter of building a better South Africa; they merely want to break down the NP and build up hatred against the NP. They want to break down those co-operative and favourably disposed institutions which the NP has built up over a period of many years.

I want to tell them today that they are not going to succeed. The people of this country are not going to permit that. One cannot merely sow hatred and suspicion without replacing the existing dispensation with a workable system, and get away with it. The people of South Africa are going to realise what they are up to soon and reject them.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North must please excuse me for not replying to his speech.

This afternoon the hon member for Turffontein put me in mind of a time when I was still a very young lad. Chris Blignault always sang a song called “Die brakke van Turffontein”. [Interjections.] He said: “Daar is rooies, daar is bontes, daar is alles wat 'n hond is”. That hon member reminds me of a spotted dog. That is actually what he demonstrated to us here this afternoon. [Interjections.] This afternoon he unleashed a tirade against the CP, the kind of tirade I did not think would ever be unleashed in this House. I am a young member who has not been here for long. I do not know if one can unleash fiercer tirades than that of the hon member here this afternoon. I hope we shall not soon be witnesses to such acrimony in this House again. [Interjections.]

I actually came to the House this afternoon to spend a few minutes expressing my thanks. I want to pose an alternative to what the hon member for Turffontein had to say. I do not want to launch into a tirade against certain people, as he did. It seems to me he got hurt in the by-elections that took place. He was also there in my constituency, Standerton. He walked around there trying to convey the NP’s policy to the voters of Standerton. Not much came of it, however. Not one of the voters he tried to prevail upon, voted for the NP; on the contrary, the NP voters he spoke to came over to the CP. [Interjections.]

I came to Parliament last year as a young member and I only spent a short time here. That came about as a result of certain applications from hon members on that side of the House. During the short time I was here, I had the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. I was especially impressed by the hon member for Vasco, who was chairman of this committee. As a young, new member he made me feel very much at home and taught me a great deal.

There are two other hon members of that committee, however, whom I should also like to mention here this afternoon. Unfortunately one of them is not in the House at the moment. With one of them I do not specifically agree, politically speaking, but I must say that the hon member for Yeoville made a singular impression on me by the experienced manner in which he got to the bottom of certain issues. With his experience he showed me that there were all kinds of ways of getting at the truth.

The other hon member is the hon member for Barberton, sitting here in front. These two individuals, with their delicate intuition and razorsharp intellects, highlighted aspects which none of the rest of us would even have thought of. I want to pay tribute to these two individuals today.

I hope hon members on that side of the House do not regard these expressions of praise as an opportunity for certain members of the NP to try to unseat me again. I think they would find it much more difficult this time round. This time I do not even think it will be necessary for them to get a candidate from Witbank; they will not have a single candidate to fight an election for them. [Interjections.]

The past three days I sat listening to this Budget debate and to hon members’ contributions to the debate. I listened critically to the contributions of hon members on the Government side. I do not want to criticise their speeches—I am not good enough for that—but I found those hon members simply launching attacks on the opposition parties. They launched attacks on the CP, the PFP and the Independents. However, there was no question whatsoever of any criticism of, or any recommendations to, the hon the Minister of Finance about improvements to this Budget. They simply carried on as usual. I read through the budget debates of the past four years, and they carried on in the old style, praising, praising and praising some more. This is the best budget ever; it is the best budget there will ever be—and that is the refrain we have heard throughout the years. [Interjections.]

I am sure that a great deal of criticism could be expressed about the Budget of the hon the Minister of Finance. It may perhaps be a good budget, but there are certain things that probably deserve attention. I shall dwell on one or two aspects in a moment. What we have had, however, has been the same old thing of “praising, praising, praising!”, a refrain I also heard in the by-election in Standerton.

When I was unseated in the constituency, I was talking to the Nationalists there and they told me: “We do not want another by-election in Standerton. Everything filters down from the top. Everything comes from head office.”

Well done!

From the Constitution.

Here the same applies. The hon the Minister has introduced a budget and no one dares criticise him.

Thanks for your information brochures, Piet!

Order!

They simply follow wherever this hon Minister leads them. I do not know whether they are afraid of not getting some little post or other. In Standerton we had the case of the previous MP who stood against me the first time, Mr Willa Hefer—a wonderful man. He was rejected by the voters and dropped out. Subsequently, in the by-election, we found him being rejected by the divisional committee of the NP. Subsequently, however, he was appointed to the President’s Council. [Interjections.] So these people no longer have any respect for the voters and for what they really want. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order!

That hon Minister who is sitting over there and has just made a remark was present in my constituency during the election. [Interjections.] He himself held a meeting there. If I tick them off, I find there were 14 of those hon Ministers who held meetings there.

They came to help the CP.

They were all there. The hon the Minister of Finance himself held a meeting there, but that was at the invitation of the Afrikaanse Sakekamer of Standerton.

Was it a secret meeting? It was not an ordinary meeting.

It was not a political meeting, of course, because politics has no place in the activities of the Afrikaanse Sakekamer. [Interjections.] Prior to the meeting, however, he spoke to a few of my conservative voters who were businessmen. It did not help him much. I just want to say that there were many of these hon Ministers. They were brought in en masse in an attempt to win back Standerton for the NP. It was an utter failure. [Interjections.]

Not only were there hon Ministers. The hon member for Jeppe, who is sitting there laughing so heartily at the back, was there too. [Interjections.] They told stories about the CP misleading the voters so scandalously, telling them all kinds of things, etc. Thirteen hon Ministers went there, and there were a few Deputy Ministers and also 20 or 30 of the MPs—for example the hon member for Jeppe and the hon member for Rosettenville sitting there next to him—to convey the NP’s policy. After they had all been there, and the NP in Standerton had said that its organisation was 550% better than in the previous election … [Interjections] … we suddenly increased our majority from 952 to 2 884. [Interjections.]

But Mr Greyling also helped!

That is the policy advocated by the NP!

There are just one or two aspects I want to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention. One relates to the social pensions of our aged. Mention has been made of this in the House. Millions of rands have been given to the TBVC countries as a result of certain shortfalls there, and R110 million was made available for the social pensions of the aged. I just want to ask the hon the Minister to consider adding an additional R110 million to that money, thereby increasing the pensions of those people by R5 per month or 16 cents per day. One cannot even buy half a loaf of brown bread with 16 cents. [Interjections.] In my previous speech I also referred to the other schemes for which the Government is making provision.

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

No, Sir, I do not have time to answer questions now. [Interjections.]

Does that apply to all population groups?

Order! The hon member is not prepared to answer a question.

In my previous speech I referred to the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works, which announced certain schemes for the aged. I am referring specifically to the loan scheme for securing the homes of elderly Whites. The hon the Minister, however, did not react to the statements I made about that. Such schemes, announced by the Government, impose stringent requirements on the aged, including the registration of bonds, the payment of inspection fees and the obtaining of quotes. I want to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that when such schemes are announced for our aged, there should not be so many requirements that they cannot meet them. I enquired from the hon the Minister and ascertained that there were only six applications in terms of this scheme. Not one of those six applications has as yet been granted.

You do not know what you are talking about.

The hon the Minister says I do not know what I am talking about. I telephoned his department yesterday and today, and these are still the latest available figures.

Does he know what is going on?

He does not know what is going on in his department.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal does not have a turn to speak now. The hon member for Standerton may continue.

Mr Chairman, I want to conclude by telling the hon the Minister of Finance the following anecdote. One of my voters told me that there was a bloodbank at the office of the Receiver of Revenue in Standerton. I understand that someone wrote the following words on one of the posters at the bloodbank: “Oh no, Barend, you are already taking my money; now you want my blood too.” Since the hon the Minister is taking all our money, let me ask him not to take our last drop of blood too. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it was interesting to listen to the hon member for Standerton, who said that he had listened critically to speakers on the Government side, saying that there would definitely be criticism of the Budget from him and that he would discuss it later. His speech has been concluded and we are still waiting for him to get to it.

It is a well-known CP strategy to say that they will discuss something later. One then simply has to wait, but that point is never reached. This reminds one of a TV debate in which the viewing public was frequently told simply to wait and the explanation of CP policy would follow. We are still waiting for it.

Do not cry so much!

The hon member for Standerton also mentioned that there could be criticism of the Budget. It is strange that, while in the country as a whole, with a large private sector and many experts, there are compliments and praise for the Budget from far beyond NP boundaries, and all are agreed that it is the right strategy; only this clear-sighted little group of 22 members of Parliament does not consider it a good Budget. This really causes one not to take to what they say seriously. At this stage of the debate, which has already progressed a long way, we are still struggling to obtain any significant comment from them at all.

I should also like to confine my thoughts to the economy. It is illuminating that, during the week allocated to this debate, NP speakers have been able to refer to the Budget time and again because we have a plan on the table.

It is clear, however, that the people who originally envisaged having this debate last a week, took into account that one should have an Official Opposition in such a system which could at least occupy one’s time discussing the economy for a week. Nevertheless, we in the NP have learnt that one does not have an Official Opposition capable of discussing the economy even for a week; they have difficulty in discussing it even for a day. [Interjections.]

The NP has governed for 40 years—40 years in which we were able to give the lead and determine economic guidelines according to which South Africa has grown into the country with the most powerful economy on this continent, an economy which arouses the envy of those countries of the world which cannot show comparable achievements. At present the NP is preparing plans for the negotiating table, drawing up budgets and furnishing economic guidelines which will enable us to continue for the next 40 years and expand this economy into an even stronger one—continue expanding the economy and offering more opportunities.

Compared with this, from the side of the Official Opposition, which has to comment on this, we have people who can only delight in having ultimately developed the ability to retain seats they had gained earlier. How pathetic to have to delight in the fact that one is only able to retain what one already has. During these 40 years Opposition parties have come and gone in this House, and there are times when they become a little more excited and a little more delighted about certain events, only to disappear from the scene again in subsequent years. During the next 40 years, in which the NP will hold the reins, I believe we shall see that this Official Opposition, like its predecessors, was merely a temporary phenomenon.

On the subject of the Budget it is clear that the 1988 Budget is even more important than those of other years. It was a Budget preceded by the hon the State President’s opening address, the Margo Report, the White Paper on this Report and the White Paper on privatisation. It is clear that this year is a watershed year in which the importance of a strong economy for South Africa has been emphasized as the highest priority and a year in which not only the foundation is being laid for a coming financial year and the expenditure of State revenue for the year ahead, but a framework is certainly also being provided for future years. One is truly amazed when one examines only a few of the priorities the hon the Minister of Finance had to take into account in compiling the present Budget. I shall mention a few of these quickly. In the first place, the level of Government expenditure had to be examined. Secondly, inflation had to be curbed; thirdly, the balance of payments was not to be placed under greater pressure, and then a start also had to be made on the White Paper on the Margo Report. Room had to be left for economic growth, in particular a more investment-oriented growth.

The next priority was that foreign debt had to be borne in mind while the influence of sanctions also had to be taken into account. Justice had to be done to very important Government priorities such as security, development, education and other matters.

The way had to be prepared for privatisation. An opportunity had to exist for rebuilding agriculture where necessary and the serious damage caused by flood disasters had to be taken into account. Unemployment had to be dealt with and the economy increasingly structured to be accessible to all in the RSA and to offer opportunities to all the inhabitants of this country.

This list is not even complete, yet it is clear that this is an enormous challenge that has to be faced in one Budget.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening sitting

Mr Chairman, before business was suspended, I mentioned a number of priorities which had to be tackled in the Budget. The way in which all these priorities received attention in the Budget is the reason why it has elicited so much praise from all commentators who expressed an opinion on it and who know something about the economy.

Something of importance to be taken into account in the economic policy and its formulation is that no economic priority can be viewed in isolation because every economic priority can influence another priority in a specific way. That is why the economic policy is presented as a package, especially because it can influence various priorities in various ways. Consequently it is impossible to discuss the economy when one raises only a specific aspect and other aspects are ignored. There is an interdependence between the various economic priorities. In this way, what may be good in addressing one economic priority may have an adverse effect on another. For instance, economic growth can be dealt with in a way which can promote inflation. When we look at the way in which the NP and the hon the Minister of Finance formulate economic policy, it appears that it is being done with a view to presenting a specific package. The point of departure is therefore the question of what is best for the economy and the country. The economic policy is then formulated accordingly.

As regards the CP, however, we note that they formulate their economic policy in a different way. It is a modus operandi based on the question: What would be best with a view to the next election, what would be the most popular statement to make and what can voters be told to gain their support? That is exactly what is said, regardless of whether it is compatible with an economic package, regardless of whether it makes sense, in conjunction with other statements they make, and one therefore finds …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Rissik is not addressing the House from his normal seat. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

Mr Chairman, when people become such an inferior Official Opposition that they have become so utterly bankrupt of ammunition that they have to raise such senseless points of order, nobody can really pay serious attention to them. [Interjections.]

This is a financial debate and I wish to mention one of the commentaries I found in an article in a financial journal in which the policy of the Official Opposition was critically assessed. I am referring to a leading article in Finansies en Tegniek. The caption to this particular article was “’n Swyende Opposisie”. After the economic merits of CP policy had been analysed, one found the following commentary:

[Interjections.]

Order! For the last time hon members are requested to speak more softly. We cannot permit such a noise in the Chamber. Hon members must obey my ruling at once. The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

I should not like to argue with this damning commentary on the Official Opposition in Finansies en Tegniek. I do want to say, however, that it is an understatement, because not only is there a weak point in their economic policy, but they have no point when economic policy is addressed. When one combines the various unrelated propagandistic comments which CP members make on the economic package to see what their economic policy is, one finds a policy which would be more at home in the rag magazine of a university and not among people who profess to be the alternative Government. [Interjections.]

I offer the following example. CP members state that they will prune Government expenditure drastically and not call for tax increases either, but will, without increasing Government expenditure, levying increased taxes or making use of loan finance, grant salary increases such as the public sector has never beheld. Nowhere is the source of this money stated; it will simply descend like manna from heaven.

We also hear on other occasions—take into account that Government expenditure will not increase and large salary increases will be granted—that every farmer is free to queue up for money which will be distributed on request. [Interjections.] The source of this money is not disclosed either. All the farmers have to do in the meantime is to vote for the CP.

Their best news is for old people. Pensions will soar under a CP government, but old people are not to ask where this money is to come from either. They are just to vote for the CP, and later everything will right itself. [Interjections.]

The most ridiculous of all examples is probably that once again, without increasing taxes or obtaining extra loan finance, a grotesque policy will be followed by which, out of nothing and without any historical grounds, an Indian homeland and a Coloured homeland will be built up which will offer all these people the most wonderful opportunities. [Interjections.]

I am convinced that the CP motto—it is probably painted in large letters in their caucus room, is something which would read as follows: “Marching to the future through opportunism, emotion and dreams”. Perhaps it would sound better in an Afrikaner idiom: “Take from the past the unrealistic daydreams; take from the past aspects of a policy which did not work; take from the past a good amount of opportunism; take from the past a large amount of raw emotion and build the future on these”. [Interjections.]

It is ironic that, sitting in a governing party which, as regards economic policy, has a Margo Report and a White Paper on it, the hon the State President’s opening address, the hon the Minister of Finance’s Budget Speech and an actual plan on the table to ensure that this strong economy—it is the best in Africa—is maintained, one experiences the conceit of the hon member for Potgietersrus, who says the CP has something on the table and we have nothing. [Interjections.] This is foolishness which voters will come to discover in time. [Interjections.] “You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” The time will come when this party’s level-headedness, its plans and its realism will get through to voters and when one will not need to become excited because one has the ability to hold onto one’s 22 little seats. Real merit lies in governing this country, and that merit is ours. I take pleasure in supporting the Budget.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Rissik who expressed some positive ideas in his contribution.

We have been on quite a tour during tonight’s debate. First of all we visited the Johannesburg municipality. In that connection I should like to tell the hon member for Bryanston that I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to have this Hansard sent to Mr Sam Moss, because I do not think they are quite on speaking terms any more, and then he can take care of his problem. [Interjections.]

We also stopped off at the Standerton by-election. I should like to tell the hon member that there was one incident there that I found very amusing. When we were preparing the stalls there, I saw a CP poster with the words “Black participation means Black domination” being put up at one of the stalls. They used a ladder to do so. I have a photograph of this which I should like to show hon members. The photograph shows four Black hands fixing the poster to the stall. I found that very amusing. [Interjections.] It was quite ironic. [Interjections.] We shall do so with the greatest of pleasure, because we have no problems with that. [Interjections.] I think they have exceptional problems, because when the results were announced, one of the people standing there almost attacked a Black cameraman simply because he was Black and was standing there. Blacks are good enough to put up their posters, though. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister of National Health was not called upon to speak. [Interjections.]

In my support of the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, after supper on a Wednesday night, I should like to confine myself to only one of the greatest problems we experience in our country today. I regard it as a serious problem, which could cause a disaster in this country of ours if leaders both inside and outside this House do not come to their senses and realise their responsibilities in time. I am referring to the reckless radicalisation of South African politics which has created political poles in this country. They feed one another, but are so far removed from one another as to make a totally irrelevant, mere pipe dream of the hon member for Randburg’s hope that he can bring certain people and poles together. [Interjections.] I think they are making sworn statements.

This polarisation has greater destructive power than any onslaught made against us from outside; in fact, it is this polarisation that is feeding the onslaught from outside. While the Government is doing everything in its power to find a just and fair solution to our country’s problems so that we can live together in peace and peaceful co-existence, powers in this country are involved in work that is aimed at bedevilling human relationships in a way hitherto unknown in the world. The relations politics in this country is delicate, and if these relationships are not stabilised and nurtured, we—not only the Whites, or the Blacks, the Coloureds or the Indians, but everyone who lives within our boundaries—are going to succumb. That is why responsible action is required of all politicians and leaders in every sphere in this country.

It is amazing to see how irresponsible use is made of the public’s emotions in order to procure political support, and I am referring specifically to the CP. [Interjections.] The emotions of the public are being exploited in a reckless way in an attempt to canvass votes at the polls, merely to come and fill the green benches in this House. That is their only purpose. [Interjections.]

This process bedevils this country’s greatest weapon against every onslaught—sound human relations—in a self-destructive way. On the one hand we have the SA ANC-CP alliance—they must not get excited because the CP and the Communist Party coincidentally have the same abbreviation—which is doing everything in its power to incite hatred by means of violence and intimidation, and is supported by legal organisations in this country with statements and pleas which fuel hatred in a way hitherto unknown. Church leaders such as Archbishop Tutu and Dr Allan Boesak have turned to the new so-called liberation theology—a topic that I do not want to and cannot say anything about—which is preparing the political climate for revolution. Bombs are being planted in our cities with the purpose of creating polarisation so that law and order can be undermined. Radicals are emerging to an increasing extent to try to undermine the present dispensation and to try to force moderates to the respective poles of the political spectrum. [Interjections.]

On the radical right-wing side, Eugene Terre’Blanche has emerged as a so-called saviour and liberator of the White Afrikaners, with slogans such as “Either the ANC or the AWB!”; yet he is dismissed by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as an innocent cultural leader. [Interjections.] From that one must deduce that ultimately the radical political elements in his movement will be accommodated by the CP, because then culture will have to remain so that he can be in command of it in this Boerestaat that they want to create, a state of which the boundaries are still unknown and which we are still seeking today.

Mr Chairman, you must permit me to present a very serious incident to the hon members in this House. I want to share with hon members my concern about the danger this polarisation holds for our peace and prosperity by telling hon members about an experience I had the night before Good Friday, a day of conciliation. Just outside Lydenburg I came across an accident in which a Black cyclist had been run over and killed by a bakkie, driven by a White man from the area. I shall not mention any names, but if anyone expects me to do so, I shall give the names to this House with the greatest of pleasure. I stopped to see whether I could be of any assistance and was confronted with the most nauseating experience I have ever had. I cannot use the language used by that particular driver, but in front of a number of onlookers, some of whom were Black, he boasted about the fact that he had made mincemeat of a man. He went so far as to say he was sorry he did not have a so-called bull bar on his bakkie, because then even less would have been left of his victim. Toonlookers he said: “Let us go back and have a laugh at the body lying there.” That is the kind of politics that is being conducted here.

Is he a CP?

I shall reply to that in a moment. When other onlookers and I pointed out to him that he was talking about a man’s life, he swore crudely and said, and I quote: “Dit is net ’n …” —and I cannot use the words he used then—“ … houtkop en hy het met bakarms daar rondgeloop.” I am not alleging that this man killed the cyclist on purpose. Far from it. I am merely trying to indicate to what level hatred can be incited by the inhuman conduct of this driver. The seed planted there has yet to germinate, and it could lead to consequences which make me shudder. My friend and I turned to the dumbfounded Black onlookers and said that this should not be seen as the conduct of Whites, but rather as the conduct of one person whom we rejected. [Interjections.] That hon member is so irrelevant, he might as well keep quiet.

I need not ask which party that person supported. I did find out, however. These are the people that are accommodated in the CP. He voted for the CP on 6 May.

You have just as many of them!

I contend that this polarisation is being fuelled by the politics of the far right and the far left in this country. These are the dangers that are confronting us. I also contend that relations between ethnic groups have deteriorated considerably since the establishment of movements such as the UDF and the AWB, and that this has been fuelled even further since the CP initiated polarisation politics in this country. The ANC and the AWB represent extreme poles in our politics, and both are equally dangerous to the peace and the preservation of law and order in this country. Incidents such as the one I have just described have the same potential for hatred that bomb explosions and terrorism in our midst have. The time has come for us to preach a message of conciliation and to go out of our way to acknowledge and accommodate human dignity for the sake of our descendants and the preservation of the continued existence of all of us in this country. [Interjections.] You need not say anything. Only moderates can solve the problems of this country. This House has a bounden duty to reject radicalism to the left and to the right.

Careful! You will have a heart attack!

If you continue to shout out I shall have a heart attack, and you can stop “pinging” as well. Radicals must be mentioned by name, and whether it is the ANC and its followers or Eugene Terre’Blanche and his followers makes no difference. Meaningful reform is the only solution to our problems. I want to make so bold as to say that in the first place attitudes must be reformed. I want to bring it home to the CP that with their politicking in by-elections they are creating a climate in which they are cultivating hatred among races in this country. In the end they will no longer be able to control the consequences of this. Nor will they need to try.

It is good thing to tackle one another on the political level, but then we should moderate things in such a way that we do not have a hand in bedevilling attitudes. The CP won votes by stirring up emotions, but in a period in which moderation is essential for prosperity and peace, those emotions will lead to everyone’s downfall.

On the other hand it is the purpose of the left-wing radical elements to create a state of lawlessness. Those whom the shoe fits must wear it. This dispensation has to be overthrown in a climate of revolution. In this process those who preserve law and order are discredited. People go out of their way—it has happened in this House— to cast suspicion on the conduct of the police. I am sorry the hon member for Claremont is not here. He was here earlier this afternoon, but I think he is getting things together with which to get at the police.

With one exception, he has used the limited time he has had in which to address this House to attack the police and attempt to discredit them. He has made it his responsibility to turn up coincidentally at places of unrest. I have given examples showing how he tried to interfere after making himself known to the police authority as a member of Parliament. [Interjections.] He turns up at the funerals of people who have died in unrest incidents to express his sympathy. While his friends are sitting here, I want to add immediately that I see nothing wrong in that—we also have sympathy with such people and their families. Numerous policemen and soldiers also make the supreme sacrifice in the execution of their duties, however. I wonder if the hon member will tell us, when he is in the House again, whether he shows the necessary sympathy there too. It is his duty as a representative to do so more particularly because he gave up his citizenship during the period in which he was supposed to do his compulsory military service, and therefore could not be called up.

Against this background I am pleased that I can serve in a party such as the NP, which is unyielding in its standpoint that the problems of our country can be solved only by moderates and by evolutionary reform. [Interjections.] I am grateful that a Budget has been submitted which is aimed at the preservation of economic order, order in the sphere of security and order in the social sphere, as well as prosperity. This Government is responsible for ensuring my and my children’s future. Notwithstanding temporary popularity amongst certain people, the Government has taken the course of responsibility, and will adhere to that course despite all the emotional onslaughts, resisting those onslaughts in the interests of our country and all its people. [Interjections.] The hon members of the PFP are welcome to convey this message to their friend. That is why I am sitting on this side of the House and can say with pride that I support this Government with everything in my power, because what is at issue is the continued existence of a prosperous South Africa, which has room for all its people, with the preservation of all its cultures and the protection of all its minorities and minority rights. A sound balance between security and economic prosperity is being maintained in the Appropriation Bill before the House. It is my pleasure to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, today I sat in this House listening to one speaker after another on the Government side. In the period of less than a year in which I have been in this House, we have in this debate reached an all time low in this House, and I am referring to the speeches of the hon members of the NP. [Interjections.]

We have just heard the hon member for Germiston District unleashing a tirade, and I should like to start with him. We want to tell him that we expected more of him, but if one is a member of a party such as the NP, which has become a loser, which takes to its heels and must hopelessly stand here defending its case in the absence of any principles or policy, the only way out for hon members such as the hon member for Germiston District is perhaps to use the kind of language he did. I want to tell him that his use of the technique of implication by association is absolutely reprehensible. It is one of the shoddiest methods one can adopt in politics, and I want to tell him that I reject that technique of association that he used with the contempt it deserves. [Interjections.]

The hon member even went so far as to say that the abbreviations for “Konserwatiewe Party” and “Kommunistiese Party” were the same. To seize upon something like that and raise the matter in a debate such as the one we are engaged in at the moment, in one of the highest council chambers in the Republic of South Africa, gives one some idea of the depths to which the NP has sunk in the debates it is conducting. [Interjections.]

I briefly want to refer to a few other speakers. I want to begin by referring to the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance’s speech which was riddled with comparisons between average income and the per capita expenditure by the State of Whites as against Blacks. By merely mentioning the clear differences between these amounts he tried to indicate that the CP was wrong in alleging that the Government was channelling money from the Whites to the Blacks in South Africa in the process of the redistribution of wealth. In the process, however he confirmed precisely what the hon member for Barberton said, ie that the Government was using the capital system of the First-World component in South Africa to support the Third-World component.

If the mere difference in the per capita income between Whites and Blacks, or the difference in the State’s per capita expenditure on the two groups, is the hon the Minister’s only criterion in judging how one group is being benefited or prejudiced at the expense of the other, without bearing in mind the other factors distinguishing the First-World component from the Third-World component, within that framework of reference he must inevitably take assets from the Whites and transfer them to the Black component. That is precisely what the CP is accusing the Government of doing. The developed economy of the First-World component—the White component—is now being milked to support the so-called less developed Third-World component—the people of colour. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister said that the CP’s policy was unworkable. He said that complete partition would not work. [Interjections.]

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

For the umpteenth time the hon the Deputy Minister is using the old hackneyed Aunt Sally which has been knocked down so many times in this House by other, more junior speakers than he is, and he thinks he can still benefit from doing so. A long debate has been conducted here … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, would the hon member answer a question?

I have limited time. In another debate, if more time were available, I would gladly do so. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The hon the Minister of Finance—since we are now dealing with the Budget I find this so interesting—is one of the members of the NP who quoted, in a local newspaper, what Advocate Strijdom said years ago about so-called total separate development or total territorial separation. He distorted this in order to apply it in that form to CP policy. Even though the hon member for Overvaal told them earlier last year that “complete partition” was not CP policy, they do not stop harping on that. They simply keep on about it, because they do not have the initiative to think up new arguments. If the Aunt Sally has not been knocked down, they try to knock it down again. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to the hon member for Paarl’s speech. He says that the Whites should give people of colour an opportunity to enjoy peace for themselves. Why does he say that? Why is it necessary? That is precisely what the CP wants for other population groups. We believe that other population groups should have the same opportunities within their own areas. [Interjections.]

Order!

We want to give everyone self-determination. [Interjections.] It is interesting that the hon member boasts of the TBVC countries. He boasts of that achievement. It is the result of partition! It is the result of the CP’s policy. It is noteworthy and interesting that in the NP’s propaganda document for the general election on 6 May, that was one of the things it boasted about. If one examines those aspects which the NP boasts of as the result of its new policy, one sees that the really substantial aspects—the actual achievements—are those involving separate development or partition.

The hon member for Kuruman says that all the major revolutions in the world took place as a result of a small group of privileged individuals who clung to their privileges at the expense of a large, underprivileged majority. He says that the privileged position of the Whites could lead to revolution and communism, but what does the hon member think would happen if the Whites became the underprivileged group? What would happen if the White group was the one deprived of its rights? [Interjections.] Has the hon member ever considered that possibility, or does he only have a one-track mind that thinks only of Blacks? Does he not have a group of any other colour in mind when he says that? [Interjections.]

Order!

That hon member said that in the past two years a financial miracle had apparently taken place. Apparently the so-called miracle also includes, as far as the hon member is concerned, the fact that public servants are not going to get any salary increases, that there is a decrease in trade with the outside world and a lack of confidence in South Africa … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Hon members are making so many interjections that I cannot hear the hon member, and I am sitting close to him. [Interjections.] There really is a terribly noise!

Order! There are hon members here who apparently do not know the meaning of the word “order”. If this continues, I am going to mention hon members by name. I shall be compelled to ask hon members to withdraw from the Chamber. These are the last inane remarks we shall be hearing in this House this evening. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The hon member for Kuruman went on to say that the Whites increasingly needed more Blacks in their industries, etc. During the past Parliamentary recess I went through some of my old documents, and what did I discover? I discovered a speech delivered by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid at a youth congress in Kroonstad in 1967. At that stage I was still a schoolboy attending the congress. At the time I did not yet have any knowledge of the Broederbond and such things. In any event, the hon the Minister was one of the speakers there. What is interesting is that one of the underlying themes in his speech in 1967 was the fact that the Whites should get rid of Black domestic servants, because that would lead to a more closely-knit family and personal initiative which was good for South Africa. That is what that hon Minister, now sitting there in the NP benches, told the youth of South Africa in 1967. Let me say that that is why I am sitting on this side of the House today, because I took to heart what the hon the Minister said then. [Interjections.]

As far as the hon member for Constantia is concerned, as on previous occasions I have to agree with hon members of the PFP when, on a purely logical basis, they point to the present-day ambivalence of the NP. The hon member focused on the extremely left-wing radicals who were members of the NP and on how others, behind the scenes, were quietly trying to prevent the train from going so fast that it went out of control. [Interjections.] Is it not tragic that a party which was once so moderate has now, through its ill-considered about-face, become such a rich source of ridicule, by the PFP too?

The hon member for Umlazi denies that there are NP members demanding that beaches be thrown open. I want to ask him, however: What about the present hon Minister of Home Affairs? What about the hon members of the NP in the President’s Council who signed the report tabled last year? On page 22, in paragraph 2.42.14 and in paragraph 2.42.6 on page 21, there is a very clear indication that this is a recommendation that all the beaches—please note, all beaches—under public control should be thrown open to all races. The hon the Minister of Home Affairs has meanwhile backed down somewhat in this House, but we should like to know where they are eventually going to end up. Are they going to come back to partition? Each time the by-elections loom on the horizon, their utterances seem to become increasingly conservative.

Before my time expires, I want to come to the hon member for Turffontein. The hon member apologised for not being here this evening. He has other obligations. At the moment that hon member sits there in the NP criticising the CP about the alleged influence of the AWB on this party— about who is supposedly saying what and what our policy actually is. That is the same person—I am going to repeat this to him; it has previously been quoted to him in the House—who said the following, in 1972, about his present chief leader in the House (col 4876):

At the time the hon member for Turffontein was a member of the UP. He went on to say:

[Interjections.] He is the one who also launched a personal attack on one of our dear departed colleagues. Let me say that I am shocked.

This is probably an all-time low for a speech made by any hon member in this House. The hon member, who did not have the courage of his convictions to say it to that hon member’s face when he was sitting in this House, now comes along, after the death of that hon member, with a story about an alleged plot by that valued hon member against the hon member for Overvaal. I want to say that it is scandalous. Scandalous! [Interjections.] What is more, let me say that this side of the House does not believe a word of what the hon member said. Why did he wait until after the death of that hon member before coming to this House with these scandalous remarks? [Interjections.]

I want to go further. The hon member spoke about democracy and said he wondered whether democracy was still possible. He said that the CP’s action played into the hands of the enemies of the RSA. May I remind him of what the hon member for Innesdal said at the beginning of last year in Inside South Africa? He said:

Could not be achieved in South Africa—

May I remind the hon member of the hon member for Innesdal’s statement at the beginning of last year?

Mr Chairman, this evening I have no intention of becoming involved in personal arguments about who said what about whom or who did what to whom. [Interjections.] Right from the start I want to state frankly that I think we in South Africa must all rid the political arena of anything that is personal. It serves absolutely no purpose and no one can win in that way. All we are doing is making a worse caricature of the Afrikaner than he already is in the eyes of many people in this country and I am saying that as an Afrikaner. [Interjections.]

This evening I want to begin with my hon neighbour, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He is my neighbour in Acacia Park and I want to say at once—and I have said this frequently—that I have great appreciation for him as a person. I say this openly and frankly. We differ fundamentally, however, in respect of our political standpoints and this afternoon he said something which really cannot remain unanswered. He referred to me and said that last year I had said a few things about history and what I had meant according to him was that I could not care a fig for the past, nor for history. He said that I had no appreciation for anything that was fine in the past of my country and my people, and that none of the great achievements of our leaders in the course of history were of any importance to me. He said that I attached no value to them. I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that such politics do not become him. He knows as well as I do that it is unnecessary to say that. I tried to raise my children with a sense of modesty and told them: “Someone who has to keep on saying what he is, is not what he has to keep on saying he is.” I stand by that. If someone cannot see that I am what I am, it is their business. There is no way in the world that we are going to try to defend ourselves if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tries very vituperatively and abusively to say that X or Y in the NP is a liberal who does not care for what is his—that he does not care for his language, his identity, his church or whatever it might include. Forget those arguments because we laugh at them.

Once again this compels me to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the CP what I said on a previous occasion. If I hear those kind of remarks I get the impression that the self-styled cream of the Afrikaner people has gone sour. They must not give us that impression. They must simply carry on proclaiming their political standpoints so that we can debate politics on a man to man basis. What we must not do is find ourselves embarking on a sectarian political course where one person wants to claim that he is better or holier or more sacrosanct than the other. [Interjections.] That serves no purpose. If a man tells me this is his identity, and he describes it, I accept it without further ado as being his identity. Similarly I accept that he is proud of it. He does not have to tell me. The hon member Mrs Chait does not have to tell me she is proud of her identity as a Jewess. As a Nationalist I accept that it goes without saying. I accept her as a member of my party. I accept her as a fellow South African. I accept her, and everyone belonging to that population group, as citizens of South Africa and people in their own right.

What I am as an Afrikaner—I happen to be that because I was born of parents who were Afrikaners and members of a specific church—is the product of history. [Interjections.] I merely want to tell the hon members of the CP that our humanity is the most important part of our existence. Our humanity is the decree of the Almighty and we should not arrogate all kinds of rights to ourselves and presume all kinds of things and place ourselves on a little platform in the role of some terribly important and sacrosanct individuals. That would be the most reckless kind of politics we could engage in.

Albert, what are you trying to say?

Let us pit argument against argument this evening. We in the NP are where we are today because we rid ourselves of a few political myths, myths which we had nurtured because of our history. One of those myths which the CP still nurtures today—one can hear it in every political discussion and speech—is that the Afrikaner is a special kind of human being with a Divine calling. I as an Afrikaner standing here this evening, say frankly that I do not have the right to presume that my population group is a special group of people with a calling. That we are not. [Interjections.]

The second myth we got out of our system was to say that the Whites, those of us with white skins in shades varying from light to less light, were a kind of God-chosen race.

Who said that?

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and all hon members of his party that the NP has rid itself of the political myth that the Whites are a kind of God-exalted, chosen race. [Interjections.]

There is yet another myth which we have shed from our political thinking and that is that the Afrikaner people—and I want the hon members of the CP to listen carefully—are more important …

Who is listening to you?

The hon member for Brakpan does not have to listen. In passing I merely want to say …

You are merely a ventriloquist for the ANC.

Order! The hon members of the CP are making too many interjections.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for hon members of the Official Opposition to say that the hon member for Innesdal is a ventriloquist for the ANC?

Order! The hon member for Innesdal may proceed. [Interjections.]

Another myth which we have dispensed with in our thinking is that the Afrikaner people are more important than the South African nation. I said that in my own constituency, and I am going to say it again tonight. The Afrikaner people are not more important than the South African nation. The South African nation is a more comprehensive concept. We have rid our political system of that myth.

Another myth which we have completely eradicated from our political system is that White supremacy can keep us going. As surely as we are sitting here this evening in this House, the best recipe for the self-destruction of the Whites is to cherish in their thinking the myth of White supremacy. We have dispensed with that myth in our system. We in the NP have rid ourselves completely of the myth from our political past that weapons and armed violence will enable us to keep going.

The next myth we have eliminated from our political thinking—I am stating this in plain language—is the myth that such a thing as a White South Africa exists. We want to state candidly that the NP no longer cherishes that myth from history, namely the existence of a geographical area which one can call White South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Pietersburg is participating in the discussion as if he had a speaking turn. He must contain himself.

I now want to come to what the hon member for Roodepoort said. He said a lot of things here. He said we were a losing party. Let me give them credit now. It is not nice to lose, and I admit frankly to them that they did exceptionally well in the recent by-elections. They did so well that I am really concerned for my country’s interests; however, I am not concerned about my constituency.

Therefore I think it is important that we speak frankly to each other concerning the difference in political standpoints, because I think the voters in South Africa at large will, before we have an election or a referendum, have to express an opinion on fundamental questions, and we are not going to get anywhere playing at politics in this way, trying to score points off one another. We are going to exert gentle pressure and compel the CP. and we are going to leave them no choice but to spell out frankly what they are going to do. On the road ahead they will see that there is no way in which they can ride this little wave of success with the policy they are trying to proclaim.

The hon member for Roodepoort and other hon members of that party quoted from a magazine containing an article I had written on the ANC last year. I just want to tell him frankly there is not a single word in that article that I have ever withdrawn or ever shall withdraw. Not one! [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon member for Roodepoort that he must just look at one very interesting thing.

He is too stupid!

Let me say at once that I am not one of those who thinks that we should consider the AWB to be so important. I do not think they are so important at all; I do not think so at all and I think they are receiving 10 000 times more publicity than they deserve, yet what does one of its leaders, Mr Eugène Terre’-Blanche, say? He, namely Eugene Terre’-Blanche, the arch-conservative and the archBoer said: “It is either the AWB or the ANC.” What does he really mean by that? By that he admits that the ANC is a terribly important factor in the political reality of South Africa. It was Eugene Terre’Blanche who said that. Now I want to tell the hon members of the CP …

What is the relevance of that?

… that as surely as they are sitting there—and I say it today—the NP, the PFP, the CP, the NRP, the AWB and every political grouping which exists on South Africa’s road ahead is important.

On the other hand, every organisation which is active in Black politics—the ANC, Azapo, Azano and each one of the 17 organisations which were banned—are of political importance, and whoever cannot comprehend that cannot, like Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche, see what the political realities in South Africa are. I give him credit for that—he could see that they were.

Now we can talk about how we are dealing with them. We can talk about terrorism which all of us reject with contempt and repugnance and which one can only eliminate in one way, namely with force. As far as radical Black politics are concerned, we must not, however, bluff ourselves by thinking that one can wish political messages away with guns and violence.

The other day Eugène Terre’Blanche said something else which was very interesting. It is not something new; there are many leaders in the world and great philosophers and all kinds of other people and we on this side of the House also said the same long before he did. He said: “You cannot lock up an ideal. ” To me that is one of the finest sentiments, and I want the hon members of the CP who are members of the AWB, to tell Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche that Albert Nothnagel says—that is the fellow he ’phones in the middle of the night, and his people as well, saying all kinds of things to me and my wife, but they can say them if they like—that these two things he said are of tremendous political importance, and I give him many marks for having been able to see them. He said that one could not lock up an ideal. He was talking about the Afrikaner’s political ideal. I want to tell him and other members of the CP that he is 100% on target—one cannot lock up a person’s idealism.

Does that apply to the communists as well?

Yes, you ape!

Oh, please!

The most left-wing radical person in the world cannot be …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Newton Park refer to an hon member of my party as an ape? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Newton Park must withdraw that word.

Mr Chairman, I said: “Yes, you ape!” [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw the word “ape” immediately.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Innesdal may proceed.

Now I want the hon members of the CP to ask Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche whether he means … very well, the two hon members of the CP who are also members of the AWB, might be able to reply to this themselves. They must tell us whether they think one can simply lock up the ideals, aspirations, strivings and desires of a Black man regardless of how radical he is and regardless of how much one might differ with him. I say now one cannot do that. There is no way in the world in which one can lock up a political message behind bars. One can, to be sure, put whoever proclaims that political message behind bars for a while. His fellows can be detained and locked away for a while. Sooner or later, however, one has to deal with the politics those people are engaged in. One has to deal with the South Africa of today. We shall not be able to get away from that, as surely as we are sitting here tonight. [Interjections.] That is why I say I agree 100% with Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche when he says that one cannot lock up idealism. I also say one cannot lock it up. [Interjections.] Let us now note the essence of the political differences between ourselves and the CP.

What about a communistic idealism?

Let us strip this debate totally of all its trivialities and place the political discussion between ourselves and the CP on the right footing.

What about a communistic idealism?

Oh, keep quiet! You are a child! [Interjections.]

We stand for a policy of power-sharing. The CP on the other hand says that power-sharing may not take place under any circumstances. The CP says partition is the solution to the constitutional power struggle, and for that reason, Blacks, Coloureds and Asians must only be granted political rights in areas which have been set aside especially and exclusively for them. In contrast to this the NP says we are talking about one South Africa—naturally it has its separate components, for example the existing Black states, which we are not ignoring—and we talk about one South African citizenship in that one South Africa, as the hon the State President has also put it.

By the way, Mr Chairman, this party I belong to has brought about one of the greatest changes in this country—a change of which I and my hon colleagues are very proud indeed. That was in 1986 when we passed the Restoration of South African Citizenship Act here.

Unbelievable!

I should like to make this observation only. The political party who dares touch that Act and deprive the Blacks of the citizenship that has been restored to them, will have to bear the responsibility for the bloodiest, and I almost want to say, the final and total blood-bath and revolution that this country will experience.

Are you inciting them? [Interjections.]

Let us say it now in very simple language. I know the hon members of the CP after all. The hon member for Barberton and the hon member for Brakpan both hate me, but I still like them.

I don’t hate you; I despise you!

The hon member for Barberton can hate me if he wants to. When he prays at night, he can tell the Lord that he hates Albert Nothnagel. That is his own affair. I have no difficulty with that. [Interjections.]

I did not say I hate you; I despise you!

The hon member can despise me as well if he wants to. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not hate the hon member. Nor do I despise him. He is a very good person, but his party has a contemptible and abhorrent policy.

You are despised by your own people! [Interjections.]

Sir, just listen to the remark the hon member for Brakpan made! He said I was despised by my own people. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Brakpan—my good friend Frank le Roux—on Sunday when he is sitting peacefully in church … Surely he is someone who goes to church regularly.

Oh, leave the church out of it! [Interjections.]

On Sunday when this hon member sits in church, he should merely call to mind his personal thoughts of hate and revenge. If he can live with that, I do not object. I have no difficulty with that. I do not, however, reciprocate the hon member’s feelings. [Interjections.]

You are despicable! [Interjections.]

Dominee Nothnagel! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brakpan must withdraw the word “despicable” immediately. The words “despise” and “despicable” have been used excessively here. I am not going to allow it anymore. The hon member for Innesdal may proceed.

That merely goes to show that I was quite right when I said that I did not hate them, but that they hated me. They said so themselves now, but that is their affair. [Interjections.] Let us forget about that. It is not important who is here. Those of us sitting here, are transitory little people, all that matters is our country. Let us ask ourselves which party’s policy is leading this country to a disaster.

I now state categorically that the political party that tells millions upon millions of Blacks who were born in South Africa that they are not citizens, despite the fact that international law says that a man is a citizen in the land of his birth, is sending this country into a blood-bath. The political party which is so irresponsible as to say that they are going to deprive the Blacks of their citizenship after we have restored it to them as a result of tremendous emotional pressure is preparing the country for a blood-bath.

At the polls I, together with all my colleagues here, will definitely not allow them to plunge our children and their children as well into a bloodbath with such a reckless, senseless and irresponsible policy. [Interjections.] We shall stop them, there is no doubt about that, and so will the voters of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Remember Randfontein!

Order! The hon member for Overvaal has made his last interjection for the evening. That is final. The hon member for Innesdal may proceed.

This tidal wave which the CP is riding at the moment is of short duration. Eventually nine out of ten White voters in my constituency, as well as in the constituencies of all my colleagues, will know that the NP is implementing a responsible policy for South Africa, even though they know we do not have all the answers. They can at least see that we are on the right road.

Many of us on both sides of the House are mountaineers. Here in Cape Town one surely realises it, when one goes mountain climbing, that the most important thing is to reach the summit. Often one is going to go off on a sidetrack and discover that one is heading in the wrong direction. One can come back and start again from the bottom, but one has a purpose and that is to reach the summit, because one knows that it is important. We in the NP want to reach the summit by following the constitutional path and accommodating everyone in South Africa politically.

It is not for me to try and spell out the policy in respect of the constitutional accommodation of the Blacks. All I can say is that in referring to Black political rights, we are not talking of anything less or anything more than political rights in a central Parliament, whatever shape it may take. It is not my job to spell it out or to say on what basis it may be done. It is a long process.

I think that it will nonetheless be a pointless exercise for anyone to try and say here what it is going to look like, because the political history of negotiation—the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development has said this on many occasions—simply does not operate that way. In South Africa, if one states one’s standpoint in advance one is being absolutely paternalistic. If one tells Blacks in advance what it must look like, that would be fatal and wrong, and it simply cannot work.

Let us return for a moment to partition. I want to tell the hon members of the CP something about a little national monument here in the Cape. The hon member for Constantia will be able to help me, though I do think it is situated in the suburb of Constantia. I have on occasion stopped off there with my family. That little monument is the wild almond hedge which Jan van Riebeeck planted and which can also be seen in Kirstenbosch.

That was the first measure which politicians in South Africa adopted to implement partition. From the day Jan van Riebeeck started with that little hedge until the 1975 consolidation proposals of the NP and the Group Areas Act, together with the entire question of open areas or the lack of them, with which we are struggling today, the White rulers of the day have been struggling to implement partition in such a way as to bring about absolute geographic separation. It has never worked. [Interjections.]

This evening I can refer to one war after another in the history of South Africa—war among the Blacks, war with the Hottentots, war between the Boers and the Basutos—all of which concerned land. To say that partition is a constitutional solution is an absolute and complete myth. It has not worked since Van Riebeeck’s time.

Let us just take a look at the examples in present day world politics throughout the world. One can take a look at Cyprus, as well as at almost every single country in which there is conflict over land, and I can tell the CP there is only one way in which one will be able to apply partition in South Africa if one really wants to do so, and that is through the use of force. [Interjections.] There is no other way to apply partition other than by removing people with absolute force. If one does not do it—and I am talking to the hon member for Roodepoort—one is telling the Black citizen, who has been bom here in the Cape, that he has no rights.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he does not consider the establishment of the TBVC countries as being a bloodless form of partition?

I said that we were not quarrelling about what the facts were in South Africa. [Interjections.] No, that is a historical reality. It is interesting, however, that last year the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition quoted President Matanzima here. Allow me merely to remind them that when we came forward with the proposals for the tricameral Parliament, Mr Matanzima was one of the frontrunners among the Black leaders in South Africa who said “whoa, hold on a minute, we do not want this system; we want a federation”.

Just take a look at the meeting the Black leaders of the national states held. The only leader who was not present was President Mangope. All the other leaders were there, including the leaders of the TBVC countries and the national states. What did they say? With that call for a federal South Africa they said that despite their independent or self-governing status, they belonged to South Africa and South Africa belonged to them. Therefore, even after having said that TBVC states exist, everything has to be brought together again, and eventually a constitutional accommodation at central level, legislative and executive, has to be created. The CP will have to follow that same path unless they cherish the idea …

Albert, carry on like that!

I shall; the hon member for Barberton need not worry. In the CP there is only one man who has been representing a constituency longer than I have, and he is the one. All the other hon members in the CP have been representing their constituencies for a much shorter period of time than I have been representing mine. Mr Daan van der Merwe stood there and said that I would never return. I did return, and I shall return again. We are all going to return and we shall have a few extra as well. [Interjections.] They need not worry. Where are Mr Daan van der Merwe and Mr Jan Hoon of Kuruman? They must not pretend that the world and the country belong to them.

I want to conclude by saying that firstly, I have no doubt in my mind that the CP knows that they are lying to the voters as far as partition is concerned, because they know that the tales about partition …

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The hon member says the CP knows that they are lying to the voters. [Interjections.] Sir, I am addressing you …

It is true and you know it.

Now there is another hon member who is saying that it is true and I know it. I ask you to give a ruling on those two statements. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, I withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I am addressing you and that hon member for Kuruman is commenting from his seat. What is becoming of the rules of this House? [Interjections.] I am addressing you on a point of order, while these hon members are addressing me.

Order! There is an hon member here who said that the hon member for Brakpan knew that it was true. Who said that?

I said it.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it. By implication he said that the hon member for Brakpan was not telling the truth.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I am about to conclude.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order…

I withdraw it.

Do you withdraw it?

Yes. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to conclude by saying that the human realities in South Africa are such …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask the hon Whips of the NP to give the hon member a little bit of extra time in order to complete his speech to the benefit of the CP?

Order! The rules of the House do not permit that. [Interjections.]

I merely want to say that we as the governing party are struggling in all respects in South Africa with land issues, the use of facilities, and the economic and financial realities. We are struggling with problems which no political party in South Africa can deal with at the drop of a hat.

The most important thing of all is that we on this side of the House are inspired by an absolute idealism—an idealism to build a new South Africa in which there is room for every single citizen with rights, privileges and opportunities; in which every human being can in his group context, or in whatever way he wants to, retain his identity as a human being and express his cultural identity; one in which we should like to enable the best in every human being to emerge, with the maximum possible measure of freedom.

Therefore, on the occasion of this debate, we thank the hon the Minister of Finance for a Budget which creates the maximum possible opportunities for South Africa’s people in the financial and economic spheres. We thank the hon the Minister for the struggle which he is waging to uplift South Africa’s masses from poverty and to build on a South Africa in such a way that we can give the best to everyone … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to address you on what happened during the speech just made by the hon member for Innesdal. An hon member of the CP said that the hon member for Innesdal was a ventriloquist for the ANC, and the hon member for Stilfontein raised a point of order on that. Your ruling was that the hon member for Innesdal could proceed with his speech and therefore you ruled that it was in order. I have reflected on this, and I feel that it is improper, unbecoming and unparliamentary and I ask for your ruling on it. [Interjections.]

Order! When I gave that ruling I was not aware of the fact that the ventriloquism was linked to the ANC. Which hon member made the remark?

Mr Chairman, I did not make the remark, but I heard the remark being made. When the hon member for Stilfontein raised his point of order he said that he raised it because an hon member on this side of the House said that the hon member for Innesdal was a mouthpiece (spreekbuis) of the ANC. [Interjections.] I then merely set the hon member for Stilfontein straight and said: “No, not a mouthpiece (spreekbuis); a ventriloquist (buikspreker).”

Order! I want to reopen the point of order raised by the hon member for Stilfontein. Will the hon member tell me who made that remark?

Mr Chairman, I did not hear which hon member of the CP made it. I think it was the hon member for Potgietersrus, but he is not here now. However, someone did say it very clearly. I made a mistake by saying “a mouthpiece”, but I corrected myself immediately. [Interjections.] Hon members must just give me a chance. I corrected myself immediately and said: “Not a mouthpiece,” since the hon member for Heilbron helped me and I said: “He said he was a ventriloquist for the ANC.” That was the point of order I raised.

Order! The hon member for Potgietersrus is apparently not in the House at the moment. I shall keep this point of order in abeyance and give a ruling in this regard in due course.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: While the hon member for Innesdal was speaking you asked the hon member for Kuruman to withdraw what he supposedly said, namely that the CP was telling a lie. With that however, the hon member did presume that a party was telling a lie. I want to say that that is not unparliamentary.

Order! No, the hon member for Kuruman said: “You know that.” He said that by implication in respect of a member of the CP. On those grounds I caused the statement to be withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, it is always interesting and often refreshing to listen to the hon member for Innesdal—if for no other reason than that he does attempt to tackle some of the real issues facing this country and does not spend all his time either on petty party-political points or simply dealing with personalities. I would like to come back in a moment to one or two of the remarks that he made.

Firstly, I would like to refer to some remarks made by the hon member for Turffontein this afternoon and the hon member for Germiston District this evening complaining about the extreme language and the racist terminology allegedly used by CP members and supporters as well as those of the AWB in one case. The hon member for Turffontein referred to the recent by-election when AWB people said: “Kafferboeties this way—Afrikaners vote for the CP.” This is nothing new to us in the PFP who have fought against the NP for many years.

I want to mention two specific examples that I know of that occurred during the election last year. In Parktown the NP people said: “Voters for the ANC that side—for the NP this side.” In Cape Town Gardens we had workers and supporters of the NP saying to voters as they entered: “If you are in favour of necklacing vote for the PFP.” That was the sort of behaviour that we experienced.

I can understand and agree with the condemnation that the hon member for Germiston District expressed in respect of certain aspects of racial hatred in a particular incident and which are sometimes evident in political spheres as well. I cannot, however, share his surprise. The racial hatred that has been bred among many Whites in this country is a completely logical result of 40 years of NP racist ideology, and I cannot understand why the hon member is surprised. [Interjections.] I would like to ask him and all the hon members of the NP, when we discuss the group areas Act, when we go out to canvass and talk about Group Areas, what kind of terminology and non-racial concepts do they put across to the voters when they talk about the Group Areas Act and possibly changing it? [Interjections.]

That brings me back to the hon member for Innesdal and something that he said which I think is very valid. He made the point that if one has to say repeatedly what one is, the chances are that that is not what one is. He pointed out that he does not have to go around explaining that he is an Afrikaner. He also pointed out, for example, that the hon member Mrs Chait does not have to go around explaining that she is a Jewess. We know it, she is entitled to it and she is entitled to be proud of it as well. I can say that of many communities in South Africa, whether they are Portuguese-speaking South Africans, Muslims in South Africa etc.

What I want to ask the hon member and his colleagues on those benches is the following. Do the hon member Mrs Chait, the Portuguesespeaking South Africans and the Muslims need separate groups areas to retain their identity, their religions and their distinctive cultures? Is there a Jewish or a Portuguese group area in South Africa? Are there Government provided Jewish schools, Muslim schools and Portuguese schools? We know that these do not exist and I think that is what the NP should be thinking about while we are examining these matters.

In respect of the debate on the Budget this evening I wish to address myself to aspects of Black education and specifically to the hon the Minister of Finance in this regard. We know that over a number of years there have been rapid increases in expenditure in Black education. We also know, of course, that there have been rapid increases in the pupil numbers in Black education.

However, I think we must recognise the challenges that still face us. For instance, one hon Minister told us last month that there were more than one million Black children of schoolgoing age who were not attending school at present. To put that into perspective one must realise that the one million Black children who should be at school but who are not even there are more than the total number of White children at school in South Africa.

The challenges therefore remain enormous. The question is what our priorities are and whether we are making adequate progress. Unfortunately, this Budget represents a turning point for Black education, a turning point of which I believe this hon the Minister of Finance, in particular, should be ashamed.

For many years we have been told that the biggest problem in Black education is a shortage of qualified teachers, something that could not be changed overnight. That is taking the NP’s perspective and ignoring the problems of a segregated education system. We were always told that the biggest problem was the shortage of qualified teachers. Now that has changed. For the first time in decades a shortage of money, rather than qualified teachers, is the biggest problem in Black education. Black schools are now suffering under a double burden of coping with apartheid education and insufficient funds to employ the available qualified teachers, this despite the very large class sizes. In 1986 the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid said the following in the publication Education for a Nation issued by his department:

This year 905 suitably qualified black teachers have been turned away after applying for posts at Black schools because, according to the hon Minister, there is a lack of “suitable vacancies”. Of those, 465 teachers were primary school teachers and 440 were secondary school teachers. This is a tragedy. It is also a disgrace. I believe it is the height of irresponsibility to turn away qualified teachers who, in practice, are desperately needed to reduce class sizes and raise standards in Black schools.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Education was quoted in a Sunday Times article on 9 February 1986 as having made the following point:

Does the hon the Minister of Finance take that point seriously? I have always accepted that one cannot turn the supply of teachers on and off like a tap. It is madness to discard precious assets such as qualified Black teachers simply because adequate funds are not being made available.

The hon the Minister of Finance has stressed the shortage of funds to meet needs in our country, such as education and other things. The hon the State President has promised equal education for all. What is left unsaid, however, is that all this is subject to racial discrimination and apartheid in education.

The question we have to ask in respect of the hon the Minister’s shortage of funds is whether we are using all available resources to best effect. Teacher training colleges are a classic example of wasted resources. This year, 1988, there are 8 767 Black students and 8 624 White students at teacher training colleges. Thousands of Black and White applicants were turned away, however, although there are empty spaces at White teacher training colleges.

In an interview with The Argus in 1984 when the hon the Minister of Finance was the Minister in charge of Black education, he said that opening White teacher training colleges would not make any significant contribution even if they were shared. Today there are 4 276 empty places at those White colleges. Simply to admit Black student teachers to take up empty places at White teacher training colleges would immediately increase the number of Black student teachers at colleges by 49% and involve minimal expenditure. Does the hon the Minister not regard that as a significant contribution?

The hon the Minister should be ashamed of the wastage of scarce resources and the inadequate finance for Black education. He should heed his own words. In The Argus of 15 June 1984 he was asked what exactly his long term plan for Black education was. His reply was: “A good relationship with the Minister of Finance.” He is the Minister of Finance now, and he should try to develop a good relationship with the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid.

The hon the Minister must accept that the Government will not be believed when it claims to believe in equal education for all, if it continues to put apartheid before education and now refuses to provide sufficient funds to alleviate the most critical backlogs in Black education.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens will forgive me if I do not respond to the main subject matter of his speech, which is not one of my fields of expertise. [Interjections.] However, I would like to say that although it does not amount to a group area I have a very strong Portuguese community in my constituency in the suburb of La Rochelle.

I would like to return to the topic of the Government's fight against inflation.

Do you want a group area for them?

No, certainly not. They are perfectly happy as they are. [Interjections.] They are a very strong community.

I would like to devote my speech this evening to the Government’s fight against inflation, which is a major component of the economic reform package which has been the keynote of this parliamentary session. A number of speakers in this House, besides myself, have referred to the necessity of combating inflation. In fact, I have been promised a response by the hon member for Soutpansberg on my accusation that the CP is soft on inflation, but I am still waiting for that response. To date nobody in that party has tackled the subject of inflation and the CP’s attitude towards it in this debate.

We cannot underestimate the damage that a high inflation rate does to the quality of life in this country. Every housewife is aware of it every time she goes to the supermarket. That is why the fact that the hon the State President has stepped into this arena is so much to be welcomed. I can assure him that every housewife in South Africa is on his side when he urges price restraint as part of the fight against inflation. Contrary to what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says, the fact that the hon the State President has got involved in consumer protection and fighting for the consumer contradicts what the hon leader said earlier, namely that the Government is not close to the man in the street.

The hon the State President has urged the private sector to follow the Government’s example and apply a policy of wage and salary restraint. The flip side of that coin is price restraint and a sound competition policy. The State President’s Economic Advisory Council has recommended that this policy of wage restraint coupled with price restraint should be seen as an adjunct to the policies of monetary and fiscal discipline, for the purpose of trying to attain the goal of bringing the inflation rate down to about 9% in two years’ time, in other words 1990.

The hon the State President has appealed to the private sector not to put up prices in order to be able to increase salaries. The hon the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech echoed this appeal to break the never-ending spiral of interaction between price increases chasing salary increases. They have both stated that price control is not acceptable, and so, too, has the State President’s Economic Advisory Council. However, the Economic Advisory Council has suggested that a mechanism be created to assist the consumer to discriminate between justifiable and unjustifiable price increases, and to take action against the latter. Their suggestion has been a restructured Consumer Council which could then be more effectively used by consumers as the avenue for dealing with unjustifiable price pikes. The consumer should be able to direct complaints about prices to the Consumer Council which would then be in a position to undertake investigations into these complaints. The Consumer Council should also be able to act in concert with the Competition Board for the purpose of pursuing the most flagrant offenders.

Very important is that the Economic Advisory Council has also recommended that there should be close liaison with the media by the Consumer Council and the Competition Board so that the public will be kept fully informed as to the results of their investigations; this is to say that if price hikes are justified the public will be told the reason for it. On the other hand, those guilty of unjustifiable price hikes will be exposed in the media by the Consumer Council. In this way the private sector will learn to respect these two bodies, especially if an example is made of one or two offenders.

All these suggestions seem very sensible and are very much in line with earlier recommendations of the President’s Council which some years ago called for a more dynamic Consumer Council which could handle consumer complaints more effectively. The President’s Council’s recommendations included more funds for the Consumer Council in order to pay for more publications and programmes by the council in all the media, and to encourage public awareness about prices. At the moment the budget of the Consumer Council is only some R2 million which really is not very much when one thinks of the kind of job they have to do. There should be more consumer information generally on the basis that better information encourages competition or, put in another way, information inhibits exploitation. There should be more decentralisation of the Consumer Council’s functions in order to reach more consumers. There should also be reinforcement of the Consumer Council to enable it to give professional advice to aggrieved customers. They should also be in a position to more effectively monitor abuses and co-ordinate public opinion and action against these abuses. This may entail the possibility of statutory protection for the Consumer Council which may well have to be considered.

The hon the State President has also stated that this body, the Consumer Council, must be strengthened as public watchdog on prices and consumer exploitation, and that the Competition Board should be strengthened as the public watchdog on price-fixing, cartels, resale price maintenance and the like. The hon the Minister of Finance has added that a more price-conscious Consumer Council will be a futile exercise if the public is not more price-sensitive. I fully agree. This new emphasis on price-consciousness opens up new possibilities for the public’s participation in the economic reform programme. I think this is where women particularly can play a role and join the assault on the rate of inflation. After all, women control 80% of a family’s spending, according to the Consumer Council. There is a lot of truth in that bumper-sticker which was given to me by my children which says “Born to shop”! The Consumer Council is virtually the only statutory body on which women are well-represented with seven out of the 16 members. I think women should really get behind the Consumer Council in this new role given to it by the hon the State President. I would also like to submit that more women should be appointed to the Consumer Council because I feel, and in fact evidence shows, that consumerism is effective where more women are involved. There should be broader representation on this body and, as I have said, it should be strengthened.

The women of South Africa are sick of pricefixing. How many times have women shoppers in my constituency complained to me about it and I have so often had the experience myself. The other day when I was pricing duvet covers for my son’s student digs, there were three different brands and they were all exactly the same price for the same article. So much for sham competition. There are so many other examples which I am sure all my female colleagues here could mention at the drop of a hat.

Although the inflation rate is coming down satisfactorily food prices still continue to rise. As we know, food accounts for some 23% of the consumer price index. According to a recent newspaper article there is even disagreement among those who should know as to why food prices continue to rise. The present chairman of the Consumer Council, Prof Leon Weyers, is quoted as blaming it on the floods, while the chief executive of Pick ’n Pay, Mr Raymond Ackerman, is quoted as blaming food suppliers to retail outlets, accusing the food suppliers of collusion. This is a hopeless situation. It is time for a better information organisation, clearer communication and better co-operation and co-ordination among those who are fighting high prices so that they can present a united front. It is time that the women of South Africa became more actively price-conscious and worked in close co-operation with the Consumer Council and their other allies against high prices.

In conclusion, the hon the Minister of Finance told us in his Budget Speech that legislation to make the Consumer Council and the Competition Board more effective was already being considered. I would like to urge the hon the Minister that this be proceeded with as soon as possible. I also urge the shoppers of South Africa—most of whom are women—to get behind this effort.

Order! Before I give the hon member for Witbank the floor, I want to return to events earlier this evening.

There are unconfirmed allegations about the hon member for Potgietersrus having told the hon member for Innesdal that he was a ventriloquist for the ANC. The hon member must confirm or deny this.

Mr Chairman, I confirm it.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that allegation.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Apologise too.

Are you the Chairman? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, before I proceed, I should really like to tell the hon member for Germiston District that I also know the Lydenburgers and that the two biggest racists I know in Lydenburg are not in the right-wing parties but, in fact, in the left-wing NP.

I still remember well that morning in 1948 when the NP came to power, and during the past 40 years of NP rule I have never seen so much despondency in their ranks as in the past few weeks. I have never witnessed such a tirade against the leadership of the party as the one that is taking place now. I have never read such admonitions by their own Press as those which have appeared in their newspapers over the past few days. Not even when the United Party had reached its lowest point did their Press criticise them so severely. It is altogether as if the Press wishes to lay down the law to politicians.

In Die Vaderland—that is their newspaper—of 31 March Voorslag writes the following:

Voorslag mentions four issues which he considers important. He says:

He admits that they are in a checkmate position. If they move to the left they will have to make concessions to the right, and if they move to the right they will have to make concessions to the left. The hon member for False Bay has just said that they will have to battle for approximately 30 years to find a viable alternative.

That is an absolute untruth.

Order! I have just made a request for order, and I expect to get it.

Voorslag continues:

It is not we who are saying this, but the NP newspapers. From 1982 to 1986 taxes have risen by 137,8%, whilst individual incomes have risen by 79,1%.

What sort of taxes?

The NP newspapers say:

There is a growing tide of immorality in South Africa, and I should like to record this in Hansard. The Government no longer has the will to govern and is permitting evil influences, like little foxes, to spoil the vines of our national life.

The fourth point which Voorslag mentions, is:

Do hon members expect food prices to remain constant after Pick ’n Pay have awarded their workers a 22% increase? [Interjections.]

Order!

Voorslag’s conclusion is that the NP will be consumed if it does not pull itself together.

In Rapport of 10 April 1988 the author Albert Crafford passes comment. He appeals to the Nats not to become despondent. He says that certain laws which previously protected the Whites are already a thing of the past and that the political heavens have not fallen. Sir, those political heavens of the NP are in the process of tumbling down. Shortly we shall note that there will no longer even be a heaven for them. He asks which way they intend moving now; whether they intend moving forwards or backwards, or whether they do not intend to budge a single inch. He says there is a paralysing tendency to look backwards and urges them rather to hope than to despair, rather to press on than to stand still. That is what is taking place at the moment in the NP, Mr Chairman. There is despair in their ranks, and their newspapers admit this.

The following also appears in the leading article of the same edition of Rapport:

Duidelik sal die party net nie op die huidige trant kan voortgaan nie. Heelparty ondersteuners is verward oor die pad vorentoe.

It is no wonder they are confused, because the path ahead is not the path of the old NP; it is an unfamiliar path they are treading. It is not the path which the hon the State President mapped out in October 1979. Listen to what the hon the State President said in October 1979:

That is plain language, about which there can be no confusion. That was the correct language, but now there is a language of confusion, which the Government itself has created.

What took the cake, however, was “Lood se praatjies” in Beeld of 31 March 1988. He said that after Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton some people were unhealthily pessimistic and that Randfontein had changed many things for good. Lood wrote in the newspaper that old certainties had fallen away and that no political party could lay claim to a sort of eternal life on earth. The NP … [Interjections.]

Order! I appreciate the fact that hon members are thoroughly enjoying the evening, but we cannot interrupt the hon member for Witbank’s speech to such an extent that he cannot continue.

It is his accent!

Order! I did not ask for any comment on my ruling.

Well done, Wynie! Go for them, Wynie!

It does not bother me, Sir. They can make a noise if they wish; the children in my church also used to make a racket just like them. [Interjections.] Fortunately, the adults in my church always kept quiet. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow the hon member for Witbank to permit this congregation to act in this fashion … [Interjections.] … specifically the children in this congregation. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, may I ask the hon member a question? [Interjections.]

I do not have time for a question, Sir.

The growing charge-sheet against the NP is growing ever longer. One thing is crystal clear. The uncertainty among Whites about future politics has been hopelessly underestimated. Just take the group areas.

Order! No, that is quite enough. This House must immediately come to order. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, just take the group areas. The Whites no longer know where to go in so far as group areas are concerned. In Witbank today, for example, there are Blacks who have moved into White areas and we have once again had to battle to get them out.

Just take influx control. These things are simply happening and no one is doing anything to stop them. Just take the central business areas. We do not know where the Government is taking us. Lood goes on to philosophise in an NP newspaper by saying:

A few years ago we heard that there was to be a streamlining of the State administration. However, the opposite is true. Today the machinery is simply that much heavier. For example, during the past year inflation was responsible for 46,8% of the problems affecting the farmers. 31,4% of their problems were attributable to the interest they had to pay whilst the drought caused only 21,8% of their problems. That applies to the period between 1980 and 1985.

Lood talks about shrinking salaries. Everything is going up and the salaries of public servants are decreasing proportionately. That brings me to the SABC. Why is Mr Riaan Eksteen suddenly being singled out, and will he possibly have to vacate his post? Is there not perhaps a race for the State Presidency in progress? Must the members of the club of 22 whom the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs have gathered around him, not be eliminated one by one? Lood says he has cleared his throat. I wonder how matters will stand when he begins to cough, or perhaps even contracts bronchitis. That, of course, is sure to happen, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

The dreams about every by-election, says Lood, always predict the best administration of all time. When the results emerge, says Lood, they are the poorest results of all time. The NP must be careful not to organise itself out of power. Lood says that the success of the right-wing elements is a national problem. He also says it is a welcome development. He talks about the Free State and the Cape, which are also feeling the winds of change. He concludes as follows:

I also want to ask whether the Government is serious about privatisation.

Yes!

Of course, it is easy to talk about privatisation; however, it is difficult to implement it. Our property will probably sold off piece by piece so that the shock will not suddenly be too great for us.

Can we not privatise you as well? [Interjections.]

It would appear that privatisation is being introduced by the Government in such a way that the foreign companies may possibly also derive the benefit of it. We have heard from the hon the Minister that a portion of the proceeds of privatisation or of the sale of our assets will go towards Black education. Once everything has been sold off and Black education demands even more, what then? Where will we find the money then to meet their further demands?

Order! The hon member for Germiston District may not read a newspaper in the House.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this matter?

Order! The hon member must put away that newspaper.

Mr Chairman, it is not a newspaper. It is the Patriot. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must put that newspaper away.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I just want to draw your attention to the fact that I think the hon member for Germiston District is poking fun at the Chair. [Interjections.]

Order! Newspapers are not to be read in the House. The hon member for Witbank may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I should now like to say just a few more words about the elections in October. I read in the newspapers that the squatters are also to receive the franchise. [Interjections.] Yes, after all, the Government is so fond of drawing a distinction between legal and illegal squatters. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now the illegal squatters will apparently also be able to vote. They need only have an identity document, or alternatively someone in possession of an identity document need only confirm that he knows the squatter in question. They must also …

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

No, Sir, I do not have much time. Sorry.

I just want to know to which newspaper the hon member is referring. [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon member does not wish to reply to a question.

Mr Chairman, that much I can tell the hon member. I am referring to the Citizen. That is, of course, one of the NP’s newspapers. [Interjections.] Why should they try to pull the wool over our eyes? After all, we know that the squatters are going to be our greatest problem in future. [Interjections.] The NP is on the way out. It is not the CP that says so. Their own newspapers are saying that there is danger; that the NP will shortly be eliminated. May that day dawn quickly! Then South Africa will rejoice once again! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is difficult to follow the hon member for Witbank. All he basically did was to quote from newspapers and in that way wanted to criticise the NP, the Government of the day. I should also like to start my contribution this evening with a quotation from a newspaper because all afternoon it has been the policy of that side of the House to page through newspaper cuttings about the NP. I shall quote from Die Burger of 10 February 1988:

I want to discuss these matters this evening by taking hon members back to the 1987 election. If I quote examples here, it was the CP candidate who confirmed them as his election standpoint. By doing this, I think he lifted the veil from the CP policy of partition for us. He took it further and informed his party leadership in those districts of the Cradock constituency of his approach to handling farm labour.

I really want to start by saying I think the CP is referring to a White Utopia, consisting of partition, and I should like to know in the first place where that area with a preponderantly White occupation is situated. I looked up all these aspects in the CP guidelines. Where do we find maximum settlement within own areas without large-scale relocation of people? Where will we have White preferential labour areas? How can we afford lower taxation and maintain a higher standard of living, even without relying on our coloured labour, when we want to move large numbers of people? How will we bring about a lower charge on the taxpayer if we want to introduce 13 different parliaments in this country? They also say in their analysis that scope can be provided for an overall structure of authority; in other words, a fourteenth body. In reality this will all have to be served by a Public Service for every government.

In the second place, I want to ask how it is possible to proclaim a policy that wealth is not going to be divided if they come forward with a constitutional dispensation which has to make provision for the artificial relocation of people. The hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation referred earlier in the session to the fact that 5 500 people would have to be removed daily over a period of 12 to 15 years if we wanted to accomplish a majority occupation in South Africa by the end of the century. [Interjections.]

The next thing they say is that they will grant increased pensions. They are supposedly going to bestow social benefits. With whose money will they accomplish this?

They say they will expand decentralisation; the present Government grants R600 million per annum towards this. They intend expanding this. They intend introducing computer services and express transport. At what cost are they going to do this?

Let us go further. They say they are going to give greater assistance in the form of subsidies. This will most probably be given to agriculture. They will be furnishing assistance which is not economically justified.

They say they are going to relocate people, and if they start moving people, there has to be greater Government intervention. Consequently stricter control and regulatory arrangements will have to be made. People will have to be appointed and they will have to be paid. I therefore ask whether this is not also a division of wealth. Is somebody not paying for the selfishness of the Whites because this will only be to the benefit of the Whites? I am telling hon members this is a selfish approach which simply ensures that White Afrikaner interests will be protected.

I want to suggest that the Official Opposition go ahead and appoint a group of planners and consultants to provide them with an estimate of what their policy will cost South Africa in future. If they do this and they spell it out, I do not believe they will get the support they got in the recent by-elections.

In addition they are very careful about defining their boundaries. They will hear what is coming. Why are they careful about defining their boundaries? They realise, when they start defining these boundaries—I am involved with consolidation and therefore know about this—what trauma this causes people who have to be relocated. They know that those people will not simply accept what they are prescribing to them. They know this involves a large-scale relocation of people. They know they cannot spell out a Coloured and Indian homeland. The hon members for Swellendam and False Bay spelt out very clearly where the Coloured heartland was going to be but the CP cannot tell the rest of South Africa it is going to do this because provision has not, for example, been made for a heartland for the Coloureds in the Eastern Cape. What are we to do with established Coloureds and Indians in the Eastern Cape? They must therefore either move or vote in the Western Cape.

The CP wants to set aside the tricameral Parliament and draw a line through it. There is no room for the English-speaking person in that party’s pattern of thinking, unless he associates himself with the aspirations of the Afrikaner people, as seen by the CP.

I am now prepared to spell out what the CP is going to do with the Whites of the Eastern Cape. They have a choice. On the one hand there is the linkage policy and on the other the “Volkstaat” or the “Boerestaat”. I should like to discuss the “Boerestaat” concept first.

Business Day carried a report according to which a certain Mr Robert van Tonder, the chairman of the “Boerestaatbeweging”, said:

Consequently the idea is acceptable to them. Let us therefore deal with it first.

Anything which can only vote for them. [Interjections.]

There is only one possibility in the Eastern Cape. There is no room for a “Boerestaat” in the Cape Province unless the people of the Cape identify such an area and ask for it. The English-speaking person will not be welcome there unless he associate themselves with the Afrikaner viewpoint. We must remember that the Eastern Cape has a strong English component. Perhaps they foresee a homeland for English-speaking people in the Eastern Cape and Natal. Perhaps we should ask our Natal colleagues to join forces with us. [Interjections.] We are telling the Whites in the Eastern Cape they will have to work out their own salvation.

I now come to the crux of the policy, namely the linkage policy. Do hon members know how this linkage policy is going to work? It worried me a great deal when I heard this for the first time.

Every Black town is going to be linked to Ciskei or Transkei and is going to be under the control of those states. I have great sympathy for the farmers who have had to deal with the so-called Black spots over the years, but if this applies, I maintain we shall have an international incident every time we enter that township. I maintain it is not feasible. The only direction in which one can move is to attempt to achieve majority occupation, and it is ridiculous to adapt that point of departure. Coloured and Indian residential areas will have to be linked to Swellendam and False Bay too.

And Witbank?

I do not wish to elaborate on the Transvaal, because I am not very well acquainted with it but there is no heartland. I say that the CP is drawing new boundaries with the stroke of a pen. They are removing these people from the system by saying that these residential areas form part of Ciskei and Transkei. Then we tell one another we have majority occupation— this is the first step—but let us consider the absurdity of the next step. This comes from the mouth of the party leaders of the CP. The next step is to remove all farm labourers to Black townships. In this way we achieve majority occupation. I, who am a dairy farmer, asked this gentleman what I should do about my employees who have to be on duty at five o’clock in the morning. He then told me they could travel by bus, to which I replied “Splendid”.

Bullet train! [Interjections.]

There cannot be trains everywhere, Sir. That is impossible. [Interjections.]

I had only one question to ask them. Suppose a fire were to break out in one’s grassland. Who would put out that fire? Pardon the word but the reply was: “If there is no kaffir, there will be no fire.” I then wanted to know what would happen if lightning set the grass alight. He replied: “Then I shall ask my neighbours to help me.” I had to laugh at him.

This is how absurd the policy to achieve a majority occupation by Whites in any part of this country is. In this process, employment and accommodation problems are forgotten. Let us say that on farms in this country there are 500 000 heads of families who have to be relocated. We build houses costing R20 000 per unit. It then costs the Government R12 billion to relocate these farmworkers. In addition, we have to pay a rand a day for transport to and from work. It therefore costs somebody, either the farmer or the consumer, R1,3 million a day. And then we say we are not going to divide wealth! I want to know how this policy can be reconciled with tax relief. How can it be reconciled with the nondivision of wealth? How can it be reconciled with actual majority occupation and how can it be reconciled with taxation for Whites only? Somebody has to pay.

I therefore take great pleasure in supporting the hon the Minister in this Second Reading because, together with the hon the State President’s opening address to Parliament, he has clearly spelt out economic reform to us. Discipline, a means of monitoring Government expenditure as well as effective management, are built into this Budget speech.

Let us admit to one another today that it will be to the advantage of South Africa that it is experiencing such difficult times at present because at least management will improve in this country. This will ensure greater participation because we are going to deregulate and privatise. It is going to give the informal sector more opportunities, as is the case with the private sector, and this will also offer more employment opportunities. Public debt will be reduced and I therefore support these steps because we are going to broaden our tax base, and lower our rates and bring about greater prosperity in this country. I take pleasure in supporting the Appropriation Bill.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to follow the hon member for Cradock. I would like to make a remark or two concerning what the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North said about the violence in Pietermaritzburg. I think we in these benches can go along with the praise that he offered to the SA Police for bringing peace in that area. We would like to add to that a measure of praise to the SA Defence Force who were also involved in bringing about peace in that area. We agree with the hon member that the people there want peace and harmony and that they do not want violence and chaos.

Having said that, I must also point out that there are particular problems that are obviously associated with bringing about peace in the Pietermaritzburg area. These we have taken up in writing with the hon the Minister of Law and Order. We have similarly taken up with him incidents of political violence that have taken place outside the Pietermaritzburg area, and here again we can associate ourselves with the remarks that the hon member made concerning the deaths reported today in a grenade attack in Mpumalanga. Included in our correspondence with the hon the Minister of Law and Order are the killings that have occurred in the Clermont area, in Kwadlangezwa, in Mpumalanga, the killing of two members of the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly and the killing of two members of the Clermont Advisory Board. We are very concerned that the violence of Pietermaritzburg which has now ended should not spread to the rest of Natal, and we will certainly do everything in our power to make sure that it does not spread to the rest of Natal.

I would like now to turn to the Budget itself, particularly looking at the funding of education. I think quite honestly—the hon member for Cape Town Gardens also put it this way—that we are at a turning point. It will be very difficult to ensure that we get out of the maze of education funding with some semblance of understanding.

The total amount allocated to education this year is R9,9 billion—a 15% increase on last year. This amount encompasses first of all National Education which has a decrease of 6,6% which was largely brought about by departmental shifts. I do not want to argue about that. It also encompasses Education and Training which shows an increase of 10,3%, the House of Assembly with a 12% increase, the House of Representatives with a 10% increase and the House of Delegates with a 14% increase. All of this adds up to just over R7 billion. In addition, the amount for education in the self-governing states under the Vote “Development Aid” is R1,5 billion which gives one a total of R8,6 billion. The remaining R1,250 billion is not identifiable in the Budget itself as being spent on education. I have no doubt that it is bound up with the budgetary aid to the TBVC countries for education and also for the improvement of conditions of service. Incidentally, in this regard, I would like to ask the hon the Minister of Finance when he presents his Budget next year to make at least some explanatory statement regarding the overall spending on education.

The purpose of this background information is to raise one or two matters on education funding with the hon the Minister. Firstly, is it still the policy of this Government to try to attain education spending equality over a 10-year period? On the understanding that this is the case—the hon the Minister of National Education said so—is the Government also committed to a 4,1% real annual growth in education spending? This was also spelt out by the hon the Minister of National Education.

How does the 15% increase between last year and this year represent such a real increase particularly when the inflation rate—this was mentioned in the hon the Minister’s own speech—stands at 14,2%? Where exactly do we stand with regard to what one Minister is saying about education spending and what another Minister is doing?

Unless and until we have a full public debate on education spending with the knowledge of the formula, its applicability and the desired outcome after 10 years, we must continue to question this Government’s intention to equalise education spending. That is the theory; let us look at the reality.

The total number of White pupils in the RSA is 950 000. The average per capita expenditure—I know it is a terribly blunt figure—is R2 508 per capita. When we look at the figures for Black pupils I want to mention that there were about 773 000 Black pupils in Sub A last year. This means that 80% of all White pupils were represented by the Black pupils in that one standard last year.

The total number of Black pupils in the country is 4,6 million and within a year or two I do not doubt there will be more Black pupils in their first year of schooling than the total number of White pupils. Their per capita expenditure is R560.

Then we have to look to projections, and a most daunting prospect emerges. By the year 2000, which is not far away, White pupil numbers will have decreased further. Everybody agrees with this. It is projected that Black pupil numbers will have increased by about 3 million. By the year 2020 Black pupil numbers will be double the number of all pupils this year. Of course, one must note that more than one million Black children, who are not at school presently even though they are between the ages of 7 and 16, will hopefully be at school by the year 2000.

What are the financial implications, not only for this hon Minister and the Government, but for the country as a whole? If these population growth figures plus a movement to common teachers’ supply and qualifications are applied, Syncom, a private company that looks to projections, considers that education spending would have reached R28 billion in the real rand terms of 1986 by the year 2000. It is suggested that this will represent an increase of from 4,5% of GNP to 18,1% which is double the figure for the UK.

Syncom suggests that this is not possible, and I agree. I do not think we can accept that that kind of money will be available for education. What this Government is obviously doing—at least, I hope it is obviously doing it—is to look at ways and means of finding other avenues for funding education.

Firstly, the question arises as to tuition fees, not only in White departments, but tuition fees in general. Five years ago the Transvaal Education Department passed an ordinance allowing them to impose tuition fees. It has never been used. No doubt that was a political decision. However, these fees will have to be introduced. Who will pay them? Will it be White parents only? Will there be a means test? When will we talk about this? I quote the hon Minister of National Education, now the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, from Hansard, 9 February 1982, column 569:

He goes on to talk about consulting with the Indian, Black and Coloured departments as well. This was six years ago! We believe tuition fees have got to come. When are they going to be introduced? What is the department planning for?

Secondly, what about the tax deductibility of donations to schools, colleges and tertiary institutions? The Margo Commission’s White Paper touches on the matter but, again, there appears to be a delay a prevarication. I quote from page 24:

Thirdly, what about privatisation? The President’s Council recommends that State schools be privatised. The BP Oil Company has offered millions of rand to take over existing State schools provided they are open to all races but what is actually happening? Is the issue presently being discussed in the Cabinet? Is there debate in the NP?

There are a number of other points that we could offer on education funding, but we believe that it is important for the NP to be open. They must face up to reality and either ignore or fight the radical right with its confrontational style and demands that Whites be protected permanently from the reality of being in a country with 30 million people.

We must also accept that the tendentious mouthings of the revolutionary left and especially Marxist academics who do not have answers which accept economic reality, also have to be ignored. We must publicly—in conferences and in Parliament—debate this issue so that our children can live, work and run this country together.

Mr Chairman, it is very interesting to hear that the hon member for Pinetown realises that the realities we have to deal with in South Africa in respect of the enormous number of Black pupils who will ultimately find their way into education means that one is not always really able to achieve the ideals one would like to strive for.

We shall have to sit down and think in what way we shall be able to tackle those problems in future because it is very clear that we cannot forget either that these people are the manpower of the future and that we can no longer rely on drawing skilled manpower solely from the White sector in future. We must realise that we shall soon be forced to look to other sources.

While the rest of the subject I want to discuss actually deals with women, I wish to say at this stage that women should also perhaps be accorded greater appreciation in the labour market and far more quickly, but this is purely an interim measure. We shall have to pay attention very rapidly to the development of Black and Indian manpower and to that of all other groups in our country but within the realities made possible by our finances. I now want to revert to the subject I wish to discuss.

†I would like to say the following about taxes. If the taxpayer is alive, he is kicking. Perhaps the hon the Minister of Finance should always keep that universal truth in mind. It may also help to understand what I wish to put forward tonight. At the same time we, the taxpayers, should keep the following in mind. Like a lot of other things taxation is based on supply and demand. The Government demands, and we supply.

I want to touch on a subject well-canvassed in the past, namely the joint taxation of married couples. Firstly, I wish to thank the hon the Minister of Finance for the relief phased in over the past two to three years during which women have been allowed to deduct a certain percentage—in the past year it was 22,5%—of their income for tax purposes. The Budget under discussion has brought a further development, and that is the final deduction system, which will bring great relief to working married women earning up to R20 000 per year. For this gesture the women of South Africa should be very grateful to the authorities. I am quite sure that the approximately 83% of the women who will benefit from this are certainly grateful.

*This is precisely where the problem once again arises. In this regard there are to my mind two remaining facets which require our attention. At this stage I appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance to view the other 17% sympathetically in future within the parameters and the realities of the situation in which we find ourselves. I shall tell hon members why I am saying this.

It will not help because there is no money.

Firstly, there is the matter to which reference has already been made, which is the problem that arises when the wife earns more than R20 000 per annum and the husband’s income is below R20 000 per annum. Here we are actually facing the situation of discrimination against men for a change. [Interjections.] This is possibly a welcome change so that they may feel what it is like to be on the receiving end. In addition to creating a feeling of frustration among husbands, it can also create enormous problems in marriages. Perhaps I should discuss this entire matter of the taxation of married couples at greater length because it does not affect married women only; in other words, it is not only a feminist matter.

Both members in such a marriage are affected in reality because, when it is a matter of money, it affects the pockets of both. The married man is then actually being penalised in the same way as his wife. This leads to enormous dissatisfaction which is expressed time and again when women gather, frequently as a result of pressure applied by their husbands to make themselves heard in favour of separate taxation.

To return to the woman who earns more than her husband—we accept that she contributes more than R20 000 and he less than R20 000 per annum to their joint income—we have to ask ourselves whether we are not in reality telling this woman that she is not supposed to earn more than her husband. Are we not placing a further burden of guilt on woman? She is already being held responsible for everything.

I can remember that I was once invited to the SABC for an interview and one of the first questions put to me was whether I did not have a feeling of guilt toward my children and my family because of the work in which I was involved.

The working wife is held responsible for juvenile delinquency and for the total decline of the family and of society—as if the husband is not a partner in this responsibility! While I have the opportunity of doing so, perhaps we should call upon husbands to contribute more to parenthood. [Interjections.]

Just pay them more.

We are actually telling this woman and the rest of the world officially that we cannot even consider that a wife should earn more than her husband. Once again this affects the status of women.

I must digress a little to say that if we want to solve the problem of numbers in this country and really wish to see our community develop and our population development programme in full swing, we shall have to enhance the status of women. [Interjections.]

They will become the masters of the house.

Most women are already masters of the house; men do not always know it but most of them suspect it in their heart of hearts. [Interjections.]

Order! I notice that the older men are doing most of the talking. [Interjections.] The hon member may proceed.

It is also important that we examine another group in the community. One is only too aware of the fact that Black women in particular are developing enormously as professional people and in business too. Often they earn more than their husbands because, with the traditional culture they have as background, they have always been the people accustomed to working the hardest.

One need only talk to the people who have to make recommendations about Black people who apply for loans to the SBDC and other such bodies. They will tell you that, in the first place, they evaluate the wife of the Black man and her capabilities before they decide whether they are going to allocate any funds at all.

In addition to what I have just said, we are in any event penalising all women achievers. We are actually telling women earning more than R20 000 per annum—it makes no difference whether this is more than their husbands earn or less—that we really do not assess their contribution on the same level as that of men.

What does your wife say, Barend?

At this stage we have to accept that, as a result of the enormous shortage of high-level manpower in South Africa, we very definitely cannot ignore this very great source of manpower.

These women are also people who create job opportunities. It has been proved in the USA that at present women are achieving the greatest success in the small business sector. They are very good entrepreneurs because they are really very good marketers—ask any man. These people have the opportunity of proving themselves here in an environment outside the corporate system where it is not so easy to discriminate against them. All this includes high-risk situations but also provides the high income which is usually attached to high risk. It is specifically these women who are now to be discouraged from making a contribution in the open market and creating employment opportunities because they do not receive much relief.

The adjustment which exists and which is gradually being phased out from R20 000 and above is a contributory factor to some extent in meeting those who earn just above R20 000. I believe, however, that, if one sits down and works it out, one will find that a woman in a reasonably high income group will probably benefit less now than she has done over the past year or two.

We should remember that such a woman really works very hard and makes sacrifices because she normally has family obligations as well. This woman does not have a support system like a man either because no husband supports his wife as she supports him when it comes to their working arrangements. [Interjections.] I hope husbands appreciate this enough. Are we still clinging at official level to the stereotyped image of what a good wife ought to be and are her achievements not supposed to be too good?

It is recognised in the Margo Report that marriage has developed from an institution of maintenance into a partnership of equals in which the partners share property, power and responsibility. The days when women had to pretend to be stupid, the days when “submission, not competition was the woman’s way to her meal ticket” are past.

Power-sharing is our policy.

This applies particularly to those women with an income in excess of R20 000 per annum. It is specifically such women who develop their talents independently to the benefit of the national economy. These women in particular have a problem with institutionalised subjection of one sex to another and lay claim to the same privacy and confidentiality as regards their income as that to which every other taxpayer is entitled. It is specifically these women too who experience most problems when their husbands find out how much they earn. That is why it is to the advantage of their marital happiness for them to conceal this and pretend that their husbands remain the main breadwinners.

These women, especially professional women on whom the Government spends enormous sums while they are in training, are the people who receive advanced educational opportunities and now ask to be permitted to utilise their potential. Unfortunately it is these very women who are usually married to successful men who themselves fall into the higher-income group. Many of these couples find that, in respect of the second income which is that of the wife, it no longer pays for her to work because their total income has to be assessed on maximum scales.

It is specifically this 17% of women who up to now have asked, appealed and pleaded for tax relief and they are the very ones to whom it is not being granted now. All the arguments raised in the Margo Report apply specifically to this 17% of working wives. We do not begrudge it to the other 83% but this 17% represents the people who are continually trying to bring it to the attention of the authorities.

I repeat that a great deal of progress has been made during the term of the present hon Minister of Finance. We as women wish to thank him, not only because he has eased the tax burden of married women but also because he has actually eased the burden of married couples, because it affects their husbands as much as it does them. We once again express our thanks for this but, in so doing, we as women appeal to the hon the Minister to examine the situation of the remaining group of working wives. Their direct and indirect contribution by means of the creation of employment opportunities will ultimately compensate for this expected shortfall in income from taxation.

I know I am now running the risk of having a label attached to me, and perhaps I have one already, but I want to assert today that the women of South Africa are probably the least developed resource in our country and I include all women in this. We must not permit our taxation system to add to this. With these words I support this Budget very gratefully.

Mr Chairman, I heard a chorus of voices behind me saying: “Oh, Joan, do give the men some support.”

Hear, hear!

Sir, it is a pleasure and a privilege for me to follow up on the hon member for Kempton Park and say a few words in the dying moments of this evening’s debate.

Even though the Official Opposition objected this evening to our praising the hon the Minister so lavishly on his Budget, I do want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Finance this evening on a well-considered and very realistic Budget. It is a Budget in which an attempt is being made to curtail expenditure without impeding the growth of our economy.

The publication of the Margo report has, in fact, created substantial expectations, and the foremost question is: Does the White Paper go far enough in achieving those objectives? The truth of the matter is that this Government aims at addressing the shortcomings in the system of taxation. We are grateful for the fact that there have been no tax increases, and I think it is high time that those hon members on the opposition side stopped being despondent and pessimistic about our economy and the Budget and stopped dragging their own voters along with them.

This evening I want to link up with the hon member for Kempton Park. As professional women we were disappointed about the Margo Commission’s recommendations concerning separate taxation not having been fully implemented. We accept the fact that it would cost the State a great deal of money if they were to be implemented, but this evening 1 also want to lodge a plea here: We must not shelve this, because when our economy picks up, when it takes a turn for the better—we hope it will not be long before this happens—this whole matter should be re-examined.

I also want to say that women who are achievers have good husbands who assist them.

Hear, hear!

We women, particularly professional women, could not hold our own if we did not have sympathetic, mature husbands assisting us.

Hear, hear!

I also want to take up the cudgels for them this evening, Mr Chairman. My husband is not here this evening, and that is why I can say so unreservedly. [Interjections.]

Look at those old chaps smiling over there!

I should like to keep the rest of my speech, in which I want to express some heartfelt sentiments, for tomorrow. I think there is half a minute left; could I not move that the House do now adjourn, Sir? [Interjections.]

Order! It is not necessary for the hon member to move that the debate be now adjourned; I think it is, in any event, a suitable time for the House to adjourn.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to tell the hon member for Penthouse at the back here … I see he has left, Sir. I merely wanted to tell him that the next time he wants to attack us …

Order! The hon member is not the member for “Penthouse”.

I am sorry, Mr Chairman, the hon member for Ottery. The next time he wants to attack us here, he must do so properly. [Interjections.] We were attacked here in my presence. All these months I have never said anything against that hon member, because I feel he should disappear from the political scene. If he wants to court the majority party in this House now, he must do so outside the House, and not try to stab us in the back. [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to concentrate on the Vote of the hon the Minister of the Budget. I want to refer to one aspect in particular, and I hope the hon the Minister has knowledge of it. Posts were advertised in Rapport of 8 June 1986. The one advertisement was for a Senior Provision Administration Official/Registrar for Athlone, Bellville, Durban, George, Johannesburg, Kimberley, Paarl, Port Elizabeth, Worcester and Wynberg. There was also a B post, for a Provision Administration Official/Registrar for Bellville, Kimberley and Wynberg. One of the requirements for this post was an applicable three-year B degree or equivalent qualification plus extensive applicable experience. Three applications were received. The people who applied were a Mr M C Domingo …

Just tell us which post…

I shall send the hon the Minister copies of all the documentation. Three people applied for this post.

†One was a Mr W S Davids, another was a Mr Leon Brian Beech, and the other was Mr Domingo. Mr Domingo was appointed to this post. Although it was specified that the applicant had to have a degree, Mr Domingo had only passed std 8 and N3. Yet he was appointed to this post.

The closing date for applications for these posts was clearly stipulated here as being 27 June 1986. Yet an announcement was made on 23 June that Mr Domingo had been appointed to this post. This announcement was made on 23 June 1986 at a congress and was made by Dr Du Plessis of the Commission for Administration. The announcement was, of course, to the effect that Mr Domingo had been appointed to this post. The announcement therefore, was made four days before the closing date for applications as advertised in Rapport. Now I ask, with tears in my eyes, how can one appoint a person four days before the closing date for applications, especially when this person is not suitably qualified for the post? It was clearly specified in Rapport that the applicant had to have a degree or equivalent qualifications.

When a person with a standard 8 certificate and NTC 3 is appointed four days before the closing date, one wonders what has gone wrong in the appointment of this post. Is this not a case of jobs for pals? Why was this man appointed? What is going on here?

Nothing.

Hon members on that side of the House will claim that nothing is going on, but that is proof of what is going on. [Interjections.] I have the qualifications of one of the other applicants, Mr Davids, in front of me. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, I want to deal with the qualifications of Mr W S Davids, one of the applicants. He has a diploma in carpentry in terms of the Apprenticeship Act, 1944. He also holds a National N diploma with all the subjects passed, a National Teacher’s Diploma for workshop and a National N6 certificate. He has been attached to the Athlone Training College for a number of years, where he has been rendering excellent service. He completed the necessary prescribed forms required in terms of the advertisement, but was only notified that his application was unsuccessful some time later. If this is affirmative action, we on this side of the House can certainly not agree with that type of affirmative action.

’Was the person in question not perhaps appointed to ensure that he kept his mouth shut? [Interjections.] Does he not perhaps know about other things that are going on in that specific department? I should like an answer to these questions.

The third person who applied for the post was a Mr Leon Brian Beech.

†He holds a National Teachers’ Diploma with a bilingual certificate. He has a trade diploma, a national diploma as a technician and a national higher certificate for technicians, the T1, T2, T3 and T4. He also has a national certificate that qualifies him as a builders’ foreman. He is competent in organisation and control, as well as site administration. In fact, the qualifications of the other two applicants far exceed the qualifications of the man who was appointed.

*I should like to know from the hon the Minister what is going on in his department. Did he know about the appointment and was the documentation submitted to him personally for his approval, or was it forgotten on the desk of the former Minister of Education and Culture? Was it perhaps submitted to this Minister? Why was a person who had passed only standard 8 and had an NTC 3 appointed to a post that he was not qualified for? That is what I want the hon the Minister to tell me today. The qualifications of the other applicants are much better than those of the person who was appointed. I also want to know why the appointment was announced on 23 June, whereas the closing date was only three days later. What is going on here?

The hon the Minister must also inform hon members about the question concerning study bursaries.

There are constant allegations that when we take part in a debate, we lower the quality of the debate. That is absolute nonsense, however. Hon members on the opposite side of the House cannot accuse us of lowering the standard of the debate when only those who sing praises here gain any approval. That is not how one conducts a debate. If one sings praises in this House, one is a good debater, but when we come forward with certain information—which is our good right— we are told that we are lowering the standard of debating. The hon the Minister owes me an apology.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I see the hon member has returned.

†What is the position with regard to bursaries? I understand that, as a result of the fact that the students went on strike, all bursaries were reinstated. I may be wrong; hon members are here to correct me. [Interjections.] When one looks at the allocation for bursaries in the financial years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 …

Order! The hon member’s time has expired. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech. [Interjections.]

I should like to know what is going to happen in this connection next year. Are those bursaries going to disappear and all be converted into loans, or will the students at large have to protest again next year before the matter is rectified? Is that matter going to be rectified this year, so that all students who want to study further after matric can receive bursaries, and so that those colleges will not be disrupted once again as a result of decisions taken in the hon the Minister’s department? In my view the hon the Minister does not seem to be in charge any longer. The students are in charge now, because if they carry on in public, decisions that have been taken here in the Ministers’ Council are changed. The hon the Minister must tell us what is going on. [Interjections.] The planning must take place this year, so that we can prevent our students from deciding to strike again next year.

Mr Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I said that I would continue to discuss the problems in my constituency in this debate. Today I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to point out to the hon the Minister some of the problems which exist in certain towns in my constituency.

Firstly, I want to talk about Doring Bay. Doring Bay is situated in the area which falls under the control of the Cedarberg Divisional Council. Practically the whole town belongs to a fishing company, viz the North Bay Canning Company. Not a single home belongs to any Coloured person living in Doring Bay. With the exception of a few houses which belong to Whites, almost all the houses belong to the company.

In the past I have spoken a great deal about the Coloured school in Doring Bay. The school was also built by the fishing company on land which belongs to the DR Mission Church. However, the buildings offer far too little accommodation for the number of pupils at the school. Children are even given lessons under a tree and on the porch of the school building. [Interjections.] The DR Mission Church has already made the department an offer to take over this school. I have spoken about this school and the problems in Doring Bay in the past. I trust that it will be possible to finalise the takeover of this school by the mission church within the foreseeable future.

I now want to speak about Ebenhaeser. It is a rural area situated in my constituency where we have a serious shortage of irrigation land. Our Coloured farmers are unable to farm productively on the land there, since a large portion of the land has been made brackish by salt water. Assistance must be given to reclaim part of the land which has become brackish so that the land can be irrigated properly.

There is a fine State school at Ebenhaeser, but there are no facilities for electricity. The school has all the other necessary facilities, but there is no electricity. The management board has applied through the department for the installation of Eskom electricity. I trust that the necessary funds will be made available so as to make it possible to render this essential service, so that the school can truly come into its own.

Are there enough power stations? [Interjections.]

I want to go on to speak about Rietpoort. I have spoken about this problem in the past. The most important problem experienced here has reference to domestic water. In the past I have submitted documents here concerning reports drawn up by the health inspector as a result of the problem with domestic water, viz that terrible diseases have broken out in that area. The Southern Namaqualand Water Supply Scheme is being developed at Bitterfontein at present, and I trust that the department will be able to obtain water from that scheme as well.

Furthermore, I want to refer to the serious problem that is arising at Rietpoort. Rietpoort consists of a series of rural areas, viz Putsekloof, Lepelsfontein and Molsvlei, but there is not really sufficient water for domestic use in that area. Water has to be transported from Rietpoort to Molsvlei over a distance of approximately 10 kilometres so that that community can be supplied with water. There is also a school at Molsvlei which was built by the Roman Catholic Church. I trust that provision will be made in the next budget for the construction of water domes at Molsvlei.

In my speech in the Second Reading debate, I also mentioned regional offices, and here I have a real problem. When we have problems in our constituency, or we have to send applications, such applications first have to be sent from the towns in the constituency to Springbok. They are sent to Cape Town from there. If there is a problem with the application, it has to be sent back to Springbok, and from there to the town from which the application originally came. I want to request that this waste of time and unnecessary delay be eliminated, and I want to tell the hon the Minister that a large section of this constituency fell under the Cape regional office previously. If it is not possible for it to fall under the Cape regional office again, I want to request that the hon the Minister consider opening a suboffice or a regional office in Vredendal, which could then serve the whole of Vredendal, Namaqualand South and the Calvinia region. If for some reason any enquiries are made from a town such as Vredendal, this whole procedure and that roundabout course have to be followed. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon members to respect the Chair, because when I call hon members to order, I expect them to listen. Hon members must lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.

There is already an office of the Department of Health Services and Welfare in Vredendal. It is my opinion that an office of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, as well as an office of the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services would be a great asset to that area. Vredendal is a town which has been declared a growth point. As hon members have read recently, a large police station is being built there, and I do not foresee any problem with accommodation. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister to consider seriously the possibility of establishing a regional office in Vredendal.

I also want to mention another town in my constituency, viz Niewoudtville, which is situated on the road to Calvinia. There has been no development in that town since 1979. I have mentioned here previously that the houses are in such poor condition that they have to be held together with steel belts, otherwise they would fall apart. I also said that I could prove it. The department can go and investigate this if they wish, and they will find that what I am saying is the absolute truth. I want to request that provision be made for the needs of this community in the next financial year. There are no sport or recreation facilities either, and there is no community hall or clinic in that area. I trust that the needs of these people, who were prepared to come and vote, will be taken care of.

We still need a great deal of development in Vredendal. Here we have a new extension, Vredendal North. As hon members are aware, large-scale removal took place in Vredendal in 1986. This community is still divided. There is still a group of people living in the White group area. The conditions in which these people are living are absolutely dreadful. There is no proper sanitation. People have to dig holes to bury their excrement. These conditions cannot continue. I also ask that provision be made for these people to be moved to the new area, Vredendal North, as soon as possible, and that they be provided with the necessary accommodation there.

Another town in my constituency that has many problems is Klawer. This town also has a new residential area, but …

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you, Sir. In Klawer there are three residential areas where the Coloured people live. The first residential area is called the Roman Camp. A number of people live here in squatter conditions. There is no proper infrastructure, running water, sewerage, or refuse removal. These conditions are unhealthy and ought not to exist today.

Then there is the Anglican Camp. This is the old area where the Coloured people used to live before they were moved to the new area. Approximately 25 families are still living there in absolute slum conditions. These people live around smelly stagnant water.

We also have the old railway camp—I mentioned this in the debate on the Transport Services—and those conditions are dreadful. I trust that by next year, when we discuss these conditions again, the department will have brought about an improvement in these conditions.

In my speech during the Second Reading debate, I read out certain quotations from Hansard. On this occasion I should like to tell the hon the Minister again that I am not happy with what I heard. The hon the Minister told me that the hon member for Macassar had not made the information about the transportation of pupils, which he spoke about in that debate, available to the hon the Minister. I want to request that that information be submitted to the hon the Minister and the department, or otherwise I want the hon member for Macassar to withdraw those words and apologise to this House.

I want to thank the hon the Minister once again for what has taken place, and still is taking place in my constituency. Houses are being built in practically every town except Niewoudtville, albeit on a small scale. There is progress, however.

Before I resume my seat, I just want to ask the hon the Minister not to take the matter of a suboffice or a regional office in Vredendal lightly.

Mr Chairman, I think this House is owed an explanation as to what is happening in Port Elizabeth regarding the appointment—or non-appointment—of Mr Lee. I think the entire teaching fraternity out there would like to have an explanation as to precisely what is happening.

The normal procedure when a person applies for a post is that the school committee considers that application and makes its recommendation. It is then taken to a higher authority and eventually an appointment is made from Cape Town. It would appear, however, that in this particular case, Mr Lee did not apply for the post but that other teachers who were qualified, did apply. They were then not considered despite recommendations by the local school committee as to whom they found suitable for the post. All of a sudden Mr Lee was brought in from the cold, however.

This is not the way to do things. How can one simply appoint a person who did not apply for a post to that position?

He was seconded.

Mr Chairman, that hon member is not the Minister. He is still aspiring to become a Minister. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to ask the hon member not to take any notice of other hon members’ interjections. The hon member may proceed.

Very well, Sir.

I think all of us here, however, all teachers as well as the South African public, are entitled to an explanation and that explanation must be given in this House as soon as possible.

Why?

The hon member is not the Minister. I want the answer from the hon the Minister. When that hon member becomes the Minister one day he can reply, but he is not the Minister yet. If the hon member keeps on looking for trouble, I will make sure that he does not become a Minister. [Interjections.] I have influence too, after all. [Interjections.]

We want to know what is going to become of the post that was filled by Mr Lee. The post of director of sport was also simply created out of the blue. What is going to become of that? Is someone else going to be appointed to that post? Is the post going to be advertised and can competent people apply for it? We and the public want to know all these things. I think it is only fair for the hon the Minister to explain to us on behalf of the Ministers’ Council what is going to happen in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

Hon members will recall that during the Second Reading debate I confined my attention specifically to three matters. I concentrated specifically on three matters. The first was the necessity to extend the confidence gained through the strategy of bargaining. At Eshowe the LP decided to participate in politics of negotiation. People who had deserted and who did not belong to the LP then gained confidence. This was confirmed in the recent by-elections in which the LP totally flattened the opposition. This was because the LP had pledged itself to bargaining and negotiation. It is important for the LP to retain the confidence the voters have placed in it to negotiate.

In the second instance, I emphasised the necessity for the creation of as many employment opportunities for our people as possible within the structure of the House of Representatives, in order to combat unemployment which is becoming a national disaster among our people in particular.

Thirdly I emphasised that we must see to it with greater reverence that the standard of living and quality of life of our people is improved by establishing better education facilities. I appealed for mobile units to be replaced by more conventional buildings. Sir, you are also aware that I asked for more hostel facilities to be created for children in primary schools so that those children can have satisfactory accommodation right from the primary classes.

In improving education facilities, it is also important for the education department to receive a bigger allocation so that the teaching staff can teach our children with greater purpose. I believe that by giving the teachers an increase, we shall be contributing a great deal to the upliftment of our people. With reference to the increase in the salaries of teachers—I myself was in that profession—I want to point out that those poor people work 24 hours a day, and eight days a week. They work hard. A true teacher is not just a teacher in the classroom, but remains on duty 24 hours a day. The remuneration of these people must be reconsidered in earnest. We must not create a crisis if no crisis exists. If the necessary funds are available, give the teachers what they want. We do not want the kind of confrontation that is threatening to erupt in the Administration: House of Assembly between White parents and teachers. Let us treat our teachers just as we treat our aged.

Are you speaking only about primary schools?

I am not speaking only about primary and high schools; I am speaking about all education.

Sir, allow me once again to congratulate the hon the Minister on the allocation he was able to obtain for this House in the Budget. We know that we are living in difficult times. I have already said that. However, we are grateful to the hon the Minister for what he has been able to negotiate for us. During the recent Easter recess we could see by way of reports from our constituencies that concerted efforts had been made to address the housing problem. That is important. One returned with so much hope, having seen that something was being done. Although the progress is encouraging, we must ask the department to do away with the tedious procedure to which our people are exposed before building can commence. I believe that a great deal of the red tape which precedes the development of a residential area is unnecessary and frustrating, and that many of our management committees truly no longer know what to do. One official after another is sent by the department to undertake the same investigations, only to go back and be followed by another person a few months later.

I ask the hon the Minister please to see to it that the red tape is eliminated and that development goes ahead. Our people want to see development; they want to see the houses going up; they want to see the residential areas develop and they want to move into the houses. As the hon the Minister knows, the flood-waters came and caused devastation in the Southern Free State and the Northern Cape. They have subsided now, but our people in the Southern Free State and Northern Cape have stayed behind, dejected and sad. To rub even more salt into the wounds, a devastating wind hit the South-Eastern and Central Free State last Wednesday, leaving a trail of damage and more destruction. In Rouxville five houses were destroyed, the wind damaged the roofs of other houses and a devastating hailstorm which followed the windstorm did the rest.

I now want to make an urgent appeal to the hon the Minister to heed the pleas to tackle housing and development in that part of the country on a large scale and to eliminate the backlog in housing in the Southern Free State as soon as possible. We want to see development in Zastron, where people are living in absolutely dreadful conditions. The proposed area has already been identified. Everything has been done. I believe the paperwork is almost complete, but somewhere at the top things have hit a snag.

We also want to see development in Rouxville, Reddersburg, Jagersfontein, Luckhoff and Petrusburg. We beg the hon the Minister please to set things in motion. Sir, I find it unnecessary to refer once again in this House to the dreadful conditions our people are presently experiencing in these towns. I find it unnecessary and frustrating once again to spell out to hon members what the lack of health services, the lack of clinics and health centres in the Southern Free State, means to our people. Hon members need only put themselves in the position of our people there. There are no clinics in any of the towns in the Southern Free State, except in Koffiefontein where we have rented a house, and in Edenburg where we have turned an old abbatoir into a clinic. We want these things.

†Sir, it is imperative for every community to have these facilities, otherwise we shall be faced with the total annihilation of a community and, who knows, the total desertion of a town—which will automatically spell doom for the economy and development for an area as beautiful as the Southern Free State.

*Hon members need only think of the epidemic which can break out if the health of these people is not seen to. We need only think of all the diseases that would be spread. At this moment perhaps we think that where we are now, we are exempt. If we go into the matter, however, we will find that germs spread easily. Is the hon the Minister aware that those germs could spread to the town and that they could later spread to the Southern Free State and the rest of the country? Diseases could break out which could hold major problems for our country. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Minister once again today what still has to be done by whom to ensure that the demands and requests of the people in the Southern Free State are met. What else must I do, and which channels must I use to ensure that the requests of my people are heeded? I am sure the hon the Minister attaches the same value to the communities in the rural areas of the Free State as to other communities in other provinces. Furthermore, I believe the hon the Minister will see to the development of the rural areas in the Free State with the same incisiveness as he has with other parts of South Africa. If the hon the Minister does not do so, however, and does not give us the same attention so as to uplift us as well, there will be an imbalance in the development of our people in South Africa.

We, the so-called Coloured community in South Africa, must avail ourselves of every opportunity to uplift all our people, to improve their standard of living and their quality of life, so that they can develop a proud patriotism. They must be assisted in coming out of their shell of inferiority so that after the apartheid era they can help build a new South Africa. To accomplish this, we must free our people now from the clutches of want and poverty. We must see to it that they get houses, and we must improve the education facilities and make health facilities available. I therefore want to appeal to the hon the Minister and his officials to reconsider their priorities. Those who have nothing and are in need must be looked after, and the further development of all the communities in the country must be tackled on an equal basis.

The expectations for the future of any community—be it in the rural areas or in the city— play a very important role in the development of any people. The Utopia of peace, wealth, equality and freedom is not unattainable, in my opinion, but we shall achieve it sooner if we start right now to uplift our communities who have lagged behind. We often hear the song on television: “Hand in hand with God as our Saviour and leader, together we will achieve our aim, together we will reach our goals, peacefully and with love”.

†Sir, we will achieve this if we really help those who have, for so long, been deprived of what is rightfully theirs.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half hour.

It is a privilege to be able to participate in this debate, and in the discussion of the committee in particular. Looking at my own constituency, I feel like letting the hon the Minister have a few crayfish. I want to give him a few crayfish, but I have a problem with crayfish on the West Coast, Sir, and I will therefore have to give them to him some other day. [Interjections.] I hear an hon member asking whether I also want to give the hon member for Border a few crayfish. [Interjections.] I could do that, but the price would be a little higher!

I want to thank the hon the Minister for the visible signs of development in Mamre. The little town of Mamre in my constituency is a striking example of success. [Interjections.] It is an example of a small town where the people have decided to avail themselves of participation in this system and to take the initiative in improving their lot. I recall that during the election campaign, Mamre was a dreary little place. No more than 50 people came to vote on the special polling day. I challenge the Official Opposition to come and stand against me in the Mamre constituency now. [Interjections.] I invite them to go there, so that we can start doing battle. [Interjections.] Today the people of Mamre say that this new dispensation has resulted in a real improvement in respect of their standard of living. For the first time in Mamre’s 150 years of existence …

Are you defending apartheid now?

Sir, I do not think the hon member for Border understands what I am talking about. Nor do I think he knows what is going on in his constituency. I want to tell him to confine himself to his own affairs.

For the first time in 150 years Mamre has electricity. [Interjections.] This was made possible by none other than this hon Minister’s Budget.

And A Williams’s representations!

Sir, I am not talking about members of Parliament-; a member of Parliament has to do his job.

Mamre has electricity. It now has street lights, for example. We are also getting a new tarred road. [Interjections.] Our community has even built a police station, which they are going to rent to the Government. They are going to build their own post office as well, which they are going to rent to the Government. The people of Mamre have built a number of houses which they call substitute houses. They accommodate people in them for a period of three months on a rotation basis, so that families can have the opportunity to repair their own dilapidated little houses.

Mamre is in the process of shaking up the whole character of the country areas. I hope and trust that Mamre will continue to enjoy the support of the hon the Minister, and that they will also obtain funds for other projects they want to launch. The community in Mamre creates employment opportunities for itself. The people do the planning and building themselves. They do not need the services of contractors. They are also going to build their own community hall and the office for the management board themselves. That is a community which is proud of being able to do things for itself. [Interjections.]

I think the key to Mamre’s success is the fact that our people have freehold there. That is what the hon member for Border does not understand. The key to Mamre’s success is freehold. [Interjections.]

I want to put to you the opposite of my constituency, and come to my other problem, Paternoster. It is a pity that today, after three years, I cannot speak about the fate of Paternoster with the same enthusiasm and degree of success and pride. [Interjections.] Paternoster consists mainly of a Coloured community along the West Coast. According to the 1984 report of the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries, there were 667 Coloured and 60 White inhabitants there at that time. There were 14 houses for Whites and 125 houses for Coloureds, a total of 139 houses.

The sad part about Paternoster lies in the following facts. Of the 125 houses in Paternoster that are occupied by the Coloured community, 67 units belong to Paternoster Fisheries, 26 belong to the Pharo family, a White family, and 32 belong to the Walters family. I hope the hon member for Border understands now what I mean. [Interjections.]

Now we shall tackle you about Paternoster, and I wonder what will be left of you then! [Interjections.]

I accept the joke in a good spirit; it would really be unreasonable to want to throw a crayfish at the hon member for Border because of Paternoster. I do not want to become that violent. [Interjections.] The municipality does not own any land. The Department of Community Development owned only three pieces of land. The greatest portion of the land in the Paternoster area is the property of Paternoster Fisheries. Let a decision be made on the fate of Paternoster now. Paternoster is a beautiful place along the West Coast. Certain areas in Paternoster have been declared Coloured areas. I request that we forget about the politics surrounding Paternoster, that we forget about the fact that a political game is behind the fate of this community. [Interjections.]

A report on the fate of the people of Paternoster says:

The people have been living there for 100 years. Was it Dias or Vasco da Gama who landed there and called the little place Paternoster? [Interjections.] Sir, we were put together in that little place. [Interjections.] Da Gama was there. Our people have been living there for centuries. Now the department says that the town is too small for us. What they really mean is that we must get out of there. They are saying that the children—there are 315 of them at present—will have to be encouraged to leave the town. [Interjections.] Who wants to leave Paternoster if he was bom there? [Interjections.] I challenge any hon member to tell me who wants to leave Paternoster. That is the closest place on earth to Heaven. Yes, one has crayfish, mullet, galjoen, hottentot and snoek there. One bakes one’s bread in a clay oven and gets one’s honey on the dunes and mussels on the rocks. One’s liquid refreshment can be bought on the beach. There are no problems. There is also a church there, and the cemetery is next to the church. [Interjections.] I know Paternoster, and it is nice there, but I want the hon member to listen to what I am going to read out now:

How tragic—

I cannot believe it. Can a report be so destructive! I repeat:

I am ashamed of this last paragraph in the report. I want to ask the hon the Minister today please to help put an end to the politicking concerning Paternoster. Two years ago we began a community committee and we held meetings regularly. We negotiate with Paternoster Fisheries on a regular basis. An upgrading process which would have cost at least R10 million, was planned. Services, electrification, streets, sewerage and housing would have been provided. All that the people of Paternoster are asking is for our House to see to it that justice is done. Tomorrow we will be meeting with the committee from Paternoster, and I hope that like the people of Mamre, the people of Paternoster will feel that this dispensation has brought them only the best.

Let us talk about the population of Paternoster. There are 125 houses. There are 17 houses which accommodate only two occupants, but there are five houses which accommodate 10 occupants. There are 12 houses with eight occupants, and there is even one house in which 19 people live. Very few of these houses have two bedrooms. This is a tragedy. I went to inspect the houses, and the Director of Housing has also been there. There are certain houses where the sun, moon and stars shine right onto the bed. A mother told us that she had to move her furniture depending on where the rain came in. I am asking the department to show these people in Paternoster that the future does hold something for them.

As far as finances are concerned, the average income of the breadwinner of each family is R180 a month. This amount is far below the breadline—even if one takes into account the fact that fishermen are accommodated free of charge.

Hon members will recall that I have argued previously that the powers of this hon Minister and his department should be extended, since in my opinion he will have to fulfil a different function in our community in order to make the community in which our people live viable.

Farms have been purchased in the Southern Cape, and farms are being purchased all over the country to assist people economically. Today I am asking the hon the Minister to help the people of Paternoster economically as well.

The farms are so bad that even the ostriches are leaving.

The hon the Minister will recall how I pleaded for the people of Paternoster to be assisted with fish quotas and crayfish quotas. That community knows nothing but the fishing industry. We are talking about red gold when we talk about crayfish. Those people catch more than 50% of the crayfish which South Africa exports along the West Coast at Paternoster.

Companies invest their huge profits in other areas and in other industries. No-one is attending to the fate of the people of Paternoster. It is tragic that Paternoster is sometimes also called Smugglenoster. The people are sometimes compelled to try and make a living illegally by catching a few crayfish and selling them under the table.

That is where you get your crayfish. [Interjections.]

I really cannot condone this, but I do want to say that the situation is such that the people are compelled to do this kind of thing in order to make a living. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister and the economic committee to investigate how the people of Paternoster can be assisted in selling the crayfish they catch daily so that they can create a local market there. Let us attract tourists to Paternoster so that the person who is permitted legally to catch four or five crayfish a day, may be allowed to sell them there. In that way, Paternoster will gain a new lease on life.

Unfortunately the White community, the owners and landowners of Paternoster, have other plans for the place. They do not want people at Kliprug. They want to decide where to move the people to and they want to create a new area for them. Our people have paid the price of Group Areas. Whites are not being asked to move, and they will therefore not have to pay the price.

It was merely requested that our people be given freehold on that land. The factory does not need it for extending its activities or for accommodating its staff. The people who live there work at the factory in any case. We want to ask our department to draw the line in Paternoster. The people of Paternoster must know that they have a future. They must know that participation and negotiation have resulted in a better future for them. We must also help the other communities who are bearing the same burden. We must get them away from radicalism. We must show them that the system is still just; that it is a designated area, that they can live there and that we will help them.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to investigate another area in my constituency, viz Atlantis. I also want to request that we write off the development costs of Atlantis. We cannot expect the people who moved to Atlantis because of the housing shortage to be held responsible for the development costs of that town. On Saturday I went to a funeral in Atlantis. Small communities have moved there to make a new life for themselves. However, it is a pity that today those people do not even have the financial means to build a church. Certain communities who were struggling, had to move there. They had to find a new livelihood. Now they have to pay rent and pay for electricity. They have to hold church services in garages in their own back yards, or in schools. Today I want to appeal to the hon the Minister for school facilities and halls to be made available for church services. It is not the fault of the communities that they have nowhere to go; this happened as a result of the ideology of separate development.

Churches are standing vacant in District Six. People are living in Atlantis, but there are no churches. I want to ask the hon the Minister to see to it that a joint fund is established in Atlantis and that the housing money and the industrial money is put into the fund. The one fund must support the other. Why should there be a separate industrial fund for water and electricity supply, when the residents of Atlantis have to bear the development costs alone? The people of Atlantis are not subsidised, but the industries are subsidised.

And what about the railway line?

Sir, I shall raise the matter of the railway line when that Vote is discussed. We cannot expect the hon the Minister to build railway lines as well.

I wish to conclude by telling the hon the Minister that I am grateful for the provision that is being made once again in this year’s Budget for the Mamre constituency. It is a record amount. I thank the hon the Minister for it, and I hope that we can improve upon that record next year.

Mr Chairman, it is a tremendous privilege for me to speak after the hon members for Southern Free State and Mamre. It is a pleasure to listen to speeches which plead the cause of the community so well. I want to tell the hon the Minister that I appreciate what the department has done for our community. However, I want to raise a few matters concerning my constituency, Heidedal, in Bloemfontein.

My constituency is definitely experiencing a housing shortage. I want to address a request to the department that the existing houses be upgraded. There are people who are living in one or two rooms. Can these people not obtain loans to erect housing facilities and can we not provide them with the necessary building materials?

I have made enquiries among the people in my constituency, and they are eager to obtain loans. As the hon the Minister knows, the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture provides the people involved in the self-help schemes with building materials. I should like to request that the people of Heidedal also be provided with loans and building materials. I appeal to this hon Minister please to address a request to the department of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture so that we can see what we can do for the people in Heidedal.

We now come to the aged. We had flats built for the aged in Heidedal. They are beautiful, but what we need there is a full-time nurse for the old people. We definitely need a full-time nurse. The caretaker is a man, and how can a man go and wash and bathe an old lady? He cannot. We should like the Department of Health Services and Welfare to put a full-time nurse at the disposal of those people. We should really appreciate it if the hon the Minister would consider doing that.

Now we come to the students. I should like to see that the students are given sound information regarding bursaries. An hon member spoke about bursaries, but I did not quite understand what he meant. I met a few of the students from the University of the Western Cape, and they do not understand on what basis these bursaries are awarded to them. A few of the people I met would like to come and meet the hon the Minister. They told me, “Sir, we do not know how to obtain bursaries or loans.” I informed a few of them, but I think it is the department’s job to inform these students properly. I could mention to the hon the Minister that those students are actually pleading to be given sound information.

There is something else I want to point out to the Department of Education. When I visit teachers, they are all sitting and studying. Sometimes they study until twelve o’clock at night, and then they get up very early, because they have to go and write tests. When are those teachers ever going to teach the children properly if they have to study so hard themselves? I want to appeal to the department to have the teachers trained for a full four years. [Interjections.] They must study for a full four years so that they can be fully competent to teach the children. They must not go for further training once they leave school. We must rather spend more money on education. After all, what is born out of education? Education produces architects, doctors, and so on. We must therefore look at education now. We must place education on the right footing now. I fail to see why teachers still have to study to obtain degrees. I am pleased when a person works for a degree, but I feel sorry for a teacher who still has to go and work with a lot of children the next day. As hon members know, the children are getting a little wild now, and teachers have their hands full.

I also want to appeal to the parents of these children to get their house in order. The teacher is not there to be pushed and kicked about by our children and parents. We must teach our children to respect their teachers. The child must realise that his teacher is preparing him for the future. I am warning parents that they cannot give their children that training themselves. They must not allow their children to ride roughshod over our teachers. The parents must speak to their children about this matter. I want to appeal to the teachers to prepare my children for the future. Hon members of this House must look after our teachers and education.

I also want to refer to another matter. Thirtyseven fine new flats have been built in Heidedal, and I want to thank the hon the Minister for the money that was made available for this purpose. We have a problem as far as the flats are concerned, however. The elderly are not allowed to live in the flats, because we decided that young married couples with one or two children should live there. They are beautiful flats with electricity and other facilities. I have already said that the elderly are not permitted to live there. [Interjections.] The idea was that young married couples would live there until we could provide them with houses. It is not their fault that there are not enough houses. The problem, however, is that the department is charging some occupants— young people—more than R100 per month for one- and two-roomed flats, whereas others pay R50 a month. If one sells a person a Volkswagen, one must see to it that one sells a Volkswagen; one must not charge the price of a Mercedes. It is unfair that people who live in similar flats have to pay different rents. We cannot accept that. We must negotiate about the matter and one price must be determined for all the flats. A decision must be taken, for example, that only people who earn a certain amount per month can live there. We cannot provide these people with houses, but now the department is charging such high rent. It is unfair to charge a person R100 for a one-roomed flat. We cannot accept that. We must definitely investigate the matter so that the position can change. I know that the hon the Minister will give his attention to the matter, so as to oblige the people and the community of Heidedal.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the LP as well as the House of Representatives, I should like to express our sincere sympathy with the families of those who died in the aeroplane crash in the Free State yesterday, as well as those who died during the Easter weekend. Our thoughts go with all these families. [Interjections.] I also express these sentiments on behalf of the hon members of the Official Opposition.

I should like to take part in this important debate so as to submit the needs in my constituency to the hon the Minister. Housing is and will always be our first priority. We are experiencing a housing shortage in every town. For this reason I want to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that sufficient funds are made available for towns such as Lamberts Bay, Clanwilliam, Graafwater, Citrusdal and Laaiplek. Other essential services such as tarred roads, sewerage schemes, water supply and electricity are linked to the housing problem. The Administration: House of Representatives supplies funds for employment creation, but the management committees have no say about where and how the money is spent. In some cases the money is used to upgrade the White areas and to keep them clean and tidy. The hon the Minister must lay down certain guidelines to determine how and for what purpose the funds are to be utilised.

Since there is such an enormous backlog in my constituency, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he cannot budget during the next five to ten years for the appointment of a knowledgeable staff to assist the local authorities and jnanagement committees in the planning, supervision and administration of certain essential projects which have to be concluded expeditiously. We always experience a lot of red tape and delays, and in the meantime material and labour become more expensive.

I should like to sketch the requirements of a few towns. These are matters that require urgent attention. There is Elands Bay, for example, where the whole town belongs to the owners of the fish factory. Planners in various departments are involved in township establishment at present. We shall definitely have to allocate money in the next budget so that we can put our shoulders to the wheel and have bulldozers make a start. Proper development must take place. The conditions in Elands Bay are terrible at the moment. My request is that we start laying on water and upgrading the town as soon as possible.

With regard to Redelinghuys, I want to request that money be provided for the demarcation of plots and the rendering of services, because our people are prepared to build decent homes themselves. Both Elands Bay and Redelinghuys lack clinic and library facilities. It would be appreciated if attention could be given to these essential services.

Sir, I want to ask the hon the Minister what is causing the delay with reference to the purchase of church schools. The applications have been with the department for some time now. There are always delays. The hon the Minister must know that the schools in the Sandveld in particular must be taken over by the Government as soon as possible, because the buildings and grounds are terribly dilapidated.

There are no sport and recreation facilities for the voters in my constituency. They have to practise their sport on stones, sand or in holes. I believe— I think all hon members will agree with me—that the rural areas are always neglected completely when it comes to sport and recreation facilities. [Interjections.] I want to appeal to the hon the Minister and the Ministers’ Council to consider this matter seriously. In order to live a good and healthy life, sport has become an essential in everyone’s life. It is absolutely essential, therefore, that these facilities be supplied—this includes indoor facilities.

A lot has been said about school transport during the past few years. I know that the matter is receiving attention, but I still get many complaints from the voters that their children are being transported in unsafe vehicles and that the pupils are picked up too early and brought back too late. This matter is getting out of hand in the Citrusdal region in particular. I want to ask the hon the Minister to speak to his officials so that these problems can be resolved properly.

In the last place I want to find out when a concerted attempt will be made to do something about the situation of the Elandskloof residents who were driven away from there. The land was given to them years ago by Queen Victoria, but was taken from them. Those people have been sent from pillar to post, and are still as despondent as ever today. They find themselves among bushes and stones on farmers’ land—Without any facilities. I mean it when I say that there are really no facilities. In my opinion the time has come for these people to be treated honestly and sincerely so that they can regain their human dignity. One cannot permit beggars to be made of our people from the day of their birth when in reality they were robbed of their land. This matter had its origin even before the days of the CRC. The people are tired of promises. It is their good right to lead a good, reasonable existence just like any other South African, and they must be granted the ability to do so before all the generations have died out. The department’s usual reaction is to say that the matter is receiving attention. I therefore want to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister and the Ministers’ Council to ensure that something is done about this matter as soon as possible.

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this debate. First of all I would like to thank the hon the Minister and his department for their assistance during the past year.

I would like to use the time allocated to me to speak about my constituency. Bonteheuwel was built during the late fifties and the early sixties. It was built with the express purpose of dumping so-called Coloured people who were living in the White group areas.

It was the first township to be built after the promulgation of the Group Areas Act. Immediately we saw the rising in the Cape Flats of a substandard township. People from all walks of life were dumped there. I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister for more money for the upgrading of these old townships. We are grateful for new townships, such as Blue Downs with all its tarred pavements and its infrastructure. We appreciate that, Sir. There is, however, a definite need to upgrade the old townships, especially those on the Cape Flats. These townships, with their matchbox type houses, were built in the sixties and have no roads and no electricity.

Bonteheuwel was originally planned for 47 000 people, but today we are looking at a township occupied by 85 000 people. It was built with three entrances and exits, like a concentration camp. Perhaps it is true that it would take the security forces only about five minutes to surround the area in case of riots or uprisings. [Interjections.]

The side roads have been constructed with concrete slabs and there are no sidewalks. One wonders why, of the areas serviced by the Cape Town City Council, there can be tarred pavements and roads only in the White areas. Why can this not be extended to the Bonteheuwels, Manenbergs and the Heidevelds? [Interjections.] When one looks at houses that were built prior to the takeover by the NP—such as Alicedale, Bridgetown and Silvertown—one sees a top class house. After the sixties, however, one saw slums, when people were just forced to move to areas. We must not forget that the areas that these people were removed from, had had the amenities. Because of the lack of community amenities in Bonteheuwel we find that young people have nowhere to go. Young people are told to play outside in the streets because of overcrowded homes. One cannot tell them to play in their backyards because there is already a “pondok” in their backyards.

If one were to take an aerial picture of Bonteheuwel one would see a “pondok” in practically every backyard, and that “pondok” itself is overcrowded. Outside people’s houses one finds derelict cars and people are using those cars as their homes. The other day we looked at our high matric failure rate; and Bonteheuwel was, of course, one of those areas with a high failure rate.

However, those young people who have to write matric do not even have a place to study, because the library closes early in the afternoons, the schools are closed and they do not have a place to study in their own homes. There is a need for a youth centre to be built in Bonteheuwel especially. [Interjections.] It is long overdue, as my hon colleague here just said. It should be a centre that will attract the young people off the streets; a centre where a community spirit can be cultivated among these young people. I envisage a centre where young people can go to play table tennis and squash, take karate lessons or perhaps attend study sessions so that they can do their homework. Even parents can be involved. Newly married women can be taught how to cook and knit and so on.

If no money is spent on the erection of a youth centre specially for Bonteheuwel we will lose our young people. It is a total disgrace that every time an hon member gets up in this House and speaks about a bad area, he speaks about Bonteheuwel. When one reads the newspapers and looks for anything bad, one notices that Bonteheuwel is the place where riots always start. It is about time this Administration looked at that area which has been underprivileged all these years.

We can bring the community together in a community centre. I believe it will help us with our gangster problem. Just today I met with the station commander of our local Police station. We have 36 organised gangs in Bonteheuwel alone. [Interjections.] Later on, when we debate the Vote of the hon the Minister of Law and Order, I will talk about the gangster problem. I do not really want to go into that now, but one cannot blame young people for becoming gangsters if they have nowhere to go. One gang once said to me: “Mr Mckenzie, but where can we go? We do not have a centre to go to. We cannot stay at home. The only place where we can really be is on the street.” What are we creating for them for tomorrow?

I want to thank the hon the Minister for the floodlight which was installed at Bonteheuwel High School. I must also ask for floodlights to be installed at the other schools in the area.

I must once again appeal for a day hospital in the area. I cannot understand this. There are White areas not far from here—Maitland, the White areas of Ottery and other small White areas which have fewer than 4 000 or 5 000 inhabitants. Yet they have a day hospital. [Interjections.] Here we have a community with 84 000 people, but they do not have a day hospital. What more must the people do to get a day hospital?

When one looks at the causes of unrest—one can ask the Police, the Defence Force or anyone about it—one sees that the lack of a day hospital is right at the top of the list. Sir, do you think it is very nice for me to drive along Settlers’ Way and see a car knocking down and killing an elderly person, because that person has to walk from Bonteheuwel to Heideveld to get to an old age home? It is not right that our elderly people should be treated in this way. [Interjections.]

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon member for Opkoms. I shall just finish this point.

I must point out that in Bonteheuwel alone—and the figures can be checked—we have more than 5 500 old age pensioners. Those people are crying out for a day hospital. I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would accede to this request.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.