laid upon the Table:

To be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee, unless the House decides otherwise within three sitting days.

Order! The hon member for Rissik has requested me to afford him the opportunity of furnishing a personal explanation. Accordingly I now call upon him to do so.

Mr Speaker, in my speech yesterday I attributed a standpoint of the hon the Minister of Home Affairs to the hon member for Mossel Bay. In the short altercation that followed I was unfair to the hon member for Mossel Bay. I therefore now tender my apologies to him.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal I should just like to round off the point I was making when the House adjourned last night. I want to point out once again that the pronouncement in Genesis 2:18:

and in addition, the Hebrew expression kenêghe doo, form part of the essence of marriage as a Divine Institution. This is endorsed by the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in its publication Ras, Volk en Nasie, in paragraph 2 on page 94, which reads as follows:

As far as that is concerned, therefore, a text which prohibits, or one that permits and allows, is not really necessary. The essence of marriage itself includes suitability, but at the same time the essence of marriage excludes what is unsuitable.

Now, it is true that there are radical differences between the various race groups—White, Coloured, Indian and Black—and those differences have not changed. Those differences were there in 1949 and the same differences are still, in 1985, unalterably there. Therefore the argument that change has taken place is totally invalid.

The fact of the existence of those race differences therefore excludes such marriages as unsuitable in respect of the essence of marriage. Therefore the words of Dr Malan are appropriate to this occasion. Dr Malan was not merely a statesman, but was in his day pre-eminently a man of the church who played a very prominent role in the church and made important pronouncements. He said the following:

The only thing that has changed over the past seven years in the minds and the hearts of the members of the NP who have become totally liberalized and in doing so have given up the struggle for the preservation of these laws which until 1978 they defended with their hearts, minds and souls in this House.

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

No, Sir; unfortunately I have very little time at my disposal. [Interjections.]

Order! Only one person has the floor at the moment and that is the hon member for Koedoespoort. He may proceed.

Finally, I just want to say that we on this side of the House find abhorrent the levity with which PFP spokesmen, in particular the hon member for Bryanston with his interjections, have acted in this very serious debate, to the delight of the NP. It is tragedy for us that in this debate the NP should in fact be hiding behind the statements and the debating of the Official Opposition. We want to place on record that the somersault performed by the NP is the result of the actions of the PFP over the years, in that they have demanded that these laws be removed from the Statute Book.

Mr Speaker, due to unavoidable circumstances—our Vote is being discussed in the House of Representatives—I was unable to be present yesterday and accordingly I did not follow the entire speech of the hon member for Koedoespoort. I have just listened to the final minute or two in which he emphasized unsuitability. There is, of course, tremendous unsuitability in marriage. That is why we have such a large number of divorces. They take place because people do not suit one another, because certain things happen in marriage. Every day we have unsuitability in marriage between Afrikaner and Afrikaner. This is nothing strange, and that accounts for the pronouncement in the Word of the Lord quoted by the hon member. I think that his exegesis is quite wrong. I certainly cannot agree with him there.

I must apologize because immediately after this I shall have to return to the House of Representatives. I trust that this will be acceptable to the hon the Minister of Home Affairs.

During the discussion of the Home Affairs Vote, after the report of the joint committee had been tabled, I participated in the debate on the repeal of these measures. I understand that in the course of yesterday’s discussion certain criticism was levelled at the previous select committee and at the joint committee. In the time at my disposal I just want to explain the procedure adopted and how we went about it. In the first place, all the political parties represented in this House were approached and asked whether they would be prepared to serve on such a select committee, whether they would be willing to do so outside of the party-political context, and whether they would be willing to do so in a responsible way. All the parties represented in this House consented to do so. I accepted the chairmanship of that select committee and in that capacity consistently tried to furnish guidance. I want to say this afternoon that the work of that select committee was of exceptionally high quality and that also applies to the discussions conducted throughout.

The first terms of reference of the select committee were to ascertain whether it was possible to amend these measures, in other words to improve them. Accordingly we requested that people submit written evidence to us. Later we postponed the cut-off date because we were informed that certain bodies, certain denominations, still wished to make written submissions.

When we had received all these written submissions we ascertained that only three of them had to do with the terms of reference, viz amendment with a view to improvement.

One was that of Prof S P Cilliers of the University of Stellenbosch, who said that the colour connotation should be removed from section 16 and that the incitement to immorality should apply to everyone. This was not acceptable to the committee.

There was someone else who recommended that where trials took place in terms of section 16, they be held in camera. This, too, was unacceptable.

There was also a woman from the Cape Town region who said that people of over a certain age should be permitted to marry. I take it that her argument was probably that children would not be born of such a marriage. That, too, was unacceptable.

The entire committee then unanimously decided that we accept all the evidence, because the balance of the evidence concerned the preservation or repeal of these two measures. The whole committee decided unanimously that we should accept the evidence. The whole committee then perused the evidence and made a selection of people or bodies who would testify before us. It was not the NP that did this alone. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he would concede that the relevance of those witnesses who did not testify in regard to improvement of the measures but in favour of their abolition, was at issue at that first meeting?

But I am specifically emphasizing that the committee unanimously—and here I include the hon member for Waterberg and the hon member Mr Theunissen—decided that we should peruse all evidence. After all, the minutes will show this to be so. We then decided jointly to select who would appear before the committee and who would not. The hon members themselves made proposals. The hon member for Waterberg himself proposed that Prof Potgieter of the University of Stellenbosch should submit evidence.

Why do you not say that that evidence is relevant?

What evidence?

The evidence that was before us.

But surely we decided that we would call certain witnesses, and the hon member cannot perform another somersault now. His whole life has been one of somersaults and about-faces, and now, believe it or not, he wants to do it again this afternoon.

Will the hon the Deputy Minister answer my question?

I shall once again try to bring home to the hon member that we said that only three of the written submissions concerned the terms of reference. Subsequently the committee unanimously decided that as far as the rest of the submissions were concerned, some were in favour of the repeal of the measures and others were in favour of their preservation, and that a selection had to be made of who should and should not testify before us. We decided that all the religious denominations should testify, that the Black Sash would testify, that the Konserwatiewe Vroue, the Kappiekommando, would testify. The hon member Mr Theunissen himself told me that he was ashamed on the day those women appeared before us.

That is the true state of affairs, and however much the hon member for Waterberg and the hon member Mr Theunissen duck and dodge, they were involved in this. I was present every minute of the time that evidence was submitted. I wish to pay tribute this afternoon to the people who appeared before us. Obviously one of the parties was the DR Church. We decided that the main body of the church should appear before us. After all, we could not have every congregation appearing before us. The executive of the Broad Moderature of the DR Church therefore appeared before us and stated the standpoint of the church as formulated at the General Synod of 1982. Of course, as a member I had not expected them to state any other standpoint. That was the decision and they came and put that decision to us.

There are now complaints that we did not hear additional evidence. When the joint committee assembled for the first time the available evidence was submitted to it and it decided that it would not call for any further evidence.

Why not?

That is easy to explain. After all, I could have obtained hundreds of witnesses in favour of the repeal of the measures, and the hon member could probably have produced hundreds to advocate their retention. Where would that have got us? If one reads the report and the evidence one sees that all the most important religious denominations in South Africa did submit evidence. Who else did the hon member want to submit evidence here?

Is the hon the Deputy Minister aware that the Reformed Synod stated before the committee with reference to the evidence of the Rev Bingle that what he said, he said on his account and that it did not, therefore, reflect the official standpoint of the Church?

I should like to correct the hon member, who is a member of the Reformed Church. The Rev Bingle appeared before the committee but at that time the decision of the Synod of the Reformed Church was already at the disposal of the committee. Does the hon member want to question the decision of the Synod?

Did they call for its abolition?

Over the years the standpoint of the Reformed Church has been that marriage is a divine institution and that the State as such should not interfere or be prescriptive in that regard. It is well-known that the Church has stated over the years that these laws have no justification.

That is not true and you know it.

If the hon member is not acquainted with the decisions of his church I shall bring them to his attention and tell him exactly what they are.

Order! Did the hon member for Pietersburg say: “That is not true and you know it”?

Yes, Mr Speaker.

The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

It is also said that the committee was all a bluff and that it met with a preconceived purpose. In addition, it was said that the committee had been appointed but that the NP and the Government knew what they wanted to do. I wish to tell this House this afternoon that the committee was given no directive whatsoever. I can tell hon members that towards the end of August 1984 the Nationalist members of this committee had not yet achieved unanimity. At the time I said to the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs that we still needed time to think about the matter in order eventually to reach a decision. Otherwise we could surely have disposed of the matter in the previous dispensation, before the dispensation had come into effect.

Allow me to reveal additional facts this afternoon. It was only on Friday 15 March 1985 that I was able to report to the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs that the Nationalist members of this committee had reached agreement with one another and what their decision and recommendations were.

Yes, Helgard gave in.

No one gave in; we deliberated for hours on end and reached an honest decision in the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.] On Friday 22 March the hon the Minister said that we could proceed. Subsequently the joint committee met and we took the decision.

It is now being said that the related legislation was not taken into account. Once again the hon member for Waterberg and the hon member Mr Theunissen will be able to say that in the previous select committee we had a technical committee at our disposal, one which submitted reports to us in respect of all the related legislation. [Interjections.] The joint committee once again had a technical committee at its disposal and we knew what related laws were affected thereby. Surely, then, it is nonsense to come here and say that we did not give attention to this. This joint committee took the decision and said that the related legislation need not be changed. It is unnecessary to do so because they appeared on the Statute Book after these measures. [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to conclude. I am informed that the hon member for Rissik referred to me in his speech as “the Rev Badenhorst”. I want to tell the hon member that I am very proud of that. It was a wonderful privilege to be able to proclaim the gospel. If the hon member wants to ridicule that, he may do so. As far as I am concerned it is not a matter for ridicule. Whatever they call me, I stand before this House as a Christian who bears witness to the truth and who has always stood by the truth and has never been a party to intrigue. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik referred here to an earlier speech that I made under the Internal Affairs Vote when I said that we had begun to discuss these two measures in Afrikaner ranks, too. I understand he wanted to know in what ranks.

Yes, what ranks? When?

All the ranks—the ranks of which the hon member for Rissik was also a member. I said “discussed”. It was discussed at meetings of Rapportryers, Junior Rapportryers, it was discussed in the ranks of the Afrikaner. However the hon member did not attend to these matters because he had other things in mind when he was in those ranks. [Interjections.]

I said that there should be no interference in love, and because I made that statement he made all kinds of remarks, for example that then we should also not interfere in the love between man and man, and relations of that kind. Of course our marriage laws provide that where there is a degree of consanguinity at issue, that marriage is forbidden. However it is not the same thing when there is a love relationship between a man and a woman. That is what I meant when I said that the State should not interfere when there is true, sincere love between a man and a woman. I want to conclude by saying that I believe that this decision taken by the joint committee was taken in the interests of South Africa and can only entail greater benefits for this country in future, since it will relieve us of the tremendous weight of criticism of matters that one could not explain or elucidate—of what a Christian could not explain before his Creator. [Interjections.]

I read in this morning’s Burger that a new organization has now been founded, and it is stated there that this organization must see to it that the results of our thinking are conveyed rapidly and precisely to the Conservative Parliamentarians because it is imperative that this be done. I want to say to this new organization, Toekomsgesprek, that if it is to convey its thinking to the Conservative parliamentarians, I pray that it happen as soon as possible and that it will mean something!

Mr Speaker, I do not really want to pursue the technical arguments of the hon the Deputy Minister in respect of the committee’s proceedings and the witnesses who appeared before the committee. I would prefer to talk about whether or not we can read reform into this Bill.

The statutory provisions that are being repealed by this measure are but a portion of a package and thus merely a means to an end. In its broadest sense the goal was political domination by the Whites over South Africa since this was the method whereby the White minority could, in their opinion, ensure their survival. This was later tempered by a political say for other groups which was brought about basically by the solution of partition.

The draughtsmen of this original master plan, especially the late Dr Verwoerd, could at least perceive that, to bring about political apartheid, there had at least to be logical policies of social, economic and physical apartheid so that political apartheid could be realized. One could hardly envisage a situation where political apartheid prevailed in a community that was totally integrated in the social, economic and physical spheres.

These two laws then were especially responsible for bringing about social apartheid at the most intimate level. Economic apartheid—or at least White domination over the economy—would be secured by, for example, job reservation, certain sections of the Group Areas Act, and the policy of Black education. Physical apartheid was covered by the Group Areas Act, residential segregation, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the homelands, influx control and so on.

So as not to make this whole affair seem as blatant as it really was, everything was usually very well disguised. Academic, cultural and moral webs were spun about the great plan to make it seem more acceptable. I was personally very impressed by that master plan since it is not, in the nature of things, morally wrong to work on a partition solution.

There are, however, three conditions attached to this. Firstly, the plan must be carried through ruthlessly to its conclusion. Secondly, it must be practicable. Thirdly, it must be acceptable to the vast majority of the people in the particular community that would then accept partition.

However, the great plan did not work since it did not fulfil these requirements. The policy of economic, social and physical segregation was not successful either. So, what was, in the nature of things, neither immoral nor unjust, did not work; and so today we cannot perceive any democratic values in South Africa. Today we are the polecat of the Western World. Personal liberty has been placed under restraint and a state of inequality and injustice reigns.

I contend therefore that the whole philosophical premise of apartheid has failed, not just some of the aspects of the policies. So when the world and the people of South Africa—with the exception of the NP and the CP—insist on reform, we are not simply interested in smoothing away the rough edges of apartheid. We seek reform that is based on a new philosophy so that we can build a new future. That also entails the abolition of political and administrative apartheid and not only the other forms of it.

It is this that makes me anxious when I listen to the Government speakers on that side talk about the repeal of this Act. I cannot perceive any shift of philosophy in their utterances. For instance, the hon member for Mossel Bay says that we simply do not need these laws because—

The hon member for Virginia confirms this. He says:

In other words, the Government is saying that this is not fundamental reform on a political level but simply that we no longer need these laws. For instance, even the enlightened hon the Minister of Finance says when he addresses the CP

Listen to what he says:

The NP is thus saying to us that we no longer need this particular Act but that we can still carry apartheid further.

The NP cannot bluff me into believing that this is grand reform. This is also not really relevant, but unfortunately the NP cannot bluff the Black people of South Africa either. That is why our security situation is what it is. Neither can the NP bluff the outside world. This is why we cannot defend ourselves against the forces of disinvestment in the outside world. Ironically enough the CP are the only people who are being fooled because they believe, after all, that this is the end of apartheid. The hon member for Mossel Bay and other Government speakers use a few acceptability tests to determine whether these laws will be repealed or not. I again refer to the test of the hon member for Mossel Bay. He says:

If this is so, surely these same arguments can be applied to the other laws they mentioned, and I just want to refer once more to the laws mentioned by the hon member for Mossel Bay: the Population Registration Act, the Group Areas Act, the Constitution itself, the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, and certain administrative matters relating to apartheid. If this is so, then I say that these utterances of Government members are harming the reform idea—if indeed this idea is hidden somewhere in their costurnery. If not, one simply has to interpret this as a case of the old apartheid petticoat showing once again.

I support this legislation but I want to say now that if it does not represent a real striving for fundamental reform, this Bill will become known as the new immorality law because it will be immoral indeed for one to sell something as reform when one is merely getting rid of a piece of administrative junk.

Mr Chairman, in the course of my speech I will return to the speech of the hon member for Greytown. At first I thought he was giving us credit for reform but he could not refrain at last from putting forward his own philosophy—a philosophy which does not take cognizance of the facts of our country.

I want to address myself to the hon member for Koedoespoort who launched an attack on the hon member Mr Schutte because the latter allegedly pleaded for compassion in the handling of certain cases. The hon member Mr Schutte merely quoted Prof Oberholzer of the General Synod of the Reformed Church where he said—and I want to quote him from the evidence:

I quote further:

The point I am trying to make is not just that the hon member for Koedoespoort quoted the hon member Mr Schutte incorrectly but also that it is a great pity that the hon member—he said this himself—who is trained in theology and who served in the ministry is not able in dealing with these matters to display the same kind of understanding as a man like Prof Oberholzer does.

I can, however, understand this because his party’s chief spokesman, the hon member for Rissik, said by way of an interjection that he would not accept the hon member for Bryanston as his neighbour. [Interjections.] Hon members in this House are already quite used to the tirades of the hon member for Rissik. However, he is really going too far when he refers to the evidence of honourable people, people who are seriously concerned about the matter and who gave evidence before the committee, as the “weak evidence of a bunch of liberalists”.

The hon member for Koedoespoort contends that these people gave evidence before the committee. Why then do they not advance arguments to counter the arguments of these people? I accept the hon member for Koedoespoort’s qualifications in theology and I do not want to enter into a discussion about that because basically I agree with what he says. However, I do not know why he quoted Genesis 2:18 at the end. There are, after all, differences and contradictions between persons belonging to the same group and the same people which could also render a marriage undesirable. However, when it comes to the evaluation and the analysis of the evidence the arguments of the hon member for Koedoespoort and those of the hon member for Pietersburg fall flat. Then they are completely out of their depth.

It is also true that the hon member Mr Theunissen, who is a lawyer, also launched a rather clumsy attack on the evidence—as the hon member for Sandton indicated—and that they subsequently had to try to help him. How does it alter the quality of evidence when more than one person repeats the same standpoint by way of a signature on a petition—and often an emotionally charged petition? After all, a law is not a sacred cow. It is an instrument and it is finite.

The Group Areas Act as well?

The committee’s terms of reference were to inquire into and to make recommendations in regard to the adaptation of related laws “with a view to the continued social, educational and … ordering of own communities”. I do not think that the goal or the point of view—collectively or individually—was that important when the Acts were promulgated. What was of importance to the committee was its terms of reference from this Parliament. These were very clear: … and if existing related Acts were not sufficient to ensure this, which adaptations were necessary to ensure this”.

There is no doubt that the evidence in favour of retention rests mainly upon the maintenance of order. The hon member for Green Point did point out certain absurdities in the evidence but I do not think that this justifies further debate. The maintenance of order is certainly the duty of the State and we concede this. This is given as the overriding reason for the retention of the legislation. It would then give the State the right to interfere in the private emotional fives of individuals.

Since the Church is now involved, much attention has been devoted to whether or not Scriptural grounds exist. I think the case has already been proven that such grounds do not exist. Naturally section 16 of the Immorality Act is discriminatory as it is aimed at immorality or its solicitation between Whites and people of other races. It does not serve to promote moral standards since section 19 places a general restriction on solicitation to commit an immoral deed.

There are still, however, many forms of reprehensible behaviour upon which the State does not impose a penalty. I think, for instance, of adultery and prostitution as such.

When our courts found in 1914 in the case of Rex versus Green that adultery no longer constituted a common-law crime, no legislation was enacted to reaffirm this. Neither was it written into the Immorality Act of 1957 which was actually a consolidatory measure.

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

I do not have time for that.

Legislation is restricted mainly to those actions which do not take place willingly and in private. Exceptions are incest, homosexuality between males, and section 16 of the Immorality Act. In our law transgressions of this nature are only those which contain an element of fraud, deception or violence, or which offend normal feelings of decency.

The question is not whether or not it is desirable to have mixed marriages or immorality across the colour line but whether or not the State should legislate against it. Such marriages did exist before 1949, and the hon member for Houghton has indicated that these have decreased percentagewise. The percentages were 0,9% in 1925, 0,4% in 1935 and 0,3% in 1945. Such marriages did thus exist, as did such relationships, and these matters were provided for in other, related laws. This was the committee’s finding and this is what it placed on record in its report.

The hon member Mr Theunissen alleges that the committee shirked its terms of reference. He did not advance one argument in contradiction of paragraph 4(ii). According to paragraph 4(ii) the committee’s finding is that—

The hon member Mr Theunissen is, after all, a lawyer and must surely have understood this. However, he quoted selectively from the resolution of 26 February. He omitted to quote paragraph (2) of that resolution which reads:

The hon member for Sandton indicated how much of this there was. Indeed, the transcript of the oral evidence constitutes a thick volume—

Paragraph (4) reads:

The committee was assisted by an eminently capable technical committee of officials to whom I really would like to pay tribute.

I have a similar objection in respect of the hon member for Rissik. He advanced no arguments against the law. He simply made certain quotations to show that we had changed our standpoint. However it is obvious surely that our standpoint has changed. After all, if one repeals a law then one has changed one’s standpoint. Neither in the committee nor in his own remarks did the hon member for Rissik advance any argument to refute the findings of the committee as contained in paragraph 4.

We are busy with legislation but no hon member has as yet really been able to tell us why we should not go ahead with this legislation. I refer to paragraphs (6) and (7) of the committee’s report. I want to suggest that the hon members of the CP tell us, when they get their turn to speak, why the hon member for Rissik also voted against those recommendations.

I wholeheartedly support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I just wish to tell the hon member for Nelspruit—this also applies to the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who is not present and the hon member for Sandton—that the impression created in this House that we who served on that committee did not say a word and did not debate is false. [Interjections.] I wish to express my regret at the absence of the hon the Deputy Minister. I do not know whether he thinks he is one of those who hit and run but I think he is a runner rather than a hitter.

You know where he is.

I know where he is but this debate is also important. [Interjections.] Is that House more important than this one?

He is obliged to be there.

That is no answer and the absence of the hon the Deputy Minister proves that House is more important to him than the discussion of this legislation … [Interjections.] For the edification of the hon the Deputy Minister I wish to say he should get his facts straight and not disseminate half-truths here or suppress part of the truth. He knows that when we were invited to participate in that select committee the assurance was given that the principle contained in those Acts would not be prejudiced. That principle remained valid after the Government had said it was expanding the terms of reference of that committee.

In the second place we—I did this in an official statement on behalf of the CP—said we would participate in the discussions of that committee on the understanding that we were opposed to the abolition of the legislation. We are in favour of the retention of that legislation and we participated in the discussions from that point of view. I think the hon the Deputy Minister will be aware of this because it is simply a fact. It is incorrect, however, as the hon the Deputy Minister attempted to do here, to say there were no reservations and no qualification from the start. That is not fair. He is an ex-minister of religion and ought to speak the whole truth.

At the first meeting where we became involved with the evidence submitted to the select committee, my standpoint was—I think it was also that of hon members of the Official Opposition—that the evidence before us was actually fundamentally irrelevant on the basis of the terms of reference of the committee. Then hon members on that side of the House asked: What shall we do now? Had we not better hear these people? Nevertheless the “hear” was always subject to the basic point of departure of the hon the Minister when he announced the select committee and said there would be no interference with the principles of that legislation so we merely listened.

As I have said, the standpoint of the NP was not the sacrifice of the principles of that legislation. Now I should like to get to the hon member for Sandton who made a great fuss here and attempted to speak very eloquently. I wish to tell him, however, that he created the impression that the members of the CP did not say anything at any time. He did not make a single reference to the occasions on which we either participated in questioning witnesses or put forward a proposal or expressed reservations. He suppressed this and in so doing gave a distorted impression of actualities.

On 29 August 1984 my hon colleague, Mr Theunissen, submitted the draft proposal which he and I had formulated to that select committee. The full contents of that draft report may be read on page XII of the third report of the select committee. The hon member for Sandton, however, pretends that this did not happen at all and that it was never tabled. I find that reprehensible.

I wish to point out a second example. The hon member referred to the conduct of my colleague the hon member for Rissik as if he had not uttered a single word. He can look up page 17 of the report of the joint committee where the following is to be found:

That is a stated point of view. [Interjections.] The hon member need not reply on behalf of the hon member for Sandton. I am dealing with him because he implied that nothing was said at all. The hon member for Rissik stated a point of view which was also the standpoint stated by the CP right at the start. I wish to repeat that the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning attempted to sketch an incorrect picture to this House and I find this reprehensible.

We can go further in referring to the participation of the CP—I am referring here to my own participation and that of the hon member Mr Theunissen—in the questioning of witnesses. I need not read it but I wish to say that the impression created here that we had not said anything, that we had simply agreed to everything, is untrue. This also applies to certain newspapers which published reams today on what we were supposed to have said or not said there.

But you questioned the witnesses you said were irrelevant.

We questioned them on their own evidence. That evidence was naturally irrelevant as regards the terms of reference of the committee. [Interjections.] Hon members do not bear in mind that the entire hearing of that evidence took place under the overall terms of reference of the hon the Minister, namely that the principle of the two Acts should not be prejudiced and we who were sitting there participating said: NP members on this committee are acting against the background of the standpoint of the NP that there will be no interference in the principle of the two Acts.

May I put a question, please? When the CP realized in the joint select committee that in its opinion the evidence submitted before the other committee was irrelevant in the light of the new terms of reference of the joint select committee, did the CP then request that evidence should be called again?

Mr Chairman, we abided by the evidence before us … [Interjections.] … and we also abided by our point of view. We adhered to our standpoint and the terms of reference put to us and the other members of the joint select committee by the hon the Minister. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Houghton is not present either this afternoon. She created a great fuss about this yesterday and attempted to reassure the We were not to be alarmed; there would not be an increase in the number of mixed marriages or in the incidence of immorality across the colour bar. An hon member on the other side even made the statement that the abolition of the statutory provisions would lead to a decrease in the incidence of immorality across the colour bar. That is wondrous faith, but there is faith and faith!

I wish to refer briefly to the report of the De Villiers Commission—I do not wish to linger here—of 1939, an era of which one could perhaps say the feeling against intermingling was possibly stronger than today with all the indoctrination which we have through the Afrikaans and English language newspapers. I say feeling against intermingling was perhaps stronger then. The commission reported as follows:

The conclusion of the commission at that time was already—

I am mentioning this against the background of the statement of the hon member for Houghton.

The hon member for Houghton also quoted certain figures as regards the end of the thirties and the start of the forties. The “Federale Raad” of DR Churches submitted one report after the other; they were considered at synods and decisions were also submitted to the Minister at the time. In 1949 there was a deputation of the three Afrikaans churches to request legislation in this respect. This deputation included the Reformed Church. At the Synod of 1945 there was a proposal emanating from Rev E G du Toit and Dr S H Rossouw; the latter was our present State President’s father-in-law. That proposal was adopted and the Synod made the following statement:

The insistence on a prohibition of mixed marriages was not merely a ricochet or something sucked out of one’s thumb. As from 1817, 1915, 1936, 1939, 1945 and 1949—the lot!—there was a chronic, continual stream of requests for the prohibition of this type of marriage. [Interjections.]

As regards figures, Mr Chairman, I should like to point out the following examples. The Synod took note of the increase in the number of mixed marriages between 1936 and 1944—a period of nine years. In that time altogether 851 mixed marriages were solemnized in the Union of South Africa; that means 94,5 per annum. The commission submitting these matters said:

That was the view of the time. I wish to contend that the danger of an increase in the number of mixed marriages is greater now and especially in the light of the entire climate created both by the standpoint of the governing party—the coalition government—and that of the media at their disposal. A climate is being created for a greater degree of intermingling. [Interjections.]

As regards immorality, it is important to note the following: From the years 1950 to 1956, 3 422 cases of judicial prosecutions were instituted—within a period of seven years. In 1983 the number was 169. It would therefore only be a naïve person who would allege that the number of cases of immorality had decreased—that we had become so modern, so beautifully chaste in this era! It was naturally after the scandal at Excelsior that there was a decision against direct prosecutions—the Attorney-General was to decide whether to institute proceedings or not. That is the case at present. A reduction in the number of cases of immorality? Definitely not!

What did we hear from the lips of the State President himself? Not very long ago, when he was the Prime Minister—and I have it here in Skietgoed of February 1980—he put it to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition that the latter should realize clearly that friction would be created if the Immorality Act were abolished. He expressed it as follows:

To which he added:

Then he said:

Now, Mr Chairman, … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I ask why this Act has to be abolished now? [Interjections.] Certain hon members contend that the abolition of section 16 of the Immorality Act will lead to a decrease in the incidence of cases of immorality.

I believe that.

Oh, the hon member believes that? Here are the facts.

Facts remain facts.

Yes, but now I should like to read the hon member an extract from an article by Mr Kosie Pretorius of South West Africa. [Interjections.] I think he is better aware of what he is talking about than the hon member for Mossel Bay.

Yes, he is aware of the state of affairs in South West Africa. [Interjections.]

Helgard, is that supposed to be an argument? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Waterberg may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I must say I enjoy the hon member for Mossel Bay because he falls more and more deeply into the trap. I do not believe the nature of people in South West Africa differs in any way from that of people in the Republic of South Africa.

They just have more testosterone than we have!

In the first place, Mr Kosie Pretorius says the abolition of this legislation in South West Africa in 1977 had “‘n rioolstroom van onsedelikheid en prostitusie tot gevolg gehad, soseer dat dit selfs tot die redakteur van die Windhoek Observer geskok het.” He then proceeds as follows:

In this he also refers to mixed marriages and indicates that in the period 1977 to 1984 there were 249 such marriages between Whites and Coloureds—that is approximately 3% of the total. I could continue quoting in this way.

I also have a letter here from Rev Paul du Toit. Rev du Toit issued a warning—and I believe he is right. Coincidentally he used the same expression—as early as August last year—in warning against these same matters. He spoke of “ ‘n rioolstroom van onsedelikheid” which would be unleashed here. I believe these are warnings to which one should pay heed.

Furthermore I wish to react to the way in which a great deal of fuss is now being made about the cases of heartache, suicide and all that type of thing. I believe there is no one who derives pleasure from suicide caused by difficult situations in which people, marriage partners, children and relatives find themselves. No one is frivolous about it. I wish to state, however, that much of the heartache and many of the cases of suicide do not occur because these legal measures exist but because social resistance and censure is so powerful that people find the stigma of such a transgression unbearable. [Interjections.]

You have just shot your own argument down in flames! [Interjections.]

I shall now quote an example in support of what I have said. [Interjections.] A Brown man from Cape Town phoned me—I can give hon members his name if they wish to know it—and said he was the child of a White mother and a non-White father. What did he say about himself? He said: “I am a mess.” That is not my language: It is his. Hon members should only know what goes on in the hearts of people who are the victims of this.

A White girl at university visited her home after her mother’s funeral and, when she entered the house, the domestic servant was sitting smoking and drinking with a friend in the lounge; she was the new mistress of the house. Do hon members wish that state of affairs to continue? That is heartbreak! That is heartbreak which is not caused by the Act, but by the person who contravenes social rules within such a community. Consequently we say: Retain this Act and prevent such situations. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon the Deputy Minister once made a great fuss on TV—this is a favourite argument which is put forward—that there was no moral or Biblical justification for these Acts. I wish to say roundly there is nothing immoral and nothing unchristian or unbiblical in the origin and existence of separate peoples. Secondly, the origin of different peoples is attributed directly to the guidance of God in the history of humanity—The Acts 17. It is normal—this is my point of view—that there should be borders between peoples. Further, the fusion of peoples is contrary to the principle of diversity and to the call for different people.

That is precisely how the Afrikaner came into being.

The hon member does not know what he is talking about. [Interjections.] Here we are not dealing with the fusion of peoples; we find individuals from different peoples in a totally new situation and they developed into a new people. It was not the case of a specific people fusing with other peoples and so disappearing and thereby nullifying the principle of diversity.

In addition I wish to say a people is permitted by its authority to take measures to protect its identity. Hon members are free to read Prof Potgieter’s evidence, the replies he gave to questions. I say further the constitutional system founded on distinctive development of different population groups can be justified in the light of Biblical principles. I am referring to the standpoint of members of the DR Church on page 72 of Ras, Volk en Nasie.

Further, I say that if marriages potentially destroy or threaten the God given diversity and identity of peoples, such marriages are undesirable. That was also the finding of the DR Synod of 1982. Immorality is immoral in any case.

The hon the Deputy Minister spoke here of discrimination; it is one of the telling arguments he put forward. I wish to make a few statements in this respect. I do not believe it is discrimination which concerns hon members; I think hon members no longer have the courage to say publicly: “We stand for the preservation of a White people in South Africa.” [Interjections.]

Secondly I wish to say that, if one prizes the survival of a White people here, one will take steps to prevent large-scale intermingling and immorality. [Interjections.] Hon members are now asking whether I need the Act or not. I wish to say a government does not pass a law because the government itself requires it. Hon members should try not to be ridiculous. Surely that is a childish little argument. [Interjections.] I say further there is no discrimination if one prohibits White as well as non-White as regards immorality … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman should make fewer interjections while his own leader is speaking.

I repeat: There is no discrimination if one forbids Whites as well as non-Whites as regards immorality and mixed marriages among them. What applies as a prohibition for non-Whites toward Whites, also applies as a prohibition for Whites toward.

But not among non-White groups.

That is precisely what I am getting to. The White as the legislator should receive credit for not interfering in the interpeople relationship of nonWhites toward one another but that he, in fact, passed a law in the interest of the White community. He was empowered to do so and had the right to do so.

Did they not desire legislation in this regard?

Why did they not request it? No, that argument of discrimination is as thin as mist in the summer sun. What discrimination is there?

Andries …

No, the hon member for Bryanston quoted a Biblical text and had it wrong. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

What about our Coloureds with 93% White blood?

Order!

The hon member had better resume his seat; he is being offensive!

Order! The hon member for Waterberg does not wish to reply to a question; consequently the hon member for Bryanston should resume his seat. The hon member for Waterberg may proceed.

The hon member for Bryanston’s interjections … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Waterberg is the leader of a party. He should be granted the opportunity of making his speech. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I like a bit of life but some “life” is of no assistance!

I ask where the discrimination is if nonWhites have the fullest right to prohibit immorality and mixed marriages between Black and Brown and Asian. If they do not have the power to do this, why did they not come forward with a request in this regard?

Since when is one discriminating against a person if one prohibits him from sinning or creating moral and social problems? Is one not discriminating against children born of immorality or of a mixed marriage between White and non-White and those children have to grow up torn between two or three worlds? This is what will take place if there is a White father, a Black mother and Coloured children.

One is discriminating against the Brown community when the product of immorality and mixed marriages is dumped on that community.

If one takes refuge behind section 12 of the Group Areas Act which provides that all mixing between non-Whites and Whites should be dumped on the Coloured community, the first act to take place is that people will complain about discrimination as regards Brown people.

Hon members there imply we do not hear what Brown people say. They also say many unpleasant things, but inter alia they say: Do not dump the scum on us!

I said it was the Whites in the first instance who requested these measures. I say the Whites have the right to determine who should be taken into their community and who not. In the same way it is the Coloureds’ right to establish who should be included in their community and who not.

I should like to go into hon members’ apologia that things have changed. Yes, many things have changed! The NP’s standpoint has changed from a rejection of power sharing to its acceptance. It has changed from “the Coloureds are not part of the White nation” to a standpoint of “Coloureds, Indians and Whites are one nation now”. These are changes which have taken place.

The State President said to a foreign journalist: “Eventually the Coloureds will be assimilated and that is why we do not provide a separate homeland for them.” The NP should tell us whether it is on the way to assimilating the Coloureds. Does the NP wish to assimilate them into a grey nation or whatever or does the NP wish to permit the survival of a White people alongside a Coloured people with its own territory and for whom we say provision should be made for an own government within an own fatherland where they can decide on their own affairs?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I wish to point out that the hon member for Wellington hurled the question whether he needed these laws at the hon member for Waterberg. I wish to call your attention to a decision by Mr Speaker Klopper in 1972 in terms of which the hon member for Turffontein had to withdraw the same type of question at the time. I should like your decision on this.

Order! If I remember correctly, arising out of a similar query yesterday, Mr Speaker ruled that in each particular circumstance a presiding officer should use his discretion. I did not hear the hon member for Wellington saying that. Did the hon member say it?

Mr Chairman, I did not say, or ask whether, the hon member for Waterberg needed the Act. I did ask whether it was right for a leader of a party to say that a God-given baby was scum. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Wellington said that he did not say that, and I accept his word.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Kuruman said that the hon member for Wellington was, moreover, telling a lie. I am asking whether that is parliamentary.

Order! It is unparliamentary to say that someone is telling a lie and knows it.

Mr Chairman, it is a little difficult to react to the hon member for Waterberg’s speech, because things were getting a bit warm behind me and I could not hear part of what he said. However, he certainly got emotions going among his team and among some other hon members. [Interjections.]

The one point the hon member made and which one should reply to, is the question of a person saying about himself: “Ek is ‘n gemors.” Whether or not the legislation made that feeling worse or whether it assisted society to make that person’s life that much more difficult, is really the question. There can be no doubt that the legislation which was passed on that unhappy day has only aided and abetted those feelings and caused society to make those people’s lives that much more difficult for them.

I have the rare privilege of sitting in this House on a mixed bench. My hon colleague of the NP is not with me today to pull me down and say things in my ear about something he might not like, but I daresay that there are some hon members on that side who might be sitting in the same bench but are a mixed bench in thought when it comes to the political direction the country is taking, and that some of them are having something of a traumatic time accepting some pieces of legislation. [Interjections.] It will be interesting to see where everybody lands up in future.

As far as the select committee was concerned, the forerunner of the joint select committee of this year, one point has not been made, namely that it is quite significant that in all the written evidence, and subsequently the oral evidence, despite the terms of reference indicating the search for an improvement in the legislation, almost all who gave evidence went past the concept of improving it and wrote and talked about whether or not the legislation should be withdrawn entirely. Very few people concerned themselves with improving the legislation, and in most cases the members of the committee had to ask those giving evidence whether there was any way of improving it. The question, therefore, of staying within terms of reference or whether the committee handled the legislation correctly, was actually answered by those giving evidence. Nobody was concerned about improving it. Even those who were against removing it from the Statute Book dealt purely with the idea whether it should go or not.

There is a great sense of personal relief among those of us who have always been against this legislation, as I am quite sure there is in our Police Force and in our courts too. When one considers that more than a generation of young people have grown up with this legislation, it is nice to know that future generations of young South Africans will grow up without it.

The other very important point which comes to mind is, of course, that we have reached the stage in South Africa’s political development where it is impossible under our present Constitution for anybody to reintroduce any form of discriminatory legislation. The current phase relates to a very interesting development in the NP and I would say it is quite perceptible that in the past few years the NP has almost ceased to discuss matters of an ideological nature in this House.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I am sorry to interrupt but the hon member for Wellington is making so much noise behind us that we are unable to follow the debate. [Interjections.]

The hon member for King William’s Town may proceed.

I have the same problem, Sir. I cannot hear myself. [Interjections.]

It is very noticeable—and it is welcomed by this party—that there is very little ideological debate in this House except of course when it comes to repealing discriminatory legislation such as this. The emphasis in debate has shifted more and more to economic issues and the question as to whether or not we can create regions with economic viability in the country, and get down to the nittygritty of the real problems that South Africa is going to face in the future.

If we were to do away with all the discriminatory apartheid legislation today in one fell swoop, very little or nothing would change in South Africa. We would still have an enormous socio-economic problem, one which is going to demand a great deal of ability and initiative and participation of all groups if we want to meet the challenges. There is a small point which I should like to add to this debate.

*I really think this subject has been exhausted; so much so that precious little remains to be said about the legislation. [Interjections.]

†However, the point I want to make is that there is almost a sense of anticlimax. It has taken so long to come this far and the process has been so long-winded that there is really almost a sense of anticlimax. One wonders, as the hon member for Houghton mentioned yesterday—I think it was Prof Rotberg’s article which she read out—if internationally, and for South Africa’s good, it is not almost a non-event. When one looks at the reform process—the cycle of events that has been put into motion with regard to all the discriminatory legislation—it is clear that a process has been commenced which has to be looked at very carefully. When one looks at the discriminatory legislation in the field of sport, at what we are having to do on two fronts, namely in Australia and in New Zealand, and at the enormous forces we have to marshal involving many, many thousands of rand to bring about a situation which should really just take place naturally, then one realizes that if we were in fact to do away with all this legislation tomorrow, I do not think even the disinvestment campaign would stop. It develops a momentum of its own and to justify it the people involved will find new things to criticize and it will continue because of its own self-generated momentum.

Therefore, what I believe we should be looking at is the effect that the scrapping of this type of legislation will have. We should also ask ourselves what we can actually achieve and whether we can use the abolishing of bad legislation to the greatest possible benefit internationally as well as nationally. We should ask ourselves in the light of the constitutional debate that is going to take place in the open-ended forum involving Blacks whether that should not obviously be part of our agenda. The scrapping of discriminatory legislation will then be part of the package in which every identifiable piece of discriminatory legislation will be repealed. Furthermore, measures should be agreed to among the parties participating in that forum in regard to the administrative arrangements which will have to be made in this country in order to prevent intergroup friction as a result of that legislation having been a part of our life for so long. We can then perhaps create our own momentum and our own way of dealing with this in such a way that we will gain far greater benefit from this internationally and be seen to be taking immediate steps and not acting on this very long winded, piecemeal basis where such steps get swallowed up by all other sorts of international events and events within the country itself. It concerns me that we do not seem to have gained, either internally or externally, the positive spin-off effect that we should be getting from the commencement of the reform process which started with the Constitution and will carry on for many years. I think we should plan how we will go about reaping maximum benefit from the removal of discriminatory legislation.

If asked, every party in this House would say that they stand for no discrimination and no domination, and each one has an individual mechanism to bring it about. The mechanism of the NP in the past has failed but it is on this road that the CP would like to continue. The reality is that we must shift our focus from searching for solutions because I do not think there are immediate solutions to South Africa’s political problems. We are going to be searching for agreed ways of resolving conflict or for conflict management in the years that fie ahead. I think that is what we should be looking at as a result of this legislation, and an important part will be to see whether we cannot manage the reform process to the far greater benefit of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it was a privilege to serve on the select committee and to take cognizance of the points of view that were put forward by church leaders of various denominations and by other interested parties. It really was an intellectual exercise.

Moreover, it was an enriching experience to serve on the joint committee and to deliberate on this extremely delicate matter along with the hon members of the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives. It is one thing to gossip about people behind their backs and quite another to put and weigh up one’s point of view in their presence. [Interjections.]

In this regard I want to take issue with the hon member for Waterberg where he and his party assert that we carried out a superficial and overhasty investigation. I want to place on record—it is in fact, so recorded—that the hon member for Waterberg was present on 9 April. The hon members of the CP did not say a single word in the presence of the deputation from the Labour Party and of Prof Van der Ross. This is evident from the record. When the people affected by these laws were there to give evidence the CP remained silent. [Interjections.]

It is quite true that the hon member for Rissik put forward his viewpoint as noted in the resolution, but the hon member did not utter a single word in the discussion with these hon members.

We are not unhappy about scrapping these provisions today; we are scrapping them because we believe that it is in the interests of South Africa to do so. Furthermore, we admit unashamedly that our standpoint in respect of these laws has changed because we have taken cognizance of the fact that in the experience of the people affected by these laws they amount to discrimination and a contempt for them as persons, and that their very existence is seen as criminal and sinful. The artificial argument constructed by the hon member for Waterberg about what constitutes discrimination holds no water at all. [Interjections.] The reality of the matter is the experience of the laws as they are construed by those affected.

These laws did not ensure the survival of any national group or community. These laws are not even proper consolation to those puritans who believe the laws will keep or make them White.

We are constantly reminded that “a nation has the right to protect its identity and to keep itself separate.” If this is the start of a debate on group rights and consequent individual rights, we welcome it. I am eager to learn whether or not this right is the only right and whether or not it is an absolute right. If it is not, then what are the rights of such a group?

Rights are accompanied by duties; or does the CP consider that people only have rights? If one has the right to isolation, then one certainly also has the right to association. Unlike the CP we take the realities into account. We are looking for solutions in respect of the facts of South Africa; we are not looking for other facts for South Africa. In Credo van ‘n Afrikaner Dr A P Treumicht writes as follows:

He goes on to say on page 22:

I am one hundred per cent in agreement with this and I take cognizance of it when we look for further solutions.

What happened during the 36 years from 1949 to 1985? At the Second Reading in 1949 the Minister of the Interior delivered a plea for racial purity and a condemnation of blood mixing, and his arguments focused predominantly on group rights. In May 1945 Field Marshall Smuts spoke out against mixed marriages. Nevertheless he did not support the Second Reading because he believed that this legislation did not offer a practical solution to the problems arising from it. In 1985, in accordance with numerous declarations of human rights, we recognized the private and the individual right to a free married and family life. We have thus moreover given stature to a range of individual rights which have already been accepted as Government policy or which have been outlined by commissions as fundamental rights, for example, the right to religious freedom, the right to play sport, the right to education and the right to own a home as a basic requirement—this forms part of the Government’s housing policy—and the right to work. So we are systematically setting up a list of individual rights, and hopefully this will one day culminate in a charter of human rights.

We are trying to strike a balance between group rights and individual rights. The one without the other amounts to tyranny by the group or tyranny by the individual. The scrapping of these two measures and the handling of the consequences of the scrapping is proof of this. The scrapping of these two measures is an acknowledgement of the fact that in 1985 we view these individual rights differently to the way in which they were viewed in 1949. In 1949, against the background of the declarations of that time, we regarded these rights as liberalistic and humanistic or, in short, as something evil. In 1985, along with church leaders and along with Danie du Toit in Menseregte, we asked: What do the Scriptures really say about human rights? What are a human being’s fundamental and inalienable rights which, according to the dictates of Scripture, cannot be withheld indefinitely from anyone?

The CP’s political model is nothing less than constitutional fiction and so they definitely cannot join in this debate. [Interjections.] It amounts to colour discrimination based on racial prejudice. The CP’s attitude of “I decide what is in your interests; you have no say, just be grateful”, in other words of naked supremacy, is as outmoded as slavery in this decade.

This is a joyful day. We are not repealing these laws with sour faces. Over 36 years we have learnt that we no longer need these laws in 1985. We have outgrown the need for the protection offered by these laws. The hon members of the CP are a bunch of political toddlers. These laws are to them what a dummy is to a toddler; they cannot do without them. They gives them self-confidence in the way a pair of crutches would; and if one were to take away these measures their identity would crumble. That is how fragile their identity is. Our identity is not so fragile. We do not begrudge them these laws in their state Morgenzon.

Mr Chairman, if one had been listening to the hon member who has just resumed his seat, one would wonder whether one should really take any notice of him. Nevertheless I want to take notice of him in the sense of saying that the hon member has not made a success of anything he has touched so far. That is why I am glad he is in the NP nowadays together with the hon member for Randburg, one of the great frontrunners determining the course and pace of this NP. [Interjections.] In his time and that of the hon member for Randburg the NP-Jeugbond came to nothing. Now he goes sniffing round in other people’s constituencies while in the process of losing his own electoral division. Nevertheless I shall leave the hon member there. [Interjections.]

You know, Mr Chairman, the conduct of those hon members while my hon leader was speaking for instance reminded me of the time immediately after we were put out of the NP. At that time a certain Prof Koos Roelofse was interviewed by the Rand Daily Mail. He related how, just after those incidents, the MPs of the Transvaal NP took them to a place somewhere in the mountains at Goudini one Friday evening. There they subjected them to sensitivity treatment for two days. The article described how shaken and shocked those MPs were and how worried about their constituencies. That was actually the cause of their concern; not the NP but their electoral divisions. It also related what happened after they had been treated for those two days and received sensitivity treatment; in other words after their values had been destroyed. The article ends as follows:

[Interjections.] In these years they were so discouraged and denigrated that they have now—and this also comes from the “moonies”, the moon watchers—reached the stage of being penitents, apologists for what they exemplified over the years. [Interjections.] Now they come and tell South Africa: “I led a political life for 40 or 30 or 20 or 10 or 5 years which was a total lie.” Then they come and their confession to South Africa is: “We lied. Our political life was a falsehood.”

Now I wish to say a penitent is one of the most dangerous people on earth if he is acting out of self-interest, if he wishes to save himself and if he wishes to survive. At the moment South Africa is in a situation in which the determination of its future in current problematical times is in the hands of penitents, people who look over their shoulders to see how their constituencies are faring and how well their pockets are being lined when they make political decisions.

Order! Did the hon member say there were hon members in the House who looked to their pockets when they made decisions?

Sir, if that is unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

I merely wish to say to those hon members as they are sitting there that, just as leftist as they are under the leadership of the State President, they would have been equally far to the right—the same hon members sitting there—if a Hans Strijdom or a D F Malan or a Verwoerd had been leading them. [Interjections.] I almost want to say they would have been as far to the right as Adolf Hitler if he had been their leader. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Krugersdorp is starting to pave the way for a Declaration of Human Rights already. The UNO Declaration of Human Rights has not been accepted by South Africa up to the present but he is starting the spadework for a Declaration of Human Rights. Now I say to the people of this country:

†They are coming forward with a Declaration of Human Rights. It is obvious that they are coming forward with it. They are taking the PFP’s lead. The PFP can look with satisfaction at every action that the NP is taking because it is dictating the pace of the National Party. [Interjections.] There is only one little difference, namely that the PFP has to do it by force because it has to push the NP. At some stage the PFP might even have to drag the NP. However, it will follow the PFP’s course. The Progs need not worry about that. [Interjections.]

*I examined this report on the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. The hon member for Krugersdorp spoke about a report—he is a man with legal training. Yet this is the most superficial, least scientific and most cynical report from a parliamentary committee which I have seen in my life. [Interjections.] I want to say it does not redound to the credit of any parliamentary committee to lay such a report before this House. To tell the truth it is an insult to the Parliament of South Africa to submit such a report.

I now wish to enquire, however, why the hon the Minister referred this matter to a select committee. I want to contend there is only one answer to that, or perhaps two—I am guessing at the second but the first answer is that the NP was ashamed to sponsor this legislation. It therefore had to hide behind this report and use this committee as a vehicle to steer this legislation through. [Interjections.]

Possibly there is a second answer why it was referred to a joint committee and that is that I suspect the hon the Minister made some attempt in the Cabinet to prevent its passage. My guess is that the committee was then used to twist his arm. [Interjections.]

This report is arrogant. I do not know whether you have seen it, Mr Speaker—it is something you should examine. It is a report submitted to Parliament by the committee. There is an annexure to this report which takes the form of a draft Bill. That is all very well but this report with that annexure could theoretically have been rejected in toto by Parliament. Do hon members know what this arrogant committee did, however? It had already given this Bill a number and it is the same as that of this Bill appearing in the Order Paper. In other words this committee anticipated the decision of Parliament—it pre-judged. This is a serious reflection on the status and prestige of Parliament. I see the hon member for Mossel Bay is laughing—he is laughing because he knows I have a point here. This committee as such is a poor example of how this new dispensation should work because it abused this institution. It was a waste of money and of the time of officials and members of this Parliament.

Now I want to return briefly to the hon member for Nelspruit. I merely wish to tell the hon member I am pleased to hear that there seems to be a new court case. I was not aware of a case Rex versus Green and should be very grateful for references from the hon member.

Have you heard of the case of Fitzgerald versus Green?

Yes, I am aware of the case of Fitzgerald versus Green but the hon member mentioned a case of Rex versus Green and I should like to know where that is recorded. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, you are laughing with me and I am grateful for your support in this regard. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Nelspruit said we had raised no argument why this Bill should not be passed but it is a Bill for the abolition, the repeal of existing Acts. It is not for us to say why this Bill should not be passed; it is for them to say why it should be passed. I will tell you why we say these Acts should remain and that is for the same reason given by Malan, Strydom, Verwoerd, Vorster and Botha and that given by Le Grange and Van Rensburg and Badenhorst and De Klerk up to a few weeks ago—that these Acts should remain. We say so now for that specific reason. They say the scales have fallen from their eyes just like that. Suddenly, at the same hour and the same minute and a specific moment the scales fell simultaneously from everyone’s eyes! [Interjections.] Then the truth was revealed and the sun set on a new day. [Interjections.] And then the people of South Africa have to have confidence in such people! In 1981 they received a mandate from the people and it was not to abolish these Acts.

These hon members of the joint committee were supposed to examine related Acts. I wish to ask the hon the Minister whether they told him that related to this Act was the Matrimonial Property Act passed by this Parliament last year and relating to marriages in and out of community of property. There is a provision in respect of accrual now. According to section 8 of that Act—to my knowledge—at some stage the court may order the division of accrued assets. How does one divide assets which one is not allowed to possess in terms of the Group Areas Act?

What does the Group Areas Act say about this? [Interjections.]

Such a person may not own them. Now the hon the Minister will have to issue permits. He told his caucus he would regulate it with permits—he cannot even regulate those without permits in Hillbrow. Over a period of two years his predecessor could not succeed in removing Packery from Arcadia Street in Hatfield.

Now I ask the hon the Minister whether he is going to refuse permission to a White man married to a non-White woman—the moment he marries her in community of property she becomes the owner of the undivided half of the movables—to inhabit the man’s house in a White residential area with children who were perhaps conceived and born before the time. Is he going to do that? I ask him whether he is going to do that. [Interjections.]

On the other hand I now ask the hon the Minister to tell South Africa today how long he is going to retain the Group Areas Act on the Statute Book. [Interjections.] If he tells me they are going to retain the Group Areas Act, I wish to ask him why that Act is with the President’s Council now. Secondly I ask him what his personal standpoint is going to be if the Government and his fellow Cabinet members instruct him to abolish the Group Areas Act. What is he going to do? What is his personal standpoint about this? [Interjections.]

I wish to say to the hon member for Krugersdorp, who is absent at the moment, and all his hon colleagues that we in the CP are not ashamed of our standpoint. I want to tell them something else as well. Just as they have become the poorer in standpoint, principle and policy, in the same way they are becoming the poorer in traditional supporters by the day. Each of those traditional supporters enriches the CP.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Soutpansberg is obviously so scared of the hon member for Krugersdorp as the NP’s guardian MP for that constituency, that he only referred to that hon member in a derogatory and very unpleasant way without raising a single rational argument against the arguments raised by that hon member in the House this afternoon. [Interjections.] That, however, is typical of the hon member’s derogatoriness. A few moments ago he referred in a terribly condescending way to a mini party rally at which I addressed people in his constituency. I addressed 250 people in Levubu and I challenge him to draw an audience of 250 people. [Interjections.] He railed against us here this afternoon and said that we on this side of the House were people doing penance. This Government will not allow itself to be deterred by a bunch of frightened rightist Herrenvolkers on its road of orderly and responsible reform in this country.

This debate had several facets. There was the PFP’s paternalistic “I told you so” reprimand and a historical digging-up of declarations and standpoints leaders in the past as well as emotional outbursts of the CP. The emotional outburts of the CP and the nonsensical remarks of the previous hon speaker are however definitely not a reflection of the standpoint of the man in the street in South Africa. Should we not evaluate this whole matter in the light of the terms of reference? The terms of reference are very clear. They were formulated with a view to the continued social, educational and constitutional ordering of own communities. With this as background, the select committee was instructed to examine the two legal measures in question and to determine the desirability of repealing them or not.

But what do we get from the side of the Conservative Party? From them we only get an attitude of superiority, prejudice, contempt, self-interest, selfishness and even, I want to say, sanctimoniousness—sanctimoniousness is particularly characteristic of the attitudes of hon members of the Conservative Party. They have no consideration for any person or thing in their keenness to exploit the abolition of these two measures for their own miserable party-political benefit—almost as if there are only Whites in this country. Everything and everyone not forming part of, in the idiom used by them, “the privileged community of the Whites in South Africa”, are regarded as intruders and are simply ignored as regards their viewpoints and their aspirations in politics.

There are two questions that we must answer in this connection. The first is the question of what these measures have meant to South Africa. The second question is whether the abolition of these regulations will overthrow the existing order in this country. I want to suggest that these measures have had more negative consequences than positive successes. The hon the Leader of the Conservative Party referred to this in passing and said that they admitted this to a certain extent. The measure of misery and tragedy, the number of marriages destroyed, the number of families that will for the rest of their lives be branded by the community, the cases of attempted murder and suicide, and even successful cases of murder and suicide, the emotional disruption of people in South Africa, are a part of what we have achieved by means of this legislation. I do not want to advance arguments today with regard to the history of these measures in order to show that over the years they possibly had certain beneficial effects. The question is, however, whether the legislation concerned has inhibited mixed marriages or whether it has not perhaps in fact led to an increase in illegal mixed cohabitation.

Has section 16 of the Immorality Act restricted sexual intercourse across the colour line, or has this measure—and this is a very important question—in fact afforded protection to unscrupulous men who begot children knowing that a civil case against them would be inhibited because, if the woman concerned would lay a charge, the sword of a criminal charge would hang over her head and she therefore rather remained silent? I believe that without this measure such deeds would be inhibited, because it will now be possible for the normal civil procedure to be implemented in South Africa.

There are people who hide behind this measure to evade responsibility for their misdeeds. Hon members of the Conservative Party will do well to look at this aspect of the situation.

But what about the existing order in South Africa? Of course we on this side of the House say that it is necessary to order the various communities and groups, especially in a country such as South Africa with its enormous variety of people. There are measures, however, which are not so much concerned with the identity of groups, but are concerned with the order of the separate communities in South Africa. Population classification is aimed at the political ordering of groups with in South Africa. The object of the Group Areas Act is to accommodate communities in an orderly way. These two particular measures, however, affect the broad spectrum of our community in South Africa, while the two measures under discussion only have to provide for dealing with exceptional cases.

Oh, why do you not just say that this is concerned with reform? Say it and have done with it!

I want to know from those hon members whether it is purely out of selfishness or prejudice that we keep measures on the Statute Book of this country, while they do not affect the ordering of own communities in the social, educational and constitutional fields, but are merely a source of irritation to our coloured fellow citizens.

The hon members of the Conservative Party show no respect for people of colour in this country. When the hon member for Waterberg appeared on a platform with Jaap Marais in Pretoria, he made a remark which is absolutely typical of the mentality of the elements with whom hon members of the Conservative Party find themselves in politics. The hon member for Waterberg was almost incredibly derogatory in his attitude when he appeared with Jaap Marais on the platform of the Pretoria City Hall, while Jaap Marais said, and I quote him:

Then Jaap Marais continued and asked:

To that question the hon member for Waterberg replied as follows:

[Tussenwerpsels.]

That is a scandalous remark. It shows sheer contempt for people of colour with whom we want to live in peace and prosperity in this country.

Then there are the arguments on scriptural grounds. I think the hon member for Koedoespoort and the hon member for Waterberg should settle their arguments with each other. The hon member for Koedoespoort should go and read what his leader said today.

The arguments with regard to the danger to the identity and continued existence of the Afrikaner nation, the continued existence of the White minority and compartmental partition are simply emotional incitement. If the continued existence of a nation depends on such measures, I want to say to the hon members on that side of the House that we are doomed before having started in this country.

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

I do not want to reply to questions now, in any case not questions from that hon member. The hon members of the CP must accept that the formulation of arguments around implications instead of around facts will catch up with the CP in the long term. To my mind all that is involved is whether our Christian norms, our civilized standards and our accepted way of life will be prejudiced by the abolition of these measures?

Then there is the great outcry about morality. The hon member for Rissik said that we needed these laws to protect our weaker brothers and sisters.

That is what Dr Dönges said.

I want to ask the hon member for Rissik whether, for the CP, morality is confined to sex across the colour line. What about immorality? What about adultery? What about immorality between White and White in South Africa? The hon members of the CP should give us their views on this. I want to tell them that we on this side of the House reject their emotional cries with the contempt they deserve.

The hon the Leader of the CP made the remark here that a certain Reverend Du Toit had said we would have a sewer-stream of immorality. I want to ask him how many immorality cases in South Africa are in fact prostitution cases and not so much immorality cases. Therefore I want to ask the Government—as a matter of fact, the Government has also said this by way of the hon the Minister—to take drastic action against immorality. That is absolutely essential. I gladly support this measure.

Mr Chairman, we have come to the end of a long and sometimes heated debate which has been characterized by the various approaches of the different parties. In typical fashion the PFP expressed its satisfaction at this Act being repealed, adding nevertheless, with the hon member for Green Point as its spokesman, that it was too little too late and that we should immediately start looking at a lot of other laws—I shall still be getting round to that subject. In a well-reasoned and responsible manner—I want to thank all the NP speakers for that—the NP analysed and clearly discussed the favourable grounds existing for the repeal of this legislation. On the part of the CP this debate has been characterized by a heartlessness and a dismissive, negative and declamatory style. On occasion the hon member for Waterberg grossly insulted the Coloured population group. To call the children born of mixed associations “scum”! [Interjections.]

Your ears are blocked. You should open your ears for a change.

No, Sir, the hon member’s humiliating, dismissive attitude, looking down his nose at everyone who is not like him, oozed from his whole being.

At one stage the hon member for Rissik told the hon member for Bryanston that if that was his standpoint, he did not want to be any neighbour of his.

Do you take that seriously?

But the hon member said it, and then he refers to us as being pontifical! He said that and must answer to his own conscience about whether it is proper to say dismissively to another, regardless of race, church ties or political views: I do not want you as my neighbour.

I should like to quote something from the hon member for Koedoespoort’s speech which was about compassion. He said:

By the way, the hon member for Waterberg will recall that when we initially held negotiations, that was the chief motivation I put to him, and he was not opposed to the element of compassion. The hon member for Koedoespoort continued:

He is completely dismissive of the concept of “compassion”.

What did one of the three sister churches, the one which I would say argued most strongly in favour of the retention of the measures, ie the Nederduitse Hervormde Kerk, say about this, if one were to judge from the reading of the evidence? The view of that church was that it wanted to retain the measures but that they should be implemented with compassion. Heartlessly and with an air of condescension, as they are in regard to all facets of the relations between peoples!

Today I have a nice long time to speak and hon members will consequently hear all my arguments. They need only wait and will still be swallowing those words.

Various themes were dealt with, and firstly I want to place a few random themes under the magnifying glass and then get round to the more central themes that were focussed on in the debate. The first facet that was brought to the fore, particularly by the PFP, related to what the State was going to do about people who had been found guilty in the past.

†The discussion of the Vote of the hon the Minister of Justice will take place within a few days, and after discussion with him I have decided not to reply at length because there will be the opportunity for him to deal with this aspect fully since it falls within the ambit of his responsibility.

*A11 I want to say is this: According to information he has given me, at present there are five inmates of South African prisons who have, amongst other things, been sentenced for contravening section 16 of the Immorality Act. One of the six prisoners to whom the hon the Minister of Justice referred on 30 April in a reply to a question here, has already been released in the normal course of events. Of the remaining five, four are also serving sentences for, amongst other things, contempt of court, robbery, rape and contravention of section 18 of the Immorality Act which concerns the use of drugs to overpower women and, if I have deciphered the handwriting correctly, thus to have unlawful carnal intercourse with her. The fifth one’s previous convictions include contempt of court and enticement to commit immoral acts, a conviction in terms of section 19. In view of that, and therefore in reply to the hon member for Sandton, the hon the Minister of Justice is in no way prepared to recommend the summary release of these people.

The second theme involved the CP’s objection about the committee not having done its work properly. The CP members say that the evidence before the joint committee was irrelevant and contend that that evidence was gathered within the framework of other terms of reference.

In this connection I first want to come to the hon member for Waterberg. He attacked the hon the Deputy Minister about his absence and said he preferred to be in the House of Representatives and not here where an important matter was also being discussed. The hon member surely knows that the hon the Deputy Minister occupies a certain position and that within the framework of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act and the parliamentary Appropriation the hon the Deputy Minister is officially needed in the other House because his Vote, for which he is accountable there, as he is here, is under discussion. I think that was a remark that does not redound to the credit of even the hon member for Waterberg.

He says the hon the Deputy Minister painted a false picture of the CP’s participation in the select committee. The hon the Deputy Minister was surely not speaking about the select committee on which the hon member for Waterberg served. Surely the Bill before us was proposed by the joint committee. He was not painting a picture about what was done in the previous select committee before the new dispensation came into force. He said what hon members who have now served on the committee cannot deny, and that is that apart from the passage which the hon member quoted from the report, the CP made no contribution to the functions of the joint committee. I now want to ask the hon member for Rissik a question which I put to the hon member for Waterberg. The CP is now complaining about the fact that within the framework of the new terms of reference there was no opportunity to gather further evidence. Did the members of the CP who served on the joint committee at any stage ask for further evidence to be called for? [Interjections.] No, they did not, but now they are complaining about the committee not having done its work.

I want to take this further. Even in the previous select committee they did not regard the evidence as being irrelevant, because at one stage the committee’s terms of reference were amended. I quote from page xiii of the third report of the select committee:

1. 1. Your Committee’s terms of reference were widened by Parliament on 10 July 1984 in order to enable it to enquire into and report upon the desirability of:
   1. (a) the repeal of the above-mentioned measures; and
   2. (b) the adaptation of other related legislation consequent upon such repeal, with a view to the continued social, educational and constitutional ordering of communities.

Now we come to the interesting second paragraph. Paragraph 2 does not state that we cannot decide now because we want to obtain further evidence, but says the following:

1. (a) Your Committee has considered the evidence which has already been submitted.

There is no additional comment about it being inadequate, and the paragraph goes on to state:

1. (b) Your Committee, after deliberation, begs to recommend that the aforementioned measures not be repealed. The measures concerned and other relating Acts such as, inter alia, the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act, are essential for the protection of national identity and the attending social, educational and constitutional ordering of the various communities.

The hon member Mr Theunissen, who himself advanced the argument here, regarded the evidence then before him, also in regard to repeal, sufficient to enable him to reach a final conclusion. So his argument does not in any way hold water.

May I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, Sir. I do not think there is any further meaningful statement that can be made about this. The hon member’s argument was destroyed completely by the report which he submitted to the select committee.

The third argument that was advanced was that the NP was now adopting standpoints that clashed with previous pronouncements. The hon members of the CP took a tremendous amount of trouble to prove that. But who is arguing about this? Of course the repeal is a new development! Of course the NP and various people sitting in this House have previously said that that legislation ought to be retained and of course they now feel differently about that. We are now saying, in 1985, that it can be repealed. We do, of course, also concede that it is a change of policy.

Of principle!

I am still coming to the principle. There is no reason for the hon CP members to look so shocked. They are, after all, experts in the field of changing standpoints. Sir, you know the old example, but I am compelled to repeat it.

Very well, then, repeat it so that we can hear it.

Gladly. As Transvaal leader the hon member for Waterberg changed his opinion about a more fundamental matter than this, and here I am referring to the question of the constitutional development of peoples and population groups. On that issue he signed the manifesto stating that a Coloured homeland was not practical politics and that he supported the principle of co-responsibility over matters of common concern. [Interjections.] Sir, is there anyone who would argue with me about this? The hon member for Waterberg is not arguing the fact that his personal standpoint deviates fundamentally from an important point of departure that he once adhered to.

You people have changed in principle.

The hon member for Waterberg does not agree with me; it is merely the hon member behind him who does not want to listen or cannot understand.

You are a lot of turncoats.

Order! There is now a stream of irrelevant interjections. It must stop. The hon the Minister may continue.

Such insulting remarks are merely further proof of the heartlessness to which I have referred. [Interjections.] Sir, it is within the rules to say “You are a lot of turncoats”. The hon member for Waterberg, however, is regarded as a hero if, within less than a year after having appended his signature to a fundamental standpoint, he turns his back on it and adopts the very opposite standpoint. [Interjections.]

There are other examples in our history of greater men than the majority of us in this House, perhaps a greater man than any of us in this House—having undergone a fundamental change of viewpoint on just as fundamental a matter. I am here referring to the late Dr Verwoerd—it is recorded in Hansard and hon members may look it up—who said that independent states for the Black people were not NP policy. [Interjections.] Dr Verwoerd picked out the late Dr L J du Plessis, as chairman of the board of Dagbreek, for having advocated that states should be independent.

The hon the Minister should confine himself to historic facts. [Interjections.]

No, I know about that because I spent hours discussing the matter with the late Dr L J du Plessis. [Interjections.] Subsequently Dr Verwoerd, however, without having recourse to his congress, and I think without his Cabinet having expected the announcement, stood up in the House and announced that the states would become independent. That was a personal vision of his, and as leader he had the courage to alter his standpoint fundamentally. [Interjections.]

That is why we are not apologizing for the fact that this is a change in policy. The important question is not whether this is a change; the important question is whether a change of policy on a specific point and at a specific stage is right—yes or no. The second important question is whether a party is implementing sensitive changes of policy in a proper manner. I shall, in a moment, be coming to the first fundamental question that I raised. Let me, however, just say about the last one: Yes, about this matter—which we know to be a sensitive matter—the NP did not simply adopt a Cabinet resolution; we obtained, in all four provinces, the support of our authoritative bodies.

About the changes to these Acts?

Yes. In the Cape and the OFS the Cape Executive adopted an official resolution.

When was that? [Interjections.]

I do not know what the date was for the Cape, but the OFS adopted a resolution on 20 April.

This year?

Yes. [Interjections.] In the Transvaal the support of the Executive was obtained, but no resolution was adopted because the committee was then still in session. The executive committee, however, adopted an official resolution. In Natal the position was precisely the same as in the Transvaal. [Interjections.] At this stage every branch in each province is being afforded an opportunity to submit draft resolutions. I want to say here today that I shall ensure that a draft resolution is placed on the order paper of the Transvaal congress so that the congress can state whether it accepts or rejects our view on this point. [Interjections.] In contrast to hon members who, when they suffered a defeat in the executive, were not prepared to subject themselves to the test imposed by the congress, we shall certainly be doing so in this regard. [Interjections.]

Let us now look at the fundamental question, ie that of whether the NP’s change of policy on this matter, at this time, is desirable or not. What are the advantages and disadvantages? Why are we doing this?

In previous debates I have already put the Government’s viewpoint fairly comprehensively, but I want to repeat a few facets of this. Firstly we state that we are doing so because we are committed to the objective of removing discrimination, a matter we are serious about. I have added—this is something hon members of the CP should remember when they get where they are going to and start gossiping in dark little corners—that in regard to the question of discrimination … [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I really do want to appeal to you. Hon members are so consistently interrupting me that I do not feel as if, at this stage, the good order is offering me any opportunity to put forward my views logically. [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order! The hon member for Kuruman must also listen! The hon the Minister is speaking about very fundamental and emotionally laden matters. The Chair is of the opinion that whatever opposition one may have to certain legislation, this should not, of necessity, be reflected in the loudness of one’s shouting across the floor of the House. Hon members can disagree fundamentally without continually interjecting. I am going to be strict in this regard, and I request the House to assist me in this. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I added:

Then I said:

Paragraph 4.2, as the House well knows, refers to the legislation regulating own residential areas, attendance at own educational institutions and the right to vote on a group basis. This consequently presents a basic pattern of efficient group protection for every group and people in South Africa. Secondly we have said that the Government remains convinced—hon members also keep quiet about this when they are gossiping about us—that marriages between members of various population groups could give rise, in particular, to social, housing and educational problems. We have also said, in so far as this problem could have an adverse effect on own community life, that effective measures do exist to protect communities against such consequences. It is preferable, however, in regard to individuals involved in such marriages, for the Government not to interfere prescriptively in the intimate feelings of people. That responsibility rests with parents, members of the family, ministers of religion and others who, within the family and community context, are in a position to give meaningful advice.

Thirdly we have said that the repeal of section 16 has no bearing on the combating or prevention of immoral acts or unlawful carnal intercourse. With his reasonably effective method of debating, the hon member for Waterberg this afternoon tried to make out a case for the fact that the repeal of section 16 of the Immorality Act would also, broadly speaking, place one’s views on unlawful carnal intercourse and immorality at issue. Surely he heard me saying that the Government was strongly opposed to all forms of unlawful carnal intercourse. That is also the reason why the Immorality Act was referred to the President’s Council. The Government therefore fully supports the committee’s recommendations aimed at more stringent steps against immoral acts and unlawful carnal intercourse. Any attempt made in this debate to present the Government’s standpoint in any other light is presenting a false picture.

I want to add that circumstances in South Africa have, of course, changed. Reference was made to the erstwhile petition and to the insistence that these measures be placed on the Statute Book. I am not belittling that. I am not saying it was a mistake to have placed it on the Statute Book at the time. That was, however, done in completely different circumstances.

What were those circumstances? Besides the fact that a petition containing 250 000 signatures was submitted—if I remember the figure correctly—the circumstances were unique. It was just after the war. There were still a poor-white question in South Africa.

That was before a basic pattern of own residential areas and community life had been created, when numbers of people were at the mercy of circumstances which those hon members would do well to discuss in depth with the hon member Mr Van Staden who lived here in the Cape at the time and knows of the shocking conditions that prevailed here. Those conditions, however, have changed completely. Since I am discussing the petition let me, in passing, just mention the hon member for Pietersburg who said yesterday, with great verbosity, that the people who have been sending me petitions recently would, as in those days, unseat the Government. The population, however, has increased dramatically since then, when 250 000 signatures were submitted. I had a count made of the number of signatures the CP was able to obtain—on petitions for the repeal of these measures—for submission to me. My office assures me—after a reasonably accurate count—that in my office there are 1 120 such signatures. [Interjections.] If there are more, if there are 2 000 signatures in Pietersburg alone, as the hon member has said, he and his party do not have the organization enabling them to get those signatures delivered to my office. [Interjections.]

Let us have a look at the objections raised against this step being taken by the Government. If we rid this issue of all petty politics, there is, in point of fact, only one argument which the CP—they are the only ones opposing this legislation—has raised, and that is that it would lead to integration. They are saying that it embodies a threat to White identity. Let us analyse this. They did not, of course, put it as nicely as I did, having done so in superlative terms bordering on hysteria, for example the words of the hon member for Rissik:

After having done a good job of whipping up his own feelings, he said:

[Interjections.] Stripped of all the emotion, what he is actually saying is that he is afraid it will lead to integration. He feels that the repeal of the legislation would prove a threat to what is uniquely his and mine—because we belong to the same people.

They also said the NP was repealing these measures because it wanted to promote integration willy-nilly. That is the basic tenor of their argument. I want to call upon every member of Parliament, both in this House and in the other two Houses, to bear witness to the fact that the statement is untrue. Not only here, but also in the House of Representatives and in the House of Delegates, it is not only I, but also many of my colleagues, who have said that we stand for the preservation of own community life, for the fact that group security should be ensured and for measures to this end are being discriminatory, but rather essential differentiation needed to ensure that sound relations prevail amongst the various peoples in South Africa. We say it publicly, and the more the hon member for Greytown complains about that, the more certain we become that our standpoint is correct, because he and I can never see eye to eye on the same matter.

Most definitely.

May I please put a question? I just want to ask the hon the Minister the following question: If the President’s Council were to recommend that section 12 of the Group Areas Act be deleted, would he oppose it?

I shall reply to that. The NP states loudly and clearly, wherever it happens to be, that it advocates an own community life for every people. That own community life includes own residential areas, own schools and a great deal more that I have already dealt with in a previous debate.

As in Mayfair?

The hon member says: “As in Mayfair.” [Interjections.] In this connection certain action is being taken or certain steps are being taken. The hon member for Waterberg, however, signed that very same manifesto because he was aware of the factual state of affairs at the time. He knew then that as far as possible we stood for own residential areas, but also that here and there situations did crop up from time to time that could take a while to solve. [Interjections.] The NP states that it stands for own political structures in which self-determination for every group and people can be realized. Does that sound like a party pursuing a policy of integration?

No.

The hon member is correct. He has made an intelligent interjection for a change. [Interjections.]

The next argument is: It is all very well for the NP to say that, but how long will it be able to withstand the pressure to repeal those measures as well—the measures helping to ensure the objectives I have just stated? The PFP hopes that we shall bow to the pressure, but they have their doubts. The CP knows we shall not bow to the pressure, but they tell everyone a different story. [Interjections.]

As far as other laws are concerned, let me say that the NP is prepared to look at various laws. The NP is prepared to review discriminatory laws and, when necessary, to abolish them. The NP is not prepared, however, to relinquish its basic point of departure in regard to own community life. [Interjections.] The NP is not prepared to reconsider the principle of own schools, own residential areas and own political institutions. [Interjections.]

I am asked what we would do if the President’s Council were to say something or other about the Group Areas Act.

Order! I do not intend to call hon members to order again. After this I shall be naming hon members. The hon the Minister may continue.

Thank you, Sir.

We are asked what we would do if the President’s Council were to say something or other about the Group Areas Act. Let me reiterate that what the NP is saying is that the principle at issue is that of own residential areas, and that principle must be maintained. If we are asked how we shall be able to ensure that objective, or if better methods are suggested for doing so, we are prepared to consider them with an open mind. [Interjections.] If the principle involved in this fundamental point of departure is encroached upon, however, the NP’s answer will be a negative one, whatever the recommendation may be and from whatever quarter it may come. [Interjections.]

Because reports tomorrow will say that what I have now said is a verkrampte standpoint, let me now say that it is not based on racism or on the feeling of superiority of one group towards another. With this standpoint adopted by the NP there is no intention of being hurtful, and it is not regarded by us as benefitting one group at the expense of another. It is our heartfelt conviction that peaceful co-existence, close co-operation and real opportunities for everyone in this country can only be ensured if we ensure the security of every group. Group security is inseparably tied to a group’s feeling that it can retain its own identity—to the maintenance of its own community life. Group security is inseparably tied to the ability to exercise self-determination within one’s own political structures, particularly in regard to those matters that most intimately affect one—where one lives and where one’s child goes to school and is educated. That is why the repeal of these measures before us cannot be compared to the government’s standpoint on fundamental issues that are basic to one’s own community life.

Another theme that is touched upon is the question of how mixed couples—for people of different colours will be allowed to marry when the law is repealed—will be dealt with when it comes to residential areas and where their children will go to school. By this time it is clear that existing laws adequately cover that aspect. The hon member for Sandton is wide of the mark if he says that the result of repealing these measures is that mixed couples must have a permit to live together somewhere. That is untrue. The Act, as it stands, contains specific provisions. Only when they do not want to live where the Act prescribes preferring to live somewhere else, is it necessary to apply for a permit. [Interjections.] In the case of Whites the provisions of the Act are clear, ie that the married couple may not live in the group area of the White member of that couple but may live in the group area of the other member.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister where the writer Breyten Breytenbach and his wife would live if they returned to South Africa?

In all probability they would live in a White residential area because we do not have a special group area for Vietnamese in South Africa. [Interjections.] Nor do we have group areas for the 11 000 Chinese, and it is surely no secret that the 11 000 Chinese live amongst the Whites. So there is nothing new about that little question. I can, however, see what it is going to look like in that little publication that those hon members are going to distribute during by-elections. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Mr Theunissen and the hon member for Kuruman must make fewer interjections.

A last theme that was touched upon was that of the Scriptural grounds for this legislation. We have heard long dissertations about that, particularly from the hon member for Koedoespoort.

What about schools?

I am sorry, but there were so many interruptions. It is clear that as far as State schools are concerned, the present position pertains, and that is that each population group is dealt with in its own schools.

What about hospitals?

I do not think that mixed married couples are hospitalized as couples. Hospitals treat anyone who is ill, as is done at present, and in accordance with any changes that may take place. [Interjections.] There are clear provisions about the question of schools and residential areas, and there are fixed rules about access to other facilities. These remain unchanged until they are changed, and they can only be changed if this does not encroach upon the continued orderly structuring of communities.

A great deal has been said about Scriptural grounds. The fact of the matter is that this is the one facet about which we and the CP agree as far as this matter is concerned. At no stage did we argue that we were repealing these legal provisions because there were no Scriptural objections to them. That is not why this is contained in the reports and that was never our argument. The hon member for Koedoespoort says that to his knowledge no church adopts the standpoint that there are indeed Scriptural grounds for that. We agree with him about that—we are not arguing the point. There are many people, however—and he is free to come and read the letters in my office—who do believe that there are Scriptural objections and who adopt standpoints which are different to those of the churches. It is therefore relevant to have the question of scriptural grounds—there are none against such marriages—specifically mentioned in the reports.

A great deal of misunderstanding has been created by a member of the Gereformeerde Kerk about that church’s standpoint on the Mixed Marriages Act and Section 16 of the Immorality Act. I want to ask whether, in his speech, he was trying to create the impression that the Gereformeerde Kerk was in favour of retaining the legislation. Let me ask him whether he wanted to create that impression. He need only say yes or no.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether the Gereformeerde Kerk officially asked for this legislation to remain on the Statute Book?

To my knowledge the Gereformeerde Kerk made no official request to the Government. The Gereformeerde Kerk, however, adopts the standpoint that these Acts do not belong on the Statute Book. Is he arguing about that or is he not arguing about that? [Interjections.] The Gereformeerde Kerk, expressing its opinion about that matter, said the following:

Is that a request to have them abolished?

No, that is not a request to have them abolished, but the Church states that such marriages may take place, because it speaks of prospective married couples. [Interjections.] Let me just say that I made several enquiries because of the fact that I was not present when debates and discussions about this were being held, and in order to indicate what the general standpoint is, let me quote to hon members what I ascertained on the strength of several enquiries that I made:

The hon member tried to create a wrong impression, because he did not quote this decision in full. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for King William’s Town asks why we do not get what he considers as the necessary impact by taking steps such as this one we are taking today. I want to reply by posing a counter-question. If the impact of what the NP is doing in South Africa, is constantly belittled and minimized in our own country by elements of our Press and, inter alia, from time to time by the Official Opposition in this House, the PFP, how can we expect the outside world properly to evaluate what is really happening in South Africa?

What is really happening?

What is happening here is that orderly and responsible reform is in the process of coming to fruition. We as a Government will not allow that reform process to be hijacked by irresponsible elements. I do not want to say that the PFP as such is irresponsible, because during this session the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition reacted fairly responsibly, as did many of his members. The style of the hon member who interjected a moment ago, however, is part of the irresponsible style that we shall not allow to interfere in the orderly process of reform in South Africa. Just as the CP will not be able to stop that orderly process of reform embodying the safety and security of groups, people such as that hon member and others who belong to a vociferous minority in South Africa will likewise not be able to stop the Government from achieving its objectives. This Government wants to place everyone in this country in a position to be completely free and prosperous and to live in safety, as individuals but also within the group context. This vociferous minority will not deflect us from those objectives.

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

No, I must end off now.

The repeal of these two measures will not destroy the basic pattern of South African society. A definite consequence of this, however, will be the elimination of something that has become more of a stumbling block than an asset in our society—the asset it was originally intended to be. So without endangering group security, without subjecting the identity of a single people to any unnecessary risks, we are now repealing these two pieces of legislation, thereby making a contribution, proving in a tangible way—and that, too, is my reply to the hon member for King William’s Town who asked what the essential significance was of what we are doing here—that these distinctions, which we do want to draw, are not based on racial prejudice or on negative discrimination, but that what we would like to make subject to differentiating measures is intended to serve as a basis on which co-operation between various people in South Africa can take place; is intended as a basis making it possible for the respective population groups to accept co-responsibility for matters of common concern and jointly to pursue common goals in the best interests of our country and all its people.

Mr Chairman, in order to provide hon members with some background information on this Vote for the purposes of this discussion, it is necessary for me to make a few introductory remarks.

In addition to the budgetary functions of my department, all the specialized auxiliary functions, such as staff and financial and efficiency administration, are combined under this department. This arrangement with regard to the centralization of auxiliary services was occasioned by the need for co-ordination and for the maximum utilization of scarce trained manpower, the main objective being to economize.

I shall refer briefly to the functions performed by the various directorates and sub directorates of my department.

Efficiency Services

The functions of this directorate are aimed at the provision of a better and faster service at a lower cost. This implies in particular that requirements have been clearly identified; functions have been logically classified; sound organization has been introduced; staff establishments have accurately determined; procedures and methods have been rationalized; dynamic management is being applied; and the potential of workers is being fully utilized.

Since more effective performance and the resulting increase in productivity are among the top priorities of the Administration: House of Assembly, this directorate is making a major contribution towards achieving this end.

Staff Administration

This directorate is primarily responsible for the administration of the following: Recruitment, selection and appointment of staff; training and development of a staff corps; study schemes; evaluation and promotion of staff; transfers; conditions of service; terminations of service; and matters relating to organization and the staff establishment.

†The amalgamation of various departments into one organization has necessitated numerous extensive adjustments in the sphere of personnel administration, of which the following serve as examples:

1. (a) The introduction of a uniform personnel policy for the Administration.
2. (b) The revision of delegations by the Minister and Director-General.
3. (c) The implementation of new working methods and procedures within the department.
4. (d) The establishment of work-flow procedures and liaison with the various departments.

Excellent progress has been made in this regard and many of these tasks have either been completed or are in the process of completion.

Financial Administration

The financial activities of the Directorate: Finance of my department entail the overhead control of the financial matters of the Administration, including all head office payments, inter alia, payments to suppliers, payments in respect of salaries, wages and allowances etc and also control of all revenue collections. I am satisfied that the financial arrangements are progressing well, having regard to the comprehensive organization necessary to amalgamate the five departments into one Administration. The programme and expense structures have been created, the first budgets printed and pioneering work of notable standard has been performed.

Auxiliary and Civilian Services

The auxiliary services provided to the Ministers’ Council, Ministries, Director-General and heads of department of this Administration briefly entail the following:

1. (a) Archive services
2. (b) Typing services
3. (c) Switchboard services
4. (d) General office auxiliary services
5. (e) Data capture
6. (f) Liaison duties
7. (g) Legal services
8. (h) Secretarial services to the Ministers’ Council
9. (i) Library services

It can truly be said that a wide spectrum of services are performed by this sub-directorate.

Provisioning Administration

This sub-directorate is mainly concerned with the administration of the supply of goods and services—mainly stores, equipment and transport—for the departments of the Administration: House of Assembly. It goes without saying that control of stock in the Administration: House of Assembly valued at approximately R150 million must be strict and comprehensive and that directives must be applied strictly. For this reason an inspection programme has been devised, and strengthening of the inspection personnel has been requested to bring about an effective and adequate inspectorate. Training of personnel forms an integral part of this programme.

* Budgetary and Treasury functions

In terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1984, certain powers which had up to then vested only in the Minister of Finance, and which had been conferred on the Treasury by means of delegation and otherwise, were extended. This extension of financial authority was confirmed by the amendment of the definition of “Treasury” in section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Act. In terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act, as amended, the Minister of the Budget must therefore perform certain functions. The most important of these must surely be the presentation of budgets to the House of Assembly, and the exercising, together with his Treasury, of financial control over own affairs. With the take-over of provincial functions, the scope of my department’s activities will increase drastically, with a corresponding increase in financial responsibility and the size of our staff establishment. I believe that my department will be successful in dealing with this challenge. The Administration: House of Assembly has now been in operation for about nine months. Already certain positive tendencies have emerged. In the first place, there is visible proof that the collective bargaining on behalf of five departments undertaken by this Administration is successful. Its success is due to the way in which the own administrations are structured.

In the second place, a feeling of solidarity has already developed and taken root in the Administration: House of Assembly within this short period of time, on the level of the Ministers as well as the officials. This is in the interests of the own affairs or self-determination of the population group served by this administration.

In the third place, I do not doubt for a moment that the three Ministers’ Councils are already playing an important role in the process of a common search for solutions and for the achievement of consensus.

Finally, I should like to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to Mr André Cornelissen, the Director-General of this Administration, the head of the department, Mr Barry Steenekamp, and the departmental and parliamentary staff of my department, for their dedicated services in getting a totally new department off the ground. I also wish to convey my sincere thanks, for the loyal support I have received, to the hon member for Waterkloof as chairman of the study group, to the hon member for Gezina as vice chairman, and to the hon member for Springs as secretary of the study group. I am confident that the debate on this Vote will be of great benefit to us all.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has described to us in great detail the measures that he has taken to establish his new Ministry and the things that he is bearing in mind in doing this. It is all very well and very important that this should be done, but in actual fact at this moment we find ourselves in deep financial trouble in this country. It is necessary that he does set this up, but it does not actually approach the problems that we all have to address.

We know that the present hon Minister of Defence inherited his problems from his predecessor. In fact, I believe that the last budget which was introduced a month or two ago was the first honest budget that we had in this House for a very long time. However, there are very, very grave issues which we have to address. We must be quite sure when we analyse the problems of this Government that from now on we do not make the same mistakes we have made.

The slump that we are experiencing is neither to be measured in the cut in public servants’ thirteenth cheques nor in the fact that many people throughout the economic sphere will receive only a small or no increase at all this year. The cost of this slump is borne by the unemployed of this country whose families face privation and whose security is shattered. That is the measure of the irresponsibility which this Government has shown. Extravagance, expediency and mismanagement allowed what should have been a period of minor economic adjustment to develop into a full-scale slump—the worst we have had in 50 years.

If we seek a theme which runs right through all apartheid policy, it must be fear. This fear lies at the root of influx control and the decentralization strategy, of ideological legislation and the new Constitution, and it lies at the root of the gulf that the Government has created among the races of this country. However, there have of recent times been signs of dawning comprehension that this is a formula which will only lead to disaster in a country where people are destined to live together.

We hope that in this fear there is the beginning of wisdom. The Government has moved tentatively to reduce the wealth and education gap between White and Black. It has improved the bargaining powers of Blacks in industry and accepted the fact that Blacks will now take their place in industry in any position and even as owners. The Government, no matter for what reasons, is at last concerned more than ever before with the quality of life of Blacks.

It is therefore an extraordinary paradox that in the past 12 months it has placed the total burden of fighting inflation squarely on the shoulders of our Black population. Can one imagine a more retrograde step? It is of course no coincidence that this is the section of the population that happens not to have the vote.

Having failed to act timeously when moderate measures would have been effective, the Government has been forced to induce a major slump in order to try to get control of the economic situation. Interest rates have been raised to an all-time high, credit has been restricted and taxes increased, and the results are plain to see.

Mr Keenan of the University of the Witwatersrand puts Black unemployment at 3,3 million at this stage. Mr André Malherbe of the Chamber of Commerce says it has doubled in two years. The Institute of Futures Research says that in the modern sector of the economy 3,3 million workers are not employed. Debts wipe out 16 companies per day.

When faced with the problem of attacking the economic shambles caused by its own ineptitude the Government placed the total burden of fighting that problem on the shoulders of that section of the population whose disadvantaged status it was for the first time beginning to be really concerned about. One cannot imagine anything more illogical.

Blacks have no social security net, they have no capital cushion to tide them over a bad time, and unemployment means to them hunger and an inability to pay the rent.

Does one wonder then at the unrest that is taking place in the townships of the Eastern Cape or at the fact that the simple people query the efficacy and justice of the capitalist system?

The implications of a Black population which will number 70 million people in 35 years and which must work, lies behind the urgency for economic growth and is a major motivation for an industrial strategy. That we will of course discuss when we discuss the Vote of Trade and Industry shortly. Today, however, it is useful to come to terms with the magnitude of the unemployment problem.

We do ourselves no service when we attempt to mislead our critics with spurious statistics on Black unemployment. We end up by bluffing ourselves and making wrong judgments.

To qualify as unemployed, somebody must first have worked less than five hours in the previous week. He must have looked for work in the past month and he must be prepared to start work within the next week.

We produce our official unemployment statistics from a sample survey. We move into a town and we do a sample survey. From that survey we assess the unemployed, relating it to what we believe is the population of that town. If we assume, for example, that the population of Soweto is 800 000 and it happens to be 1,6 million, our estimate of the unemployment figure can be wrong by half.

The biggest error we make arises through our handling of citizens of the TBVC countries. If one of these citizens falls out of work in the so-called White South Africa and returns home, he ceases to be a statistic. Hey presto!, he vanishes entirely from the scene and is no longer a cause of embarrassment.

We know the dimensions of this problem. It does not need another commission. Nearly 10 years ago the Economic Development Programme planned for a real growth rate in the economy of 5%. It did so because it knew that approximately 200 000 people would come into the labour market each year.

We also know what has been achieved. Over the past eight years, our average growth rate has been 2,5% in real terms. Employment in the private sector, which is the wealth-creating sector of the economy, was 3,35 million in 1975. Last year it was 3,6 million. In other words, over those eight years the number of people in employment increased by less than 0,8% per annum while the population increase was between 2,7% and 3%.

The De Villiers Commission of enquiry into Escom caused its estimates of long-term growth to be cut back to between 2,5% and 3,5%. The implication of that is that by the year 2 000 there will be 20 million people looking for 15 million jobs—an army of 5 million will be unemployed.

In its report on demographic trends, the Science Committee of the President’s Council endorsed these figures and came to the conclusion that there was no way in which the formal sector of the economy could employ these people. There is no way that we can sidestep these issues. They are going to have to be tackled imaginatively and courageously and we are just not doing it.

It is fortunate that in a few days’ time we shall be discussing the White Paper on an Industrial Strategy for South Africa. That is the area to which we must look for the creation of employment. It will have to involve a comprehensive strategy which will promote the informal sector of the economy, develop small business, harness the forces of urbanization thus encouraging domestic demand, and involve political strategies that enable Blacks to identify with national goals. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not want to go into the standpoints of the hon member for Walmer in detail now. I always find it very interesting that the PFP says one day that we must fight inflation and then complains the next that the measures against inflation are hurting. We must decide whether we want to master inflation now and accept a degree of unemployment as a result or whether we want inflation which can eventually rise to 100%, 200% or 1 000%.

I agree with the hon member for Walmer that unemployment is a serious problem in South Africa. But in my opinion we must always see our unemployment problem among our Black people in the Africa context. We are dealing with a very large percentage of people who are not well trained.

In the whole of Africa one experiences the problem of particularly high structural unemployment and the only way in which one can reduce this kind of unemployment is by doing what this Government is doing, namely training. During the past few years we have seen a great improvement in training particularly as far as expenditure on it is concerned. We hope that in due course we will be able to reduce the percentage of unemployed persons.

I actually want to talk about what happened in Washington this morning where the American Congress was very busy debating about South Africa. There were proposals that the exportation of computers to us had to be discontinued and that loans to local authorities and/or to the State had to be reduced or also discontinued entirely, for example. If those proposals are accepted they can make financial management in the State very difficult in future.

But I believe that we must not always see only the dark side of what is going on in Washington. Sometimes one gains the impression, as The Economist mentioned, that it is almost a circus when people carry on so in front of the South African Embassy and the buildings of companies that invest in South Africa. I want to quote something from The Economist which in my opinion is not very popular among many of our American “friends”. The Economist says:

At present we are the football in American politics, and we do not always have a chance to win here. I think we are actually not of great importance to them.

I think the problem the Americans really have is the matter of the American Black man who is embittered, for example. A large percentage of the American Black people voted against President Reagan. But what happened anyway? President Reagan was reelected with an overwhelming majority. The Black politicians began to say: “We no longer have any say in the Government.” But one can understand why many of these Black people are embittered. One need only think of the fact that 15% of the Black people in the USA are unemployed while the average unemployment figure is only 6%.

Worst of all is that in many American cities 50% of the American youth are unemployed. The hon member for Walmer will agree with me that this is the case in a country which is highly developed, which introduced “civil rights” long ago, and which is very proud of the number of Black pupils who complete their high school training. We can take this a step further. We find that 75% of the Black people in the USA earn an income below the median income of the average American, namely $25 000. Worst of all is that 35 million Americans live under the breadline, but of those 35 million Americans 10 million are Black people.

It is therefore understandable that they are looking for something to draw attention away from this. Consequently they are using South Africa’s apartheid policy to take the spotlight off their problems. Bearing these problems in mind and considering Pres Reagan’s big victory and the tremendous emotion which accompanies the attack against us, it is interesting that The Economist goes on to say that it does not know whether all these measures are actually going to work. The Economist goes even further and says that Europe is after all a little different* to America. Hon members know that The Economist has never liked us much. I therefore do not think that The Economist wrote about us with affection. But The Economist knows its brothers in the USA and understands them.

If we now go further we must admit that this emotion is going to lead to measures against us. I also think that it will be difficult for us to prevent this, but then we must adopt the attitude Dr Rupert adopted a few weeks ago when, according to an article, he said:

I want to put it this way: As long as we have sound economic growth in this country and as long as we have political stability in this country that is how long the world’s businessmen will stand in line to do business with us. After all, they also want to have a share in prosperity. They do not want to invest in a country which has big problems.

Business suspended at 17h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, the final point which I raised before business was suspended was that if businessmen found it possible to make a profit in South Africa, they would stand in line to invest here and do business here.

There is a proverb which states: “Money talks”. We see that this affects sportsmen and I believe that the same applies to businessmen. It is perhaps necessary for us to look at investments in South Africa, because it is all too frequently said that if all foreign investments in South Africa were to end, we would be tremendously prejudiced. The share of foreign countries in our new capital formation dropped from 10% in 1982 to 3,8% in 1984. This figure incidentally also includes the profits the foreign companies made here and ploughed back into the country but does not include new capital inflow. If one analyses the situation one finds that new capital inflow was not more than R200 million in 1981 and was even less in 1982.

But then we come to risk capital. I will never forget how in 1961 as a young economist at the Board of Trade and Industries I made a study of foreign companies in South Africa. They included quite a number of American companies, many of them very well-known companies. We found that their profits as a percentage of their investments in South Africa varied between 100% and 120%. They invested a small quantity of risk capital here and the remainder of their financial needs were borrowed through our local banks. I therefore feel that we must not always lose our heads about the contribution foreign companies make in South Africa when it comes to risk capital. At the moment the USA’s direct investment is approximately R4,4 billion. That is as much as two Sasols cost…

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise to allow the hon member to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, at the moment the USA is the third largest investor in South Africa; Germany and Britain have bigger investments. But what is interesting is that since 1980, 30 American companies have withdrawn from South Africa, while 11 new companies have established themselves here. If one analyses the situation one finds that the companies that withdrew were those companies which could not make a good profit here.

In 1980 a study was undertaken and it was found that an investment in mining in South Africa yields a profit margin of approximately 25%, compared with 14% in the rest of the world. In the case of industrial investments the return is 18% in South Africa, compared with 13% in the rest of the world.

American investments in South Africa are in growth industries, in highly profitable industries, in particular. Their investment in oil is 44%, for example, in computers 70%, in motor vehicles 33%—well, they want to withdraw because the Japanese are making life difficult for them and they cannot compete. Another area on which they concentrate very profitably is the pharmaceutical industry. There is hardly an American pharmaceutical manufacturer who does not have a factory in South Africa or do business with us.

We can therefore honestly say that America invest not only in South Africa but also in the rest of the world only if they can make a very good profit. They do not invest in any country in the Western World or in Africa to render a social service. In any case one does not find many American firms in Africa—I think the furthest they could get was a Coca Cola factory in Lagos.

If one analyses the situation as far as Government stock is concerned, which they now want to put a stop to, South Africa is very attractive, because our interest rate is high and our risk is low. Ask them how much they are at present investing in Argentina, Brazil or any of those countries—not to mention Mozambique. One does not find new American investments there. If one sums up the entire situation with regard to investments, one finds that when it comes to risk capital South Africa must deal with the situation itself.

In respect of trade we find that only 9% of our total exports go to the USA while only 16% of our imports come from the USA. It would appear that in 1983 the USA made a profit of R711 million on us and in 1984 a profit of R1,3 billion. This is only as far as trade is concerned. If one adds services, the Americans probably make at least R2 billion per year—if not more—in foreign exchange profit from South Africa. There are not many countries where they can make such a profit out of an investment.

Interestingly enough, if we look at the different kinds of imports and exports, we see that we export basic raw materials to them. In 1984 base metals valued at R556 million, unclassified gold valued at R807 million and minerals valued at R149 million were exported to the USA. Our imports from America consisted of machinery valued at R1,2 billion and agricultural products valued at R622 billion. We incidentally imported rather a lot of maize from them, and I hope that our maize farmers will look after us so that we need not import so many agricultural products from the USA again next year. We therefore import ready-made products while we export raw materials to them.

Now it is a fact that an American will not import your products if they are not the cheapest. They have suppliers everywhere and will definitely not subsidize you on goods they import from you. What is their alternative? They import basic raw materials from South Africa, and their most important alternative in certain cases is to get these from Russia. I want to ask the Americans who are speaking so loudly in the Congress now: “Your alternative is Russia; are you going to condone Afghanistan now?” I think they should give us that answer now in their Congress.

If they are going to put a stop to the exportation of computers to South Africa from 2 June—I think that is the date—and are no longer going to purchase Kruger Rands from us, I want to ask the Americans who always speak so reverentially about the GATT and the IMF principles whether—if they pass these laws—they are now going to violate those principles. Are they going to violate the ideas and the spirit of the GATT and the IMF by boycotting us? Are we not entitled to do the same?

What alternative do we have if they are going to put a stop to certain exports to us and refuse to supply us with certain products? I know that The Economist says that this is not going to work in any case and consequently my argument is actually hypothetical, because to a certain extent the noise and emotions in Washington are going to subside. They will nevertheless pass a kind of disinvestment law, and when we begin to suffer hardship, I ask myself: Seeing that they have violated basic principles of international trade are we not entitled to refuse to pay back dividends to the USA?

Hear, hear!

Are we not entitled to refuse to pay back the capital they sell to South African companies? I hope this does not happen because we have friends there—as long as they make a profit in South Africa.

What are their names?

IBM and Mobil Oil—I can give the hon member their names. They are our friends as long as they make a profit in South Africa. I am not referring now to the hon member’s friends in the Democratic Party who also support Nicaragua and the communist parties there.

As far as the matter of the obstructing of trade is concerned—and if the attempt were to succeed in reducing our exports to the USA—the question is whether we would have the moral right to use the profit we make in Japanese yen to purchase American machinery. I am asking this question on the basis of the fact that according to the 1984 figures there is already a difference of more than R1,3 billion in our trading pattern with the USA. In addition it is a fact that those countries which we consider to be our friends are beginning to ask why we purchase our equipment from companies and from countries which are actually trying to boycott us.

I am in favour of a system of free trade. After all, this is our entire point of departure in this country. But we must reply to the question on how far we can go in using Japanese yen and Italian lira to purchase American, Swedish and Danish products and import them to this country.

In addition we are giving local governments, provincial authorities and the State permission to grant tenders and contracts to certain of these people who are trying to boycott us in the UN and in many other spheres. What do we lose by that?

Give an example.

No, I will not give an example now. I do have an example, but I do not think I should refer to it. Of course we are losing technical knowledge by allocating tenders and contracts to those people, while we have sufficient companies and undertakings in South Africa that can do precisely the same work for us. We must remember that South Africa imports 30% of its national product. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Waterkloof spoke about America, boycotts and so on in particular. I have no fault to find with that. We probably all want to give attention to those matters because they are probably near to all our hearts. Of course we should also criticize those persons who are involved in the boycotts against us. Thus far I have absolutely no fault to find with what the hon member for Waterkloof had to say in this connection. The hon member actually started abroad and returned to the Republic in the course of his speech.

But as regards own affairs I want to start here in the Republic again and then go further afield. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, since before the referendum we have heard constantly about own affairs. A long time ago already we heard that everything was own affairs and for that reason all would be well with the Republic of South Africa.

We heard that at Petrus Steyn too.

Even in the by-elections which have taken place since then, we heard the same story. Of course I cannot take it amiss of the hon the Minister that he was appointed to this post. After all he is looking for work and work must therefore be made for him. I shall touch on this point again in a moment.

Now I have here in front of me the figures in connection with the Vote under discussion. Under programme 1 it is very clearly stated what the aim is, namely to deal with the overall budgetary and auxiliary services for the Administration: House of Assembly. This is what is stated officially in the relevant document. But I want to ask what the task of the hon the Minister actually involves. What does the hon the Minister do? What is he doing in connection with own affairs in South Africa?

I must say that this entire matter of so-called own affairs is an absolute farce. [Interjections.] It is an absolute farce with which the Government is trying to bluff the voters and the public outside so that they will believe that the Whites in South Africa still have own affairs in terms of the policy of this Government. [Interjections.] Of course the public must now be deluded into believing that a great deal is being done about the matter of own affairs.

What are own affairs, Oom Jan?

Can you tell us that, Gerrie?

Of course I can, yes! [Interjections.]

Now the hon member is asking … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I am glad that the hon member for Springs passed those remarks. The hon member and I have known each other for many years. Except for two minor matters—and fortunately I am a farmer and I hear that farming is not a general affair—all the other matters gathered together under this Vote are subject to general legislation.

Yes, even Loskop Dam! [Interjections.]

Yes. But what is the position at the moment? We have four own affairs portfolios, each with its own Minister. Over and above that we have a Deputy Minister of Health Services and Welfare too. [Interjections.] In the past all four these departments dealing with health, agriculture, national education and community development were actually incorporated in the other departments which are now departments in control of general affairs.

Were provincial councils own affairs, Oom Jan?

Order!

They are being abolished.

Order! I only called upon one hon member to speak, namely the hon member for Sunnyside. Other hon members must contain themselves. The hon member for Sunnyside may proceed.

With this new dispensation not one of the other portfolios of the Ministers disappeared, nor did those of the Deputy Ministers. Whereas in the past we had Ministers and Deputy Ministers who dealt with everything, now we have 30 Ministers and 10 Deputy Ministers. [Interjections.] The portfolio which the hon the Minister of Finance now holds used to be a part, or rather a small part, of another portfolio and up to now the task of the hon the Minister has merely been to deal with certain matters which he spelt out here this afternoon—I shall still get to that. There is one Director-General for all four the relevant Ministers. I think it may have been a very good thing to rather have four Director-Generals and one Minister.

Oom Jan, say something now. [Interjections.]

Sir, during the by-election in Waterberg the hon member for Rustenburg and I reached a group of Nationalists simultaneously and when we began to ask questions he said: “No, I cannot answer you” and walked away. After that those people were all “own” members of the CP.

I want to refer to the speech which the hon the Minister of the Budget delivered today. He said:

Sir, the hon the Minister is correct: His greatest and most important task is simply to introduce this appropriation here. Now I want to ask: Can South Africa afford this? Can South Africa afford to waste so much money on this new dispensation? But it is not the hon the Minister’s fault, it is the fault of the new dispensation.

I also want to quote what the hon the Minister said when he introduced his Main Appropriation on 25 March (col 2667):

This evening or tomorrow I want the hon the Minister to reply to certain matters I want to put to him. This is now apart from what he already said in his speech today.

Every Minister of general affairs has full control over his staff, up to the fourth category. As far as the hon the Minister of the Budget is concerned, changes have, however, been introduced in certain respects, as he has spelt out—I shall get back to that in a moment. One of the matters discussed was efficiency. I think that all the hon members want efficiency. But it seems to me as if the department of the hon the Minister has a large number of officials and control over the other five departments and consequently it is going to practise greater efficiency.

Was there not efficiency in the general Public Service among those people transferred to this Administration—the Commission for Administration transferred them to this Administration? Was the system in use in the other department of such a nature that this Administration of own affairs must now do all these things to rectify matters, achieve greater efficiency and so on, or is this merely circumlocution?

These five Ministers together control R2,2 billion; that is the total Appropriation as far as own affairs are concerned. How does this compare with the central Appropriation, for example?

Let us look at these Appropriations. As I have said, the Appropriation for the Administration: House of Assembly totals R2,2 billion, but we find that provision has been made in all these departments for many transfer payments. Let us see what transfer payments are. In the documents of the hon the Minister of the Budget it is stated very clearly that transfer payments are amounts which the department does not itself spend on the acquiring of goods or the rendering of services, but which are transferred to persons or institutions in accordance with an appropriation specified in the programme. Grants, loans, social pensions, subsidies and all payments referred to in the definition of “transfer payment” are involved here.

Transfer payments are involved in all these departments. What are the transfer payments in the Department of Health Services and Welfare, for example? Remember, it is simply a transfer, but in the case of that department it is nevertheless R596 771 000. In the case of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply it is R268 745 000. In the case of the Department of Education and Culture it is R937 081 000. In the case of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works it is R480 550 000. In total that is R1 851 147 000. This is what transfer payments amount to. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this afternoon in his introductory speech the hon the Minister concentrated mainly on the functions of his department. It seems to me as if the hon member for Sunnyside either was not present in the Committee or did not listen or did not understand what the hon the Minister said. That is all I have to say about the hon member.

In order to evaluate this Vote properly and give proper attention to and evaluate the financing of own affairs, it is necessary for one to review the general economic state of the country. A sound national economy inevitably means that own affairs for Whites will also be run on a sound basis. These two things cannot be separated from each other.

When we have a downward trend in the economic movements, this means that the general Treasury must adjust itself to this. Certain steps must be taken to combat the problem. Naturally certain measures do not only apply to and give substance to the general Appropriation. If it is stipulated that the Government is serious about the restriction of the deficit before borrowing, as announced by the hon the Minister of Finance, it is surely also the case that this will apply to the Appropriation for own affairs.

If State expenditure is being cut in the general Appropriation to an increase of only 11,4%, then it is surely also true that this same pattern will have to be adopted in the Appropriation for own affairs. The one can therefore not be separated from the other.

In the heterogeneous composition of the South African population it will always be necessary to deal with the interests of each group as well as possible. The task of the Government is primarily to maintain an orderly community in South Africa. Consequently when demands are made on the Main Appropriation by the respective Appropriations for own affairs, this will always have to be done with due regard to what is in the general interest.

It is also a fact that no Administration for own affairs will and will want to handle its affairs in such a way that it will lead to a lowering of standards setting in. After all, during this session we have already seen how the members of the respective Houses have tried to stabilize the position of their group. Consequently I think it is a pity—the hon member for Sunnyside has referred to this again—that for the sake of petty political gain the CP is trying to denigrate the system and specifically the component of own affairs to such an extent that it must create the impression outside that own affairs have no place in the dispensation.

When one talks about the appropriation of White own affairs, it is important to remember that we operate an intertwined and integrated economy in South Africa. Our sources of revenue no longer derive from one group in South Africa only. There was a time when the Whites could claim that they contributed most of the State revenue by way of tax. Those days are long past. The contribution of the other population groups is increasing every year. Thanks to a fine and rich South Africa the other groups are at present far more active economically. Entrepreneurs from those population groups actively came forward and people from those groups began to fill more skilled posts. Because this interaction set in, we got the total involvement of all groups in the economic and financial spheres. This means that all contributors have a justified claim on the Treasury. In such an intertwined economic set-up one has the own affairs Appropriation. It is in this interdependent set-up in which the own affairs of the House of Assembly must come into their own.

Section 84 of the Constitution makes provision for the budgeting procedure which must be followed. Section 84(a) deals with the specific formula which is used to make the transfer of funds from the Treasury to the own affairs department of the House of Assembly possible. This formula was not applied in this year’s Appropriation. Section 2 of the Revenue Account Financing Act, Act 120 of 1984, was used this year to determine the amount to be transferred. The relevant Act only makes provision for such a transfer for the present fiscal year which ends on 31 March 1986. I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether it is reasonable to deduce that the formula in section 84 of the Constitution will be used for the next Appropriation. It seems logical to me that this will be the case.

When this formula is laid down, specific requirements will have to be taken into account. Every own administration, whether it be the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives or the House of Delegates, must be able to rely on a specific certainty regarding where its fiscal resources will come from. Account will have to be taken of escalation costs, population growth and other determinable factors in order that growth continue and specific standards be maintained.

On occasion the formula has been referred to in a speculative way and it has been alleged that general affairs have a first claim on the Treasury and that the appropriations in terms of section 84(a) for own affairs only have a preferential claim. I cannot agree with this. The Treasury accepts the full financing of all components of the State dispensation and it would surely not be a good thing to allege that general affairs would have a first claim and own affairs only a preferential claim.

As a matter of fact I want to argue that each administration for own affairs has a direct and first claim on the Treasury, as a result of the provisions contained in section 84(a). I would therefore appreciate it if the hon the Minister could give us an indication in this Committee whether there is some basis for my concern with regard to the statement that general affairs have a first claim on the Treasury, while own affairs—according to the allegation which has been made—can at most have a preferential claim on the Treasury.

For that reason I want to argue that when the contents of the formula are considered, account must be taken of a specific growth factor or rate, which must be built into the formula. If a formula does not have a built-in growth factor, instead of being a source of financing, it can become an inhibiting and even obstructive measure as far as sound growth is concerned. It can even lead to the erosion of what was initially intended to assist in the matter. A stagnant formula, in which account is not taken of growth and expansion, cannot let own affairs as a component of our new Constitution come fully into its own.

I want to repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech, namely that there is an interacting involvement between this Appropriation and the Treasury. I therefore want to submit that when the formula is finalized, it be drawn up to function in such a way that when there is an economic revival the allocation will also be able to benefit from it.

Mr Chairman, when this debate started I was wondering whether I had in fact picked on the wrong debate because the first speaker, the hon member for Walmer, was talking about labour and Black unemployment to a very large degree, and the hon member for Waterkloof then offered very long explanations on American politics and considerations with regard to disinvestment and so on.

It was very boring.

No, it was not boring. I found it most interesting. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sunnyside was the first speaker who really came to the Budget itself with which we are dealing. He considered it a “blufspel”—I think that was what he said—and, of course, he denigrated the whole situation. [Interjections.] The hon member for Gezina really stuck to the Budget and went into the constitutional aspects of it.

I suppose we all look at this from different angles. So far as I am concerned, this was one of the burdens we undertook when we undertook this Constitution. We in this party, although we are not that happy about the situation—as is to be expected—at the same time knew when we went along with this Constitution that this would be the sort of thing we were going to come up against. Instead of having one huge stomach to absorb the public’s money, we now have a variety of stomachs that will absorb money from a variety of different angles. All I can hope for is that these smaller stomachs are going to be efficient and push out the energy which is going to resolve some of our problems. [Interjections.] This is the situation with which we have to deal. It is a fact of life; it is with us. I know that in any other country one would have one administration handling all these affairs but we in South Africa keep on telling everybody that our situation is unique and different and that we therefore have to have different sets of programmes and plans to accommodate it. The own affairs Ministries, inefficient as they may be in concept, have to attempt to do a difficult job. I do not believe we should simply denigrate them before they have been given a chance.

This budget that is before us is a relatively small Vote—something of the order of R18,5 million. However, this is the Vote which is supposed to control the whole of the own affairs for the White community.

Now, I would say the main functions of this department, as was in fact indicated in the programme of administration, are to look after the budgets of the various departments of own affairs and to see to it that they do not throw money away right, left and centre. Although the total Budget is R2,2 milliard as was indicated by the hon member for Sunnyside, the actual present Budget is absolutely nothing compared to what it will be in due course when the various provincial functions are taken over. I do not know what sort of money we are talking about but the hon Ministers with own affairs portfolios, particularly the hon the Minister of the Budget, will have a very large sum of money to administer. While I will concede that it is not really justified to have five Ministers this year, they have after all to get some practice and they have to get a certain amount of their organization under way.

Although this is a specific budget for the hon the Minister of the Budget, he does have responsibility for all the other budgets. In Health Services and Welfare, for example, what is on the budget now does not include curative medicine and hospital care which in South Africa is a huge amount. This is one very large sum that I presume will be added next year after the demolition—I use the word advisedly—of the provincial councils.

The problems of splitting curative medicine in the provinces have already been discussed by my colleague, the hon member for Durban Point. I do not propose to spend much time on this matter but I do appeal to the hon Ministers concerned with this matter not to allow any serious changes to come about in the hospital services until such time as they have sorted out all the problems that were mentioned by the hon the Minister. The public will suffer if these problems are not sorted out before the hon the Minister spreads his wings and takes over the whole affair.

As far as Education and Culture is concerned, primary and secondary education are not included in this budget, but they will of course be in the next budget. The question of school fees and of school committees has to be sorted out and the public must be informed of what is happening.

I would like to make one point to the hon the Minister of the Budget because this is specifically something he has to deal with. If there are going to be compulsory school fees, either directly or through buying school books or whatever the system will ultimately be, I do believe most sincerely that the parents should be able to claim rebates on income tax under general affairs. I think this is most important and it would be most unfair if they were to have to pay this and at the same time still pay income tax.

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices.

I come now to the local Government aspect. I believe this is a highly contentious and difficult subject and, what is more, the financial aspects of this are going to be quite alarming. The question of total ethnic local authorities is, frankly, quite impossible; they simply cannot work. I know it is the policy of the Government to have total ethnic local authorities but this system will not and cannot work on anything like an efficient and viable basis. I therefore believe that whilst one may aim in that direction, if that is the policy of the Government, one must also look at areas where this can be blurred to ensure that there is efficient local Government.

Third-tier government is going to be vitally important in the new concept and, if we are not careful, we are really going to make life difficult for people. Some of the aspects of local government will be handled by the second-tier nominated executive and some are going to be handled directly by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This will present a number of very difficult problems because when one has a subject which is going to be divided among so many Ministers—I am not sure how many there are altogether, but I think it is about five—it is going to be very difficult to co-ordinate all of the financial aspects that come into being.

I have mentioned these matters because I believe that these future budgets are going to be very much more important than the budget that is before us today. This is a relatively small budget. The next budget is going to run not merely to R2,5 billion, but it is going to run to R8 or R9 billion. Make no mistake: It is going to be a big budget. Therefore, I believe that one must exercise one’s mind and get things planned properly before we get underway.

A final point I want to touch upon is that one of the functions that is mentioned is the services to citizens in respect of electoral matters. That is a function of this particular Minister. I am not quite sure what is meant by that—I must admit I was remiss in not looking up Act 45 of 1979 as I should have done. However, the position is that local government, as I said before, is going to be extremely important and in almost every local authority they have the most appallingly bad voters rolls. If this is part of the functions of the Minister and of this whole department of own affairs, then I believe that one of the things they must ensure is that the local government system of election is fair and up to date. At the present moment I can hardly think of one major local authority in which it works adequately. Most of them are working partly on the voters roll taken from the population register and partly on some peculiar system of registration, and maybe one or two of the smaller ones do have a registration every time they have an election. That used to be the system.

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

*Before I call upon the hon member for Paarl to speak, I want to refer hon members to Standing Order No 107 which forbids conversing aloud. I shall name the next hon member whom I hear speaking aloud, by referring to his constituency.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon member for Umbilo for his usual constructive speech. I quite agree with him that in one or two years’ time the Budget for own affairs will be quite different from what it is at present.

*This evening I very much wanted to talk about the financing of education under the Vote on own affairs, but in consequence of certain events today I should like to discuss another matter which I strongly feel cannot go unanswered.

Earlier today we were privileged to attend a very fine, dignified and simple function to commemorate the centenary of the Parliament Building. Two weeks ago today we were present at another function where all three Houses of Parliament were privileged to celebrate the recognition of Afrikaans as official language of South Africa. Next Tuesday a third unique function is taking place, namely a pilgrimage by members of all three Houses of this Parliament to the Afrikaanse Taalmonument. This is a monument which was inaugurated on the slopes of Paarlberg ten years ago in honour of a language which had its origin in Africa. It is the only language which bears the continent’s name, as a matter of fact it is the only new Western language to develop during the past century. I want to welcome all the members of this House and of the other two Houses in advance on behalf of the Afrikaanse Taalfonds. I also want to say that we are very grateful that the legislature, in its three components, is coming to see what has been done in honour of our language.

When I say our language, I mean that it is a language which 4,5 million people in this country have as their home language, their mother tongue. It is also a language which is spoken by 12 million people in this country.

Now a matter cropped up today which I really feel cannot go unanswered. I have here a report which appeared in The Argus of 22 May 1985. The headline of this report is, “Race row over service at Afrikaans monument”. I want to read out parts of this report to hon members because I think it is absolutely shocking:

Hon members must now listen to this:

He says, and here he is being quoted:

Can hon members believe that? [Interjections.] I am continuing to quote:

I am sorry to say this:

I am sorry for the hon member for False Bay:

[Interjections.] The hon members must now listen to what Dr Loots goes on to say:

Then he concludes with these words:

[Interjections.] This evening I should very much like to know whether the other parties in this House also reject the opinion of this person with the content it deserves. [Interjections.] I specifically want to ask the hon the Leader and the hon members of the CP—this afternoon I spoke to an hon member of the CP outside, but I will not quote him because I suppose it is irrelevant—whether they agree that “no other races should be admitted to this event”. I should also very much like to ask the hon the Leader of the CP whether he and the members of his party will be there next Tuesday. Or will they also boycott that function as they have boycotted other functions recently? [Interjections.]

You are a jellyfish (drilvis).

It seems to me as if the truth hurts.

Order! Who said that the hon member was a “drilvis”?

Mr Chairman, I said that he was a “drilvis”.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, you must tell me why I must withdraw it. [Interjections.] The State President has frequently used that word “jelly-fish” (drilvis).

Order! The hon member Mr Theunissen must withdraw the word.

Mr Chairman, I am asking you to tell me why I must withdraw the word. [Interjections.]

Order! As far as this is concerned the Chair does not owe the hon member an explanation. It is in the Chair’s discretion to decide whether or not specific terminology is objectionable under specific circumstances. I am of the opinion that the hon member’s remark is objectionable and the hon member must therefore withdraw it.

Then I will withdraw it.

The hon member for Paarl may proceed.

The entire symbolism of the Taalmonument attests to one thing only, namely that the monument commemorates a language which is a consolidation of languages from the West, the East, and indigenous countries, and which originated in South Africa itself. We have a unique asset in this country, and we surely cannot allow a party like the CP to misuse this unique aspect of ours to sow discord among people in South Africa. [Interjections.]

It is really ironic that it took a new political dispensation in South Africa to make people realize that Afrikaans is everyone’s language. It is an own language, but also an own language for those people. I five diagonally opposite the Taalmonument. Many people visit it. What I find touching is that regularly on Sunday afternoons buses stop at that Taalmonument, buses full of Coloured school children from the far Karoo who come to Paarl on a pilgrimage to a monument for a language which is also their language, in the same way that it is my language and the language of those members. [Interjections.]

If the NP governs, Russian will become the language. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the PFP we also reject the attitude portrayed in the report which the hon member for Paarl read to us this evening. We reject that attitude as well. I would like to identify with the sentiments which the hon member for Paarl expressed tonight in regard to the Afrikaans language.

†Mr Chairman, before I get on to what I want to say tonight, I wish to react to the speech of the hon member for Waterkloof. He had a lot to say about the disinvestment issue in South Africa. I should like to reply to him, but the hon member for Yeoville has just returned from the United States, and I think he is better qualified to reply on the disinvestment issue than I am. There is only one thing I should like to say. It is very easy for us to talk about double standards, and I agree with hon members—there are double standards. I was sent a Press report just today by a friend of mine in the States, and it is very easy to display the typical knee-jerk reaction, such as that hon member has. I myself feel the same sometimes, but there is one thing that we must remember, and that is that we still do have statutory discrimination on our Statute Book. If we want to improve our image there we have to get rid of that.

I think we can well do without the kneejerk reaction the hon member has displayed because in the long run it can only do us more harm than good.

Returning to the speech of the hon the Minister, I wish to point out that one of the problems that still faces us here in South Africa, is our current high level of inflation. Some people predict that this is going to reach a peak of some 17% this year. The policies that this hon Minister and the Minister of Finance have adopted in regard to demand management, are beginning to take effect. They have been very successful so far. However, I believe that we can do more. There is one further step we can take, namely the implementation of a price and incomes policy in South Africa. Let me hasten to add to that I am not advocating a compulsory price and incomes policy, but a voluntary price and incomes policy. It is on this aspect that I should like to talk tonight.

There are a number of factors that we should look at when implementing a voluntary price and incomes policy. Firstly, as far as inflation is concerned, we are at present operating well below full capacity in the economy, so we do not have demand pull inflation at all. Except for one or two resources which may be in short supply, we do not have a demand pull component in our inflation rate. However, one component which we do have in our inflation is the so-called price shock inflation. That is one-time substantial increases in prices—as far as the Government is concerned—in administered prices. As long as administered prices go up at the rate at which they have been going up—in many cases faster than the inflation rate—price shock inflation will form an important part of inflation in South Africa. If we adopt such a price and incomes policy as far as prices are concerned, we can lessen the impact of the price shock component of inflation. I only have to refer to a few administered prices this year, namely fuel—perhaps we did not have much choice there—postal tariffs, rail tariffs and the prices of many agricultural products to illustrate my point.

Of course, the most important component of inflation in South Africa right now, I believe, is inflationary expectation—the so-called core rate of inflation. People expect inflation to increase at a certain rate and therefore they base their salaries and wages demands on what they think the inflation rate is going to be. A price and incomes policy can help to reduce inflationary expectations.

Secondly, a price and incomes policy must be voluntary. If it is not voluntary there can be serious side-effects, such as fixing production patterns and distorting the allocation of resources, and—if one applies such a policy for a long time—a Black market can develop. Thirdly, a price and incomes policy is not a policy on its own. It must be backed by sound fiscal and monetary policies which curb demand. We have done that already, so a price and incomes policy should be seen as part of the package. If only a price and incomes policy is implemented, once one removes it, it is like taking the lid off the kettle—everything can explode, and any good that resulted, will evaporate.

Fourthly, a lot of the initiative for a price and incomes policy depends on the Government. I have already spoken about prices where the Government must set the example and must restrict, as far as possible, increases in the prices over which they have control. It is only by doing this that Government can set an example for industry and commerce. Some agreement will have to be thrashed out with industry and commerce in this regard.

Then, of course, we get to the income or salary side. Again, the Government will have to set the example. Government will have to get together with organized commerce, with industry and, most important of all, with trade unions, to work out a package. They could set up a committee which could set guidelines, monitor what is going on and help people who have problems in this connection. It is by doing this—by getting the co-operation of everybody involved in it—that I think a price and incomes policy could help in our battle against inflation.

One final point I think I should make in the short time I have, is that another thing we should look at in the context of a price and incomes policy is the question of productivity in South Africa. Compared to other countries we have a notoriously low level of productivity in our country. To increase productivity from a low level it is relatively easier than from higher levels. If one approaches workers and unions with a price and incomes policy, part of which is that they will get increases and that they can improve their real incomes but that such improvements will be based on increasing their own productivity, then I believe one could sell such a policy.

If one were to approach trade unions and tell them incomes were going to remain unchanged save for a normal 5% increase per year, one might have a problem selling such a policy. If one, however, approached unions with the idea that there was scope for workers to increase their productivity without there being any argument about salary increases, I believe that on that basis one might be able to sell such a policy as part of the price and incomes policy.

In conclusion, Mr Chairman, I want to point out that it is vitally important for us, I believe, to reduce our rate of inflation. That is quite obvious. A price and incomes policy, I believe, can form an important component of that—a voluntary price and incomes policy. If we are to execute such a policy the Government can indeed play an important role, for example, in taking the lead while at the same time obtaining the co-operation of everybody involved in such a policy.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow such a calm speaker. However, I believe the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South will pardon me for not reacting to his speech. There is another matter which I should like to broach in the few minutes at my disposal. I want to express a few ideas about a possible new policy for the financing of welfare services.

Welfare organizations have the public image of always being short of money. I believe that all hon members of this House will be aware of the appeals to the public for more money that are constantly being made by these organizations. I wish to make it clear that I appreciate the very difficult task that welfare organizations have to perform. I hasten to add, however, that the impression is often created by newspaper reports that if only more money were available, welfare organizations would also perform their task more effectively. Constant pressure is exerted on the State to provide more money. I should briefly like to quote certain statistics to support my argument and indicate what the State’s real expenditure on welfare services was during the years 1979-80 to 1985-86. In the 1979-80 financial year the total amount spent by the State on welfare organizations was R32 million. In 1985-86 this amount had risen sharply to R134 million. This is the amount budgeted for these expenditures this year.

If we were to continue along these lines—this would entail an average increase of 27% per annum—then by the financial year 1995-96 we should be spending an amount of R1 400 million on welfare organizations alone. Over the same period the current expenditure of welfare organizations increased from R5 million to R22 million. This amounts to an increase of 24% per annum, which is far above the rate of inflation.

The current expenditure on old age homes increased during the same period from R14 million to R70 million per annum. It is expected that by the financial year 1995-96 this amount will total R977 million. I think it is clear to all of us that when so much money is involved we cannot continue in this way. If one bears in mind that these funds are made available to approximately 900 welfare organizations in the country as well as 25 national boards, one realizes to what extent these funds are also being fragmented. Moreover, these welfare organizations bear the responsibility for recovering 25% of their operating costs from the community. Therefore large sums of money are at issue here. My contention today is that in spite of the R134 million being spent on this by the State this year, welfare organizations will continue to ask for more money.

If we want to provide the best and most effective possible service with the available funds, it is necessary to consider certain matters which in my opinion ought to be rectified. Here I should like to put forward a few ideas and ask the hon the Minister to consider certain possibilities.

The existing norm applied in respect of the payment of funds to a welfare organization is based on the principle that a subsidy is allocated for every 60 cases. As a result of this norm, expenditures are unlimited and uncontrolled. What this entails is that the official does not have at his disposal a mechanism whereby to impose real control on funds. An organization need only collect 60 cases to qualify for funds, and as long as funds are available these funds are simply claimed. As a result the organizations are usually reactive: They react to the demand, the person who comes to apply. The organization never reaches the point at which it begins to plan in advance, pro-actively. We do not find it surprizing that welfare organizations are not equipped to deal with an emergency situation such as the one which has developed in Port Elizabeth at the moment. It is important that the official controlling the funds should have at his disposal an effective mechanism whereby to control State expenditure. Accordingly I want to make an earnest appeal that a new norm for the subsidization of welfare organizations be made a matter of priority.

I also think it is important that welfare organizations should strive to achieve greater autonomy. In our community it is a widely recognized point of departure that we do not wish to be dependent on the State. I think it is possible to achieve this if welfare organizations begin to strive to build up a strong capital fund. This is possible if they capitalize a percentage of the funds they receive from the community. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether consideration could not be given to tax concessions in regard to large sums of money donated by bodies to welfare organizations. This will make it possible for them to build up strong capital funds. The women’s organizations in this country have already taken this step. The Family Foundation is a trust fund of this kind which helps to finance the current expenses of the organizations. The SA Vrouefederasie in Transvaal is also developing a very strong capital fund.

Then, too, I want to appeal for better managerial skills. I think we are too inclined to want to run welfare organizations on a welfare basis. It has become essential for people with knowledge of financial management to be placed in charge of the funds of welfare organizations.

I want to ask, in addition, that a percentage of the funds made available by the State for welfare services be earmarked for preventive work, because we want to move away from the strongly clinical-therapeutically oriented activities within the organizations to a more preventive-developmentally oriented service.

With a view to the extent of the funds that are available and that are administered by welfare organizations I am, finally, of the opinion that it is necessary for welfare organizations to be subjected to an achievement test after a certain period. This would mean that an evaluation of the services rendered by such an organization would be essential to justify the allocation to it of any further funds.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Dr Venter touched on a very worthy subject and I find it regrettable that some of the hon members of the NP are becoming somewhat facetious. It seems to me that as far as they are concerned welfare services for the Whites do not count any more.

You are talking nonsense.

That hon member …

You are talking nonsense.

Order!

That hon member should rather be quiet because he knows what he did in connection with the Post Office Budget.

I want to come to the hon member for Paarl. I did not read that newspaper report. Therefore I do not know what it said. Nor do I know to whom reference is made in it. I received an invitation and I informed the hon the Minister that I could not accept it because on that day I would be in Port Elizabeth at the Congress of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. If the hon member for Paarl speaks about Afrikaans, I want to remind him that during the second meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, two Indians demanded that I speak English and not Afrikaans. There and then I put my foot down. I said that I would not show contempt for my mother tongue; I would speak Afrikaans on that committee. I shall speak English, too, but I shall not allow myself to be prescribed to. [Interjections.]

Order!

The meetings of the standing committee take place behind the scenes, but now the hon member poses in public here, and in Hansard, as being such a worthy champion of Afrikaans. His conduct was absolutely deplorable, however, because what did he do? When I proposed—the other parties agreed—that the various political parties should sit together in the standing committee so that they could consult with one another, he so much wanted to show that he was English—he speaks English—that he went to sit with the Indians and Coloureds. This happened behind the scenes. This is the man who strikes such a pose of being Afrikaans.

I ask him why he did not attend the congress of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. He is a person who always talks about financial affairs here. [Interjections.]

Order! There is far too much talking in this Committee!

When the Handelsinstituut meets here in Cape Town and invites people to come and wine and dine, he is there, but when a congress takes place and he can help to promote the interests of the Afrikaner businessman, he is conspicuous by his absence.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member for Rissik to persistently intimidate hon members on this side?

Order! The hon members should not allow themselves to be intimidated, but the hon member for Rissik must contain himself too. The hon member for Sunnyside may proceed.

I should like to continue the speech I was making earlier, because on that occasion my time expired. The total amount voted for this Budget is, as I said then, R2 200 324 000, of which the transfer payments comprise R1 851 147 000. This leaves a meagre amount of R349 177 000 with which five Ministers work. Many of our larger firms deal with such amounts, but here, in effect, we sit with a mere R349 million for own affairs, and that is all. The rest are transfer payments and are not dealt with by this department.

It seems to me you are unable to read.

For the information of the hon the Minister I say that these are the amounts that are transferable.

You, too, are transferable.

I may be transferable, but that hon Minister has lapsed totally. He is still so excited about the voting this afternoon with regard to the abolition of section 16 of the Immorality Act and the other Act…

Order! No, that debate has been disposed of.

He is so pleased that he can go and tell the others that he has carried out their instruction that he does not yet know what we are dealing with at present.

If the hon the Minister is the Minister for Whites … Would the hon member for Smithfield please give me a chance when I want to speak to the hon the Minister? [Interjections.] One can see that certain hon members are lacking in manners. They still need to be educated.

Order! I now appeal to hon members to give the hon member for Sunnyside the opportunity to make his speech.

The hon the Minister is responsible for the own affairs of Whites, and now I want to ask him why he does not act on behalf of the Whites? Why does he not champion the cause of the Whites? Why does he not work for the Whites? I now want to quote what the hon the Minister himself said, as follows:

Are you opposed to that?

No. The hon the Minister just wants to reform, and after all, we know what that means. The hon the Minister is Minister of an own affairs department, but what has he done to promote own affairs? On 18 March the hon the Minister issued a statement on social pensions. In it he said that social pensions, settlement allowances and parents’ allowances were being increased by R14 per month—a meagre 8,4% increase. The maintenance allowances, family allowances and allowances payable in respect of children of settlers are being increased by R3 per child per month, an increase of only 5,8%. Maintenance allowances payable to persons kept in single care or in licensed institutions were to be increased by R14 per month, an increase of 8,4%. Foster-parent grants were to be increased by R8 per month, an increase of 7%.

Did you hear what Dr Venter said?

Yes, I did. However, the hon the Minister is still so excited about the voting this afternoon that he does not quite hear what I am saying. The hon the Minister concluded the statement with the following words:

The hon the Minister is allowing himself to be guided by the other two people and has done nothing for the Whites. How much direct tax do Whites pay? Whereas Whites pay approximately R3 billion, the other two population groups together do not even pay R200 million. This afternoon the hon the Minister said:

Is that how the hon the Minister negotiates?

What about the R150 million for the farmers?

Do not evade the issue. The rise in the cost of living is at present approximately 15%, whereas the increase in the central Budget was approximately 12%. However the hon the Minister lacked either the power or the courage to negotiate on behalf of the Whites. He must prove that the Whites not only have to pay tax, but also have the right to live freely and without fear in this country. I have not yet heard him speak about the riots and about the two women who were murdered yesterday. Those two Whites were stopped along a public road by the Blacks and murdered. I do not hear the hon the Minister championing the cause of the Whites. I am appealing for the right of our own people to work. According to newspaper reports 100 000 Whites, Coloureds and Indians are unemployed. The hon the Minister must see to it that there is work for our people and he must see to it that there is a drop in the cost of living. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sunnyside was the first CP spokesman. One would have expected him to react to the allegations made by the hon member for Paarl. In fact there were only two cardinal points which the hon member for Sunnyside had to reply to. The first is whether the CP, as a party, is going to accept the invitation to next week’s language celebrations. That was all the hon member had to reply to. However, he then told us that he had informed the organizers of the celebrations themselves that he would unfortunately be unable to attend the occasion since he had to attend another congress; he was going to be present at another congress.

I personally informed them that I could not be present because I already had other commitments.

I understand that the hon member may not be able to go, but is the hon the leader of the party, the hon member for Waterberg, going to attend the occasion?

Are you going?

I shall definitely go, yes.

Are you sure? [Interjections.]

Is Theo Aronson going?

Are you all going?

Yes, definitely, but I am asking the hon member. No question has been put to me. [Interjections.]

Since it is, after all, the attitude of the CP to boycott such occasions—particularly those addressed by the State President—I wish to repeat at this point the second question put to that hon member and his party. We want to know whether they agree with the insulting language used by a certain person in respect of other groups in South Africa—groups, other than the White Afrikaansspeaking people in this country, who have made their contribution to the promotion of the language. Surely everyone knows this, and there are examples throughout our literature of how the way of life of the Coloureds has been used—in poems, novels and other dramas—specifically in order to exploit what happens in the Coloured community.

Order! I permitted the hon member for Paarl to discuss this matter because I took it that he would link it to the Vote under discussion. However I have difficulties as regards the direction in which the debate is now developing. Accordingly I should appreciate it if the hon member for De Kuilen would now drop this matter.

Sir, I shall accept your ruling in this regard with the greatest pleasure, because I think that in these circumstances your ruling is correct.

I just wish to make the point that I hope that the hon members on that side of the House will tell us whether they agree with or reject the insulting language used by the Rev Loots. These are the two questions about which I should like to have clarity. I shall leave the matter at that but I hope that the hon gentlemen will furnish a reply.

In the first speech he made, the hon member for Sunnyside tried to create the impression that absolutely nothing was being done about own affairs; that it was an absolute bluff. Those hon members who make such a fuss of being here to protect the right of self-determination of the Whites ought specifically to take this opportunity to show how much they will in fact do for the Whites in South Africa.

The hon gentleman goes on to contend that in recent times no improvement has been effected with regard to pensions in South Africa. He says this irrespective of the fact that no one in South Africa has received salary increases recently, and while it has been requested specifically that people should be prepared to make certain sacrifices. In these circumstances, however, concessions have indeed been granted to the pensioners of South Africa. The hon member now states that nothing has been done. One would have expected that party to do everything in its power to prove that it is the party that will fight for the self-determination of the Whites.

There is no one in this Committee who will deny that this new dispensation has signalled a fundamental change in our politics. Much of it is new, but much of it is also made up of well known concepts and well-known titles. There are examples in many other countries where the right of self-determination and the issue of own affairs have been implemented and are still being implemented. Sometimes this is successful, sometimes less so.

That is why I say—and I should like to prove it—that our own affairs are an indispensable facet in promoting group autonomy in South Africa. No constitutional development will be accepted in this country, and still less will the concept of co-responsibility be readily accepted, if self-determination as regards own affairs for the communities does not play such a prominent role in the processes of government.

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

No, I am sorry.

*The responsibility for community autonomy and the maintenance, recognition, furtherance and respecting of community autonomy is specifically aimed at reducing political conflict in a plural society.

Communal autonomy is a technique to bring people together to form minorities and to insist on self-determination. It is therefore astonishing that own affairs are being disparaged as meaningless and insignificant.

The hon the Minister of the Budget is the Whites’ Minister of Finance. He is also the man who interprets the welfare of the Whites, beyond all doubt. He has the very important but unenviable task of establishing the priorities of the Whites within the framework of the R2 200 million he has received from the Central Government.

The economic welfare of the Whites is absolutely indispensable for the further sustained economic growth of the whole of South Africa. Therefore the fact that an unemployment rate among Whites and other groups of approximately 100 000 is being talked about—the hon member for Sunnyside mentioned this—is disturbing. Without wishing to lord it over other population groups, I want to say that the Whites, the smallest population group, comprise the biggest percentage of the skilled and semiskilled labour force of South Africa. The percentage of the unskilled labour force is absolutely insignificant. However, as far as the professional people, the managers, the scientists, the technologists and the engineers are concerned, the management of the country and the research taking place here as well as the planning of the country’s future are in many respects virtually exclusively in the hands of the White man.

It is probably unnecessary to say that this situation cannot continue indefinitely. All the other groups will increasingly have to make a contribution in this regard. It will considerably improve the overall image and the total capacity for growth of South Africa if all the other groups make their contribution.

Until we have this ideal situation in South Africa, the responsibility of providing the entrepreneurs, the factory bosses and the managers for our industrial development rests chiefly on the Whites.

It cannot be denied that we in South Africa have a dualistic economy. It is a developing but also a developed economy. This situation also creates problems for us. It is the developed economy—it is not only that—as conducted by the Whites which has to generate the lion’s share of wealth in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, towards the end of my speech I shall come back to what the hon member said about the Whites who supposedly have to provide the manpower in the country. I agree with him wholeheartedly, but I just want to point out to him that to divide the manpower into three separate parts is not really the best way of utilizing it. I shall come back to that.

The hon member also referred to other countries where the constitutional dispensation is, according to him, based on own affairs. Sir, I have always wondered which countries the NP uses as a model but I had never imagined that they would use Cloud Cuckoo Land as a model for their great new system. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sunnyside states that the CP’s approach to their distribution of resources and the allocation of State funds is one of apartheid with equality. At the same time, however, he insists on an increased allocation for the Whites. Now, I just wonder what kind of economic generator he has at his disposal that no one else knows about. I know that in South Africa there is only one pot of gold. There is only one, not three or four or five. The whole issue surrounding the allocation of resources concerns how we are going to divide up that one pot of gold.

This evening the hon member for Waterkloof moaned and groaned about disinvestment, and outlined a few ways in which we can cut off our noses to spite our faces. However, what does he offer as a quid pro quo for those people? That disinvestment is aimed at apartheid, however it may be defined. I believe that the people there define apartheid, in the first place, in terms of depriving the majority of people in South Africa of political rights and, secondly, as the unjust distribution of the natural resources and of the products of economic activities in the country. As far as people abroad are concerned, that is what apartheid consists of.

Earlier today we were discussing the repeal of two laws. I had hoped that the NP could tell us that the repeal of those two measures signalled the start of greater and more genuinely fundamental reforms. I can only say that the speech by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs did more for disinvestment than a thousand Tutus or a thousand Kennedys could ever do, because what did he tell us? He told us: Do not even read between the lines; apartheid is well, and is in fact so well that we do not even need those two laws to implement it any more. [Interjections.]

Is this debate itself not further evidence of the fact that apartheid is well? It is even being extended. For example, we are here speaking about the allocation of money to own White water affairs. Never before was there any such thing as apartheid in water affairs. Never before was there any such thing as separate health. Never before was there any such thing as separate health. Never before was there any such thing as separate agriculture.

Flies.

There has never been any such thing as separate flies. [Interjections.]

And boreholes?

Boreholes either. There has never been any such thing as separate third-tier government. There is now apartheid in terrains where there has never been apartheid, and then we say that we are moving away from apartheid and that we must explain to the world at large that we are engaged in large-scale reform.

I now come to the hon member for Gezina. The hon member said that he was becoming somewhat concerned about the allocation of resources in respect of White own affairs. For example, he says that we must now incorporate formulas to ensure a certain growth rate for own affairs undertakings. Is this not precisely one of the problems of apartheid, viz the unjust allocation of resources to the various ethnic groups? That is what the backlog in education and in agriculture—in fact, in everything—is about. This is what apartheid has been about—the unjust allocation of resources.

Now the hon member wants to say that we must initiate an unjustified allocation and that we must link it to a certain growth rate. [Interjections.] Let us just take an example at random. One year ago we in this House received a White Paper from the Department of Water Affairs, which has now become a White own affair. In terms of that, we spent R13,8 million on a water scheme to provide a mere 50 farmers with emergency water during a drought. This is equal to two…

It is not a drought scheme. That is not correct!

What is it called? Its name is “Emergency Water Supply for the Farmers in the Kalahari.” I have asked questions. I do not have time to elaborate on that now.

That is not the truth.

It is, yes. I asked the hon the Minister …

It is not the truth. Just go and read the White Paper again.

Very well. Let us assume that it is a permanent arrangement that R277 000 per farm is spent on each of 50 farmers.

How much land is that?

It comprises 50 farmers. That is what I say, and I am speaking about the allocation of resources. Not one of those farms will ever repay that R277 000. That is what I mean when I speak about the unjust allocation of State money to the various population groups, and that is part of this matter.

You are real hater of the Boers, are you not? [Interjections.]

The other part of the matter is that it is in the constituency of the hon member for Kuruman. Therefore I can understand why we should spend a little money in that constituency. [Interjections.] Now, I also ask, in respect of the allocation of resources: What does this sentence uttered by the hon the Minister mean? He said:

What does this mean? If he says it is so successful, does that mean he negotiated more than he would have done if all the priorities had been put in one basket? Does he mean that he negotiated more? If that is the case, from whom did he obtain his increased White allocation—from the Coloureds, the Indians or the Blacks? Where did it come from? No, until the priorities have been put together in one basket, that Government will not be able to convince anyone that this new dispensation is not simply a continuation of exclusive White access to the resources of the country.

The final point I want to mention is the example of manpower utilization. Efficiency and, quite simply, manpower indicate that we cannot afford to divide the administration of our country into three separate subdivisions—and then on top of that to have a fourth subdivision, namely the department of the hon the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education. The other day I ascertained that there are in South Africa today precisely 27 architects who are not White. In South Africa today there are approximately 100 civil engineers, out of a total of 7 000, who are not White. That is not to mention accountants, technical assistants etc. [Interjections.] Education in South Africa made no provision for the other population groups to be able to do these things on their own. [Interjections.]

Now I merely wish to ask: How is one to subdivide the total administration of the country into own administrations if this is the nature of the work force at our disposal? I merely want to say that until such time as we realize that the future of everyone in this country is interrelated, and as long as we fail to align our administration and distribute our resources in terms of that, we shall remain the polecat of the world.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Greytown was really wearing dark glasses this evening—he saw only difficulties and problems, but I suppose that by this time on a Wednesday evening one is probably more inclined to see the dark side of things. I only want to react to the hon member’s last statement, because my time is limited and there is something else I want to say. The hon member referred to the issue of manpower and said that the allocation of funds was so unfair because Whites occupied so many of the posts. I hope I understood him correctly. However, the hon member should also be reasonable—I concede that in many respects it is probably true that Whites occupy the majority of posts, but in all fairness I believe that it is also time for the people of colour to qualify themselves so that they, too, can render certain services and occupy posts to serve their own people. What is more, I believe that they could well show a little recognition and gratitude to many Whites who provide services to them. When we look at high level manpower, there are many Whites who render admirable services to the people of colour as well, and do so with great goodwill, arid in my opinion we should appreciate that, too.

Surely then it is not own affairs!

But after all, the relevant Ministers have repeatedly dealt with that in this House and mentioned everything we are doing to train the other people and afford them the opportunity to provide services themselves.

Unfortunately I cannot spend any more time on the hon member because I still want to refer to the hon member for Sunnyside, who gave voice to various jeremiads on behalf of the CP. When I listen to the CP, that has been complaining for a long time now and has entered this new dispensation with antipathy, it reminds me of the antics of a young dog that one has chained up and that is no longer accustomed to walking with one. Hon members will recognize the experience—when one has a good, strong collar around his neck with a chain attached, he digs in his heels and alternately growls, yelps and leaps about, and does anything rather than walk along with one as he should. In spite of his resistance, his pulling back and his yelping and growling, he has no alternative but to go with one. This process has been under way for almost two years now, and the CP are still resisting, yelping and growling, but things go on. The electorate of this country have agreed to this new dispensation and things are simply carrying on. All their resistance, complaints and growling make no difference to the issue—things go on.

I should like to add something about the budget. A budget is largely an act of financial management. In terms of the new Constitution the task of the Administration: House of Assembly is therefore to conduct the financial management of own affairs. Due to the limited time at my disposal, particularly since I have now deviated a little, I can only discuss certain aspects and guidelines of the Administration: House of Assembly. To begin with I want to discuss the method of management, viz the approach to centralization and decentralization of management.

There is already a considerable degree of decentralization of the functions of the Administration. For practical reasons, certain services are bound to regions or localities, eg the services provided by the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply, as well as research, extension, etc, that is done in “this connection, health services and welfare, hospitals and social services, education and culture, the conducting of national examinations, schools, colleges and training centres—of which there are 35—technikons, universities and eight regional councils for cultural affairs. Total or comprehensive decentralization is not possible. There will always be a combination of centralized and decentralized activities. The relationship will be determined by circumstances and, of course, by the attitude of the central Government or, as is also the case here, of the department of the hon the Minister.

I briefly wish to say the following in this regard: Due to the new development under the new dispensation and the new departments that have come into being, I think that the general public is not always very clear on whom they have to approach with a specific matter or problem. I want to suggest that a brochure or information document be made available to the public in due course, in which it is clearly explained which department or division is concerned with a specific matter so that they may know exactly where they should go when they encounter problems.

Then, too, there are a few matters in regard to the regional development advisory committees to which I want to refer. These advisory committees form part of the regional development programme and emphasize the development and co-operation in the regional context. I am particularly interested in the advisory committee of the Free State, which functions in a specific region. These advisory committees afford local communities and the private sector an opportunity to contribute towards the formulation of development policy. The National Physical Development Plan of 1975 gives an indication of the geographic basis of the regional development strategy. There are eight development regions in which balanced development may be promoted. I want to refer briefly to the composition of these RDACs. Through the regional development associations, local authorities, the local government bodies of the various ethnic groups, private organizations, commerce, industry, agriculture, mining and labour as well as the institutions of the central Government involved in regional development, can have a say in these committees.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning stated recently that funds were being made available for these committees. I take it that these will chiefly be for administrative purposes, travelling costs, accommodation and so on, and I think it is as well that this should happen so that they, too, may have room for manoeuvre. It is true that any advisory committee which does not have a specific task and is not concerned with a specific institution or activity will only be productive if the people who serve on it are motivated. Sometimes, when people who are not really actively interested and do not display initiative are involved, an advisory committee is inclined to sit back a little. I therefore hope that in this regard, too, the department will see to the relevant activities.

Finally, I just want to point out that hon members would like to hear about the activities and the recommendations of regional development advisory committees of the regions in which their constituencies are situated so that one may form some idea of what is going on. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Welkom, who is a good and moderate member, is comparing the Conservative Party to a young dog tied to a chain which needs to be brought to heel.

Just a yapping little dog!

I was not talking to you! [Interjections.] I merely want to put it to the hon member for Welkom that in the Afrikaner’s struggle and endeavour towards freedom the hon member will discover that in that long battle the Afrikaner has shown more resistance against whoever it was he had to fight against—whether it was the VOC or Britain, which incidentally was the empire at the time—than the wildest animal one can imagine. After all, the freedom of a people—that of the Afrikaner as well—is not chained up—not by President P W Botha; nor by anyone else. I want the hon member to realize this clearly. [Interjections.]

In the second place I want to put it to the hon member for Waterkloof that he made very interesting references to the situation of the Negroes and other Blacks in the USA. The most interesting thing I encountered in my own research in America, as far as the Blacks are concerned, specifically the way in which they were forced into a homogeneous community by the liberals, is the very fact that even in America, to which the Blacks were carried away as slaves—unlike the Blacks in South Africa, of course—cutting their cultural bonds with Africa completely, they are still unhappy for many reasons, even in that so-called melting-pot community. The reasons for this are divergent, and I cannot initiate a debate about them tonight. The one reason for that unhappiness of the Blacks in America resides in the fact that one cannot force a heterogeneous diversity of people into one and the same community and try to model them into a unit, while differences have existed amongst all those groups for centuries. I shall leave the hon member for Waterkloof for a while.

I now want to address myself to the hon member for Paarl. I cannot but say that the hon member’s speech earlier tonight attested to haughtiness, to arrogance …

Look who is talking! [Interjections.]

Yes, I am talking. It is the hon member for Rissik who is talking. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rissik is speaking to the hon member for Paarl.

He is speaking to a Cape liberal!

The hon member for Rissik is speaking to a Cape liberal. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I must say that the hon member for Paarl is one of those Cape liberals who think that all the Boers to north of the Hex River are uncivilized.

When did I say that?

That has been the standpoint, the attitude of the hon member for Paarl since he appeared in this House for the first time.

Oh, you are quite ridiculous! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Paarl must take cognizance of the fact that as far as the Conservative Party and I are concerned, we are greatful when other peoples—also other peoples in other parts of the world—learn our language. I regard my mother-tongue with pride and great respect. Of course, I myself am one of those savages from north of the Hex River, whose forefathers moved from here at the time of the Great Trek.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member reply to a question?

No, Mr Chairman, I do not have the time to reply to his questions. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Rissik is not prepared to reply to questions.

I put it to the hon member for Paarl that we who live north of the Hex River also know other languages. As I stand here tonight, I have known the Zulu language since my student years. I am very grateful to be able to speak and understand the language of the Zulu people—not as well as Chief Minister Buthelezi, of course. At university I also studied North Sotho, because I wanted to understand the language of another people which fives on the southern tip of Africa with me. In addition I put it to the hon member for Paarl that hon members of this party—and I include myself—also studied a bit of Greek, Hebrew and Latin once upon a time. We studied all kinds of languages. There is an old proverb: Soveel tale ek kan, soveel maal is ek ‘n man.” I am sincerely grateful that we in South Africa—despite our history of conflict with British imperialism—can have English as a language too and that English could unlock the world for us—for me as well—the whole British world, with all the fine things in it.

I want to say the CP is the very party in South Africa which recognizes the diversity of peoples and the diversity of languages in South Africa. We do not want to ram Afrikaans down anyone’s throat. On the other hand I have appreciation for a Black man or anyone else who speaks his mother-tongue with pride. The hon member did an amazingly stupid thing tonight. As a highly learned man from south of the Hex River he did something irresponsible. I want to ask the hon the Acting Chairman of the Minister’s Council—he can speak on this later—whether he agrees with what the hon member brought forward for no rhyme or reason in the discussion of this Vote in which we have to deal with the so-called own affairs of the Whites, a debate which to a great extent is a financial debate.

“So-called”?

Yes, I say “so-called”, because in my opinion this little thing the NP has left me is not an own affair. To me with my ideal of the scope and freedom of the people, what the NP has restricted me to is not an own affair at all. That is why we shall be a much wilder animal than that the hon member for Welkom is complaining of.

I want to tell the hon member for Paarl …

Simply answer my question.

The highly civilized gentleman from south of the Hex River must merely be patient. He dragged language into politics tonight. The NP are the wonderful people who say the CP drags everything into politics. Never before, however, has this debate degenerated into a language battle.

He is a disgrace to the Afrikaner!

On Monday, if I remember correctly, I received an invitation from the hon the Minister of Home Affairs to attend the specific meeting.

Do you agree with Rev Loots?

You keep quiet! That hon member is a strayed Van der Merwe. We received that invitation. Whether or not the learned and great Afrikaners on the other side of the House know it, the 18 members of the CP are also members of Parliament. We are also dealing with affairs; we also have our obligations. We shall have to reply to an invitation very quickly. That invitation was addressed individually to each of the members.

I am asking you.

Oh, man, just keep quiet!

I shall go if he does not.

Each of the CP members received an invitation, as each of the members of the PFP probably did, and it depends on the responsibilities and programme of every individual whether or not he can attend the language festival. I can say I have done my best during the past day to see whether or not I could change my programme to attend that language festival. If, however, that hon member tells me tonight he is going to be there, I shall not go. That hon arrogant member is a committee member of this organization. Rev Loots wrote his letter on his own. I do not know which political party he belongs to. He did not discuss that with me. He has his own standpoint.

Perhaps he is a Nationalist.

Yes, perhaps he is even a member of the NP—I do not know. That is for his account.

I want to say very seriously tonight, however, that Pres P W Botha will be known in this country as the man who, more than any other Afrikaner, has sought the downfall of the Whites in South Africa. That is my standpoint. [Interjections.] I want to say I am reluctant to go to any association or function where Pres P W Botha is the speaker for I have no respect for him as the greatest abdicator of the Whites. [Interjections.]

He is a schismatic in Afrikaner circles.

Order!

I have listened to him here in the House and attended functions which he has addressed. The State President made a speech at the Day of the Covenant celebration at Hartenbos, however, and said that non-Whites should be allowed access to Afrikaans cultural organizations. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Paarl said himself that the Afrikaanse Taalfonds will be the first mixed cultural organization. That is what he said.

We are talking here about so-called own affairs. The NP told the Afrikaners that own affairs would be our affairs, but there are people in the NP such as the hon member, Adv D P de Villiers and Prof Tjaart van der Walt who plead with the Afrikaans cultural organizations to allow all races access.

I want to say this: I can stand the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He is an Afrikaner whose political principles differ from mine, but I can stand him because he does not seek the downfall of the Whites under the banner of the NP. He sails under his own flag. What I have against that hon member and the NP, is that they use the name of the NP, that they use the cultural organizations of the Afrikaner and that they seek the downfall of the Afrikaner in that name. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik has just said the State President is a schismatic of the people of this country.

Yes, he is the greatest schismatic this country has ever had. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member’s standpoint, attitude and the sentiments revealed by him tonight, are an object lesson in what a schismatic is, for the State President is the one leader of the NP who has managed …

To divide the people. [Interjections.]

Order!

The State President is the one leader of the NP who has managed to join the nation of South Africa, the various population groups which make up the nation, across language barriers …

And to make one people.

No, not to make one people. The poor hon member does not know the meaning of the word “people” and yet is bandying it about.

The hon member for Rissik is displaying an element of so-called Afrikanership in the Committee tonight from which all of us on this side of the committee want to dissociate ourselves. The hon members of the CP do not want to admit that the point of departure of dominance is untenable in the population composition of the Republic. The unity as personified by the Ministries for own affairs in all three Houses is being rejected by the hon members because they consider themselves to the chosen spokesmen of Afrikanerdom in South Africa.

The hon member for Rissik addressed the hon member for Paarl and accused him of arrogance and haughtiness. I want to tell the hon member for Rissik the elements and the characteristics displayed by him here tonight, viz that he regards himself and his group as the only chosen Afrikaners, for he says if the hon member for Paarl attends the occasion, he will not—therefore regards himself as being better and chosen alone—display clearly that he wants to elevate Afrikanership to an exclusive clique and that they will decide who are justified in belonging to it.

Sir, I do not want you to rule that I am out of order, but …

Order! I shall be grateful if the hon member would drop this matter.

Sir, I shall leave it at that.

Order! I allowed the hon member to respond to the arguments of the hon member for Rissik, but he has put his case now.

Sir, I submit to your ruling, and I want to ask the hon member for Rissik only one question: Is he capable of addressing the House of Assembly in English, for I have never heard him speak English? Despite that, he is eloquent in listing all the languages he can speak. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sunnyside said quite a few things this afternoon which I truly regard as an embarrassment to his party, with reference to the minimal role played by the hon the Minister of the Budget, I have a great deal of respect for the hon member’s seniority and esteem him as a person, but I must say his arguments and standpoints about the new dispensation and the functions of the departments for own affairs are so naive that I have the impression the hon member himself does not really understand it all. He asked inter alia what the hon Minister had done to intercede for the Whites, what he had done to ensure that the Whites in this country can live in security and peace. I shall try to answer the hon member. He asked why the hon the Minister does not intercede for the Whites. What has the hon the Minister for the Budget done since his appointment to the post and what was the result of the Ministry of the Budget in comparison with the previous dispensation?

It is the policy of this side of the House that the democracy in South Africa should be extended, that people should have participation in deliberations on policy matters which affect their future. I want to give one example. Last year we adopted the State President’s Committee on National Priorities Act, No 119 of 1984. This is the first aspect I want to point out in replying to the hon member’s question. He will remember that this committee consists of the State President, the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the Minister of Finance, the Chairmen of the Ministers’ Councils and the three Ministers of the Budget. The purpose of the committee is to determine national long-term and short-term priorities for South Africa. If the hon member then asks what the hon the Minister has done for the Whites, I merely want to put it to him that nothing can be done for the Whites in this country if it cannot also be done for the other groups, for the future, security and peace of the Whites of which the hon member spoke are not worth a sixpence if the security and peace of other groups in the country are not guaranteed as well. This committee was instituted last year once the new dispensation had come into operation. An expansion of democracy did therefore take place.

That is not all. The hon the Minister also serves in the Cabinet Committee for Economic Affairs. The hon member will know that this committee discusses any matter in connection with economic affairs. Indeed, all aspects of real economic importance in South Africa are discussed and dealt with by this Committee. This is the second thing I want to point out to the hon member.

The third reply to the hon member’s questions is that the hon the Minister also serves in the Cabinet Committee on Budgetary Affairs. The hon member for Sunnyside is his party’s main spokesman on finance and should know, therefore, what the style was in the past. The Minister of Finance drew up the budget and then submitted it to the Cabinet for approval. What is happening at present in this committee under the new dispensation is that the hon the Minister, together with his colleagues in the other Houses, participates in working out the budget until such time as it is submitted to the Cabinet.

I now want to ask the hon member whether a contribution is not made in this way to the security and peace in the country by subjecting the other population groups in these committees to bearing the responsibility for what they say. Does this not contribute to peace and security in this country?

The hon member and his party are as naive as primary school children if they continue to think we can maintain a system in this country according to which the Whites have sole control. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to revert to what the hon member for Rissik said and say that I am reminded of the phrase that there is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. Unfortunately, there is also nothing so sterile as an idea whose time has passed.

The PFP is passing away. [Interjections.]

On a personal basis I have nothing but friendship and respect for the people in that party but I believe their contribution to the debate that is taking place here has an absolutely negative value. [Interjections.] There is no way whatsoever in which South Africa can afford to have people concentrating on the type of subject that the hon gentlemen in the benches on my left do. [Interjections.]

I was particularly struck by the hon member for Rissik’s remark that he felt no desire to go to any function at which the State President presided. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to tell hon members that I stand foursquare against the State President but I am prepared to go to a function which the State President holds because I believe that here one has a man who is at least attempting to go somewhere. When his predecessor came to Port Elizabeth and I was invited by the mayor of Port Elizabeth to attend a function that he was going to open, I wrote back and said: I am sorry, but I do not trust this man and will not attend his function. I do not have that opinion about the present State President although I disagree with many of the things he does.

My concern with the NP is that they accept in principle so many things which they are in fact not able to carry through in practice. They will, for example, accept almost any tenet which is currently acceptable, like the fact that they say they are against discrimination. However, when one sees that that whole structure—even of their new Constitution—is discriminatory, then the world and we ourselves ask how genuine they are in their commitment to do away with discrimination. One cannot say that one is against discrimination and then discriminate against people in the political process. It is a contradiction in terms and in fact.

They also say that they are in favour for example, of, free market decision-making. However, I do not believe they have yet reached the stage where they fully understand the circumstances which will make that kind of commitment possible. How could they be for market-related decisions, yet distort the economy with massive incentives to such a degree that the decision-making of private enterprise is influenced totally by their indirect control? It is controlled to such an extent that it may just as well be a direct control. One then gets a distortion of the ability of the country to produce. Influenced by this type of policy, people move their resources to the wrong areas where it is not productive. This can be seen very easily in the decentralization programme. We are told that in two years R4,4 billion has been allocated towards productive establishments which are established in the border areas.

The amount that the Government actually allocates for this process is for example R500 million for the financial year 1984-85. It is not that particular sum of money that is so important but its igniter effect. It sets off a charge which will cause R4,4 billion of the nation’s resources which are in the hands of private enterprise to be misallocated.

If one is in a private business, one has a certain amount of money and one has to decide how to invest it. One is faced with a variety of choices and one has to decide what return one will get for the allocation of one’s resources in A, B, C or D area.

It is no different for a nation. Only a small proportion of gross domestic product is available for growth. One cannot invest 4,4 billion in uneconomic ventures in decentralized areas which will bring no return. One will have insufficient money left over for growth. If one does not have any growth, one cannot possibly increase the employment rate or one’s wealth, and one curtails one’s political options.

There is no way in which anybody can advance an argument to which that side of the House has not paid lip service. There will be some document which endorses what they say. Half a dozen NP documents say that one cannot increase the cost of the factors of production without harming our economy. I agree with this, but what do they do in practice? Let us take the factors of production seriatim, starting with resources. Our resources are in competition with resources in the rest of the world. If one looks at the last boom in America and the resurgence of Western Europe, one sees that prices of resources have not kept up with other prices. The reason for this is quite obvious: We are facing competition from the Third World as never before. We can no longer hang our hat onto resources as a method to pull ourselves out of a financial predicament.

As far as labour is concerned, the Government will agree with me when I say that labour as one of the factors must have its own market, it must be geographically and vertically mobile. The Government will refer me to half a dozen analyses to show that they agree with me. Does it happen in practice though? Can labour move around in practice? The answer is that it cannot. Even with the new legislation that will improve the situation, labour will still not be able to move to meet fulfil the demands of the market. There is too much lip service and not enough done in practice.

As far as capital is concerned, the cost of capital is distorted by all sorts of false and legislative means. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have no knowledge of blue films, so I cannot answer the questions of the hon member for Walmer.

*It is a late stage of the evening to enter a debate. We have now heard about blue films and I just want to tell the hon member for Rissik that I, too, come from this side of the Hex River Mountains. He attacked us this evening …

But you said we were carting away people’s cultural assets.

Order! The hon member must leave the matter at that. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik said that I had said that certain cultural assets were being carted off to the Transvaal. I am just very glad indeed that the hon member for Rissik has left too. [Interjections.]

South Africa is a country of great differences where various peoples with differing traditions and cultures live together. A situation such as this lends itself extremely well to friction and tension. South Africa is not unique. There are other countries that are experiencing or have experienced similar situations, but none of those situations is or was as complex as ours. Belgium is a well-known example of a culturally diverse society about which much has already been written. This country is regarded as the most densely populated in Europe. Belgium’s constitution recognizes three communities, ie Flemish-speaking, French-speaking and German-speaking communities.

A system of community autonomy has been in operation for nine years in Estonia. Today this area is one of the republics that make up the USSR—for the hon members who do not know what this is, it is the United Socialist States of Russia. The most authoritative author on this subject, Carl Alm, maintains:

This, however, was before they had heard more about us. There are more countries where different peoples and groups live together in difficult circumstances, for example Ireland, Cyprus, India before independence and still many others.

Where situations such as these exist, there is oppression of minority groups, which leads to wars and uprisings such as those in Lebanon: Christians against the Muslims, and in India where the Pakistanis rose up against the Hindus.

It is also possible for certain minority groups to be deprived of specific privileges. Since we in South Africa—this is where we stand tonight—have Christian principles, and since we believe that each person should have a say in what concerns him so as to prevent domination by another group, the best solution is that each group, as far as his own affairs are concerned, should act autonomously.

Hear, hear!

I have already shown, Mr Chairman … Are you listening to me now? [Interjections.] I have already pointed out that group autonomy works in certain countries. We, too, have resorted to such a system in which each group can decide for itself what it regards as important and what affects its own identity. Through this system, Mr Chairman … Yes, ‘I can see you are now wide awake. [Interjections.] By applying this system, Mr Chairman, the large-scale disruption, the costs and the other problems associated with the physical removal of people to a homogeneous territory, with the aim of creating a local government body for them, could be avoided.

We presented this model to the South African electorate with a view to political autonomy for the Coloureds, Indians and Whites. The electorate—Mr Chairman, I like it when you sit and look at me like that because then I know I cannot make a mistake … [Interjections.] The electorate overwhelmingly voted “yes” for this system. We now have our three Chambers. The autonomy of the Whites is embodied in our Administration: House of Assembly; that of the Coloureds in the Administration: House of Representatives; and that of the Indians in the Administration: House of Delegates. Each group can therefore arrange its own affairs, without arguing and fighting, or simply do its own thing.

But old Daan is arguing with us. How does that work?

Do not worry, I shall take on that hon member right away. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, section 14(1) of our Constitution reads:

Much is being said here—I hear a lot of this over here—about how unimportant own affairs are, and how small their scope is. Indeed, there is a small group of hon members here who think that it amounts to almost nothing. The importance of own affairs, however, lies in the fact that they guarantee group autonomy in the area defined by section 14(1), read in conjunction with schedule 1. Their importance does not lie in the scope of the Budget. It is unthinkable that own affairs, as defined in the Constitution, should ever have more finance at its disposal than general affairs.

One really does not need to be very intelligent to understand this. Unfortunately we find many people who do not want to understand these things, or cannot understand them. I take my hat off to those who have put us on this path for the purpose of ensuring our salvation here in South Africa. The Government has committed itself to the arrangement that what any one person receives must be equivalent to what any other person receives. This system certainly does have its growing pains, but it is increasingly a question of…

Order!

I have another piece. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.