laid upon the Table:

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, when we adjourned yesterday evening, I was speaking, and it was my intention to compliment the hon the Minister but you did not think that it was the right time for me to do so. Therefore, I want to do so this morning. Since his appointment, as I said yesterday evening, the hon the Minister has had much cause for head scratching because there are many problems in his sphere. However, one thing is certain and that is that nothing that he has done since his appointment need give him any reason to feel ashamed. The contrary is true. We on this side of the House want to congratulate him and say to him: Carry on in that way. We are pleased that he is frank with those people to whom he speaks and uses a language which everyone can understand. We say that he must carry on in that way. Not only do we want to congratulate him but we were also very grateful to learn from his introductory speech yesterday that light can already be seen at the end of the tunnel in respect of our country’s financial affairs.

Of the many matters which cause the hon Minister to scratch his head and which are difficult to gauge when he draws up his Budget, I want to refer briefly to three. First of all the number of people in this country who can rightly lay claim in some or other way to the funds in the Exchequer, is assuming disturbing proportions. It is an unfortunate fact that the reasonable requirements of those people which have to be satisfied by the Budget are directly proportionate to the number of people involved. This is all the more so when we try to narrow the gap between rich and poor.

Secondly, it probably also gives the hon the Minister cause for concern that we are so dependent upon funds for the Exchequer which emanate directly from the duties imposed on the export of mineral products. It is a wonderful thing that we have these mineral resources available, but it must be a warning signal to all of us and the hon the Minister in particular that we are too dependent thereon with a view to foreign earnings. Thirdly, the hon the Minister would probably be a little less concerned if industrial development and its concomitant advantages could spring from the earnings that we derive from mineral sales and be given greater momentum in that way.

There is one matter about which the hon the Minister can feel very pleased and that is that everything that we can or want or ought to do in the country can be done with a stable Government at the helm. This gives us cause for optimism. I contend that we do have the means to overcome these three problems which are only a few of the problems that we ought to be addressing, as long as our priorities are right.

Speaking about priorities I cannot but refer briefly to another matter. This is the question of the R6 million which the Cape Town City Council appropriated for the beautifying of St George’s Street and everything connected with it. If the City Council imagines that it will attract people to Cape Town by beautifying St George’s Street, it is making a mistake. It needs to get its priorities right and create order on its beaches, and then it will again attract people to Cape Town.

It is of cardinal importance for us to implement the population development programme and, in the process, clarify our aims. It must not deal simply with restricting the growth of the population but also with human development and optional manpower utilization. If we do this, we will have backed the winning horse.

I should like to say something in regard to the better utilization of our available raw minerals and concomitant industrial development. I attended a meeting at which we were addressed by members of the Chamber of Mines in regard to the mineral industry and its potential. It was an exciting submission which made me realize that we do in fact have the goose but that there are certain things not happening resulting in that goose that lays the golden eggs not fully utilized. If the Republic of China can maintain an economic growth rate of nearly 9% per annum with an inflation rate 1% and foreign currency earnings of about R100 million as against our R25 million—and that without gold, diamonds, platinum, chrome, vanadium and so forth—we can rightly ask where we are going wrong. We do in fact have our own peculiar problems of which the heterogeneous composition of our population is one, but one of the ways in which we fall short is that we do not do the obvious things. We must lean less heavily upon, inter alia, gold, and we must refine our raw minerals and then export them.

The point has also been made that we should get the jewellery industry under way. It is not necessary for us to export gold and then at a later stage to import it once again as jewellery and in a processed form. Mr MacKay-Coghill told us at the meeting that we could obtain the services of the best people in their field in order to get the jewellery industry under way. There have been people who have possessed that expertise but we have let the opportunity pass us by. The money that we require for industrial development is lying there waiting for us.

In any case, I am overjoyed that what I want to call the “refinement debate” is being carried on. I believe that Dr Edwards of Mintek is just as pleased. We took the debate further in the discussion of the Vote of Mineral and Energy Affairs. Dr Garbers of the CSIR also recently emphasized the importance of refinement once again. We must link this refinement to industrial development.

We are living in a world where there are many fluctuations. Rates of exchange, rates of interest and the prices of raw materials fluctuate enormously throughout the world, and this makes it very difficult for the authorities and for businessmen to plan in advance. In this connection I believe that the narrower the policy in regard for example the utilization of our mineral resources in the sense that all we do is mine and export them without refining them, the more vulnerable we are to those fluctuations. If we can refine our minerals before exporting them, we can broaden our spectrum and thus cushion the fluctuating factors that have such a market effect upon this source of income. In this way we will be able to derive the greatest possible benefit from it. I wish that I had more time so that I could mention anticipated and projected figures in this connection in order to motivate my point of view further.

Up to the present South Africa’s mining industry has been an important job provider and will most probably remain so up to the end of the century, but we must not overestimate this capability. Increasing mechanization and higher productivity in that industry can have a particular influence in this regard. We must therefore consider the matter from that point of view and do the obvious, and that is to establish the structures necessary’ for refinement. We must extend our industrial building because by this means we will also be meeting the need for the provision of employment.

I want to add a further point. I want to tell the hon the Minister that there is one matter on which we dare not try to save money and that is research. Whether it deals with the utilization of water, production methods, the refinement of minerals or whatever it may be, we dare not skimp on research. We are the leaders in many fields in the sphere of research, particularly in the mining industry, but in spite of our expertise and in spite of everything we have achieved, this is still a fallow field to us in many respects. We cannot spend enough money on the Geological Survey and on research bodies like Mintek, because it is the knowledge that we derive from these sources that is necessary to transform that fallow ground into a fruitful field. The hon the Minister will then be able to pluck the bountiful fruits from the tree that we must get to grow.

Mr Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak after the hon member for Rustenburg because he obviously knows what he is talking about and, after one has given it some thought, one can always agree with what he has said. I think we are all in agreement that we must add accrued labour to our mineral wealth. If we have to do this, there are two important things which we certainly have to consider. We shall have to see how we can enlarge our leadership group in this country. We have no choice, and I want to say that if we do not give this matter our most urgent attention, we will get nowhere in this country. The other concomitant aspect is that the centralization and concentration of capital in the hands of a very limited group results in the fact that the true entrepreneurs, the small men who develop new ideas and new techniques, cannot come into their own. As those people come to light with new ideas and build new companies, they are simply blocked and eventually bought out resulting in the fact that everything once again finds its way into the hands of the centralized forces.

At this stage I should like to tell the hon the Minister that I do not believe that it is necessary for me to congratulate him on his appointment to his new post because he knows how I feel about his appointment. He possesses one characteristic which a Nationalist needs more than anything else today and that is the courage to do exactly what has to be done. That is why it is a great privilege for me to congratulate him on his appointment to his present post. Unfortunately it is true—probably precisely because he has shown that courage and intrepidness—that I as a maize farmer am very critically oriented in a certain respect. [Interjections.] We are saddled with a dilemma today in that real problems are arising in the maize industry because of the fact that people are deliberately being incited. Of course, I must say that I have already gained the impression that that incitement is in some cases purely for political reasons. Those who are doing the incitement make use of absolutely irresponsible statements in the process which actually serve only to display their ignorance. I just happened to be present when a very well-known man in the maize industry recently alleged that the minimum annual increase in input prices in respect of the means of production was between 20% and 40%.

I have in my possession a document from Nampo—their document No 4 of 1985—in which the estimated production costs in respect of the 1983-84 and 1984-85 harvests respectively are shown. When we consider the average increase in the costs—this is according to Nampo’s own document, document 4 of 1985—and then make the necessary calculations which they themselves did not do, we see that those calculations show an increase of 2,8%, and this is according to Nampo’s own figures. This shows the dilemma in which we find ourselves. Wild allegations are made to the effect that the Bepa report shows to what extent the farmer in South Africa subsidizes domesic industry without those allegations being substantiated.

What do we find in the Bepa report? According to the Bepa report, in 1983 the farmers subsidized domestic industry to an amount of R225 million. However, because we did not obtain the cheapest agricultural products from abroad, it is also true that domestic industry in the same year subsidized agriculture to an amount of R915 million. These are the facts and they must be revealed. In fact, our maize farmers are being faced with a confrontation situation with those people whom we need the most—the Government.

Before I discuss this matter any further I want to refer once again to the Bepa report. That report shows that the maize industry did in fact subsidize domestic industry to an amount of R82 million. This however happened at a stage when the contribution of agriculture towards the subsidization of the domestic manufacture of fuel amounted to R70 million out of the total amount of R225 million. That contribution must also therefore not be taken into account at present. I want to make it very clear indeed that at the present stage there is no subsidization of the domestic fuel producers. In spite of this fact it is still being rumoured that the farmers of South Africa are subsidizing the domestic producers of fuel.

The only case that can be made out for the allegation that there is such a subsidy—perhaps a hidden subsidy to the domestic fuel manufacturers—may possibly be based on the fact that diesel inland costs 4,2 cents more than at the coast while a large amount of that fuel is in any case manufactured inland. Notwithstanding that so-called hidden subsidy of 4,2 cents per litre, the manufacturer must in any case still transport the fuel from his refinery to the distribution points. If only the leaders of our farming communities would make these facts known to all interested parties we may possibly get somewhere in our search for co-operation.

However, what is going on today? We have now reached the stage where the leaders in our farming community say that we have to separate the maize industry from the Government. The hon the Minister himself is sick and tired of the fact that every time the maize price has to be fixed it deteriorates into a political struggle. As a political representative I want to make it clear today that it will be my happiest day—as far as my political life is concerned—when the whole maize question is removed completely from the political arena. As a farmer I am completely convinced of one thing and that is that the day when we no longer have an administered maize price we shall find ourselves in a situation once again which is known only to the older generation in this country and in the industry, and that is the utmost misery for the maize farmer.

When we look at the graphs of the price indexes of agricultural products in general and the price index of the cost of living we will see that things were going fairly well for our fanners but that they then found themselves with a very great problem indeed because of the drought.

Another matter which has also emanated from this whole maize question deals with a great problem that arose for the grain sorghum farmers. These people are now apparently asking for a new board for grain sorghum. I know that three quarters of hon members here will say immediately: “Another board!”. [Interjections.] I hear it being said there: “Another board!”. Twenty per cent of the grain sorghum had however already been delivered by the end of April 1984. Towards the end of June last year 97% of all grain sorghum had already been delivered. In spite of this, however, it was only on 2 November that the chairman of the National Marketing Council heard from the executive of the Maize Board that 60 000 tons of grain sorghum had remained behind in the industry and was not being used. This was at a stage when we were having to import other feeds such as wheat fodder and maize at top prices! When the chairman of the National Marketing Council took this matter up with the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics the hon the Minister issued immediate instructions that imports would have to be watched very carefully. At that stage then imports were watched more carefully. Towards the end of December 1984 only 23% of the grain sorghum available had been sold. Yes, only 23% of it had been sold. Up to March of this year only 40% of this grain sorghum had been sold.

Now the grain sorghum farmers say that the grain, the grain fodder and the maize have to be imported, and that it is the hon the Minister’s fault that it is being imported because he has to bear final responsibility for it. However, what are the facts of this matter? The facts of this matter are that the Maize Board has repeatedly requested the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics—actually begged him!—to be permitted to be the sole importers of grain. They have said that they would look after the whole industry, the whole question of imports and also all the other related grain fodders.

On 26 March last year the hon the Minister gave them permission to handle and administer these imports, but on specific conditions. One of the conditions was that they would have to keep him fully au fait at all times in regard to supply levels, purchases and prices. They also undertook to remain in close contact all all times with the chairman of the Wheat Board, which imports the wheat fodder, and also with the chairman of the National Marketing Council. On 4 April the hon the Minister informed them about the wheat that had to be imported.

However, in spite of this, what happened? It was only on 2 November, as I have said, that the chairman of the National Marketing Council realized that 60 000 tons of grain sorghum had not yet been sold. He only became aware of this fact on 2 November and then informed the Minister. For that reason I want to say that as far as this matter is concerned the last one who can be blamed for the fact that these imports were incorrectly resorted to is the hon the Minister. He is the very last one who can be accused in this regard. [Interjections.]

The other point I want to raise is that after the South African Agricultural Union and the hon the Minister had entered the picture, within a period of two months we succeeded in selling more than half of the grain sorghum that we had been unable to sell during the previous 10 months. I say that this is going to become our next problem, namely the battle between the maize farmers and the grain sorghum farmers. Even at this early stage I want to ask the farmers to handle this matter with great care.

Mr Speaker, I have been in politics just long enough to realize that one does not rush in where angels fear to tread. I refer to the dispute between the “mielieboere” and the Central Government of South Africa. So I will leave that to the hon member and his hon Minister.

I want to raise two issues. One I shall touch upon very briefly and then I shall deal with what I believe to be an important issue which vitally affects the hon the Minister of Finance although it is essentially a foreign policy issue viz the issue of disinvestment.

First of all, I moved a motion for the adjournment of the House on Sandy Bay some time ago and I am pleased to note that the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs has at long last accepted the advice of the Cape Peninsula Nature Area Management Committee and will not allow the Kerzner/Hall development of Sandy Bay. [Interjections.] I note his statement that “this area was environmentally possibly the most unique and relatively most unspoilt part of the entire nature area”. I endorse that.

His statement does not go far enough, however, because there can be no certainty that that area will be preserved in its natural state as long as all or large parts of it are in the hands of private ownership. So I want to put it to the hon the Minister that every attempt must be made to acquire this unique piece of land and place it under public ownership. It must be done either by way of a cash payment or by way of a land swop or by way of compensatory rezoning of land in another area which is less sensitive than this. The fact is that the Sandy Bay natural amphitheatre must be preserved as a piece of unique natural heritage not only for this generation but for generations to come. I hope that when the hon the Minister for Environment Affairs takes it to the Cabinet he will have the support of the hon the Minister of Finance in this particular regard.

Mr Speaker, a couple of my parliamentary colleagues in the PFP and I have been to the United States of America in the past few weeks, putting the PFP view on the current situation in South Africa and putting our arguments against the disinvestment campaign. I must say that I found this—as my colleagues would also have found it—a disturbing, challenging and an emotional experience. Let none of us underestimate the seriousness of the situation that is building up in the USA or ignore the warning clouds that are starting to show on the horizon in Europe and elsewhere.

The disinvestment campaign is only part of a wider process. It is one of the most visible parts of a process of withdrawal, isolation and ostracism. We should not judge it merely by the Bills which have just been passed by the Congress and the Senate, important though they are. That is only part of it. We should judge it by the drop, already, in some of our export orders to the USA where companies do not want to endure the hassle factor. We should judge it in terms of trading contracts that have not been entered into. We should judge it in terms of bank loans which have been stopped; in terms of capital investment which has been withdrawn and by actions which have been taken by cities and states right throughout the United States in respect of restricting investment in South Africa. We should judge it in terms of our loss of know-how expertise in a modern technological age.

There are those people who say that we can live with this process. Perhaps we can, but it depends on how we are going to live. If the disinvestment abroad would have no more effect inside South Africa than slowing down the rate of our economic development, perhaps we could adjust to it. That is not the sum total of the effect, however, because I have no doubt that increasing isolation and pressure from abroad combined with measures that will damage our economy will have a major impact inside South Africa. They will increase racial tension, they will intensify polarization and they will raise the level of violence to a point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to find a rational solution to the problems of our country.

The irony is that whatever the authors of this process of disinvestment may have in mind, it will not shorten the life of apartheid in South Africa; it will extend the life of apartheid in South Africa because it will weaken the most potent forces for change—those that are being generated by economic development in this country.

Let me speak on a more personal note. As I flew away from the US after that two-week exposure to a wide range of people, my feelings were intense. I was irritated that we should have got caught up in the crossfire of American politics between the Hill and the White House. I was annoyed at the simplistic approach of many people to what is a highly complex, sensitive human issue. I was conscious, however, of a mounting impatience combined with anger at the continuing of apartheid in South Africa, and the growing desire of people, rightly or wrongly, to do something about it. I was worried because some of the proposals intended to get rid of apartheid are likely to have the opposite effect. I was concerned about the danger in my country of increasing polarization and of violence which would retard the process of reform. Furthermore, I was angry at those who indulged in selective morality.

I must tell my hon colleagues on the other side of this House that I was angrier still as I flew out of America at what was being done and had been done to my country by those people who have persistently applied the policy of apartheid in this country over the past 25 years. In 1959 Helen Suzman, Ray Swart, Jan Steytler, Harry Lawrence and all of us warned that people should not be mesmerized by the vision of Dr Verwoerd. However, we were ignored. We warned against the banning of the ANC and said that the ANC would not be destroyed; it would be driven underground and be forced to seek support abroad. We warned that that would internationalize our South African political problems. After Sharpeville we said that the pass laws should go, but 25 years later they are still on the Statute Book of South Africa. In the 1960s when I was not here but my hon colleague for Houghton was, she warned time and time again of the international implications of detention without trial and violations of the rule of law. Yet those gentlemen continued.

In 1974 when we returned to this House we said that Black South African citizens should not be deprived of their citizenship. However, this Government proceeded in 1976, 1978, 1979 and in 1980 to deprive millions of Black South Africans by statute of their citizenship.

That is a one-sided view. [Interjections.]

No, this is true. I am telling of my emotions as a South African who had to go and defend South Africa against the mess that this Government had created. I do have a one-sided view on this. [Interjections.]

Right through until 1983 we warned this Government not to exclude Blacks from the central decision-making constitutional structures of South Africa, but right up to 1983 they proceeded to do just that. These are the critical things which are now being seized upon and which are creating the collective image of South Africa overseas. Today we are reaping the international whirlwind because of the policies that have been applied over the years.

But, I realized as I got back here that being angry was not good enough because, whether I like it or not, we are all in the same boat. Angry though I am—and I am justified in being angry and I think members on the other side should also be a little bit more humble—I say that we are in the same boat and therefore we have to fight our way out of the spiral of disinvestment and isolation. We have to fight our way out of the consequential spiral of violence and polarization in South Africa.

Therefore, I ask first of all where we should start. Let us start by coming to terms with the fact that apartheid, with its denial of rights to people in the social, economic and political fields, is no longer a tenable, acceptable or excusable basis for government in the eyes of the Western World. [Interjections.] That is something we have to accept. When that apartheid is perceived to be reinforced by acts of repression and the denial of civil liberties, then the people in the Western World are roused to action. That is a reality and, whether we like it or not, we have to face it.

We can find all kinds of explanations such as machinations, U.S. domestic politics, international intrigue, organized campaigns, misplaced morality and misinformation, but none of these should be allowed to obscure the fact that apartheid—call it what you wish, Sir—especially when it is reinforced by repressive action is repugnant to the Western community, and the longer we persist with this, the worse our relations with other countries will become.

Secondly, let us bear in mind that attitudes in the field of international politics are formed by long-range perceptions or images and that these perceptions in the end become the realities which determine the policies of countries. As long as the negative image or perception of apartheid and repression overshadows any positive image created by the process of reform, the dangerous deterioration in our relationships with the outside world will continue.

There is no chance of this Government’s selling even the best of its reforms as long as people are being shot in the townships; as long as trade union leaders are arrested; as long as people are arraigned for high treason; as long as other individuals die in detention; as long as other communities are uprooted and moved around; as long as we go in for military escapades across our borders; and as long as the hon the Deputy Minister—whatever else he intended to do—made a statement the other day which gave a very clear impression that this Government was going to use retaliatory action against the USA by deporting some 1 million Blacks from South Africa. [Interjections.]

The Government has to do everything possible to avoid incidents and actions that reinforce the negative image. I believe the State President should take a much tougher attitude towards his Ministers. When some ill-conceived or unnecessary action results in fuelling of the fires of disinvestment overseas the Minister or the official responsible should be publicly reprimanded and sacked if necessary. [Interjections.] I do not believe that in a sensitive situation South Africa can afford to keep shooting itself in the foot by ill-considered and hamhanded actions of hon members of the Government. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, whatever we should be doing overseas we should realize that the fight against the disinvestment campaign will be lost or won right here in South Africa, not overseas. This is where it has to be won for it is here that we can, by changing the substance of our policies, start changing the image our country has acquired abroad. By changing the realities of life, especially for Black South Africans, we can change the perception of South Africa from across the oceans.

If this is going to happen the process of fundamental reform away from apartheid will have to be handled with a skill, a style and a determination which the Government certainly has not shown so far. Too often statements of intent have become counterproductive because there has been no meaningful follow-through. At times the follow-through has been negative.

Too often reforms have appeared to take place not because the Government wants to reform but as a reluctant response to pressures from inside or outside the country. Too often the changes that have taken place in the country have been overshadowed by the impact of hamhanded, clumsy and stupid executive action. That has been the situation.

I believe it will require a crisp, determined statement of intent with immediate action to follow it up to show that the statement of intent must be taken seriously.

There are three critically important areas which I want to put to the hon the Minister so that he can take them to his State President and his Government. If we want people to take us seriously and if we want to convert the negative symbolism of South Africa at the moment into a positive symbolism of South Africa in the future then the Government has to tackle three issues, and it has to tackle them now.

Firstly it has to scrap the racially based pass and influx control laws. [Interjections.] There is no other symbol of apartheid and racial discrimination which eats more into the hearts of Black South Africans and makes a greater impact on people overseas. Secondly, this Government, before the end of the year, has to restore South African citizenship to those millions of Black South Africans who were deprived of their citizenship by the Act of a White Parliament. [Interjections.] Thirdly, the Government has to get on with the task of negotiating a constitution which will give all South Africans a say in the central Government. That is cardinal.

And majority rule! [Interjections.]

All I can say to the hon the Minister is that I hope they never send that hon member overseas to try to put South Africa’s case. I hope they do not do that. [Interjections.]

If these three things that I have mentioned were only necessary to get the goodwill of the West then perhaps I would not advance them. However, these things are not only necessary to regain the goodwill of the West, to get a new initiative going and to restore our image, but these are the things that we have to do inside South Africa if we ever want to get the goodwill of the majority of the people of our nation.

Mr Speaker, listening to the hon member for Sea Point one could hear that at the start of his speech there was a considerable amount of sense in what he had to say. However, when he reached the stage where he stated that this Government should not charge people with high treason and should simply sit back and allow the enemies of the State to do what they wanted with it in order to satisfy the outside world, I could not agree with the hon member. I do not therefore see any sense in entering into an argument with the hon member in that regard.

As far as disinvestment is concerned other hon members and I on this side of the House have already stated repeatedly that we must do what has to be done and what is right in respect of those of us sitting in this House as well as South Africans outside because it is correct and right to do so and not simply in order to satisfy the outside world. There is no way in which we will be able to satisfy the outside world except to give up completely and allow a Black Government to be appointed in the country. [Interjections.]

During the course of this debate various speakers referred once again to the spirit of pessimism among our people. The cause of this pessimism is due, inter alia, to the economic situation and to political uncertainty. This Government has sympathy with the voters and realizes that change always results in uncertainty. This makes me think of the old story of the man who went along to pay his psychiatrist’s account after he had been cured. He said to the psychiatrist: “Sir, you contend that you have cured me. When I came to you I was Napoleon. Now I am nobody and nothing.” The sober and healthy person realizes that he has been cured and that he is now in a position to tackle the world and its realities. Such an improvement or profit may perhaps subjectively at the outset appear to a patient to be a loss. The changes we are presently experiencing in South Africa in the politico-social and politico-economic spheres may feel like a loss today to the electorate outside. What the Government is busy with is in fact to our great advantage. Edmund Opitz said on occasion:

In our South African politics it is fatal to tilt against windmills like Don Quixote. Whether we like it or not we have to face up to the realities. We have to make an accurate survey and then we as a Government have to act accordingly.

We are living at a time where the buzzword is “privatization” and therefore also the promotion of the principle of the free market system. Unfortunately the West has already wandered very far away from what we understand the concepts of “free market” and “free world” to be. This is to the detriment of the West in its struggle against communism. The communists stand unashamedly by their concept of dialectical materialism and absolute control, and they keep their doctrines pure. We are no longer marketing the free market and the free world but only a diluted version of them. At the most we can say that we are still operating withing the framework of a free market economy. We are living at a time when the “market” and the “price” are being controlled more and more. In actual fact the market and prices are not controlled. It is in effect people who are controlled, and they have to forfeit their freedom in respect of price fixing and the market mechanism. The original good idea that the State would use its authority to protect the subject and guard his freedom, his safety—and also in respect of the press, his freedom of speech—when he casts his vote, and his religion, has being completely exceeded in modern times. In actual fact, we affect not only the free market but also the freedom of the subject by virtually every step that we take inside and outside of this House today.

In their constitution the Russians acknowledge religious freedom, but it is a hollow recognition because the church there may not own land as the State owns the land and controls any church premises. In this way the State also controls what is done and said on any premises. Every step or law that has to be taken or adopted has with respect to be tested against the principles of freedom, particularly the freedom of the market. If the free market principle is protected then the freedom of the individual will follow automatically thereon. We find excuses too easily for bending or diluting principles, particularly if vested interest are involved.

I should like to refer to a satire which was written by a French writer by the name of Bastiat in 1844, when he drew up a petition on behalf of the candlemakers. He complained about the unusual competition which the candlemakers and light providers were experiencing, and he said that their business was being disadvantaged by an intruder that was competing with their product. His complaint was, inter alia, that this product was not only cheap but free. He asked the State to prohibit the use of this particular commodity and to pass legislation to compel people to close their shutters and cover their windows and fanlights to keep out the sun so that the candlemakers could sell more candles. He used a long and involved argument to indicate all those who would gain from this and how many votes the State would win. We must beware lest we create a similar satirical situation.

I do not want to make a direct comparison as far as agricultural boards are concerned, but in the light of our movement towards greater privatization we must start looking at agricultural control boards at every level. We must give closer attention to social services and to trade unions. The worker can no longer do as he pleases today; he is controlled; he is no longer free because he is compelled by a trade union to do what they want him to do. Everything is controlled. When we look at the currency system—the hon the Minister of Finance is here today—we see that it is controlled by the State. This was not always so. Means of exchange arose spontaneously in commerce, and every means of exchange had a specific value in commerce. At a later stage the State stepped in and took over in that respect.

In 1984 people in America once again made earnest pleas that the gold standard should be seen as a solution and that serious consideration should again be give to this matter. There was a particular request that consideration be given to a variation of the Bretton Woods gold standard, and reference was made to a book by Henry Haslett entitled From Bretton Woods to World Inflation. They advocated the privatization of the monetary system very seriously indeed and said that it could be given effect to by a very simple piece of legislation and phased in over a short period. In their view this could lead to greater confidence in the monetary system because then the State would not be in control of the money supply and it could be monitored more easily. The State would also then not be tempted to act more inflationistically and create money.

Mr Speaker, it is very pleasant for me to thank the hon member for Roodepoort for his very positive and interesting speech and the new points of view that he highlighted.

From time to time and particularly at this stage at the end of a session and at the start of a new dispensation it is necessary for one to pose the urgent question in regard to how the various political parties, the PFP, the CP/HNP and the NP see the political future of South Africa.

The PFP sees South Africa’s political future as a single community without any recognition being given to the question of its multiracial character and the protection of minorities. If the PFP takes no account of the facts in regard to the multiracial nature of our society and the existence of minority groups, their political view of South Africa must of necessity be distorted and slanted. That is why the PFP are able to make fine statements and use glib language and academic arguments which are of no assistance whatsoever because behind their whole policy stance flash the words “one man, one vote”. That is how the PFP sees the political future of South Africa.

The reason for this is that it is part of their political philosophy and their political history. In line with their liberalistic thinking they advocate an open community system in which only the freedom of the individual is absolutized. There is no recognition of group rights or their protection. Own residential areas, own schools and own universities must be abolished.

The classic proof of this is the classic statement of the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. On 11 May 1976 he had the following to say in the Senate (Senate Debates, Col 2177):

This was the predecessor to the present PFP:

This statement hangs like a sword over the head of the PFP. The voters of South Africa know this and that is why the PFP is rejected continually at the polls.

Would you like us to quote all the things your party has said? Would you like us to quote how the State President has changed your party’s policy? [Interjections.]

Order!

As far as the CP are concerned, it is ironic and tragic that their political viewpoint in respect of South Africa and their view of the realities of South Africa were rejected some time ago now by Adv Strijdom, Dr Verwoerd and Adv Vorster. On 21 February 1985 the hon the Leader of the CP in the House of Assembly moved that partition was the only sensible political solution for South Africa. On 17 January 1956, 29 years before that, Adv Strijdom had the following to say (Hansard, col 43):

Only one aspect of their policy remains namely the policy in respect of Coloureds and Indians. Twenty years ago, on 7 April 1965, Dr Verwoerd had already rejected this when he said (Hansard, col 4180):

Eleven years ago, on 30 August 1974, Mr Vorster had the following to say (Hansard, col 1897):

The political future of the CP has therefore already been rejected in the past. They are people of today who are living in the past and who do not have a political future. There is no policy remaining to the CP except a policy based on hatred and spite, actually a hatred and spite campaign in which they are preceded by HNP. Let us look at what these two partners, these two friends tell each other. This then clearly illustrates the hatred that emanates from them. I want to quote now not what we say about them but what they say about each other. In Die Afrikaner of 6 October 1982 we find the following:

This is now the hon member for Waterberg:

What does the CP have to say about the HNP? In this connection I want to quote from Die Afrikaner of 9 March 1983, as follows:

What does Die Afrikaner have to say further about the hon member for Waterberg on 6 July 1983? I want to quote their feature writer, Sarei, as follows:

But what does the leader of the CP have to say about his partner, the HNP? According to Die Volksblad of 21 April 1981, he had the following to say at Zastron:

From these statements it is very clear that they are living in a dream world in which various peoples and ethnic groups have to survive completely on their own. This is an unworkable plan which many years ago now was rejected by Strijdom, Verwoerd and Vorster whom they are so fond of quoting. For this reason their stance on South Africa constitutes the greatest danger in respect of peace and justice.

May I ask the hon member a question?

When I have completed my argument. The NP is the only party that has effected real reform in South Africa and will bring it about as far as our political future is concerned. Why? Because it has the correct approach to the realities of the situation. A correct view of the realities of South Africa is essential for the political future of the country. What is the view of the NP in regard to the realities of South Africa? I cannot put it any better than my hon leader did, and I want to quote what he said on 3 August 1981 (Hansard, col 44):

Because the NP takes the realities of the situation into consideration, as far as our political future is concerned the NP wants to see the various ethnic groups and communities living harmoniously and in balance with one another, and not in a situation of domination, conflict and tension. The NP is seeking to integrate the diversity of ethnic groups and communities juridically. This is in fact the task of the real authorities. That is why, as with the Coloureds and the Indians, the NP is also going to establish unique and mutually acceptable structures for the Black communities outside of the independent and national states. This is the political vision of the NP for the future of South Africa which is based on justice—various ethnic groups and communities living harmoniously, in a balanced fashion, in orderly association but with the retention of identity.

The hon member for Pietersburg may now ask his question.

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon member whether he still believes in the policy of separate development which includes the concept of a White fatherland.

Mr Speaker, I believe 100% in that policy. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, it was quite amusing to listen to the hon member for Bloemfontein East. His speech—if one could call it a speech—consisted of a number of quotations in a fruitless attempt to try to show that the CP was ostensibly living in the past. To try to prove this, the hon member quoted what previous leaders of the NP had said, as the hon member himself stated, about 29 years ago.

We on our part can probably make numbers of quotations of former NP leaders of stature in defence of the retention of section 16 of the Immorality Act, in defence of the retention of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, and in defence of the retention of the legislation which prohibits political interference. All of this is legislation which the NP placed on the Statute Book and defended from platform to platform and also in this House. Now that same NP comes along—no, it is not the same NP; it is another NP—makes it its life’s task to undo one by one all those measures that were introduced by the NP.

I really think the time has come for hon members of the NP to cease making the senseless remark that hon members of the CP are filled with hatred and spite in respect of the other population groups. [Interjections.] That is simply not true; it is a lie. I say it is a he. We are imbued with the ideal of giving every ethnic group in this Southern country of ours political rights to enable it to govern itself. By no means does this imply that one hates other people or that one is filled with spite in their regard while one cherishes and loves what is one’s own. I leave the hon member at that.

I want to come back briefly to the speech of the hon member for Heilbron. As far as I know, he is the only hon member on the NP side who made any reference at all to agriculture during this debate. [Interjections.] Oh yes, the hon member for Smithfield did as well. We have heard repeatedly from NP speakers in the past that we should keep agriculture out of politics. We have tried to go along with that.

Very tardily.

I think that hon member knows as much about agriculture as does the man in the moon.

Are you looking at me, Cas?

No, at the hon member who said that it was being done very tardily.

What did the hon member for Heilbron come to light with today? If I understood him incorrectly, there will probably be other speakers on the NP side who will correct me. The hon member made certain statements here and stated, inter alia, that maize farmers are being incited by their own leaders for political reasons.

I did not say by their own leaders.

Very well, then I accept the fact that the hon member did not say that they were being incited by their own leaders. He did say that maize farmers were being incited for political reasons. He then went on to say that the leaders in the farming communities should make the true facts known. I cannot interpret this otherwise than that it is an open attack by the hon member for Heilbron upon the agricultural leaders of South Africa. [Interjections.] Well, Sir, the hon member for Heilbron has intimated here that the agricultural leaders in South Africa are not making the true facts of the time known to the farmers of South Africa.

Who are the agricultural leaders in South Africa?

Cas, you are now making petty politics!

No, it is not I who is making politics. The hon member for Heilbron made an attack in this House upon the leaders of the farmers in South Africa. When we then stand up and speak in defence of those farming leaders, we have immediately to face the ridiculous accusation that we are bringing politics into agriculture. [Interjections.] However, when hon members of the national Party arrogate the right—in the name of the National Party, what is more—to attack agricultural leaders in South Africa, they apparently regard it as keeping politics out of agriculture. [Interjections.] I should really like to know how the mental processes of those people operate. [Interjections.]

Now you are playing cheap politics!

Just listen to that! Mention is actually being made of cheap politics! [Interjections.] The hon member for Heilbron expressed a few thoughts here in relation to so-called administered prices. If I understood him correctly he was endeavouring to indicate in the process that we should try to get away from them.

No! No! Again you were not listening correctly, Cas, as happened on the previous occasions as well.

Oh, so now I have not been listening correctly? I just want to point out that everybody connected with agriculture should I believe be very careful about the statements made and the opinions expressed by those hon members in this connection.

I want furthermore to refer to the fact that the hon member for Roodepoort, who is also now apparently seeking to involve himself in the sphere of agriculture, quoted a satire here in connection with the candlemakers of repute while in the same breath trying to refer to our agricultural control boards and their functions. In the light of this I should therefore like to make an appeal to the National Party’s leading lights in agriculture please to caution their colleagues to choose their words more carefully.

If I on my part may also say something in general about agriculture, I want to mention that we realize that broadly speaking agriculture must of necessity be subject to the same monetary and fiscal measures applicable to the whole of our economy—in fact, to our entire national economy. However, we have previously told the hon the Minister that we have to beware lest the medicine that is being prescribed to enable the patient to recuperate perhaps result in the death of that patient. In this particular connection we are grateful to learn that it would appear as though interest rates are falling. However, we want to emphasize once again that the biggest single problem in agriculture today is the present terrifying rates of interest. Even in the light of the moderate drop in interest rates that took place recently I want nevertheless to state that the present interest rate pattern makes it impossible for agriculture to produce economically. This is the situation that will continue to obtain unless what agriculture is having to pay by way of interest is returned to it in the form of prices for its products. However, I repeat that that is not what is happening at present.

We are grateful for the relief measures announced by the authorities in regard to drought assistance and interest subsidies. However, as far as interest subsidies are concerned, in actual fact these affect only a small section of the farmers of South Africa and specifically those who really find themselves in a crisis situation. As far as the substantial proportion of our farmers are concerned who are not as yet standing on the brink of disaster, the present rates of interest that they have to pay are bringing them swiftly closer to it. That is a fact.

That is correct.

Yes, it is a fact. I want to leave agriculture at that for the moment.

In past debates during this session it has been contended by hon members of the NP that the Government has a mandate for its so-called new initiatives, also in regard to the Black people of South Africa. This has been the contention of speakers on the NP side, inter alia, the hon member for Helderkruin in a previous debate.

If I may follow the method used by the hon member for Bloemfontein East, namely to quote from speeches of the distant past, I should like to quote briefly from a speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This speech was made in the distant past—16 May 1983—when the present Constitution was being debated in this House. At the time the hon the Minister referred precisely to the position of the Black people in South Africa in regard to constitutional development. I wish to quote from Hansard of 16 May 1983, Col 7054. What does the hon the Minister have to say? He says this:

This was the draft constitution. The hon the Minister goes on to say:

[Interjections.] He talks about “different and separate structures”. He goes on to say:

Hear, hear!

How am I to understand hon members? Now they shout “hear, hear!” in respect of a speech made by the hon the Minister in which he says that separate constitutional structures must be established for the Black nations. Now that same NP comes along and says that new structures must be established in which Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Black people must be accommodated. [Interjections.] When we read the announcement of the State President at the start of the session, we can come to no other conclusion. [Interjections.] If the leader of the NP announces that structures must be established which will give the Black people—particularly those outside the national states—a co-say to the highest possible level, can there still be talk of separate structures? [Interjections.] Really, that is absolute nonsense! [Interjections.] It is a question of co-say up to the highest level. However, what is the decision?

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether the tricameral Parliament does not have three structures? [Interjections.]

Sir, let me explain to the hon constitutional giant from Turffontein. [Interjections.] The three Chambers are components of one joint Parliament, that is to say of one structure, namely the Parliament of the RSA. [Interjections.] I should like to know from him now whether the President’s Council which is a completely mixed body, is also a separate structure. [Interjections.] I should also like to know from him whether the standing committees which debate on a mixed basis and make joint decisions are separate structures. [Interjections.] Can the hon member also tell us whether the proposed regional services councils which are going to be completely mixed—in other words, are going to include Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks—are going to be separate structures? [Interjections.] Can the hon member tell us whether the new bodies that are going to take the place of the existing provincial executive committees, and which are also going to be mixed, will be separate structures? [Interjections.]

What is it that has become clear during the past session, and what is the result of the new dispensation? In the past the political debate in this place and outside, as well as the political line of demarcation, was mainly between the old NP and the PFP. That position has changed completely. The PFP find themselves playing the role of scouts for the NP. Together with the public media they are the trail-blazers of the NP. The NRP, with the greatest affection in their regard, have to a large extent become the Man Fridays—in a good sense—of the NP. [Interjections.] As far as the NP itself is concerned, we have to do with a party which in a planned and sometimes less planned fashion is retreating from trench to trench which it built itself in the past. We are beginning to gain the impression that this retreat is now deteriorating into a disorderly rout. To think that a mighty party has today to come along and tell us: I myself no longer have a plan for the constitutional development of the Blacks in South Africa! All that they are suggesting is that we establish a public forum with an open agenda. [Interjections.] The NP no longer have a point of view to convey to the White electorate of South Africa.

We see this in the operation of the standing committees of Parliament. These are the committees that were supposed to form the forum for the achievement of so-called consensus. What has been our experience? They are not forums for the achievement of consensus; they are forums for horse-trading and nothing more. On those committees people are prepared to abandon their points of view in order to obtain the agreement of the other two Houses so that legislation can be passed. We shall be referring to this matter again during the discussion of legislation at a later stage.

What are you doing about the HNP?

Sir, the hon member asks what we are doing about the HNP. We have concluded an agreement with the HNP in respect of the forthcoming by-elections. I do not apologize for that fact. We are involved in the concluding of that agreement. [Interjections.] Because of the leftist course of the NP in South Africa, it is necessary for all conservatives in the country to consolidate their forces in order to overcome that party. [Interjections.]

In the short time still available to me I should like to refer briefly to a statement of the hon the Minister of Defence which disturbed me. During question time a question was put to him in regard to a circular sent to officers of the Defence Force and also commando officers in regard to the political involvement of such officers. At the end of question time the hon the Minister said: “I do not know how the CP has become so politically contentious; that is their own affair; however, if a person is in the NP, he is not a politically contentious figure”. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is therefore implying that if an officer in his commando is a member of the NP, he is not politically contentious. However, if he is a member of the CP, he is in fact politically contentious. In the light of the fact that the majority of the officers in the Carolina Commando are active members of the CP, I should like now to know from the hon the Minister whether he is inferring that if an officer in a commando is a member of the CP, he is no longer welcome as an officer in the SA Defence Force. [Interjections.] We want to know what the official standpoint of the Government is in this regard. Loyal people who have served the commando’s for years are now being told that they are politically contentious and must leave. However, if a man is a Nationalist, he is not politically contentious. [Interjections.] We want to know what the Government’s official standpoint is.

Mr Chairman, in all fairness to the hon member for Barberton I should like to say to him that my hon colleagues have told me that the hon Minister of Defence meant as a joke the remark to which the hon member referred. [Interjections.] All right, let me ask the hon member for Barberton whether the CP accept the new Constitution of South Africa. Do they accept it? [Interjections.] Do they reject it?

Of course.

I want to ask the CP whether a public servant or someone in the Defence Force who serves the Government of the day should be paid with the State’s money if that person rejects the Constitution and openly promotes that in the Public Service. [Interjections.] As the MP who probably represents the greatest number of public servants, I want to make the point here that every public servant who works for the Government of the day—be that Government a PFP, a CP or an HNP Government—must be loyal to that Government of the day. He may not hold his post and at the same time in his work undermine the Government of the day and, least of all, the Constitution of the State. [Interjections.]

I think we have reached the stage—and I say this from my heart—where every teacher, every member of the Police Force and the Defence Force and every public servant who is paid by the Government of the day must accept that in the circumstances the Government has the right to demand of all who work for it to take an oath of allegiance. [Interjections.] A man who is not prepared to swear allegiance to the Constitution of the Government of the day must pack his bags and leave, because he is practising his profession dishonourably. [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir, unfortunately I do not have the time to reply to questions. [Interjections.]

I want to speak frankly to the CP today. I respect each and every one of them. I respect the man Dr A P Treumicht and all the individual hon members of the CP, even the man Mr Koos van der Merwe. [Interjections.] However, their standpoints and political activities are for me a source of intense sadness and concern. We are living in a world that is, as it were, growing ever smaller, and that is why each one of us in this House must try increasingly to broaden his horizons, It is not our position, that of the State President, that of any hon Minister of the Cabinet or that of any hon colleague here that counts, but it is finally the future of South Africa that is at stake. For each of us our sojourn here is transitory. We are all insignificant people in a transient world. I advise hon members of the CP to pay a visit to the National Museum in Bloemfontein. The exhibition on display in the National Museum will bring home to every hon member in this House a realization of the insignificance of man. In that exhibition only our own solar system is displayed and featured. The exhibition ranges over millions upon millions of kilometres and at the end one is told that, if they were to show all the planets of our solar system, the exhibition would require a further 4,5 kilometres of space and not just the few metres the display covers.

As people we are simple, insignificant and transient, but our ideas and ideals are big. They date from before the birth of Christ and will continue to exist way past the time of our furthest removed great-grandchildren. [Interjections.] That is why they are important.

I want to say to the hon members of the CP that one cannot present the wrong message correctly. They can do what they like with their message, but it remains the wrong message and they will never be able to present it correctly. [Interjections.]

We say to the hon Minister of Finance we are proud of him and thank him and the Cabinet for this Budget. Let me just add something in a lighter vein. Many people say the hon the Minister received promotion. At one stage he worked for the IBM company. Last month that company was singled out as being one of the top 500 in the USA. This is a point we as politicians must take note of: Last year, IBM’s turnover worldwide was $45 billion or R90 billion, while this country’s budget, for which the hon the Minister is responsible, this year represented one-third of the turnover of IBM. We in South Africa are therefore not as mighty and big as we might think.

There is a question I want to put today to the hon leader of the CP and the other hon members of the CP, and this is not meant as an affront. If I now refer to them as being right-wing reactionaries, I do not do so with the intention of insulting or humiliating them; I am speaking merely in political terms. South Africa must put the following question to them: Why is it that the left-wing radicals and the right-wing reactionaries in South Africa are increasingly speaking the same language politically? [Interjections.] The people of South Africa want to know why in the present revolutionary climate in South Africa they are increasingly playing the same role. The people of South Africa are asking why both these groups are placing us on the slippery slope leading to inevitable conflict.

The similar-sounding language they use, the similar polarization they are achieving and the identical conflict to which all this will give rise are at present in a sense the pivot on which revolution in South Africa hinges. With all the responsibility at my command I say—and people can say what they like: We are in the midst of a revolution. The question is not whether there is going to be a revolution, but the question is how we can reduce its impact and whether we will be able to reduce its impact. That is the only question. [Interjections.]

The similarities between the premises, the statements and the methods of the left-wing radicals and the right-wing radicals are oppressive. We respect the CP people in our constituencies and, let us be honest, it worries us that there are people who lend a willing ear to the radical political standpoints expressed by the CP. [Interjections.] I am worried about them. I would want those people to think about and consider matters together with us. This is not the time for running away; it is now the time for us to stand our ground and apply our minds together. With each step forward by the CP the Whites in South Africa retreat several steps. About that I have no doubt.

The polarization in South Africa causes us great concern. Last week I spoke at the University of Cape Town about the road ahead for South Africa and there I suddenly realized again, just as I did a few evenings ago when I was at the University of the Orange Free State together with Dr Connie Mulder, that there are people in South Africa who, in their thinking, are so radically polarized that never in a million years will it be possible to have a meaningful debate with them. That is a source of great concern to us.

Let us for a moment look at the methods of creating a revolutionary climate. No doubt exists about these methods. From the largest city to the smallest farm everyone must become involved; everyone must revolt. I concede that the ideals of the hon leader of the CP differ from those of the leftwing radicals, but the ideals of both groups have one thing in common: Both stand for a totalitarian state. About that there is no doubt [Interjections.] The left-wing radicals as well as the right-wing radicals blame the Government for everything that is wrong in South Africa; they say it is all our fault.

Both groups flourish on confusion. Nothing gives the CP greater satisfaction than succeeding in throwing a voter into a state of confusion. They do not go to our constituencies to make their policy known there. They only mention what in their opinion the NP is doing wrong, and they do that in order to create confusion. [Interjections.] In what way do the beliefs of the right-wing reactionaries and the left-wing radicals correspond? They all believe irrevocably in their so-called calling. Bishop Desmond Tutu said on television only a few nights ago: “I am a man of God.” Just after that, however, he set out his political standpoint. What we need in South Africa is not the politicization of Christianity, but rather the Christianization of politics.

The left-wing and right-wing radicals all have fanatical faith in the course they are steering. It so happens that that is one of the characteristics of a revolution, namely that the opposite poles have such strong and fanatical faith in their own ideas that it becomes quite impossible to discuss them. They all believe only they can save the country. They believe only they can save South Africa. Both those groups believe they have a good knowledge of each other. They normally claim that they grew up with Black people, and then add that they know Black people and that no one can tell them anything about Black people.

The left-wing radicals, on the other hand, say: “I know the White people. They are all the same.” What is the attitude of the leftwing radicals and the right-wing radicals? They hate the media, the Press, the SABC—all who want to bring matters into perspective by presenting facts, because thereby their own standpoints are muddied and clouded. They hate change. [Interjections.] Of course they hate change. The CP hate change. They hate all political changes other than those which in a totalitarian way ensure that power remains in their hands.

Please let me ask you a question.

No! [Interjections.] None of them are open to persuasion. It is a characteristic of both the left-wing and the right-wing radicals that they are not in the least open to persuasion. Another feature of those groups is that they hate powersharing. The CP and all its satellite organizations hate power-sharing, just as the ANC, the UDF and other left-wing organizations do. Why? The reason is that they want to have the power in their hands alone. The CP want White power in their hands—therefore all power in South Africa—while the ANC want Black power—all power, in their view—in their hands. [Interjections.] For them everything must be absolute. Both of these groups have fallen into isolationist thinking. Both these groups are totally intolerant of any standpoint that is not in line with their own standpoints.

What is their objective? Their primary objective is to seize power. I put it to the CP that power does not lie in being in Government; power lies in the system. If we cannot get people in South Africa to nurture the system in their hearts—the political system of democracy, the economic system of free enterprise and social justice—power in South Africa will have absolutely no meaning. [Interjections.]

The objective of both the left-wing and the right-wing radicals is to make South Africa ungovernable. I want to put it to the hon members of the CP that during the current session they have stated on innumerable occasions that the Government has lost control. What is more, they enjoy saying that the Government has lost control. What is interesting is that the ANC say: “Make South Africa ungovernable.” Nelson Mandela has said: “Make government in South Africa impossible.” Was it not Lenin who said: “The worse the better”? [Interjections.] I should like hon members of the CP to ask themselves if they are not following the same course. [Interjections.]

What are their premises? They say Whites and Blacks are enemies of one another. [Interjections.] The other premise is that South Africa is rich and powerful.

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

No, Mr Chairman, I have too little time available to reply to questions. [Interjections.] They say South Africa is rich and powerful. They all say South Africa belongs to only one group. The Blacks say South Africa belongs to them. The CP, on the other hand, say South Africa belongs to the Whites. [Interjections.] They believe that the struggle in South Africa is a racial struggle. Strangely enough, both those groups believe that ultimately the White man in South Africa will capitulate. What is the purest form of capitulation politics on the part of the White man in South Africa? What is the purest form of capitulation politics we have today? We find it amongst that group of Whites in this country who believe they have already lost, who say there is already a Black majority and who want to stand aside and demand for themselves a piece of land somewhere in their own country on which they can live. Surely that is capitulation, Mr Chairman. They have therefore actually already admitted defeat, they have already lost. [Interjections.]

Both poles in South Africa are of course dreaming when they claim that South Africa is rich. We should rather say South Africa is a rich land in which there is much poverty. In this Third Reading debate of the Appropriation Bill we should therefore like to thank the hon the Minister that he and the Government, by means of important initiatives and courageous actions, want to make of a poor country, which inherently possesses great riches, a rich country in all respects. We are going to help to achieve that, and we reject the partnership between the left-wing radicals and the right-wing reactionaries, which can have but one result—to wreck our children’s future. We are going to ensure that the White man wins. They are selling the White man out.

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

No, I am sorry. The hon member has already resumed his seat. Therefore the hon member for Jeppe unfortunately cannot put his question.

Mr Chairman, it is always interesting to listen to the hon member for Innesdal and it is certainly not necessary for me to help him deal with the Opposition. [Interjections.] I want to say briefly that the hon Minister has begun to receive so much praise from the public at large that it is not necessary for me to praise him as well.

The hon member for Barberton, who has now unfortunately left the Chamber, assured us today that he speaks on behalf of his party. He made the remark here that they are not filled with hate for people of colour. That assurance he gave us. With my knowledge of the dictionary I would say that the opposite of hate is love. Now I should like to know from the hon leader of the CP whether my interpretation is correct and they then love people of colour in the Biblical sense. [Interjections.] However, there are a few things that are not clear to me. Why did the CP oppose every reform measure we have so far introduced this session? Every attempt we made to improve the living conditions of people of colour has been opposed tooth and nail by the CP.

That is untrue!

It is a fact. They are always accusing us of giving people of colour everything. Now I want to ask the hon leader of the CP—they do not tell us what their policy is, but I ask this in the light of the fact that they said today that they do not hate anyone—what their relations policy is. What is their policy with regard to people of colour in South Africa?

They told us very clearly that they do not accept the permanence of Blacks in South Africa; they are opposed to Blacks owning land in South Africa; they are opposed to the 99-year leasehold system; and they are opposed to the repeal of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act; but they are in favour of a massive removal of Blacks against their will. Their sacred ally in politics is, after all, Mr Jaap Marais and they have gone so far as to take over large parts of his policy. Now I should just like to know whether they agree with Mr Jaap Marais. During the Primrose election Mr Jaap Marais said: “Eerw Hendrickse is ‘n loshotnot.” Do they agree with that?

Where did he say that?

According to the reporter he said the following at a public meeting in Elandsfontein:

The report continues:

Does the hon leader of the CP agree with him? [Interjections.] The reporter continues:

Does the hon leader of the CP still agree with Mr Jaap Marais? Now he is silent about love. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out that words are used in quotations which are not parliamentary and which I would not otherwise have permitted. I want to ask the hon member not to introduce those words into the debate in that way, because if other hon members refer to that, I shall seriously have to consider ruling them out of order. The hon member may continue.

Sir, may I quote from the newspaper?

I do not want to interrupt the hon member unnecessarily, but I should not like him to quote words which would be unparliamentary if anyone else were to use them in this House.

Thank you, Sir. I have here a further quotation in which people of colour are referred to, a quotation you will therefore not allow. I shall therefore not quote it.

Then I want to ask the hon leader of the CP whether he agrees with a letter which was written by a Coloured person from Elsies River and was published in Rapport of 31 March this year. The writer, D J Carolus, drives a truck for Sunripe Fruit. He had to deliver a consignment to Nelspruit. A traffic constable stopped him and said to him: “Yes, Outa: Where do you work?” The Coloured writes in his letter:

Then the traffic constable said:

The Coloured writes further:

Now I want to ask the hon leader of the CP whether he agrees with the behaviour of that White man. We do not agree with that and I would be glad if the hon leader of the CP would say that the CP do not agree with that either.

Finally, I want to turn to another person, namely the chairman of the CP in Vryheid. He made certain remarks aimed at Black people after they were granted leasehold rights outside Vryheid. In the Natal Witness he made certain offensive remarks aimed at Black people. Then a Black man, Mr D V Sithole of Vryheid, replied to the chairman of the CP in Vryheid. Mr Van der Merwe had a petition drawn up and circulated to register protest. The petition appears under the heading: “Vryheid protest and petition organized by Mr J Malan and Mr Ben van der Merwe against the granting of 99-year leasehold rights.” The newspaper asked Mr Van der Merwe the reason for his objection. Then, according to the report, the chairman of the CP in Vryheid said:

Mr Sithole writes:

He continues:

He writes that with reference to the CP in Vryheid. Now I just want to know whether the hon leader of the CP agrees with this statement. We in South Africa will have to learn to stop hating and fearing others. In conclusion I want to say that all parties and individuals in the RSA will have to work at establishing the mutual trust that is lacking at present.

Mr Chairman, I briefly want to refer to a few of the speeches made so far. Unfortunately the hon member for Barberton is not here. He referred to the NRP as “handymen”, but I want to correct him by saying that the correct description for us is not “handymen”, but “scouts”. We are the small group which goes ahead to find and point out the correct path for the Government to follow. Practically everything being done on the road to reform at the moment, was first pointed out by the NRP and is now being followed by the Government. We are grateful for that because I think that a party which selects the route which a very strong Government then follows, can feel very satisfied and that it should be considered to be a great compliment.

†I also want to refer to the remarks of the hon member for Sea Point. One gets some words in politics which become “in” words, the “in thing”. The hon member for Sea Point and other members of his party have the latest in thing taped, namely to call on every occasion, in and out of season, for a “statement of intent”. We had it again today. On 27 May, and it stands in Hansard, the hon member for Yeoville said the following:

In other words, stop demanding a statement of intent. Do not make preconditions …

Where do you get that from?

From the hon member for Yeoville.

That is a non sequitur.

No, the hon member cannot get away from it. What is the policy of that party? Do they demand a statement of intent as preconditions for solving the problems or are they prepared to go into open discussion without preconditions?

I will come back to the other matters the hon member dealt with in a moment because I intend to deal with his subject, but I want to say something else about that speech. When one analyses if, I think one will find that the disinvestment lobby could take part of that speech and quote it verbatim in the American Congress or Senate very effectively indeed. We have to watch what we say in our criticism. Let us criticize as much as we like, but let us not use words and phrases in an emotional way which damage South Africa and can be turned against us. Nobody can deny that changes are taking place, changes in philosophy as much as in other respects. The hon member for Roodepoort’s speech was an example of this. The speech he made represents a completely new approach by the Government. He complained of restrictions—this has been part of our problem—in government. Everything is controlled, hamstrung and restricted to narrow confines. Everything is regulated. One almost needs a regulation to allow one to breathe. This is a new approach and a healthy approach. It is a healthy approach that we should get away from overrestriction because this is one of the essentials. Good government is less government. There is a vast scope for deregulation at which the Government should be looking.

In the few minutes that I have and as this is the last general debate we shall have, I want to say where we are now approaching the end of the first working session of the new parliamentary system that I believe—I am absolutely satisfied—that when we supported a “yes” campaign in the referendum we took the right decision. Admittedly there are problems. Admittedly there are obstructionists … [Interjections.] … and one can hear them there. There are obstructionists who want to destroy the system. They are in the PFP and in the CP and they want the new deal to fail. [Interjections.] Admittedly there are people who are posturing, people who call for declarations of intent.

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

No, I am not prepared to waste time with that hon member. I shall answer him anyway because I know what he is going to ask.

The overwhelming majority in this Parliament, in all three Houses, are trying to make the new system work. Having served on seven of the standing committees of the three Houses this year, I want to say that those standing committees are proving that the system of consensus government can and will work. There is a will to make it work. [Interjections.] I excluded the obstructionists when I said that there was a will to make it work. I believe it is going to work. It will work to the extent that the worst fears of the CP will be proved true and that we will be debating together in joint debates before the end of this Parliament. That will come when the system is working completely. I believe we must allow it to evolve as it is evolving now, and we must continue to try to make it work.

The question the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central wanted to ask is this: What about Natal and the provincial councils? We have made it absolutely clear and we still stand by the principle that there should be an elective system of provincial government. That has not been adopted, but while we disagree—we disagree fundamentally—on the disappearance of an elective system, we are not prepared to discard and throw away all the other new developments towards sharing power in South Africa.

You have been sold down the river, Vausè.

I want to say that by the next session the Government must have made major progress to the next step which is the Black forum and the accommodation of Blacks in our political structure. Unfortunately I do not have the time to deal with it but I believe there are certain things which must be tackled immediately and urgently. Obviously the unrest is one of them.

The hon member for Sea Point said that there should be no shooting in the townships. Should we leave them to murder one another and to bum one another’s houses? [Interjections.] He said that this morning.

He did not say that at all.

He said that we should stop the shooting in the townships, stop the arrests and the trials. If we allow those townships to explode and murder and arson to continue, then we shall have the chaos some seek to make South Africa ungovernable. It is therefore a major priority to provide the services, infrastructure and atmosphere which will make it impossible for the agitators and the revolutionaries to incite the feelings and emotions of the residents and to inflame them into disorder.

The other matter to which I believe immediate attention must be given is the creation of a formal confederation with a common South African nationality or citizenship—call it what you like. These are the two priorities which the Government must attack.

I want to call on the Government to change gear now. We have had tremendous changes, and we have had promises of more changes. Now we want to see the action. We want to see intentions turned into tangible results—results that cannot only be seen but also felt and experienced so that credibility will be given to the whole reform movement.

This party will continue to play its part by trying to contribute positively to the reform process, and at the same time to criticize where we believe the Government is failing, as I am now criticizing the tempo of conversion of the intention into fact.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Point claims to be a pathfinder for the NP. His problem is actually that he is not leading the way; every now and then he wanders off the path of South Africa, so that crocodiles occasionally catch one of his people. He is not going ahead; he is moving to the left and to the right and to all sides as it suits him. That is why his party is one of the parties that has steadily become ever smaller over the past few decades. However, if that gives him pleasure, he is very welcome to it.

It want to refer briefly to the speech of the hon member for Barberton. He claims that we are dragging agricultural leaders into the political arena. He has always been a reasonably responsible agricultural spokesman for his party; with that I have no problem. However, now and then he become a little malicious. I have no problem whatsoever with people talking politics in the debate on agriculture. We must discuss agricultural politics with each other, but I think it is wrong to drag party politics into agriculture. That hon member knows that the hon member for Lichtenburg is very much inclined to do that. To tell the truth, many of these same agricultural leaders of whom he spoke have told me directly that they have already addressed the hon member for Lichtenburg about his manner of dealing with agriculture in this House. Although he does not always do so, there are occasions when his manner of dealing with agriculture in my opinion does agriculture no credit. Since he spoke of the agricultural leaders, I want to point out to him that we have direct and personal contact with these people. Whether the discussions take place in our or their offices or on a public platform—as was recently the case when we appeared together with the leaders of Nampo at the University of the Orange Free State in order to put the Government’s case concerning the maize price and related matters—we go about it in our customary way—in a frank way. We tell each other frankly what our standpoints are—they tell us, and we tell them. In this way we are actually able to understand each other very well.

Mr Chairman, you will allow me to refer to the coming by-election in Sasolburg. We are going to Sasolburg to take that constituency for the NP. [Interjections.] We are not arrogant about it. We know it is going to be very closely contested. We know it is not going to be an easy contest, but we intend winning, and we will win. We are going to go all out to retain that constituency for the NP. [Interjections.] The candidates we will be standing against are the marionettes of the right-wing radical party represented in this House. They are the people who stand for unadorned White domination in South Africa. On the other side of the spectrum—and the hon member for Innesdal referred to this—there is the ANC which stands for Marxist Black domination. Both these approaches, White domination or Black domination, will lead to chaos in South Africa. They will result in bloodshed. They will cause a revolution. No one will benefit by that.

We should like to ask the party against whose candidates we will be standing there whether they are going to boycott the tour of the All Blacks this year, together with the demonstrators in New Zealand, because there may again be Maoris in the team. After all, the very reason why they broke away from the NP was that in the sixties the All Blacks toured South Africa and their team included Maoris. Have they changed their standpoint or do they still hold that view? Do they or do they not want the All Blacks to come and tour in South Africa—with or without Maoris in the team? [Interjections.]

We should also like to know from that party what their standpoint is in regard to having English as second official language alongside Afrikaans. Their standpoint was initially that English would have to be relegated to an inferior position. That is something we should like to hear about from them. If in this White homeland of theirs—which many of their friends seem to favour—an Afrikaner state is established, will English-speaking people who want to live in that state have to give up their identity before they will be admitted to it? We should like to know what their standpoint is in this regard. We want to tell these people that South Africa’s future must be opened up through reflection and not with guns. It is in everybody’s interest that reason should triumph in South Africa and not radicalism.

We are also going to Sasolburg in order to obtain a mandate from the voters of Sasolburg to meet the one outstanding, important challenge facing us, namely the constitutional challenge in respect of the Black people and their constitutional future. Having obtained that, we will be able to proceed with the development of that process. Since the days of Dr Verword the NP has already been talking about a council of states, about establishing structures which will make provision for the maximum self-determination for each of the population groups in South Africa, and establishing structures to deal with the question of joint responsibility.

In this election we will also go and put our standpoint very clearly on the things that are unacceptable to us in the NP and which in my view also ought to be unacceptable to everybody else in South Africa. White domination is just as unacceptable to us as Black domination. A fourth Chamber in this parliamentary system we find totally unacceptable because that does not take into account at all the ethnic diversity of the Black peoples in South Africa, and also because that does not make provision for the four national states that are already independent, the self-governing states and also the states that are still going to become independent. That is the reason why that constitutional structure will not be able to cater for the interests of the Blacks.

Any change or development in South Africa, whether constitutionally or economically, that causes social disruption is not acceptable to us either. We believe that each of these peoples in South Africa must be able to enjoy their own community life where they have their own schools and their own facilities for their members. In my view the social consideration is very important.

We have as our objective an orderly society in Southern Africa in which peaceful coexistence will be ensured for all its people. That is our calling. I know of no other party in South Africa, other than the NP, which can make a success of such a calling.

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Swellendam to speak, I should just like to refer in greater detail to what happened during the speech of the hon member for Vryheid.

I want to point out to the House that the hon member referred to remarks made by someone outside this Parliament. In other words, he says he quoted words used by a person outside of this Parliament. That is of course not unparliamentary. However, it is a different matter when the remarks quoted can be related to members of Parliament. Only when the language in which the quotation is couched can in itself be regarded as unparliamentary are there grounds for raising an objection. There are then grounds for the withdrawal of those words or for a member to stop referring to them. This is in line with a previous ruling, and I quote:

I now call upon the hon member for Swellendam to make his speech.

Mr Chairman, I follow gladly on the hon member Dr Odendaal. I believe this side of the House wishes him every success with the election in Sasolburg. We are entirely confident that when we address him here next year, we will address him as the hon member for Sasolburg.

The large amount of R4 274 108 000 voted for Defence emphasizes the necessity of having a stable Defence Force as a prerequisite for stability and peace in South Africa. The disintegration or even weakening of our Defence Force will inevitably result in a weakening of our economy and vice versa. It therefore speaks for itself that the forces that are intent on destroying South Africa will lauch their heaviest attacks against our economy and against our Defence Force. That is the right strategy if they are to achieve their dark aims. What is more, this attack is not launched with the frankly and honestly declared intention of conquering South Africa for communism. On the contrary, every motive other than the true motive is used to try to involve you, me and our children in their devious plans.

The disinvestment campaign being promoted so assiduously in America is being waged in order to get rid of the so-called hateful apartheid policy in South Africa. If that were to succeed and South Africa was forced to adopt a system of majority rule, what would happen? Would we then have peace? Would we then have a strong economy? Would we then be more prosperous in South Africa? Would we then have solved all our problems?

The “End Conscription Campaign” is being waged in order to obtain a “just peace” in our country. In the pamphlets relating to these organizations we read:

We also read in their pamphlets:

That is quite right.

That is “quite right”, but how does one rectify the situation? Is the hon member saying that, if these people get their way, all interests in South Africa will be shared and we will all be equally wealthy? I quote further:

Is that true?

The “End Conscription Campaign” is being waged to achieve a “just peace”. If they were to succeed in their aims and all national servicemen refused to serve and the Citizen Force disappeared from the scene, what then? Would we then have a better Defence Force? Would we then have peace in South Africa? The “Conscientious Objectors Support Group” dissuades people from doing their national service on the grounds of conscientious objection. They say:

If they were to succeed in their aims, what would happen? What would happen if these adverse attempts succeeded in South Africa?

There is also the United Democratic Front which through its activities is seeking to destabilize the existing order in South Africa. It grieves one that there are South African citizens who participate in the activities of these organizations and, in so doing, wittingly or, in my view, unwittingly are serving the cause of South Africa’s enemies by attempting to disrupt the existing institutions which must ensure stability. Some of our sons, and probably also daughters, are actively involved in these organizations. Some of them have already obtained lifelong honorary membership of the UDF, and some of them have also contravened the Internal Security Act and been placed under house arrest.

Is it then not our duty to oppose these things? Can it not perhaps be ascribed to the inability of certain hon members of the Official Opposition to dissociate themselves from these things, or to their wilfulness in this regard, that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition is having to make an almost desperate attempt to keep his patriotic right wing and his sly left wing together?

That is ugly, man.

What does the hon member for Pinelands have to say about this, apart from the fact that someone is claiming that I am being ugly? [Interjections.] Does he condone the efforts of these organizations to destabilize South Africa’s Defence Force? [Interjections.] Does he reject their actions, or does he condone them? [Interjections.] That is a very simple question, and I think this country deserves an answer to it. [Interjections.]

You are a dirty … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Wynberg must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon member for Swellendam may continue.

Then there are also those in South Africa who are praying for the downfall of this Government. [Interjections.] I do not have the time to delve into whether one is entitled to do that. I just want to make the one point that people on the extreme left and on the extreme right are praying for the downfall of the Government in this country.

Surely that is an untruth. [Interjections.]

Seeing that the hon member for Koedoespoort is now also taking this matter so seriously, I want to ask him whether it is true that he, too, is praying for the downfall of this Government—together with Alan Boesak. [Interjections.] He must reply to that, Sir, because the rumour has come to our ears that the hon member for Koedoespoort, too, is leading prayers for the downfall of this NP Government.

Where did you hear that? [Interjections.]

I am asking whether it is true; I am not stating it as a fact. [Interjections.] I heard it where the hon member for Koedoespoort also picks up his gossip.

You are a nauseating creature (“mislike vent”)! [Interjections.]

Sir, how can the hon member say that? [Interjections.] Well, if that makes the hon member want to puke, I will not hold it against him. It also makes me want to puke. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Barberton must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

The hon member for Swellendam may continue.

The hon member for Koedoespoort does not want to admit that the rumours are true. [Interjections.] I say that that is the case. I want to appeal to all South Africans, and particularly those who profess to preach God’s word, not to pray for the downfall of this Government, but rather to pray for the survival of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I am not quite sure what is going on in the mind of the hon member for Swellendam, but it does seem that in recent days he has become extremely risky in some of the pronouncements he makes, some of the questions he asks and some of the assertions he throws against this party. I would caution him to be very, very careful before he makes any more assertions. I do not know why he has singled me out to ask me specific questions, but I want to say to him that he should not be surprised that if this Government should fall, many, many hundreds and thousands and millions of South Africans will rejoice. [Interjections.] I ask that hon member to consider why this is so.

What about you?

I will be the first. [Interjections.] I am not saying that at all. I am saying that I believe God will make up His own mind. I will not try and press Him to do one thing or the other. However, that hon member will continue to pray that this Government may be upheld. There are people who differ. I am not prepared to enter into that debate; I let God make up His own mind about that. I am not so presumptuous as to tell Him what to do. However, I will say this: Should He decide that this Government must fall, I will be among the first to rejoice. [Interjections.]

What if He decides against it?

Then I will continue to work against that hon member and his Government.

You therefore do not accept the will of God. [Interjections.]

If I may get above the chorus here where everybody is singing his song, let me say that among all the many pressures that are felt in this country there are a great number growing in the international community.

Yesterday the American House of Representatives passed a Bill on sanctions against South Africa by an overwhelming vote of 295 to 127. Many of those who voted in favour of that Bill were Republicans and not Democrats. Let it be said immediately that this does not necessarily mean that this Bill will take effect because so much more depends on the powerful Senate. It is probable that the Senate will not support the Bill in its present form and therefore there will have to be what is called a conference between members of the Senate and members of the House of Representatives.

Whilst it is therefore uncertain whether legislation, tough or otherwise, will be introduced in the current sitting of Congress, one thing is certain: The tide in favour of disinvestment on the one hand and divestment on the other, as well as sanctions, has never run swifter or deeper. It is in fact a veritable tidal wave. The mood in the USA has clearly changed dramatically over the past eight or nine months.

As my colleague, the hon member for Sea Point, mentioned earlier today, a number of hon members of the PFP has visited the USA in recent weeks. I was there for two weeks and spent most of the time in Washington and New York. I discussed the whole question of divestment, disinvestment and sanctions with a number of leading members of Congress, many of their staff, the State Department, academics, the Press and the business community. I tried to listen as much as I spoke.

Without exception it was clear that disinvestment which has been talked about and even advocated for many years is in the American idiom “an idea whose time has come.” This means that we can no longer regard it as some peripheral issue which we can ignore, something of little consequence which will go away, something which we can simply ignore or react belligerently to in order to deal with it. Those approaches and responses are simply not going to work.

The question that I wrestled with as I went from office to office and listened to person after person—many of whom were Republican conservatives and not Democratic liberals—was: Why is it that the mood has changed so drastically and fast? What has made the tide run so deep and wide? I think there are at least three reasons. There may be many others, but in the time at my disposal I will focus on three reasons.

Firstly, apartheid undoubtedly has now become part of the American domestic political agenda.

Why?

Why? That is a fair question. I will try to explain it to the hon member.

There is no politician, whether he be Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, who can afford to be seen as being lukewarm in his denunciation of the policy of apartheid. The moment it became clear to opposition forces in the United States that Reagan was going to walk the presidential election in November 1984, and would therefore be in the White House for a further period of four years, there had to be a regrouping around a popular issue. Racism, in most of the world, is a clear-cut issue, and opposition to racism is an issue which can serve to unite Blacks, college students, trade unions and civil rights movements. Thus the issue of apartheid itself has been grasped in order to build a credible campaign for the mid-year elections in 1986 and even the presidential race two years on. It is no coincidence that some of those who are already aspiring to high office in the United States have come out very clearly on this particular issue. Whilst I was there, for example, the Governor of New York, a very powerful man and a possible Democratic candidate for the next presidential election, came out with a sweeping denunciation of the policies of this country, even advocating sanctions, disinvestment and divestment if certain things do not happen within the next two years. Constituencies are demanding of their Congressmen and their Senators that they take a position on South Africa’s domestic policies, and the overwhelming thrust, if I am to believe the Senators to whom I talked, is in the direction of strong action against apartheid. One Senator, for example, said to me: “You make a good case, and it seems to me that disinvestment will not really help the country and the situation, but it is going to help me in my own constituency.” That is what I mean when I say it has become a domestic political issue, for reasons of their wanting to be successful in their own campaigns.

Secondly, there can be no doubt that one of the further reasons for this new priority towards apartheid are the considerable misgivings in the Congress of the United States of America about the policy of constructive engagement. This I heard over and over again. Whether too much has been claimed by the administration for this policy; whether the formation of the words themselves suggest a too comfortable relationship with the South African Government; or whether it is simply a clash between the State Department as it functions and the Congress as it reacts to constituency demands, is beside the point. What is clear is that there is considerable tension between the congress on the one hand and the State Department on the other, and in its determination to bring the State Department to heel on this issue, the Congress seems determined to take some legislative action against South Africa.

The third reason comes a lot closer home. No one will deny that the news emanating from South Africa in the past nine months in particular has been extremely serious and bad. Any positive statements or action by Government has been overtaken and completely overshadowed by events such as the early disturbances in townships in the Vaal Triangle following immediately on the introduction of the new Constitution, the Police and Army activity in those townships, the massive stay-away from work, the harassment and detention of trade union leaders, the Crossroads and Uitenhage massacres, and the daily deaths in townships. These are all well-publicized and well-reported, and leave the average American who knows very little of the detail of this country with a sense of horror and revulsion which makes it easy for them to support any action which they think may lead to some change in the course of events in this land. I might add that I was addressing a meeting in New York with a number of very prominent Americans—pressmen, academics and businessmen—present when the news of the Cabinda incident broke. I leave it to the imagination of members of this House to try to understand how difficult and well-nigh impossible it was to try to persuade even that fairly friendly audience of the sincerity of South Africa’s intentions—spoken intentions—to be a bulwark in working for peace in Southern Africa. I certainly found it extremely difficult to do. Incidentally, they seemed to have more news about that particular incident than has ever been seen in the newspapers in this country.

I have no doubt, and I hope that this House will have no doubt and that the hon the Minister of Finance will have no doubt, that the disinvestment campaign will continue and will grow in intensity. It has by no means reached its peak. Whatever else one says about this, it instils a lack of confidence which no finance manager, let alone a Minister of Finance, can ignore.

What is the ultimate demand?

I shall come to that in a couple of minutes. AU I am trying to impress upon this House now, is that one cannot shrug this away, neither can one argue it away with reason and debate. That in itself is not going to work. I have no doubt that the answer to disinvestment does not he along the route of mere argument or public relations, but inevitably in positive and dynamic action in South Africa itself. As a House, as a people, as a country, we have to acknowledge once and for all that apartheid is not for sale anywhere in the world and, no matter how fine a gloss we may put on this policy, it has no takers in the modern world. Interjections.] Therefore we must redouble our energies and efforts in the dismantling of apartheid, and not merely tinker with it, at every level. While we are in the process of urgent reform—surely most of us in this House are committed to that—we must put a stop to provocative acts such as shootings, detentions without trial and the removal of people. We have to, in a word, get Black as well as White South Africans arguing persuasively, resisting disinvestment because of their stake in the country and its economy. However, this can only happen when we stop trying to persuade Blacks to take on our policies, and commit ourselves to the policy of genuine negotiation which will lead to the full participation of all South Africans. [Interjections.]

Nothing less than this will convince Black South Africans—and that is where it is really needed—that they are citizens in the full meaning of the word in their own country. Nothing less than that will effectively put a stop to disinvestment and the threat of sanctions.

Mr Chairman, I came to know the hon member for Pinelands somewhere else as a good Christian and I am therefore grateful to learn this afternoon that he is going to remain neutral on 16 June when Dr Boesak tries to pray the Government away.

As far as his speech on disinvestment is concerned I want to content myself with just one observation. I think everyone understands that disinvestment can harm South Africa, but disinvestment will not force South Africa to its knees. I think the arms boycott against South Africa demonstrated this quite clearly.

I have noticed that there is an increasing realization among most South Africans that future constitutional development can be built only on the basis of negotiation. This is a point the hon member for Pinelands also raised. I think there is an increasing awareness that the days of enforceable political systems are behind us. I think responsible South Africans understand that the leaders of various population groups will have to talk to one another about the political future of South Africa. I think therefore people understand that the leaders of the various population groups will have to talk to one another about a South Africa in which the national objectives, as spelt out in the preamble to the existing Constitution, can be implemented in practice. People therefore understand that the leaders of the various population groups will have to talk to one another about a South Africa in which Christian values and civilized norms are maintained, in which an independent Bench is preserved, in which law and order are maintained, in which the spiritual and material welfare of all is promoted and, very importantly, in which the right to self-determination of population groups is protected. I say it is understood that future constitutional development will have to take place on the basis of negotiation.

Can you define the “right to self-determination”?

The “right to self-determination”, as we understand it, means that I have a full say in matters that affect me. This is also what I have experienced under the present constitutional dispensation. No one governs me, neither the hon member for Barberton nor the hon member for Jeppe. We still have the same political inputs today that we had in the past.

There has also been opposition to negotiation as a basis for future constitutional development, and that opposition has widely divergent points of departure. There is opposition to negotiation because it is realized that the content of a particular political package has no hope of acceptance outside the group that composed the package. I think this is one of the reasons why the CP, for example, does not want to participate in the Cabinet Committee which has to negotiate with Black people on constitutional development. I think this in one of the reasons why the Deputy Leader of the CP said at Somerset West the other evening that the CP would implement a one-sided political programme for Coloureds and Asians should it come into power.

Further efforts are sometimes made to create the impression that this specific political package is acceptable to other population groups. In this connection I just want to put into perspective a statement the hon the leader of the CP made during a recent television debate. [Interjections.] I am trying to debate this matter in a meaningful way because, according to my interpretation, a homeland for Coloureds is also the crux of CP policy. To the question of whether such a homeland would be acceptable to Coloured leaders, the hon the leader of the CP answered affirmatively and invoked the First Report of the Constitutional Committee of the Old President’s Council. That was his source. It is true that in that report it was acknowledged that there were Coloured leaders who found the idea of a Coloured national state acceptable.

What the hon leader did not say during this debate was that there was a specific condition attached to acceptance of such a Coloured national state. Ironically enough, the condition was the acceptance of the proposals of the Boer State Republics Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Robert van Tonder. The hon member for Turffontein referred to this yesterday. In terms of those proposals the Whites are claiming only the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, those being the two old Boer Republics. In terms of those specific proposals, the whole of Natal would be given to the Zulus and the whole Cape Province to be known as “Hexania”, would be given to the Coloureds as a basis for a national state. Coloured leaders than said that if their first choice—that of an integrated political system—was not acceptable, they would consider this alternative. This alternative was never part of the CP’s partition programme. The CP has never wanted to give the whole of the Cape Province to the Coloureds. Is it therefore not completely correct to indicate that this specific political idea was acceptable.

There has been opposition to negotiation as a basis for talks in other circles as well. This comes from the ranks of people who actually regard the method of change in South Africa as more important than the change itself. These are specifically those who are associated with the ANC. I want to state categorically that I am not in favour of such talks. As long as people in the ANC do not dissociate themselves from the ANC/SACP alliance, I do not believe such talks will be meaningful. Negotiation is aimed at defusing a situation whereas it is the explicit intention of these people to cause polarization because to them conflict is a condition for change. I am not saying there are no people in the ANC who are well disposed towards South Africa, but such talks cannot be held if those people do not dissociate themselves from the ANC/SACP alliance.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the initial statement by the hon member for Randfontein that disinvestment will not force South Africa to its knees. A great deal of pressure in the past forced us to make ourselves stronger.

So you do not think it is a danger at all?

No, I am not conceding that at all.

What are you saying then?

I am just saying that it will not bring us to our knees.

*I should like to refer to the speech of the hon member for Sea Point and in this connection associate myself with the speech of the hon member for Durban Point. He attacked the hon member and said that even leaders in the House who differ with the Government should in these times act responsibly in their criticism of the Government. They should not give ammunition here to our enemies abroad. In that respect the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North did the country a great deal of harm last week.

Various hon members in this debate have dealt with and evaluated the new dispensation, and I too find it very necessary at the end of the first session to evaluate the new dispensation. The hon member for Soutpansberg yesterday ascribed almost everything that has gone wrong in this country to the new dispensation. In my opinion the new dispensation is a resounding success. If there is any member on this side of the House who says that there was no doubt or concern in his heart as to whether the new dispensation was going to work, he is not telling the truth. The fact is that it is a man-made dispensation for fallible people in a very complex situation. This constitutional solution will also raise problems in the future. No constitutional dispensation has no problems but the start of this dispensation has been a resounding success. [Interjections.]

In saying this I am not arguing that the new dispensation is a success because it gives the Coloureds and the Indians a genuinely meaningful say and participation. That goes without saying and it is not necessary for me to argue the point. Neither do I want to argue that the new dispensation is a success because it makes provision for direct participation by the three groups concerned with one another so that the Coloureds and the Indians need no longer talk through the Progs or have the Progs speak for them, but talk directly to one another. As a result the various groups will come to know one another better and they will be able to work out a better co-operative relationship. It is not necessary for me to argue that point because it, is also self-evident.

I say this dispensation is a resounding success because it is a far better legislative institution than the one we had before. For the ordinary member of Parliament, Parliament is now a far better place than it was under the previous dispensation. Never before has an individual member of Parliament had as much opportunity to make a contribution towards constructive legislation as at present. That opportunity is offered him on the standing committees where he can air his views freely. He can try to convince colleagues. He can test and evaluate his standpoint without necessarily being bound by it.

Are you a member of the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs?

The previous system did not afford individual members of Parliament these opportunities to make constructive contributions.

As far as this is concerned, the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition must agree with me—he cannot but agree with me—that Opposition members too have far greater opportunity under this dispensation than under the previous one to make constructive contributions towards the amendment of legislation.

No, I do not agree.

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

No, because I do not have enough time at my disposal.

That is of course the case if one does not want to make a contribution. If one wants to bury one’s head in the sand like an ostrich, as I can certainly say the hon members of the CP do in many cases, one cannot make a contribution under this dispensation either, particularly if one wants to isolate oneself.

I want to suggest that the legislation under this dispensation is far better legislation because it is not drawn up in the critical light of publicity but after calm and mature deliberation by all parties. Because legislation is thrashed out in the standing committees we no longer experience the long-drawn-out debates we have experienced so often in the past, in which one hon member after the other is completely in agreement with the previous speaker. There is more time for debating fundamental matters, more time for constructive discussions and less time for rhetoric.

The new dispensation provides the ordinary member of Parliament with new and challenging opportunities, and I am proud to say that the new dispensation is a resounding success.

Mr Chairman, in the few moments at my disposal before business is suspended for lunch I should, with reference to the speeches of the hon member Mr Schutte and the hon member for Randfontein, firstly like to say that I have two thoughts on disinvestment. The first is that the fact of such a threat should not be ignored. Its effect on South Africa can most surely be felt. The second point I want to raise in that connection—here I link up with the hon member Mr Schutte—is that we should not allow the threat of disinvestment to be used as a baton by the forces in the United States of America aimed at bringing South Africa to its knees or intimidating it to the point of capitulation. I do not think we should permit that. Inasmuch as the Government is taking steps to neutralize that disinvestment campaign, it can depend on this side of the House to land its support to that effort. Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, before business was suspended, I was reacting to certain standpoints adopted by hon members on the Government side. I want to respond to the comments of a few more of those hon members. Firstly I want to refer to the hon member for Randfontein. He quoted a passage from a reply I gave in a television programme. I think that quotation would have been correct if he had stated that the Coloureds intimated that they would reconsider the idea of an own Coloured ethnic state in the Western Cape. That is all I said. That is also what came into focus.

I also want to point out that… [Interjections.] No, just wait a minute. Please allow me to make my speech. [Interjections.] No, I now want to make my speech. I did not interrupt those hon members when they had the floor, Mr Speaker.

Order!

Mr Speaker, I want to continue my reply if of course those hon members are interested in obtaining answers. The hon member for Randfontein also gave us his definition of self-determination. What his definition of self-determination amounted to was, more or less, that it is the opportunity one has of making contributions in the decision-making process. The Conservative Party also has an opportunity of making contributions, Mr Speaker. We can make contributions in all the standing committees. We can also make contributions here in this House. In the final analysis, however, it is the majority that decides. To make a contribution, therefore, whilst another majority takes the decisions, is certainly not self-determination. It is not self-determination at all. I refuse to accept that concept of self-determination as valid for my people or for the other peoples in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Turffontein also quoted certain passages here. As he did previously, his quotations were not accurate. Five months after having refuted, in this House, an allegation emanating from the Government side, even issuing a challenge to anyone to prove me wrong—after even having hazarded R1 000—I find the hon member for Turffontein doing the very same thing. This time he links a signature to it to confirm that I allegedly said I was not talking politics, but rather war. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, can one credit that? In the National Party’s subsequent propaganda documents the same untruth simply reared its head again; so much so that the hon member for Bloemfontein North had to withdraw and repudiate what he said. [Interjections.]

Now the hon member for Turffontein makes a great fuss about a pamphlet that appeared in Pretoria. About the issue of a Boer state, the resurgence of the erstwhile Boer republics, etc, let me simply inform the hon member briefly that the only error in the relevant pamphlet is that it creates the impression of being presented as the official Conservative Party standpoint. Secondly I do want to urge the hon member please to quote correctly. In the relevant pamphlet the following question is clearly asked, and I quote:

This is the kind of thinking that is rampant in the National Party. There is talk of boundaries that are drawn. The Conservative Party had as little to do with the drawing of boundaries for national states, Black states and self-governing states as the National Party did—even when they were engaged in consolidation. Even in the process of consolidation the National Party—specifically the Government—hesitated to proclaim any boundaries publicly, of course quite understandably and for quite practical reasons.

Do you therefore reject the contents of that pamphlet?

No, the hon member did not quote correctly from that pamphlet. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I should just like to take a single reference to the hon member for Innesdal. I do not know why the hon member for Innesdal has to make so many statements that do not accord with the truth. I want to refer to his remark in connection with the public servants and politics. Is it not true, Mr Speaker, that in the new Public Service Act it is provided that public servants are entitled—with certain provisos, of course—to take part in politics?

I did not, after all, say anything to contradict that!

So it is true, is it not, that they can participate in politics in the country in which they are living. I have stated my personal viewpoint in regard to certain allegations that were made. My personal viewpoint was that public servants should be clearly led to understand that they are in the employ of the State and that they should therefore do their duty in accordance with the Act.

What about loyalty to the Constitution?

The Constitution is like any other Act. It can be amended, and every citizen of this country—whether he is a public servant, a member of the Conservative Party, a member of the House of Delegates or a member of the House of Representatives does not matter—has the right to an opinion about a constitution which even the Government says can be changed; it is not perfect; it is susceptible to change. The Government must therefore also grant its own public servants that right—the right to have an opinion and the right to play such a role in politics that it can draw its cross and vote to have that Constitution amended.

The hon member finds fault with our saying that in politics it is a question of obtaining political power. What else is it all about? If that is not the case, why does the NP participate in by-elections? The reason is to have a man elected so that the NP is strongly represented in this House and so that, with its strong representation, it has a power base; and from its power base it negotiates from a position of strength. In politics it is a matter of political power. That is what it is all about. That is what is involved. One cannot relegate that to the realm of the abnormal in our situation. [Interjections.]

That hon member, and others too, fling the word “radical” across the floor here. I want to allege today that what hon members designate as liberal in present-day circumstances, are standpoints which the NP adopted with acclamation when Mr Vorster, Adv Strijdom, Dr Verwoerd and others were in power. Yes, they are standpoints that were adopted with acclamation by that NP as a whole.

The hon member says we stand for a totalitarian state. That really is unadulterated nonsense. We do not advocate a totalitarian state. To tell the truth, we advocate separate democracies within individual fatherlands, in which the various peoples, each with its own government, can govern its own people. [Interjections.] We do not advocate one totalitarian state; and I find absolutely reprehensible—I repeat, absolutely reprehensible—the facility with which hon members on that side of the House are trying to link the CP and the ANC. Surely that gimmick is hackneyed by now. It is hackneyed, and hon members themselves know that it is unreasonable to make use of it. Surely they themselves know—or ought to know!—that it is untrue.

The hon member finds fault with the fact that people have a calling. Has the NP then, throughout all the years, not had a calling? Does it not have a sense of having a calling now? I shall never lose my sense of having a calling. I could indeed be wrong—and hon members are quite free to debate the issue, or to indicate to me where I am wrong—but I heed my calling in regard to a specific standpoint that I consider to be in the interests of my own people and of other peoples. That standpoint I try to convey to the community, the country at large, and I try to gain acceptance for it. That calling I shall never lose sight of, and I should like to make use of that privilege and that right in a democratic set-up.

The hon member says we hate powersharing. The NP, however, has hated it for decades now. And what is wrong with that? The hon member reproaches us for intolerance. In listening to the hon member, I sense that he is one of the best examples of the intolerance one encounters in people who advocate the principle of tolerance. There are few creatures as intolerant as liberalists when one questions their right to express an opinion. Then the fire and brimstone of intolerance is let loose about one’s head!

I did not really want to respond to the hon member any further, but the hon member says that we say: “You are losing control over South Africa.” There are most certainly instances in which the control is not exercised, and I am going to mention one such instance to the House. The hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs is threatening the Americans, saying that if they do not stop their disinvestment campaign, the Government will have to consider evicting a million people who are illegally present in South Africa.

No!

A million who are here illegally. [Interjections.] Am I right, Tom? Did he say “a million who are here illegally”? [Interjections.] A million who are here illegally. He stuck to that, and hon members can ask him about it. I checked the report. Now let me ask: A million people illegally in South Africa? They are not sec-tion-10 Black people. They are not the citizens of national states that have not yet gained their independence. They are those who are illegally present. If there are a million people who have been allowed into South Africa illegally, tomorrow or the next day it will be said: “It is true that they are here illegally, but they are here now. We sanction their presence.” Thus, in a unitary dispensation, they become part of the political corps of South Africa. [Interjections.] Hon members are free to indicate where I have quoted incorrectly, but the question of the million people who are here illegally is, in my opinion as plain as a pikestaff.

These hon members have now made a great fuss, quoting passages about this and that, and quoting instances of the company we are allegedly keeping. Hon members would do well to consider the company they themselves are keeping. They keep their own company.

Why do you not answer one’s questions for a change?

The hon member asked so many questions that a million sages would not be able to answer all of them. I am not interested in his questions. He has already asked a hundred questions. [Interjections.] I just want to tell the hon member one thing. He is now linking us to everyone, but a Minister of his government shared a platform with Prof Samuel Huntington. On that occasion Huntington expressed the following idea:

If we are now ascribing certain things to certain people, let me ask the hon member whether he also accepts responsibility for this. [Interjections.] The hon member must not talk so much, but rather think for a moment. If he is a member of a clique that ascribes hatred to us, let me say that he should start radiating forth love to others!

Since we are now seeking companions for one another, let us come a little closer to home. Here is a person who is a member of South Africa’s coalition cabinet and who said the following with reference to Mandela:

All I want to tell hon members is that they should first take note of this before seeking to align us with all manner of people. The hon member is so fond of the Koppiekommando that he cannot get them out of his mind. Once he gets hold of them, he wants to saddle us with them. [Interjections.] He should direct a few loving words at them too. Perhaps they would understand him. If one chooses to keep company with certain people, however, what company is this? I would rather join Mr Jaap Marais in the struggle than Nelson Mandela’s friend.

Here is a document belonging to the Labour Party which is now a partner in the country’s coalition government. In the Transvaal the Labour Party published a document advocating the following:

I take it the NP does not support that. Then, however, that party should not point to the company the CP keeps. That company is part and parcel of the cabinet. I quote further:

What does that mean? One of the NP’s partners in government proclaims, together with his people, the ideal of having the Head of State elected by popular ballot. According to the State President’s announcement in his speech at the beginning of the year, the popular ballot, apart from the fact that it is conflict with the constitution, is going to include 10 million Black people who do not have political expression through their own fatherland or the national states. That is the popular ballot. The NP refers to one keeping certain company. In what company does the NP find itself? I could say more about “The removal of all manner of …”, but I am going to leave the matter at that.

A Minister stood up in this House and said:

Can you credit that! I am not going to waste the time of the House by quoting at great length, but here is Die Transvaler of 1958 which contains Advocate Strydom’s photograph and in which it is stated:

Mr M C Botha, who now denies having spoken about Coloured homelands, said:

I have quoted from Skietgoed of 31 March 1972. Let me quote now from Skietgoed of 1961—that is how far back this goes:

That was the NP. I am also referring to the already quoted standpoint of the State President when he was Deputy Minister and said that if we had to make the sacrifices for a state within a state, as an alternative to the pernicious system of integration, we should do so! So even the possibility of a state within a state was considered.

I also want to quote what Dr Verwoerd said in 1965 (Hansard: Assembly, vol 13, col 632):

He then adds:

The ideal was therefore “the retention of White supremacy for ever over one’s own people and one’s own country. Retain what is your own.” I have a whole batch of quotes, Sir, but I shall save you the trouble of having to listen to them.

In the few minutes I have left to me, I want to respond to the standpoint that certain things are no longer viable or possible. This is a standpoint adopted by the Government, which is now shooting down certain ideas as solutions to South Africa’s problems. I have in mind, for example, the homeland idea. They are now saying that it is no longer the overall answer and then proceed with new avenues of approach.

It is against this background that I wish to pose a few questions. By way of contrast let me ask if certain other things are, in fact, possible as far as the governing party is concerned. I want to ask whether it is possible to build up a unitary system on the basis of such a deeply divided population as the one we have in South Africa. I know that the NP, by way of several of its hon speakers, made strong pronouncements against a unitary system. As recently as 1981 the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning shot down the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s idea of a unitary state with a multiracial Parliament, saying that it was not viable in our society.

I could also refer to Prof Ben Vosloo’s scientific article of a few years ago in which he analysed the whole idea of a plural state, describing South Africa as a conflict model of pluralism. Because it is a conflict model of pluralism, he said that the then NP Government had chosen a course of “separate freedoms”. The choice therefore fell on separate freedoms and not on a unitary state, one dispensation, a system of one man, one vote or a unitary system based on a federation.

Let us have a look at the federation idea. As far as that is concerned, we have quite a few approaches. As recently as 1980 the NP, with the present State President as its spokesman, I think, said: “In die derde plek is ons ook nie ten gunste van ’n federasie nie, in welke vorm ook al.” The racial federation of the old United Party was shot down by the NP over the years as being impractical, unworkable and not in accordance with the freedom struggle of the Whites or the people of colour in South Africa.

There is also a new approach now, however, ie that of the hon Leader of the Labour Party: His so-called “non-racial geographic federation.” This accords with the idea advanced by the PFP a few years ago, that of a federation on a regional basis. [Interjections.] At that time, however, the NP argued that judging by the possible regions into which the country could be divided, there would not be a single region in South Africa in which the Whites could form a majority. In such a federation the Whites would therefore constitute a minority group in each region. I think the same argument still applies to the hon Leader of the Labour Party’s federation idea, except for the fact that an extra bit is tagged on. He speaks of a “geographic federation”, but says it will be “non-racial”.

For a year and a day now the hon members of the NRP have been propagating the idea of a federative confederation—the federative-confederative idea. [Interjections.] This would mean—if I am quoting their definition correctly—a federation consisting of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and the urban Black people. Accordingly, and in accordance with the definition of urban Blacks, or people who can no longer be linked up to a national state and who, according to the now accepted principle of that side of the House that Blacks living outside the national states, should exercise their political rights here, this would mean that the Whites in such a federation would immediately be in the minority. It also means that for such a federation one would need, as an umbrella body, a federal parliament and a federal cabinet. If one goes according to the principle of proportional representation, this means that one is, from scratch, letting oneself in for a Black majority government.

If one were to include this federation, which is composed in this way and in which Whites are already in the minority, in a confederation, this would mean not only that the Whites would be in the minority in the federation, but also that they would be bundled into a confederation in Southern Africa which would, for the most part, be Blacks. I would have liked to take the argument further, but unfortunately my time has expired.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: At the commencement of the hon member for Waterberg’s speech, the hon member for Wellington referred to him as being a snake. I should liked to hear your ruling on whether this is parliamentary or not.

Order! Did the hon member for Wellington say that.

Mr Speaker, I said the hon member for Waterberg’s argument was a snake-like argument. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the past few minutes during which we listened to the hon member for Waterberg afforded the final proof, if we still needed it, of the reason why the CP has absolutely no contribution to make towards the constitutional development of South Africa.

There are certain reasons for this. The first reason I should like to outline is that after three years, the CP still does not have anything like a coherent policy for South Africa. [Interjections.] Secondly, instead of that, they clutch at all kinds of straws and specious arguments with which they try to distract our attention from their own poverty with regard to policy. [Interjections.] In the third place—I shall deal with this in the meantime—they understand nothing of the politics of the new South Africa as we know it today. [Interjections.] They understand nothing of it. I shall prove these points one by one.

Three years ago—it was at about this time of year, just after the CP had broken away—we asked them in this House what their policy was. They then answered that the CP had existed for only three months and that we should give them a chance. We have been now giving them a chance for three years and nothing has come to light from that party.

First they came along with the idea of a Coloured homeland. That Coloured homeland went through various phases, from the Richtersveld to all sorts of little spots and so on until, mercifully, it receded somewhat into the background. That was merciful for them. [Interjections.]

One would now say that three years have passed, but when the hon member for Waterberg was asked during a TV debate recently what support he had found among the Coloureds for this idea of his, he fell back on the same old argument he used three years ago, namely that it appears in the report of the President’s Council. We have now all read that section of the President’s Council’s report and we know about that doubtful little piece of skimpy “perhaps-evidence” for that standpoint that appears in it.

Evidently, this is the best that the CP could come up with in three years. All they have done in the meantime is to mention one person’s name. However, when the hon member for Waterberg was asked to mention a name the other evening, he said: “Let us just leave the names out of this.” So he had to renounce the little progress he had made. The hon member was back with the argument of three years ago, namely, saying that it appears in the President’s Council’s report. [Interjections.]

It is the same with the rest of their policy. On the one hand the hon member for Waterberg says that the homelands should be developed, even with further additions of land to those areas. If one listens to his supporters, however, one hears them say that the Government has given everything away to the Black people. In other words, the two standpoints do not agree—the views of the party leadership and party supporters are diametrically opposed.

I just want to touch briefly on the second point. As a result of the lack of a proper policy, they are trying to distract our attention with all sorts of specious arguments. Once again an example is the hon member for Waterberg who, in that same programme, when the interviewer asked him whether they held talks with Black people, answered: “We have talks.” They then asked him again and said: “I should like to know with whom.” He then said: “We talked a while ago—it is already quite a while ago—to representatives of, for example, Inkatha.”

Now, I should like to know when the members of the CP, as members of the CP, talked to Inkatha. The only talks held were those that were held before 1981 by members of the NP, which happened to include a few CP members, one being the hon member for Soutpansberg. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the CP, in his bankruptcy with regard to policy, has to clutch at straws and in that respect has to mislead his audiences in South Africa by saying that the CP talks to the Blacks, and he then relies on past talks together with members of a party from which he has dissociated himself.

This is just like the behaviour of the hon member for Soutpansberg in the House yesterday when he tried to ascribe all kinds of things to me. He claimed that I had said the vision of the NP that the hon member for Pietersburg spoke of was “an illusion”. What I in fact said, however, was: “The closer we came, the more we began to see that illusions also played a role in that vision.”

That is just your ugly way of speaking.

No, I say exactly what I mean. The hon member for Soutpansberg, however, went even further. He said that I was supposed to have said that the NP was following a policy of federation, or that I was supposed to have said that the NP thought it had a mandate for a policy of federation. When we put a little pressure on him by way of interjections, he went to have a look among his things and came to light with a section of the ambassador’s speech, and he said the ambassador had said that there was a federation.

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

No, but I shall answer the hon member’s question anyway.

What did I in fact say? I said we had a mandate, after this new constitution had been implemented, to go ahead and address the question of the Black problem. That is what I said. That is what I said we had a mandate for.

Start on the previous page. [Interjections.] Start on page 20. [Interjections.]

That is exactly what I said.

However I just want to make the last point in this connection. With their bankruptcy with regard to policy they cannot make any progress with any ideas anyway. They are running round in circles like a tortoise tied to a stick. This is what we find when we listen to the hon member for Waterberg. If we tell him he should dissociate himself from the AWB and other similar organizations, he tries to accuse us of associating with all sorts of people. How does he do this? He says, inter alia, that we have the Labour Party as a partner in a coalition.

It is true, after all.

Day after day the CP comes forward with the idea of a coalition, but this only goes to show that they have no idea how this new Constitution works. We are not dealing with a coalition situation here because the various majority parties of the different Houses come together in a Cabinet to find a way, each from the standpoint of its own policy, to govern the country in such a way that no one will be adversely affected. [Interjections.] This is not a coalition and the fact that they cannot comprehend this, but sit there and laugh, shows that they have no idea of the way in which this new constitution works. This is why they come to light with such specious arguments, and why the hon member for Waterberg tries to accuse us of associating with Huntington, simply because he and a Minister spoke from the same platform. The Minister, however, did not speak from the same platform as Huntington in the same way that the hon the leader of the CP spoke together with the leader of the HNP from the same platform. There, after all, they chose the same platform together and they went together to put across the same viewpoint. Surely this is what one calls a coalition? [Interjections.] We know what occasion that was. It was a scientific seminar where people with divergent viewpoints went to state their cases. For that reason the hon member for Waterberg tried to accuse us of associating with Huntington. This only goes to show once again with what subjectivity and deception they are trying to distract attention from their own total bankruptcy with regard to policy.

Three years ago they did not have a policy, and today they still do not have one. In three years’ time they will not have a policy, nor will they have one in 30 years’ time.

Mr Speaker, I have no intention of entering into the debate between the hon member for Helderkruin and the CP, but I must say that thinking back on this session, this debate between the government and the CP and the circumstances prevailing outside parliament, in the country at large, I wonder what our children will be forced to think in ten or fifteen years’ time when they read Hansard and see what we were discussing in this House whilst those things were taking place around us. I cannot but think that they are going to be speechless with disbelief.

If we look at the session itself, and at the nature of the debate, I think we can see three themes that have consistently dominated the political debate. One of the themes involved the economic dispensation in South Africa. That was a so-called economic debate. Another theme dealt with the nature and the quality of constitutional development, including the differences that exist about that. A third theme involved the question of negotiation politics—how do we become involved? What are the difficulties, the problems and the dilemmas involved in negotiation politics?

Let us look at the economic debate. We began with the hon the Minister of Finance’s fiscal and monetary measures aimed at maintaining discipline in State expenditure, including the use of interest rates, etc, to discipline the private sector. Another economic theme was the whole question of foreign pressure—the so-called disinvestment campaign—and what the implications for South Africa could be and how South Africa could maintain its position in the face of that campaign. Another economic theme involved the whole question of unemployment and job creation, a debate in which we discussed what would be the best method of counteracting this problem. So a fair amount of attention was given to the whole question of the free-market system, how it could be freed from State interference and deregulated so that there could be a greater degree of freedom in the free market. The main purpose of the economic debate—if I may sum it up in these terms—was to determine how long-term growth and an increase in productivity could be assured. I think that was the consistent aim of the debate.

If we look at the debate on constitutional development, we see that the dominant aspects included the growing pains of the tricameral system, the problems surrounding Black constitutional development and then, too, the phasing out of old structures—here I have in mind, for example, the State President’s initiatives which were announced at the beginning of the year and in which the idea of linking the urban Black man and the Black man in the homelands was relinquished. There was also a re-examination of influx control, and it was accepted that the whole question of citizenship should be re-examined. Then there is, of course, also the phasing out of provincial councils and the question of the systems to replace it. In this debate the main purpose was, if I understood this correctly, how to establish a constitutional dispensation in which all population groups could participate in decisionmaking involving their interests, without one group dominating another. In that regard we disagreed with one another, but that was the theme throughout.

A third consistent theme was the whole question of negotiation politics. In that connection I do believe that a new trend has come to the fore this session emphasizing the essential nature of consultation and negotiation in preference to compulsion and one-sided decision-making in regard to the way in which the Government acts towards other groups and bodies.

Examples of this are, of course, the way in which the Crossroads dispute was settled, ie by negotiation and consultation. There was also the announcement, by the State President, of a forum in which there could be wide-ranging negotiation and discussion on constitutional alternatives. There was also the State President’s invitation in regard to the enlarged Cabinet Committee that could serve as a runner-up to such a forum. There was also the State President’s standpoint that in some negotiations there should be an open agenda with a view to examining the alternatives. So those were the three themes.

†Sir, I have just returned from having in-depth discussions with people in the private sector, with Black leaders of different persuasions, etc, and all I can say is that the Government has through its actions, whether well-intentioned or not, contributed to a great deal of confusion out there as to what exactly its goals are, how it wishes to pursue them and how we are to go ahead to achieve the goals I have just mentioned in all three areas, viz economic recovery, constitutional developments and negotiation politics. In announcing measures to pursue these goals, or releasing statements to clarify them, the Government has created confusion about the means, contradicted its intentions, and caused anxiety and doubt about its declared objectives.

Let me identify some of the paradoxes or contradictions that caused this confusion. The first one is the contradiction between the measures that are propagated to restore economic productivity and the measures that are necessary for some form of constitutional tinkering. Let me just illustrate this.

*I have here today’s Beeld in which reference is made to an important project that has been in progress for the past two years now, a project sponsored by Barclays Bank and the Human Sciences Research Council. It relates to a survey of 78 companies, each with more than 100 employees. The report has now been published. To sum up, Beeld has the following to say:

The abolition of group areas and influx control is essential for an increase in productivity. If we therefore want to achieve the economic objective, according to the judgments of these top companies and their managers, the relevant measures must be abolished. If we look at the whole question of constitutional development, however, as clarified by the Government up to now, we see that it is specifically a measure such as the Group Areas Act that forms the cornerstone of the Government’s new constitutional development. Here we have a contradiction. Who is going to win in this debate? Are we, for example, to continue using the Group Areas Act in its present form as a cornerstone for constitutional development, or are we going to phase it out with a view to permitting greater productivity and greater economic development?

†It is a dilemma in the clash between scrapping or continuing with measures such as those of group areas and influx control for the purposes of either stimulating productivity and economic growth or, on the other hand, going ahead with the kind of constitutional development the Government has in mind from the local to the regional level. One cannot have both and try to pursue both goals, and this is exactly what is causing a great deal of confusion outside of Parliament.

A second paradox is that it is not quite clear what the Government means. Does one bring about constitutional change from the top down, that is from the central level to the local level, or do you bring about constitutional change from the local level to the top or central level? It is a dilemma of stating clearly what one’s priorities are. On the one hand we start talking about open-ended forums, about enlarged Cabinet Committees and getting people to negotiate and to enter into discussions with us at the central level and looking at a wide range of constitutional alternatives, and on the other hand we are now considering a Bill in a standing committee in which it is already assumed that we are going to structure local governments on a racial basis which will give access to regional councils, and it is hoped that something will develop out of that to the central level. The question is what the style of constitutional development is going to be that is going to enjoy priority. The two methods need not be mutually exclusive, provided we know what is envisaged and who the people are who are going to negotiate. It seems to me that we cannot, on the one hand, say that we are involved in an open-ended process while, on the other hand, we are already structuring the process of constitutional change.

This brings me to the third paradox. The third paradox which is causing confusion is closing options while it is said that the negotiations are open-ended. One cannot have both. One cannot say that one has an open-ended agenda and then close off certain options. One cannot say that one has an open-ended agenda and then go ahead with, for example, a constitutional mechanism like the Regional Services Councils Bill when the other side says that what it wants to negotiate is exactly what one is going ahead with. By doing this, one is closing options that can lead to an effective negotiation process. Another example is to say—the State President himself has made himself guilty of this—that one will not consider anything that has to do with a federation, but that one is willing to have an open-ended agenda. When we get involved in this kind of negotiation politics it is very important not to cut off options that can lead to a negotiation.

These paradoxes and confusions arise directly from Government action. I am not saying that we or people outside are not contributing to it, but insofar as there is confusion, it arises directly from Government action and therefore only the Government can resolve it. By committing this country to negotiated change the Government has saddled a tiger we all have to ride. A negotiation process is not a one-sided process but involves a lot of other people. When the Government therefore saddles that tiger, we all have to ride it. The other thing we must remember is that negotiation politics have their own logic and ground rules. Promoting confusion and compounding paradoxes are therefore not only detrimental to the spirit of negotiation but also actually very dangerous.

*I therefore want to come to the idea of a declaration of intent. It is clear to me, from newspaper reports and standpoints adopted in this regard, that as far as this aspect is concerned there is also a great deal of confusion and uncertainty. I want to say frankly that a declaration of intent is necessary if not vital to a successful negotiation process. I have no doubts about that, because I do not think we can get along without it. Why not? Because such a declaration lays down clear points of departure for negotiation. People then know what is being negotiated. Secondly it reflects the intentions and the bona fides of those taking part in the discussions. People then know what those taking part in the discussions are prepared to discuss and what they honestly propose discussing. Thirdly it legitimates the participation of the participants in the eyes of their supporters. It is a very important point that people coming along to those discussions on the basis of a common declaration of intent, can return to their supporters and indicate what they were negotiating. If they participate without their supporters knowing about it, there is already the impression that unjustified compromises could be reached on either side.

That is why I am saying that such a declaration of intent is essential, in fact vital, to the negotiating process. That is something I have no doubt about.

How such a declaration comes into being is not as important as the fact that it does. I want to concede at once that there is not only one way in which such a declaration can come into being. One party to the negotiations can, for example, anticipate the needs or the compromises of the other parties and come to light with a one-sided declaration which the other parties say they think is reasonable and which they accept. There is nothing wrong with that. It is sometimes difficult, because if that takes place in public it seems as if the other parties have immediately given in to that party. It is nevertheless possible.

It is also possible for various parties—this is a method I think we can investigate—to take an informal look, behind closed doors, at whether a joint declaration of intent is possible. As I have said, that is also possible. In fact, I would say that in our present circumstances that could be the correct method.

Whatever the process leading to such an eventual declaration of intent, such a declaration must be a jointly accepted negotiating point of departure for further constitutional development. It must. One party could possibly say it was prepared to discuss this, whilst another party stated that it was prepared to discuss that, so that there seemed to be contradictions. When they negotiate with one another, the basis for proceeding with the negotiations should, in the long run, be a joint point of departure.

The third point I want to make about such a declaration is that what such a declaration is all about should not be any secret. Why do I say that? Because all of us here instinctively know which are the most important groups in the country. We know who the people are who must come along to negotiate and to discuss matters. Research has indicated what the standpoints are about which they feel strongly, what the majority of Black people feel strongly about, what the majority of Whites feel strongly about and about what they are and are not prepared to reach a compromise. We can therefore say, even at this stage, that in such a declaration of intent it will be a matter of points of contact and compromises achieved between the parties to the discussion.

In our South African context we know that it is a question of citizenship. We know that it involves the nature of a new constitution. We know it involves the problem of domination. We know it also involves the freedom of movement of the people of South Africa, and it makes no difference whether they are Black, White or Brown. These are the points that will go to make the declaration of intent.

For that reason I really do believe, with deep conviction, that the most important parties to the discussions in negotiation politics should be prepared to negotiate constitutionally on the necessity for one constitution. Here I must clear up a few misunderstandings. There must be one joint constitution. One can say that one dismisses a unitary Westminister majority system, and that I can understand, but there can be no doubt about the fact that there must be one constitution for South Africa and that in that one constitution the final seat of authority should be accessible to all the imporant political groups, whatever the nature of such a federal structure may be, because I do not think it is merely a matter of what we have to say in this House.

If the negotiation process is to involve the other groups and also the Black leaders in the overall process of Black constitutional development, there is not a single Black leader of any stature entering into the negotiation process who would proceed from the assumption that he would not eventually share in a joint constitution. If we do not accept that, we can forget it; negotiation cannot take place. I am not the one who says that; they say it themselves. Research indicates as much. I think it is important for us not to create uncertainty about this from within the confines of this Parliament.

Therefore the logical conclusion is that if one constitutional dispensation is to come into being for all South Africa’s inhabitants, we can accept that it will involve common citizenship within that one constitutional dispensation. What this all boils down to once again is a single consistent theme. We are free to have a look at the Carnegie Report, at the research of the Rockefeller Foundation, at the report of the Quail Commission, at the report of the Buthelezi Commission and at the report of the Arnold Bergstra Institute, which conducted nation-wide surveys into constitutional alternatives and people’s preferences—there is one theme running through all this, ie that of common South African citizenship and one joint constitution. The only alternative is a form of radical partition, which of course cannot work. We must therefore know that if there is to be any meaningful bargaining from within this Parliament, that requirement must be included in that declaration of intent.

The third point involves the question of domination. No party to the negotiating process is going to exchange one form of domination for another. That is consequently going to be a problem central to that dispensation. So in that declaration of intent a clear stand must be taken on the fact that we are indeed going to discuss common citizenship, that we can go and negotiate a single constitution, but that the eventual nature of that bargaining and the nature of the citizenship should be such that there will be no domination of one group by another. I also believe that that is a possibility, because when we take note of the respective parties to the discussion, it is clear that they put forward this point with absolute clarity.

The fourth point, which is also very clear to me when I take stock of these respective possibilities, involves the question of influx control. I just want to dwell on this for a moment too. It is a mistake for the Government to say it will investigate the question of influx control—because there are certain hurtful aspects linked to influx control—whilst at the same time maintaining that certain aspects of influx control would remain on the Statute Book. Whilst the Government persists in this, it can forget about achieving any success. It will be impossible, amongst the relevant people, to have any responsible basis for negotiating about this. The Government must make it clear that influx control is going to be abolished. Yes, the Government can, in effect, replace it by measures to bring about an orderly process of urbanization. Nobody would argue with that. To say, however, that somehow or other influx control is going to be retained, is going to make no sense at all.

In this regard just allow me to mention two examples, Mr Speaker. These are both examples emanating from the Riekert Report. And this is something with which the private sector is experiencing tremendous problems at the moment. The Government cannot say that a Black man can come to the city if he has approved accommodation and/or has got a job. What does this mean in our economic circumstances? Is a squatter’s hut approved accommodation? Is emergency accommodation—when people build shelters for themselves—approved accommodation? If we are going to make those demands, it is going to become impossible for both the Government and the private sector to provide approved accommodation for those people. We know it cannot happen. So surely we cannot impose this requirement too. Those people will have to help themselves, and we shall have to help them to help themselves.

The second example I want to refer to involves the question of jobs. The woman who sits at the roadside selling oranges or what have you—is she, as the economists put it, “gainfully employed”? Is she self-sufficient? Does she have a job? Of course she has a job. She is not, however, registered as a worker. She is in the process of self-upliftment in the informal sector. If we do not make provision for that, too, we are never going to solve the unemployment problem. So you can understand, Mr Speaker, that if we are going to impose these demands for urbanization, whilst at the same time contending that everything else is what remains to be dealt with by influx control, we are actually destroying all the logic relating to orderly urbanization.

If we want to employ these measures in an effort to create an artificial—and it can only be artificial—division between so-called Black urban “insiders” and Black rural “outsiders”, we shall again be cutting a switch with which to flog ourselves, something that would simply make constitutional development impossible. Why? As I have said previously, we also need the same measures, which we apply to determine who should not be included, to determine who should not be excluded. In the final instance it remains the task of a policeman to go along and ask: “Where is your pass? Where is your identity document? Where is your permit?” Then we again find ourselves in the same dilemma. That is why I am saying that this is a tremendously sensitive aspect affecting the lives of millions upon millions of Black people. We therefore cannot expect a responsible Black leader to come forward and embark on a negotiating process in which we have not adopted a crystal clear standpoint about these aspects. He would, after all, lose his own followers.

If he were to be seen embarking on a negotiating process in which he is going to rationalize influx control, he would be out again within 24 hours. That is why I want to reiterate: No matter how that declaration of intent comes into being, what its eventual rhetorical content is going to be, and also what its appeal is going to be, there is one thing we cannot have any doubts about, and that is that that declaration of intent will have to state—and this is specifically the Government’s responsibility—that people must come along to negotiate a single joint constitution, a single common citizenship, in which there is no domination, and the complete elimination of influx control.

If we can do that, we have a chance of getting negotiation politics on its feet. To be able to do that, however, the Government must eliminate these contradictions, these paradoxes, these vague generalities, and the very excessive confusion that exists at the moment, by stating clearly what it has in mind as far as South Africa is concerned and where we are heading.

Mr Speaker, I listened to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition with undivided attention this afternoon. I believe the hon the Minister will reply to him on most of the matters he broached here. It is amusing to see how a fashionable word comes into existence in politics from time to time. The latest fashionable expression to have originated is this “declaration of intent”. Hon members know, we had it in the standing committee until the other day, when the hon member for Bezuidenhout made a proposal that the SATS should also issue a declaration of intent in respect of certain affairs that served before the committee there.

I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition what more he wants at this stage than the speech of the State President made at the opening of Parliament at the beginning of this year. The State President also stated his standpoint very clearly in this connection in his television interview with the BBC reporter the other night. What the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is really telling us—the Government and the State President—here this afternoon, is that we must accept their conditions, which ought to be negotiated. In addition we must make this known beforehand and then say something like: “We shall give this to you. Come, let us talk about it.” [Interjections.] I think the Government has stated its standpoint in this connection very clearly often enough in the past. [Interjections.] Now the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says there is no Black leader of stature who is going to speak to the Government. Surely the hon the Leader is living in a fool’s paradise, for there are many leaders. Indeed, most of the leaders of stature are in dialogue with this Government at present.

The hon the Leader broached the matter of domination. [Interjections.] The Preamble to our Constitution Act and the Constitution itself say that it is not this Government’s standpoint that one group must dominate another. We have said this times without number!

That is not the topic on which I want to exchange ideas with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition this afternoon, however. I listened to him, but he remained silent on the topic I wanted him to speak about. I now want to speak to the hon the Leader in his capacity as his party’s main spokesman on defence. Eight days have passed since a debate took place here in which the hon the Leader proposed as an amendment that the salary of the hon the Minister of Defence be decreased. [Interjections.] It is eight days since we experienced one of the most tragic moments in this House, when the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North held a speech which touched the heartstrings of the whole of South Africa. On that occasion the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North made an unbridled attack on the hon the Minister of Defence and on the South African Defence Force. I want to make the statement this afternoon that what happened that day will be to the detriment and the disgrace of the PFP as long as they continue to exist.

Allow me to say immediately that I really do not have a great problem because of their attack on the hon the Minister of Defence. The hon the Minister of Defence was in this House. He could defend himself against what was said about him. He did this very effectively. The hon the Minister of Defence is not a man who runs from his responsibilities. He is a man who places the interests of the SA Defence Force and the security of South Africa above his own interest and he will stand his ground in that respect. What hurts, however, is that the SA Defence Force, which was represented in the officials’ bay by the head of the SA Defence Force and commanding officers of the various sections of the Defence Force and commando members, Permanent Force members and national servicemen who were present on the public gallery, have to sit here helplessly and listen while they are being abused in the highest House of this country as saboteurs, terrorists and liars.

If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tells me he has no problem and that it does not affect him in any way, he and his party are doomed in respect of these matters. Eight days have passed since that debate took place and only one hon member of that party has had the courage of his convictions to stand up and say that he disassociated himself from the statement made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. Only one single member. The only thing the hon leader of that party said, was, and I quote from his unrevised Hansard:

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not say he regrets the content of the speech made by the hon member for Pietermartizburg North, but merely that he regrets that the hon the Minister of Defence could not give enough attention to him because of this speech. To this day the hon leader has not repudiated the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North—not even last night in Johannesburg when the high priest of the ECC praised the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North as being a “courageous and honest man”.

I regard the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—and I tell him this frankly—as a very intelligent and refined person. I must tell him this in all fairness. I do not believe him to be naive and that is why I want to ask him if he believes we must accept that weak standpoint of his in respect of that speech. I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition categorically this afternoon that his silence will be accepted by the Defence Force and the whole of South Africa as being a silent agreement with the content of this speech made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. The PFP is experiencing a dilemma from which they cannot escape and concerning which they owe the voting public of South Africa an answer. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has an immense problem. He is trying to cover the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North and the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Wynberg with the same blanket, as it were. I want to ask how something of this nature can be at all possible in this time with reference to what was said by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. Like a chorus of parrots the speakers of the PFP accused the hon the Minister and the Defence Force of a lack of credibility last week.

If ever there has been a party in this House which has experienced a credibility crisis, it is the PFP. I again ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition how he can house those divergent factions in his party. It is time for him to tell us where he stands, and this is the third time I have asked the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to do so, but he does not take cognizance of my request. [Interjections.] These accusations stand, and cast a shadow on that party. I am not worried about the shadow looming over that party, however, but about the shadow cast on the integrity of the South African Defence Force as a result of statements made by hon members of that party. I think it is time for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, or other hon members in that party who share the feeling of the hon member for Yeoville, to rise so that one can take cognizance of their standpoint in this connection.

Mr Speaker, earlier during this debate the hon member for Berea—I regret the fact that he is not here at the moment—demanded certain answers from my Natal leader about the consolidation of kwaZulu and also about possible future structures for co-operation between Natal and kwaZulu. I regret that my hon leader is indisposed but apparently the hon member for Berea had already put these questions, on which he demanded a reply from the Natal leader, to the State President. He does not seem satisfied with the replies he received. However, the hon member for Berea has been in politics far too long to expect to receive replies from the Natal leader any different to those he receive from the State President. He apparently feels that these matters are far more important than warranted by investigation by the special Cabinet sub-committee.

Let me assure the hon member for Berea that this Government is certainly not going to be goaded into precipitate action by the PFP, especially not if one remembers that the whole process of reform was actually set in motion in the face of the most vehement opposition on the part of the PFP. Those were the people who said that the 1983 Constitution would entrench apartheid. In the fight of that fact, how is it possible that they now want to dictate the pace of reform in this country?

It is particularly strange to note that the hon member for Berea refers to the special situation in Natal. The PFP opposed, among other things, the 1983 Constitution for the specific reason that Blacks—not the Zulu people but Blacks in general—were excluded from participation in the activities of this Parliament. By what right does the hon member for Berea now attempt to suggest that a special case should be made out for the relationship between kwaZulu and Natal —a different case to the relationship between for instance the Free State and Qwaqwa or Transvaal and Lebowa? It is surprising that when it suits the PFP it wants to single out specific Black nations for special treatment but when it does not suit it, it sees them as one Black mass of people throughout South Africa.

It is especially interesting that the PFP is using the argument that Natal is different. That is basically an NRP argument and has never been an aspect of the platform from which the PFP usually argues. The NRP has always said that Natal is different. That party could perhaps still have said so with some justification because of electoral returns and because Natal has been governed by the NRP and its predecessors. However, that has never been part of the political philosophy of the PFP.

*In one respect I am grateful that the hon member for Berea referred to the peaceful conditions in Natal because I should like to steer thoughts to the question of the increase in violence in South Africa and in the world in general.

Over the past half-year while this Budget debate has been in progress, indications have again pointed to an increase in violence in South Africa and the world. We have seen many reports of rioting in our Black residential and other areas. We are still involved in Swapo and ANC violence which is dragging on. In the world in general we see signs of violence in sport and politics—that is violence as an implement for political purposes.

Violence has actually become so commonplace that in future it will become increasingly the case of choosing between those who reject violence and those who see it as an instrument toward their political ideals. This choice which is being forced on us in growing measure is of exceptional importance to us in South Africa.

I think we all agree that circumstances in this country are such that we have a greater potential for violence than probably any other society on earth. If violence should escalate in this country, it has the potential of creating an inferno far worse than we have ever seen in the world.

We in South Africa remain fortunate in the sense that all the political parties are still affirming their faith in peaceful negotiating politics. We are not like Ireland yet where the Irish Republican Army has a military and a political wing; nor are we like places in the Middle East and Central America where terrorist gangs have active political supporters in political bodies.

It is true that attempts will be made to hijack political parties—the danger signals are visible to us already. In debate over the past few months we have heard on various occasions of attempts of militant organizations like the AWB and the “Kappie-kommando” to seek refuge with the CP whereas the United Democratic Front is always seeking links with the PFP.

More is required of political parties than pious utterances; it is of no avail merely to say we are in favour of peaceful negotiation and then to weep crocodile tears when violent insurrections occur. It is the sacred duty of every South African not only to state he is in favour of peaceful negotiation but also to avoid provoking violence or justifying it where it occurs. Political parties in particular also have this duty.

In saying there are danger signals already that political parties in our country are either provoking or condoning violence, I wish to address the CP as well as the PFP. In the past week we had the deputy leader of the CP saying at Somerset West that, if the CP were to gain power, it would implement a programme—note they speak of a programme and not a policy—for Coloureds and Indians without their approval. This simply means that, in the words of its own deputy leader, the CP was indicating that it would treat Coloureds and Indians like cattle if it were to come into power in this country. [Interjections.] That is a recipe for violent confrontation.

I said political parties should neither provoke nor condone violence. The hon member for Kroonstad referred most pertinently in this respect to the speech we had from the side of the PFP in this House last week. That speech—I do not wish to quote from it further because it is unsavoury enough—from beginning to end was a condonation of violent forces ranged against South Africa. Why did the PFP leader permit that speech to pass? Why is he creating the impression that the PFP is permitting the question of violence to pass so lightly? Why did the hon Leader of the Official Opposition not utterly repudiate the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North’s speech? He could just as well have done so because his newspapers did it for him that weekend. That weekend his own newspapers buried the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North for him. Did Newton Park not show him what South African voters do to people who do not adopt a sufficiently strong standpoint against violence?

We in this party make no secret of it that we reject violence in all its forms. We go further: We are not prepared to provoke violence—that is why we say we are in favour of negotiating politics. We are certainly not prepared to condone violence either even if it emanates from our supporters.

Mr Speaker, I hope the hon member will forgive me if I do not deal with his arguments.

I want to return to arguments that were used earlier in this debate in speeches on the important questions of disinvestment. I have been observing reactions to speeches on disinvestment both outside and inside this House over the past two days. I must say that I am left with the decided impression that Government members and Government supporters outside the House, I might add, are singularly indifferent to the effects of the campaign which has now really become a runaway issue in the United States.

I think I would be less than human if I resisted the impulse to say: “I told you so.” I am not going to resist it, because I am not less than human. I have, as everybody knows, talked on the subject year in and year out since 1978 when I went to the United States and observed for the first time that there was growing momentum in a campaign to force universities—for it started on the campuses—to divest their trust funds from shares in firms that did business in or with South Africa. It was already a potent force in 1978.

As far back as 1978, two men with the names of Clive Ferguson and William Cotter, wrote an article which was published in Foreign Affairs a well-known American journal, entitled “South Africa—What is to be done?”. They listed no fewer than 41 different options which were open to the United States to use either as methods of encouragement to the South African régime to change its direction or, if that failed, punitive measures right up to full economic sanctions which would be used to force South Africa to change. That was way back in 1978. Nobody took the slightest notice of any of these warnings …

They are not going to do so now.

No, they are not going to, I might tell you. They do not take it seriously.

[Inaudible.]

I am dead against the disinvestment campaign. I have risked my own credibility on campus after campus in the United States. [Interjections.] I have published articles in the United States, and I have written articles for papers like the Washington Post against disinvestment. I did this not because I in any way support the South African Government in its policies, particularly their racial policies, as I ought not need to say, but simply because I believe that disinvestment is counter-productive, that it blunts the major weapon that Black people have to enforce change themselves, and that is for them to get economic muscle via consumer power and via the fact that they are rising on the economic ladder to become the skilled workers of this country. When that happens no Government will be able to withstand the pressures to redress the imbalances in power, privilege and wealth in South Africa. For that reason I am against disinvestment.

Why do you say the Government is indifferent?

I shall tell you why. First of all, the only member who did take note of what I said in 1978 was the hon member for Simon’s Town who was then on Government benches already, but not a Minister or a Deputy Minister, and he said:

That is the only person who took any notice, but of course that had no effect whatsoever on Government actions. Now the peril is a reality; it is here, it is with us, and the Government still appears to be quite unaware of it or else it is putting on a show of bravado, I am not too sure. Maybe the hon member for Turffontein can tell me which of the two interpretations is correct. [Interjections.]

The State President himself made an announcement—I cannot remember whether it was in one of his appearances on television or in an interview—saying: “We have beaten sanctions before and we will beat sanctions again.” Of course he pointed to the arms embargo and, I think, the oil embargo as well. However, there are different circumstances. We are now in the midst of one of the most serious economic recessions that this country has experienced for many years.

Then we have had the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs appearing on television, also putting on a show of bravado about this. Even yesterday we had the hon the Minister of Finance telling us about the easy way in which we can rise loans overseas, in Europe particularly.

It is true.

It is true, but try again next year and see how easy it is, more particularly when no new loans are forthcoming from the USA, which they will not be if the Gray-Solarz Bill which was passed only yesterday in the House of Representatives in the USA comes into effect. The hon member for Pinelands says it is not yet law because it may not go through the Senate, but I want hon members to know that I am not sanguine about this. I believe this Bill will go through the Senate because I think apartheid bashing has become a most popular occupation. The hon the Minister of Environment Affairs is just too late. I have just paid him a compliment.

[Inaudible.]

That is why he has come in. He thinks you will pay him another one!

He is just too late, and I might say he has missed the only opportunity he is ever likely to have of receiving a compliment from me! [Interjections.]

However, I am not sanguine that that Bill will not go through the US Senate. I think a tremendous impetus has been built up now in the US for various reasons. There are people who genuinely are morally disgusted at what goes on in this country. They have only to see the TV films of people being shot in the townships and of forced removals and that sets it all off again. They only have to read about Cabinda—nobody overseas believes the Government’s explanation, I can assure you, and not an awful lot of people in this country believe that explanation either. I certainly do not believe it. So, all those things add to this tremendous build-up of momentum. Even if there is some sort of compromise at the conference which will take place between the Senate and the House of Representatives, something of a punitive nature is going to go through.

Hon members should not bluff themselves that the next thing that is going to happen immediately in America is that the President is going to veto this Bill. He may, but if he does, hon members must remember that such a veto can be overruled by a two-thirds majority of the House and of the Senate. Each House has to have a two-thirds majority. In the present climate of moral outrage on the one side and the desire for punitive action on the other, and, of course, American political expediency, everybody who has large numbers of Blacks in their constituencies or who feels this way knows that it would be a very dangerous thing for any politician, that is, to decide he will not back disinvestments. South Africa, it so happens, provides one of those rare examples in politics where expediency and a just cause happen to coincide. So, it is a very nice bandwagon on which it is easy to climb.

I never cease to be astonished—though one would think that, after all these years of being in this House and listening to the hon members, I should know better—at the ease with which Nationalists persuade themselves to believe what they want to believe. Despite all the realities that face them, they believe what they want to believe. I am still unable to refrain from issuing warnings, although I know perfectly well that nobody is going to take any notice of those warnings until 20 years later when it is too late. So, Sir, I want to issue this warning again. I believe that the hon member for Sea Point was absolutely right when he said that what we have already seen of the disinvestment campaign in America is just the tip of the iceberg. There are at least 22 Bills presently in the pipeline in the USA Congress. There are six states that have already passed resolutions enforcing the disinvestment of their billions of dollars worth of pension funds from companies that do business in South Africa or that have some business connection with this country. There are something like 11 cities that have already done that and there are about another 14 contemplating such action. There are also many other states in the USA that are contemplating taking the same action already taken by Connecticut, Michigan, Iowa, Massachusetts, Washington DC and one other. So, we should realize that we are facing just the beginning of the implementation of what until now was only a threat. I think hon members are also deceiving themselves if they think it is going to stop at the Atlantic seaboard of America. No such thing: there is a very strong movement starting up both in England and in Europe for divestment against South Africa. It may not be so easy to get it going, but I can assure hon members that it is something that should not be ignored.

We have to raise enough capital in this country, or generate enough capital, to have a growth rate of at least 5% per annum if we are to be able to employ the ±200 000 job seekers who come onto the market each year. I do not believe, despite the bravado of certain businessmen in this country, that South Africa is able to generate that capital by itself. I do not believe that, if we are deprived of the technology which is our major import from the USA, we will do anything other than make the most heavy going in a competitive world, especially if the emphasis is to be on manufactured goods for the export market.

Mr Speaker, as a courtesy to the only lady who spoke in this debate, I think I should first just remark on what the hon member for Houghton has said. If the hon member is under the impression that this Government is either unaware of or completely indifferent to the things she mentioned, she is making a great mistake, but as a responsible Government we have a tendency to do things in a responsible way and not in such a way that it is always necessarily visible to all observers of the actions of the Government.

*I think it is valid to say that we as a country, and specifically we as a Government, can only hope that common sense will prevail in the USA if the USA wants to remain the leader of the free world.

Is that your only plan?

That interjection is too stupid to react to. On the other hand South Africa cannot allow itself to be humiliated by the kind of interference which the USA itself would not tolerate in its own affairs. Between these two poles we as a responsible Government must devise the most responsible plan of action whereby to look after the interests of South Africa.

†Let me state the facts as far as our growth rate is concerned. With the capital we can generate inside South Africa, we can certainly satisfy the needs for a growth rate of up to 3,5%. We all know that that is not enough and that we do need foreign investments. Apart from the capital, we also need foreign expertise because we have a severe shortage of managerial people, entrepreneurs etc. In other words, to push the growth rate up to an average of 5,5% over some years, we need foreign investment and expertise. We are not unaware of these facts and we are looking at them with the greatest degree of responsibility.

*I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon members for the friendly remarks that many of them made about me. My task is certainly not an easy one, particularly in these times, but I can assure hon members that particularly in these times none of my colleagues has an easy task either. However, I particularly appreciate the fact that hon members have said such friendly things about me, and I thank them for that.

Before referring specifically to the remarks made by hon members, I should like to touch on a few matters. I should like to say something about the Building Societies Bill. There has been a great deal of speculation in the media about this matter, and I should like to state the facts of the situation. Recently I met the chairmen and managing directors of the large building societies. We discussed the Bill, which had already come before the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs and had been approved in principle, we discussed the minutes, which had been confirmed by the Cabinet, and therefore agreed to, but I informed them that it appeared as if the Bill was going to be caught up in the process of being checked by the law advisers. Yesterday I was in a position to issue a statement in that regard and I want to confirm it again today for hon members. As I had agreed with the building society people, I had an in-depth discussion this morning with the hon the Minister of Justice, the Chief Law Adviser and the law adviser who is dealing with this Bill, and I was told that it was impossible to have the Bill ready during this session because it affected the Banks Act, and, like the arms of an octopus, had points of contact with the Companies Act and very probably with other Acts as well. In order to deal with the matter properly, therefore, we decided to make the Bill available to the Standing Committee on Finance as soon as possible during the recess so that they could discuss the matter in detail. However, I wish to emphasize that the fact that we were unable to do so during this session does not mean that there has been a departure from the principle. We are adopting the approach of having measures on building societies providing for building societies that wish to function as companies, and for building societies that want to continue functioning as mutual societies. I wanted to bring this clearly to hon members’ attention.

In the second place I want to discuss the issue of insurers, which is a matter to which the hon member for Yeoville has also referred. Our friends in the private sector who are very concerned about legislation falling under the Ministry of Finance will know that many details are at issue here. This was the case, for example, with regard to fringe benefits, and it is also the case with regard to the issue of insurance policies. When we reach the point at which we see that the implementation of a specific principle can no longer be delayed we shall announce that we are going to apply the principle on the basis of details that are spelt out at the same time. This, of course, is how we see and experience the situation. When we announced the details about fringe benefits we were not, of course, aware of the car scheme of Oom Jan at Tiekiedraai that was jeopardized as a result. We experience the situation from our side. If there is a specific problem which arises as a result of the details of such measures, we afford people the opportunity to make representations to us and we are then prepared to accommodate reasonable requests. We are adopting precisely the same style with regard to the insurers. This matter has a very long history now and we reached the stage at which there were so many loopholes and so many abuses that we could not delay action any longer. Indeed, the Margo Commission is looking into this and we have held informal discussions with them. Several of our officials are present during the discussions every time the Margo Commission or one of its subcommittees meets. We simply reached a stage at which we were no longer able to deal with that matter. Once again we said that we would no longer tolerate that practice. We set the conditions under which we would allow it in specific circumstances, as we experienced it.

Once again we were unaware of the little special savings policy of Tant Sannie at Koekenaap. If Tant Sannie’s policy gives her any trouble, she, or else her representative or the Life Offices Association or whoever, has the opportunity to make representations, and we can deal with this by way of an amendment. It is the extreme form of democracy to do it in this way.

We in the Ministry and the Department of Finance are now getting tired of being told every time that our announcements are vague. If they keep troubling us we shall say in future that that is how we experience it and that is how we determine the final details. Then we shall not say that there is any opportunity to come back to us. Because we do not deem it in the interests of our people we shall continue to propound a specific principle and to say that as far as the details are concerned, we shall provide specific opportunities for representations.

The hon member for Yeoville asked me to tell him how we were dealing with the Margo Commission. While the Margo Commission is engaged in extremely important work and is working with the utmost expedition, this country still has to be governed. We cannot wait with regard to a matter like these insurance policies until the Margo Commission is eventually ready to make a final recommendation in the total context of its investigation.

The matter of the regional services councils, too, is one that has been before us for a long time. This delays the implementation of an extremely important constitutional development. We say thereby that we are going to implement this and the Margo Commission is fully entitled—we consult informally without prejudicing the Margo Commission—to say, when it gets to its report, that the affairs of the regional services councils have thus far been wrongly dealt with as far as the details are concerned. However, we have no doubt that there is no alternative but to impose regional services council levies. If the Margo Commission can come up with a better proposal—it is improbable—then we shall be fully prepared to consider it.

Sir, may I ask the hon member to deal with this problem? If he implements these two new systems of taxation and the Margo Commission then finds that it would be better—let me state this hypothetically—just to increase GST marginally, has the hon the Minister then not created a bureaucracy to collect all these taxes and which under the new circumstances will be unnecessary?

The fact is that we are not creating bureaucracies to collect these taxes. These taxes will be collected by the existing treasury departments of the various local authorities. It will be monitored and administered as far as possible by the Department of Inland Revenue. We are therefore not creating new bureaucracies, and the argument of the hon member falls away although it is a legitimate question.

The point is also that the regional services councils must have a differentiated tax or levy structure. If the Margo Commission comes to light with an alternative which does not address this major aspect of the very existence of these councils, the Government will not be able to entertain it because we have said it often and openly to all parties involved that that is the stick path while regional development is the carrot path. From our point of view this carrot and stick policy will certainly make a contribution towards restructuring economic development in South Africa.

Do not be so sure that the metropolitan areas will be prepared to take that policy so easily.

No metropolitan area will take it that easily, but we have to govern this country according to the demands of the country and unless we apply a carrot/stick approach there is no way in which we shall eventually obviate the necessity of pumping further water supplies from the Tugela, which apparently is an unpopular thing to do, and also pumping water from the Lesotho area, which would be a completely crazy thing to do. I do not have too much time available, and I think that is a topic for a later debate.

I want to refer briefly, Sir, to two particular issues in relation to the hon member for Yeoville. The hon member for Yeoville told me personally—and he never makes any bones about it in the deliberations of the standing committee—that he took exception to my response when he had offered consensus in this House on a previous occasion. Let me state clearly that I have since reread my speech in Hansard and that I do state again that however much I appreciate the hon member’s attitude and his offer in that regard—his suggestion that we should seek to reach consensus as far as possible as far as the Budget is concerned—however much I should like fully to agree with him, if I am brutally honest with myself, however, I must tell him that I doubt whether it is at all possible for us to reach consensus in respect of the Budget as a policy instrument over which we as a Government have control, and which is the result of our interpretation of the mandate given us politically at the polls. However, Sir, the hon member for Yeoville is a social democrat…

Are you not even prepared to try?

Oh yes, I am prepared to try. I think we can try it as far as certain monetary instruments are concerned. We can also try it as far as fiscal policy is concerned. As a social democrat, however, I am pretty sure it will be very hard for anyone to reach consensus with the hon member for Yeoville.

There are social democrats in your own party too! [Interjections.]

Be that as it may, Sir, even if I do reach consensus with the hon member I will still have to make sure that in that particular respect the hon member has reached consensus on the matter with the hon members of his own party too because I do not believe the hon member has the image of one who always happens to be in agreement with the hon members of his own party. [Interjections.] I do, however, want to tell the hon member that I should like to reach consensus with him—at least as far as the Budget is concerned—on as many policy instruments as possible. Then we must, however, also know in advance that on behalf of the Government I will not be able to yield in respect of regional development or of decentralization or of consolidation, and in respect of other sensitive issues which we regard as part of our political mandate. As long as we understand each other as far as that point is concerned I am quite willing to embark on this consensus-seeking project.

Consensus does not mean just to agree with one side.

Mr Speaker, I have a suspicion that we will soon find that either the hon member or I will say: “Be reasonable; do it my way.” [Interjections.] Anyway, Sir, firvolity aside now. I believe that it is possible that as far as policy instruments are concerned—particularly with regard to monetary and fiscal policy—we can seek and reach consensus, as long as we know in advance that we need not even waste time on party political issues.

That brings me then to the last point to which I want to refer as far as the hon member for Yeoville is concerned. I made the point in this House, too, earlier this year that when officials of this department testified before the Standing Committee on Finance they should not be required to answer questions in connection with why certain policies were accepted.

But you will not ever come to the committee. You have been invited there at least a dozen times but you will not come!

It is not a question of my refusing to attend the sittings of the committee, Sir. I am not sitting in my office doing nothing, just waiting for people to summon me at a moment’s notice. [Interjections.] I was invited to attend a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. Having wasted about twenty minutes there, together with the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry and the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, we had to leave because there was no quorum. [Interjections.]

Whose fault was that?

I do not care whose fault it was.

It shows you this is a rotten system! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the fact is that we also have many delegations sitting in our offices. If due notice is given we will not have any problem whatsoever in making available the time to attend the meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance because it is a top priority. I concede that immediately. It is a top priority. Let me add, however, that if the questions asked there do not relate to the kind of policies which divide parties in this House I really do not see the justification for the questioning of hon Ministers in those standing committees. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Yeoville that an explanation of policy can be given by officials of the department. However, when it relates to the reasons why certain policies are in existence it is fair that the political functionaries—either the hon the Deputy Minister, to whom certain duties are officially delegated, or I—can appear to answer questions. That should, however, be done only after adequate notice has been given in order not to embarrass delegations that have come from afar to interview us. Nevertheless, we will gladly put in an appearance at those meetings. However, I think it is incumbent upon those members serving on the committees to ensure that officials are not asked questions which can be politically embarrassing and which can possibly be quoted out of context in this House against the Minister.

I challenge you to quote a single question like that. Quote just one such question.

I have a strong case here. However, I do not think that this is the right occasion to take it up.

You have no case at all.

You have tried twice already.

Mr Speaker, all I want to say is this: In New Zealand it happened that officials were asked to justify political policy. In the end, they took senior counsel with them to meetings. I agree with the hon member Mr Schutte that the standing committee system is a good thing. I am simply arguing that if we want to make it work, we will have to be careful that we do not allow that kind of suspicion or that kind of blockage of the flow of information to occur during the deliberations of the committee.

That is rubbish!

We can differ on that issue. However, I have instructed my officials not to part with any documents without my prior personal consent.

How can you run a committee when you sit on the documents and we cannot get to them? How can you do that? After all, you are responsible.

I think the hon member must decide for himself whether he wants to join this party and co-govern—because that is what he is trying to do—or whether he wants to enjoy the privileges of an Opposition spokesman, because he cannot be both.

Do not worry, your job is safe. [Interjections.]

I am not worried about my job, not in the least.

The Hon member criticized me for having borrowed R1 600 million from the market. I explained quite emphatically in my opening remarks that during April and May we normally have a bulge of expenditure and a lack of funds; our cash-flow position is very poor. In such a case we have only two choices. Either we go to the market and we borrow the money—which, in accordance with our borrowing programme, we have to do anyway—or we create the money. What would have been the consequences had we resorted to the creation of R1 600 million? The hon member knows these things. He could have applied his own mind to the problem. He could have applied the multiplier to that R1 600 million, and he could then have determined for himself what the consequences would have been if we had resorted to bank credit to finance it.

Yes, but you said we are not using this borrowed money for current expenditure. So your argument is…

The way in which this was done has been proven over all these years to be the best possible way to do it. If we had resorted to the alternative we would have had an increase in the money supply with all the concomitant nasty effects such as inflation and so on.

I have referred to the Margo Commission. The hon member asked me whether or not I agreed with my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget as far as the two per cent growth rate is concerned. My personal view is that that is a bit optimistic. However, if we can achieve 1% under the circumstances we are in today, we will have achieved something reasonable. In any case, we are dealing with so small a percentage growth that there is not much difference between the two. I think it is early days yet and what will happen is really anybody’s guess.

The hon member said that we have not dealt adequately with the money supply. The hon member should also know that the money supply figures, as they have been calculated up to now, are not reliable.

You have now discovered the truth.

We have known that for a long time. Those calculations are really a “bent yardstick”. However, they do provide some guideline and we foresee that there will shortly be drastic improvements in this respect. The reason for that is that, with the cash-flow problems experienced by certain companies, intercompany borrowing does not take place in the way that it used to. So those companies now go to the banks and that credit—which they would have had anyway as a result of intercompany borrowing—is now reflected as part of the money supply. In any event, there is a lag and all sorts of other problems but this will soon be put right. The whole question though is what the velocity of that money supply is. We are more worried about expenditure than the money supply as such.

I think we all have a high regard for the hon member for Yeoville’s knowledge of financial issues. However, in his speech yesterday he again failed to give us alternatives. He criticized the Government for applying measures which caused bankruptcies and unemployment.

But you have just told me I cannot co-govern but must be in Opposition.

If one is the Opposition one is supposed to have a real alternative, and all I am saying is that I have not heard an alternative from the hon member. I want to ask him this fair question: How can one possibly curb spending without hurting the companies where the money used to be spent? It is not possible. If one curbs spending, one reduces the turnover of companies and then one has bankruptcies in the case of those companies with inadequate gearing. As a businessman that hon member should know it. How could we have curbed spending without hurting commerce and industry? I should like to hear the hon member speak on that.

I can answer you now.

No, the hon member cannot answer me now. [Interjections.] The hon member has had an entire session of Parliament in which to do it.

There is another point that the hon member made. He said that we cannot apply the sophisticated monetary measures in South Africa that are applied by Mrs Thatcher, President Reagan and other. Sir, we know that. We are not doing it in the same way. If we really wanted to clamp down on inflation we could have done so but we did it in a moderate way. At the same time, quite apart from all our other job creation measures in our Budget from an overall point of view, we earmarked R100 million specifically for job creation.

That is a drop in the ocean.

The hon member calls it a drop in the ocean. You see, Sir, there the socialist part of his policy comes to the fore.

I am not ashamed of it, I am proud of it. [Interjections.]

If the hon member is proud of his socialist tendencies why is it that he has never supported us in our efforts to generate the tax revenue with which to fund the socialist things that we do? We have never heard any alternative from the hon member as far as that is concerned. We increased pensions.

Also a drop in the ocean.

Again a drop in the ocean, yes. We also gave R30 million to the Small Business Development Corporation. The hon member for Umbilo said that people do not know about the R30 million that we earmarked for the Small Business Development Corporation. I am afraid the hon member’s information is wrong. I shall let him have the figures in a moment but there have been thousands of enquries and a few hundred applications have already been approved totalling about R10 million. So this is well know in the business community.

Let me tell the hon member for Yeoville that in the Ministry of Finance and in the Department of Finance we are very keen to do the unpopular things that we have to do in these difficult times with as much consultation and consensus as we possibly can have with the private sector as well as with all the political parties in this new Parliament. We must be absolutely sure, however, that we all have in mind the smoothest possible operation of the whole process and that everyone will restrict himself to his respective area of responsibility. If we find a way to work together along those lines then we can live happily ever after as a family.

*I should like to thank the hon member for Smithfield for the way he conducted the Standing Committee on Finance in very difficult circumstances—because he had a few very difficult customers there. The hon member for Smithfield referred to the repayment of debts. This is another positive factor. Whereas developing countries of the same order as South Africa are applying to have the interest they have to pay, rescheduled—quite apart from the repayment of capital—since September last year South Africa has been in a position to repay R4,6 billion of its foreign debt. I am not referring to the Government alone but also to the private sector.

I thank the hon member for having put the issue of the Maize Board in perspective and the hon member for Heilbron for also having put the whole issue of the poor handling of the grain sorghum matter in the correct perspective in this House as far as that matter is concerned. However it then happened that, in a “flash of brilliance”, the hon member for Kuruman regarded the factual statement by the hon member for Smithfield as an attack on the Maize Board. If the announcement of facts may be regarded as an attack, then I think that the facts speak for themselves. [Interjections.]

I have received a note from a CP Whip that the hon member for Kuruman cannot be present at the moment, but there is a certain matter that I must place on record. This hon member—this is a typical CP/HNP gossip story—stood up here and spoke about Mr Oppenheimer who had supposedly taken R2 000 million out of the country in 1982, and I have before me the unrevised speech of the hon member for Kuruman. I therefore heard him correctly, and the hon member for Sunnyside confirms that that is correct. Therefore the hon member for Sunnyside also believes it. [Interjections.]

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

No, unfortunately I do not have the time to answer a question now.

I have furnished evidence, and the hon the Minister knows it. [Interjections.]

I went out of my way to ascertain the facts from the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank informed me that there was no trace whatsoever of an amount of R2 000 million—these things are openly published by the Reserve Bank—taken out of South Africa by Mr Harry Oppenheimer in 1982. [Interjections.] That is the correct fact. [Interjections.] Moreover, there is the most stringent control over this kind of thing. If money does leave the country, we must know that it has taken place after due consideration by the Reserve Bank, and that in that way we are generating revenue in other countries as well. We have no alternative but to give our businessmen in South Africa, too, a chance to flex their arms a little. I do not believe we need say much about the potential benefits of this.

The hon member for Kuruman said that the people had lost confidence in South Africa. Sir, one can only conclude once again that that statement is just hot air. I do not know where those people are. If there is confusion between confidence and difficult business conditions then I think it is too late to try to clear up that hon member’s ideas about that. Moreover, the hon member for Kuruman made what I regard as a totally unfounded attack on the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of National Education. I regard it as an uncalled-for attack. As regards this matter of a person’s neighbour, I just want to make one remark about this matter of people in right-wing circles posing as such religious people. The hon member for Innesdal also pointed this out, and rightly so. We must stop politicizing the Christian faith in South Africa, but we would do well to christianise politics. Another thing that sticks in my throat is this statement by rightwing people that they are not the neighbour of a Black man, or certain other people that they single out.

Who said that?

Has Jaap Marais not said it?

Any responsible person.

Oh yes? I shall provide the hon member for Waterberg with the quotations, if I have to post them to him personally. [Interjections.] May I ask the hon the Leader of the CP whether he denies that either a member of the CP or a member of his HNP alliance has ever made such a statement? Does the hon member deny that?

I am speaking about responsible people. [Interjections.]

I am speaking about members of parties. [Interjections.] I asked the hon member, the Leader of the CP, whether he denies that a CP or an HNP member has ever made the statement that he is not the neighbour of a Black man. Does he deny it? I am asking the member a question.

I do not deny it. But what about statements by Nats? [Interjections.]

The hon member says he does not deny it and I should like to place on record his saying that he does not deny it. I now, in all seriousness, want to express an opinion in that regard. I think that what is necessary in the politics of South Africa is that we ask ourselves—indeed, the Scriptures say this—to whom we can be a neighbour. The question is not “Who is my neighbour?” but “To whom can I be a neighbour?” That is the question we must ask ourselves. [Interjections.]

Since the hon the Leader of the CP is now telling me that I must apply this myself, I want to ask him whether he is happy with what the hon member for Vryheid said today when he quoted a chairman of a CP branch speaking about Black people in the most objectionable terms. Does the hon the Leader repudiate that chairman or not?

If the hon member quoted him correctly, I repudiate him. [Interjections.]

Thank you very much. The hon Leader of the CP states that he repudiates the chairman of the CP in Vryheid. I think that the hon member for Vryheid will be able to convey that to that chairman. [Interjections.]

As long as he quoted him correctly!

Of course it is if he quoted him correctly.

I want to lend my strong support to the hon member for Paarl, who said that South Africa’s economy must be so powerful that it is a field of investment that an international investor will simply be unable to resist. I think that that is an extremely true statement.

†I now come to a speech of the hon member for Umbilo. I think that my colleague the hon member for Amanzimtoti dealt adequately with many of the points that the hon member for Umbilo raised.

What? He merely read from his own speeches!

I do not care whom he quoted; the remarks were appropriate in any case. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to a few figures I have here. There have been 7 600 inquiries and 1 618 applications have been considered. Of these 297 have been approved to an amount of R10 million.

I can say to the hon member that if we do not charge an interest rate on outstanding tax we will never receive it as fast as we need to have it. It is therefore a punitive measure. However, I will undertake from my side to get the administration of the department to react as speedily as possible, also as far as the repayment of outstanding amounts is concerned.

I thank the hon member for Amanzimtoti for his contribution. He dealt with some of his own beliefs; he did not deal with finance today. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens dealt with influx control. In my opinion he gave a sound analysis of it. However, from a political point of view I support my colleague the hon member for De Kuilen who replied to some of the remarks of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens.

*I give the hon member the undertaking that we shall ask Dr De Kock to discuss with the banking institutions the question whether the savings rates declined a little more rapidly than the interest rates. We can discuss that matter with them.

I was unable to make any notes about what the hon member for Soutpansberg said, but like his colleagues I simply sat and listened to him. The hon member for Innesdal quite rightly said by way of interjection that it was a “future discussion about the past”. Someone once made a very true remark about the hon members of the CP when he said: “He is quite an interesting man, obviously a man with a brilliant future behind him.” [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon member for Berea something.

†The hon member is not here at the moment, so perhaps I can address the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. The hon member said: “Apartheid is the root cause of racial tension”. I want to ask the hon member for Berea this question in his absence—and I think it relates to the PFP’s approach to politics in South Africa: In their minds, will the tension which exists not only between races but even between various Black cultural groups disappear in South Africa if what they term as apartheid is abolished? [Interjections.] I do not believe that it will and I do not believe that they think it will.

What is the implication of this? They say that there should be no domination of one group over another. What kind of groups are they talking about? If they are talking about cultural groups ie Black nations, then the question remains whether in the type of constitutional environment and dispensation that they envisage, one group will not voluntarily dominate another. In other words, do they fundamentally regard group protection, as far as racial and group tension is concerned, as sufficiently important to embody it in the constitutional dispensation—yes or no? Their answer is no, and so we differ fundamentally on that aspect.

That brings me to the arguments of the hon member for Sea Point. We have often been accused that our chickens have come home to roost. I think the same goes for speakers of the PFP—their chickens have also come home to roost. Now that disinvestment is real and they see it is really going to happen, they are prepared to go and fight it. [Interjections.] Give me a chance. [Interjections.]

That is disgusting!

I wonder why those hon members make my speech for me. [Interjections.]

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

No, give me an opportunity to complete my argument.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

Give me a chance, please. I am not implying that hon members are fighting disinvestment for the first time—I am not implying that in the least. [Interjections.] Will you keep quiet for a moment so that I can say what I mean.

Order! Hon members must give the hon the Minister a chance to reply.

What I mean, is the following: How many platforms have those hon members not shared with the people who are fighting in the forefront for disinvestment today? [Interjections.]

Name one!

I am not talking about the hon member for Yeoville, because he is a “verkrampte” Prog. [Interjections.]

Name one!

For years those hon members and their supporting Press have been instrumental in creating a complete misconception about what so-called apartheid is. [Interjections.] Now that that perception of what we are doing in this country is so firmly embedded in the minds of the people and the media of overseas countries, and it is coming to fruition to such an extent that they are prepared to pass legislation against this country, now they are waking up as to the dangers that they were instrumental in creating. [Interjections.]

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

No, I am not answering any questions.

I want to challenge hon members of the PFP to tell me whether a single one of them has ever in this House or anywhere in the world in respect of people who challenged them on removals ever said anything positive about those removals which did take place and had a positive effect. [Interjections.]

Today the hon member for Sea Point said that as long as the negative aspects overshadowed the positive aspects of apartheid we would have a problem. [Interjections.]

I said that!

Thank you, the hon member for Pinelands said that. [Interjections.]

Now I should like to ask them, how many positive aspects of apartheid have they ever mentioned? [Interjections.]

There are not any.

That is it, Sir. The answer is zero. What I am getting at is this…

You have done more harm to the fight against disinvestment today…

Oh rubbish, man! [Interjections.]

Order! No, we have heard enough of that. I think everybody knows the standpoint of the Official Opposition in connection with this matter by now, and the hon the Minister must be given the opportunity to proceed with his address.

Have we ever heard a British Member of Parliament, visiting another country, denigrating his own government for the detention without trial that they have in the UK? Have we ever heard it? [Interjections.] They have it, of course they have it. They also have it in Germany. [Interjections.] Let us talk about the principle of detention without trial. What about the IRA terrorists? [Interjections.] What I am saying is this: Over many years we have heard the hon members of the PFP in this House painting a completely distorted picture of separate development. [Interjections.] Those impressions not only appeared in Hansard but were also studiously and keenly reported by the English-medium Press in this country and were sent worldwide. Now, those images that have been created over many years, have come to fruition and we can say this: To the extent that these hon members are helping us to fight disinvestment—there is no question that we begrudge them that … [Interjections.] The hon member for Yeoville has always been regarded by this side of the House as a patriot, so we expect it of him. [Interjections.] However, I stand firmly on this statemert.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it in order for the hon the Minister to suggest, by singling out one member who is a patriot, that I am not a patriot? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: Is it correct for me to be singled out as the only patriot? [Interjections.]

Let me refer to another point that the hon member for Sea Point made. He said again today that Blacks were excluded up to 1983 from the constitutional process. However, that is not true. It is the firm impression of the people fighting disinvestment …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Minister has alleged that I used words which I did not use. He must accept that I said that we warned up to 1983 not to exclude Blacks from the central Government constitutional structures. [Interjections.]

It does not change the essence of what I was saying. The fact is this: By 1983 when the hon member reckons he issued that warning, we had four independent Black states in this country. [Interjections.] That is a fact, but the hon the Loader of the Official Opposition laughs about it. [Interjections.] Do they for one moment imply that, if they were to govern this country they would just ignore the fact that there are four independent Black states with four sovereign parliaments in this area? It is a ridiculous situation. [Interjections.]

However, I want to summarize what I was saying. I say that the hon members of the PFP, with their supporting Press, cannot deny the pivotal role that they have played over many years in the distorted picture that exists in overseas countries about what is happening in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

There is no way that they can deny the part they played in that. [Interjections.] The sooner they also come to grips with the realities—the political realities as well—and the truth of what is happening in this country, the better. [Interjections.] Let me make one more remark. As long as differentiation among the various population groups is called nasty apartheid, so long will those hon members be making a contribution towards the kind of action that we are suffering under from overseas countries. [Interjections.] As long as Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei are denied their right to exist as separate nations and separate independent countries by those hon members, so long will those hon members be in cahoots with those people who are perpetrating these foul deeds against South Africa. [Interjections.] That is a reality.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it correct to allege that members in this party are in cahoots with people who are introducing disinvestment legislation? [Interjections.] Let me just point out that it is alleged that that is a criminal offence. In other words, we are alleged to be in cahoots with people who, if they carried out their actions in South Africa, would be committing an offence.

Mr Speaker, I shall withdraw that. Let me then say that as long as hon members of the PFP turn a blind eye to the independence of four nation states in this country and as long as they go on calling the policies of this country “apartheid”, which has certain very nasty connotations in the outside world, so long they will be using the same phraseology which has now resulted in that legislation overseas … [Interjections.]

What is the name for your policy? What is it called?

The name of our policy is co-operative coexistence. [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order! I did not want to do this, but I have now called repeatedly for order and all the hon members to my left here seem to think it is all in vain. I will now not allow any further interjections whatsoever in this debate. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I want to thank the hon member for Overvaal for a very neat and substantial financial speech. He prepared it well and I concede the point that the worker does not profit by a nominal salary increase which is immediately swallowed up by inflation. The implication is, therefore, that the battle against inflation is, in the final instance, in the interests of the workers of South Africa. I thank him for that perspective. Another important point he made was that lower wages would delay mechanization. That is an extremely important point of policy as far as industrial development is concerned.

The hon member for Rosettenville asked me about moskonfyt. All I can say is that the people of the Cape want to make the Transvaal lot so fond of moskonfyt that eventually, if they make the price in the Transvaal equal to that in the Cape, they will still retain their good sales and make a little more profit. In economic terms this is known as dumping. The hon member also said that it was more blessed to give than to receive. I think that we have given a great deal this year in difficult circumstances. The hon member for Rustenburg stated an extremely important point of policy when he said that as far as our minerals are concerned we should add a labour component, and that our refinement of minerals should be brought fully into line with our industrial development. I do not believe that the challenge for the future in the economic sphere could be summed up better.

I thank the hon member for Heilbron for his balanced speech about a matter which affects him personally to his detriment. He gave us a few very interesting perspectives. He also discussed the gossip emanating from right-wing circles concerning the diesel price. The truth is that on the Witwatersrand, for example, a litre of diesel costs 91,7 cents at the pump. For agriculture it is provided at 56,04 cents. Therefore the benefit for the farmer is 35,66 cents per litre. I think that this is conclusive evidence of the sense of responsibility with which the Government is helping the farmers to produce properly.

The hon member for Roodepoort made a few very interesting statements about privatization. There is just one thing I cannot agree with him about and that is the privatization of monetary affairs. That definitely would not work. However, some of the other statements he made are absolutely true. His speech reminded me of the statement that so many million laws have been made in the world, and all of them only to get people so far as to obey the Ten Commandments. We cannot set everything right with laws, but if we adopt the right approach with regard to privatization as well then we can certainly give our economy a substantial boost.

The hon member for Bloemfontein East made a good referential political speech and I am not going to comment on it now.

The hon member for Barberton spoke about prohibitive interest rates. I concede the point that high interest rates are not easy to live with, but after all, the Government has given farmers aid amounting to hundreds of millions of rands. This is how we must do it. Cash subsidies rather than tax concessions and so on should be provided. The whole position of the farmer, embracing the writing-off of his capital goods, his tax, the possibility of building up a reserve fund, is at present undergoing in-depth investigation, and we look forward to the report of the Margo Commission in this regard.

In my opinion the hon member for Innesdal made a very good speech which I should like to read again, and I thank him for it.

As far as the hon member for Durban Point is concerned, I am pleased, on behalf of the Government, that the hon member does not regret that he voted yes in the Referendum.

The hon future member for Sasolburg, Dr Odendaal, said something very interesting which I think that we could all remind the right wing of. He said that South Africa’s future should be thought open, and not blasted open. I think that that is an admirable thought and I wish him everything of the best with his election campaign.

I think that I have now replied to the financial affairs raised and I shall therefore let that suffice.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Fair copy of Bill certified and presented to the State President for his assent.

Mr Speaker, in the debate on this Bill we have listened to the same arguments repeatedly. They have come mainly from the hon members for Parktown and Pietersburg. We also had to listen to these arguments in the standing committee and in the debate on the report.

As far as the hon member for Parktown is concerned, it was significant that he was interested mainly in the training of chiropractors. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition is arguing aloud with someone. I cannot hear the hon member who is speaking, and I have to reply to the debate. I want to ask him to give me the opportunity to listen to the hon member for Middelburg.

The hon member may proceed.

It was significant that when the hon member read from the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, he read only a certain section, viz the following:

He did not continue to quote from that paragraph, but did read the first sentence of the following paragraph, which reads that several interested parties were consulted. The sentence not read by the hon member, reads:

If we were not to proceed with this legislation, we would be denying associated health service professions the opportunity to place their training on a level upon which we should like to see it. We have the fullest confidence in the training received by doctors.

The hon member for Parktown now wants perfect training from the word go, before he gives these people the opportunity. I should like to direct his attention to what was said by a doctor about the training of doctors. We read in Die Vaderland of 21 May:

We do not want to question the training of doctors with this—I am not doing so—but I merely want to point out that the hon member wants to apply perfectionism as far as the training of chiropractors is concerned before they have even begun.

The hon member for Pietersburg spoke about discussions held with the chiropractors in the Auditorium in Parliament two weeks ago. I asked the hon member whether he had not arranged discussions with Dr Guy de Klerk when he was chairman of the study group of the NP. The hon member admitted he had. He put further questions which I did not reply to at that stage. The hon member for Barberton then accused me of not replying, but of yawning instead. That was not the case. I asked it purposely to indicate to that hon member that when he had had a responsibility at that stage, he had given representatives of the Medical Council as well as representatives of the chiropractors the opportunity to put their case. This shows how one’s actions differ when one has responsibility and when one does not.

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

As I have only five minutes at my disposal, I cannot reply to a question.

I should like to indicate that it was that very member who led to the chiropractors’ coming with these requests. It was he, and he will remember that in the discussions our group had—he was the chairman at the time and I was the secretary—he proposed that they draw up a syllabus for themselves and take it to some or other tertiary educational institution in order to get their affairs in order.

Those people got their house in order, and as a result were given a council. Those people are using that council to get their house in order and to get rid of what does not belong there. They have got their house in order, and as far as this Bill is concerned, we are giving them the opportunity to go a step further on the basis of what we read in the memorandum about the objects of the amending Bill.

In the light of the particulars at our disposal, we cannot but support the second reading of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, there are probably only two things the hon member for Middelburg and I have in common: Firstly, that we both hail from the same part of the Transvaal and, secondly, that I, too, intend to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

†The debate until now has turned mainly around the question of training and whether or not chiropractors and homeopaths will be adequately equipped to treat patients. For many years this aspect has been controversial both here and in many overseas countries. It is, however, not only the aspect of training which has been surrounded by controversy; the whole subject of alternative medicine evokes deep differences of approach. The question of whether or not one is in favour of alternative medicine often depends on the individual’s own value system rather than on objectively established facts. It is for this reason then that we on this side of the House have a free vote on this Bill, and individuals on this side will therefore be voting on this particular Bill according to their own conscience and their own conviction.

I ask myself why the debate on alternative medicine has come to the fore again to the extent to which it has over the past few decades. I do not believe there is a simple answer to that. I think to some extent it is a response to the dehumanizing effects of modern industrial society. More and more people in the Western World are asking the question: What is happening to us as human beings? What is happening to our environment? What is our relationship with the environment and what is happening to that? There is a whole movement seeking a new direction. The well-known South African businessman Mr Bob Tucker described this movement very effectively in a superb address which he delivered at a symposium recently. I ask hon members to listen to this quotation because it provides an explanation of why many people are turning to alternative medicine or, more specifically, to homeopathy. Mr Tucker said the following:

That is what Mr Tucker said in his address. Mr Tucker talks about the rediscovery of holistic approaches to health and healing. In terms of the holistic approach, as I understand it, the whole human—that is mind and body—is looked at as one entity. It is not seen as merely a conglomeration of organs and limbs. Not all people who turn to alternative medicine or homeopathy do so, however, because of philosophical reasons. There is an ever-growing suspicion on the part of many people and distrust of the drugs which are administered through conventional medicine. This mistrust is not just based on prejudice or ignorance. It is based on what is happening in reality.

Mr Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon member for Durban Central. There is no doubt about the fact that penicillin and other antibiotics have already saved millions upon millions of human lives. On the other hand we know too that one shot of penicillin can kill a person immediately. Does the hon member therefore suggest the use of antibiotics should be stopped?

Mr Chairman, I will obviously not suggest that the administering of penicillin should be stopped. From my little knowledge, however—which, I must admit, is not much—the effect of many of the commonly used drugs—and I stress “many”—is not to cure, but very often merely to suppress the symptoms of a disease and to give the impression that the disease has been cured. The hon member for Parktown is correct, however. Penicillin has probably saved many millions of lives. I am not going to argue about that.

Yes, but it can also cause dangerous negative reactions.

Of course. I do not dispute that. When, however, I spoke about the suspicion and the distrust which millions of people feel towards the drugs that are being administered, I did not speak out of ignorance but based my statement on facts. I refer to some statements made in Cape Town and elsewhere here in South Africa. I quote from an article in the Cape Times of 15 February 1985. The article is written under the heading: “Prescribed drugs can cause illness.” I quote as follows:

The following is a further quote from that article:

It is therefore not surprising to me that people are looking at, for example, homeopathy because that is a form of therapy which is not toxic to the system. The remedies which homeopaths provide cannot possibly have a harmful effect on one’s body. I myself have never been treated by a homeopath or a chiropractor, but should I want to go to one I should not merely have the right to do so but also the assurance that they adhere to the standards of their discipline and that there is proper control over that profession—if I may call it that—and thus over their work. That is what this Bill intends to achieve. That is why I intend to support it. [Interjections.]

A recent survey of the HSRC—and I acknowledge that they worked on a very small sample—suggested that approximately 600 000 White South Africans go to chiropractors and homeopaths. The hon member for Pietersburg and the hon member Dr Vilonel both ridiculed homeopathy.

I ridiculed only the simple principle.

I am not going to follow them in that. They thought they would further the debate by doing that. I can only say that there are other members of that profession who fortunately have a more balanced approach towards alternative medicine and associated health practitioners, and who accept that alternative medicine does have its role to play.

I accept that the medical profession has a direct interest in the training and qualifications of chiropractors and homeopaths. They are entitled to voice their concern if they are of the view that the training methods or training standards are not sufficient.

That is the whole objective. That is the whole point.

I have no doubt that if this whole controversy of two boards for these two groups had been dealt with effectively by this hon Minister in 1981, then … [Interjections.]

Why are you spoiling a good speech?

You do not like the truth. [Interjections.]

As I was saying, we would then not have had unnecessary and destructive mistrust between these two groups. During 1981 there were differences between what the medical profession thought and what the associated health professions though. [Interjections.] They were not major differences. The hon the Minister himself has indicated that decisions were taken on the basis of a majority of one. [Interjections.] This hon Minister failed, I believe, at that stage to do his job and bring them under one umbrella. I believe that they should be under one umbrella. There is no particular reason why the medical profession cannot work together with those administering alternative medicine even though they have different approaches towards their particular professions. [Interjections.]

I believe and hope that the board which has been established and that the passing of this Bill will result in a properly controlled associated health profession. It will hopefully also lead to improved standards of education, training and practice. I am thus perfectly happy to support it.

Mr Chairman, before I start I want to say to the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition that I treat the insulting and unpleasant personal remark that he flung at me with the same contempt that I have for the source from whence it came.

I would like to apologize to you.

Order! If the hon member wants to apologize there is a correct way of doing it.

I accept the apology, Mr Chairman.

The hon member may continue.

I do not intend to delay the debate very long but there are certain matters to which I would like to refer. I should like to say to the hon member Dr Vilonel that he has completely misunderstood my approach to this measure. I have never questioned the sincerity of the 16 000 doctors who are represented by Masa. In the previous debate I made a specific point—and it is recorded in Hansard for this session—of expressing my respect for the medical profession and for doctors. Three branches of the health family are represented in my own intimate family. So there is no question about that. I accept their sincerity and I accept that they seek to serve their patients and the public.

What I object to is the exclusion of the right of the public to go to other people who offer forms of treatment other than medicine. I represent no interest group at all. I do not represent the chiropractors or the homeopaths or the doctors, the witchdoctors or anybody else. [Interjections.] I speak as a legislator thinking of the interests of the public and not of any interest group. I believe it is in the interests of the public to be allowed, if they wish, to go to people who offer other forms of treatment than the normal medical treatment which one can get from a doctor. Therefore I am in favour of those persons being adequately trained.

If the public have the right, as they should and do have, to go to persons who are not doctors then those people they go to should be adequately trained. This measure is designed to provide the opportunity for such training. The protection which the public is entitled to does not mean that they may only be treated by a doctor. They have the right to go to a chiropractor but then the protection that they are entitled to should be given by this Parliament by ensuring that the training given to a chiropractor before he is registered is adequate. This is my sole interest. The rights of the public is the only yardstick which this House should use, not the interests of doctors, chiropractors or homeopaths. What is in the interests of the electorate, the public that we represent, is what matters. That is my motivation for the stand that I have taken on this measure.

The hon member for Parktown made a big issue of the tremendous danger to the public. He said a person could have cancer and be treated by a homeopath and then die before he saw a doctor. However, during the standing committee meetings I asked whether the department had any knowledge or had ever received a complaint from a doctor about misbehaviour, maltreatment or harm being done to a patient by a chiropractor or homeopath. The answer was no. In a document which I have here it is claimed:

I should have qualified “complaint” a moment ago:

Where are all these patients who have been endangered and whose lives have been put at risk if that were the case? That would surely be on record. Surely, when the Medical Council sent out a circular asking for examples of problems, they would have received those from the 16 000 doctors. However, according to the information I have, not a single motivated complaint was received.

The other point which is raised regularly is that there was a commission of inquiry in New Zealand which found that chiropractic was no good. I have all the documents relating to that commission here which I have received from the Medical Association. However, what has been quoted in these extracts is the evidence given by the New Zealand Medical Association—not the finding of the commission. What the Medical Association has quoted—and I have a pile of quotations here—are extracts from the commission’s report. That was not the finding of the commission but the evidence given by the New Zealand Medical Association. [Interjections.] I also have the findings of the commission here, under the heading: “Summary of Principal Findings”, from which I wish to quote, omitting the unnecessary words:

So it continues and it goes so far as to say that “in the public interest” chiropractors should be allowed to practise. [Interjections.] It goes so far as to recommend that they be allowed to have access to hospitals. What is emphasized is the following:

I do not want to go on with this but I have a copy of evidence here which was heard by the standing committee and which came directly from the Medical Association. Their attitude is quite clear:

It goes on to say:

This is a total ban placed on their membership by the Medical Association. This is what I object to and what I believe is wrong. That is why we will support the measure before the House. I am not qualified to question the curriculum which is proposed but what I would appeal for is that the universities of South Africa do not continue with this attitude of total rejection and should rather provide the training which is needed by student chiropractors and homeopaths at university level to enable them to qualify and to give better treatment to the patients whom they serve.

Mr Chairman, I think a more favourable atmosphere prevails in the House at present than on Wednesday evening for a reply to the very interesting debate which is now ending. It is also interesting to note the way hon members participated in it and how they stated their points of view.

†I want to congratulate the hon member for Durban Point on making one of the most important points of this debate—it was not obvious throughout the discussion—and that was that, sitting in this House, one has to think as a legislator of this Parliament. One should not come here and put forward ideas as if one were the representative of outside bodies. One can put forward their opinions if one wants to but one certainly should come here to speak on their behalf and then criticize other hon members of this House who are in the same profession as though they are lepers or as though something is seriously wrong with them.

*I wish to state this very clearly. The other day the hon member for Pietersburg passed a few unpleasant remarks about my colleagues, the hon member for Rustenburg and the hon member Dr Vilonel, and probably about me too. It is reprehensible to make such an insinuation—I hope and believe it is not a threat. He said the hon member for Rustenburg and the hon member Dr Vilonel would bow their heads in shame in the presence of colleagues in their profession.

Why should they bow their heads? They are here as fully accredited members of Parliament and they have every opportunity of deciding what they consider right. The hon member for Durban Point stated this very clearly. If one is here in the House and especially on a standing committee and one finds the majority opposed to one, as the hon member and the hon member for Parktown found, one has to be able to discuss this rationally and not pass insulting remarks as actually happened. I wish to keep off that subject this afternoon, however; I do not wish to go into it.

The hon members for Parktown and Pietersburg attempted to imply that the NP, and that includes me, opposed 60 000 doctors. The hon member for Parktown said this.

I wish to give the House an example. The hon member Dr Vilonel and I had an interesting discussion about this; it is not my own original idea. Hon members are well aware What occurs when application is made for a liquor licence. Application is made for this in the normal way and the Church always opposes this for certain social and theological reasons. It feels its right and its duty to oppose it. Subsequently the case is referred to the Minister concerned and he has to decide on it. The Minister may feel there are adequate reasons for the licence, that it fulfils all requirements and the place is suitable, so he approves the application. Does it follow that that Minister is opposed to the Church? [Interjections.] If we come to a decision here today, does it mean we are suddenly opposed to all medical practitioners?

That is a very poor example.

No, that hon member is not speaking on behalf of all medical practitioners.

I received a letter this morning from which I want to read a few sentences. It opens like this:

He is therefore one of our medical practitioners.

I wish to read this to the hon member for Pietersburg because the writer of this letter knows what he is talking about.

That is the type of training we propose.

No, forget about the training and just listen to what the writer of the letter says. That hon member saw fit to laugh about the fact that homeopathy can cure people. The hon member for Durban Central gave that hon member a good answer. I shall quote further from the letter:

I suspect he is talking about some of our colleagues in this House—he does not mention names but merely refers to “ons geleerde kollegas”.

Then he says something very interesting and this is what I should very much like to read to both hon members on that side of the House who spoke:

I am merely reading the letter—I am not making any insinuations. [Interjections.] He closes the letter by saying:

That is what he says in this letter.

He is referring to Prof Guy de Klerk and all those people.

[Inaudible.]

No, this is a colleague’s personal letter. I read it but I am not disclosing his name.

I want to ask whether you agree with that letter.

Naturally I agree. Surely I would not read something if I did not agree with it. Would I read something with which I did not agree?

Yes. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Durban Point raised another interesting point. One can see that the Medical Association put forward selective evidence. The hon member read what the actual report of the commission in New Zealand said, namely that there is a place for chiropractics. The hon member for Durban Central agreed that there was a place for it. That is all we are saying. However, I should like to point out to the hon member for Durban Central that I went out of my way—he must listen now, because that is the only part of his speech that he hashed up a bit—to talk to the then chairman of the Medical Council. I spoke to members of the council, and I requested that they should take this group under their wing.

*The other day the hon member said it was a supplementary health profession. He did not say he was sorry it was not one. He probably made a mistake later. In his main speech the other day he made it clear that he regarded it as a supplementary health profession.

I requested those people to take the chiropractors under their wing as they do with nurses, physiotherapists and all those professions associated with them. They convened a meeting on this and rejected the proposal by 17 votes to 16. They informed me only that they had rejected it; I spoke to them again. I spoke to them through the Director-General but they simply stood by their decision and rejected my request and that closed the case. The Medical Council is not composed of people who continually discuss the same subject—that is their right. Nevertheless I cannot permit those people not to belong to a form of organization. The hon member for Durban Point and other colleagues referred to this; surely we have to control them. That is why we instituted a council, a statutory council approved by this Parliament, which is just as statutory as the Medical Council. For a different reason this council controls chiropractors and homeopaths and the Medical Council sees only to medical practitioners, nurses and a few other professions.

†It should be clear that this is not a doctors-versus-chiropractors battle. This is giving the chiropractors an opportunity to show what they can do.

*It is not legislation which was drawn up in haste. The planning of this legislation dates from before that hon member’s time and there were investigations into it even 20 years before that. When Dr Hertzog held this post and in Dr Carel de Wet’s time legislation in this regard was introduced for the first time. Since then the matter has received attention. Those affected by it put their house in order—as I call it—after that legislation was introduced. They reported back to my predecessor, the late Dr Nak van der Merwe. He gave instructions for certain investigations to be carried out and the department also examined it. The matter was put before the Cabinet from where it was referred to the Cabinet Committee. The full procedure was followed, the department drew up legislation, referred it for comment and collected comments on it.

We went the whole way last year and the Cabinet’s decision was that this matter should be concluded no later than this year. The late Dr Nak van der Merwe was still alive when the Cabinet decided this year that this legislation should be submitted. It was submitted to the Speaker by the department, as is proper, after which it was referred to the standing committee. Where is the haste in this? Hon members are trying to create the impression that as the Acting Minister I have had legislation drawn up in haste and am trying to force it through. It is only by the saddest coincidence that I am standing here today otherwise my colleague would have been standing here. Hon members may believe me when I say I should have appreciated it if he, rather than I, could have stood here today. All the measure does—as the hon member for Durban Point said—“is to give the other groups the right to be available to the public, but well controlled and trained”. That is all we are doing. There is no war between this side of the House and medical practitioners. What put this nonsense into the hon member’s head? In personal discussions with doctors I found very many of them who said it made no difference to their case if chiropractors were registered because they did not see them as a threat as they were trained.

Both hon members spoke about the training overseas. Unfortunately I cannot refer to all my colleagues on this side of the House. The hon members for Rustenburg and Middelburg and the hon member Dr Vilonel spoke and each contributed. They all felt we should be consistent and carry this matter through. The hon member asked me about training, where it was done and what the course comprised. That is the entire problem. I do not blame him for not having heard the other evening—I attempted to make a speech under difficult circumstances—but I said here:

This board has spoken to universities but they say they cannot introduce such a course if the highest legislative body in the country says chiropractors are not recognized.

The point missed or not checked by hon members is that the regulations which can be drawn up in terms of clause 22 of the Bill provide only a framework. The hon member asked me whether they would dissect cadavers but it is provided that it will be the same course as anatomy for the medical student. How can one take anatomy without dissecting cadavers? Surely that does not make sense. I should really not even discuss this because what is actually going to happen if this Bill is passed is that this framework will be discussed with universities. This does not mean, however, that students will be enrolled immediately. Universities will first have to report and satisfy the Minister and in terms of clause 22 of this Bill the Minister will then issue regulations providing how that training may take place and what the course should comprise. The hon member is free to look up clause 22 where he will find all this. Students can enrol only upon conclusion of this. I wish to say to hon members today it will probably take ten years, if the training is to be provided in this country, for the first chiropractor to qualify at some institution or other.

The hon member for Parktown referred to the following definition in the Bill, however—

but I do not know why as it is precisely the same wording as is used in the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act. It was taken from that. It is not inferior in that Act and there is just as little question of its inferiority in this legislation.

Are technikons also …

Homeopaths will possibly be able to study at technikons and there is nothing wrong with them but the Minister will provide regulations to ensure they have proper training.

I wish to reply to actually only one point more. The hon member asked me where these people were trained because someone was reputed to have said they were not trained. There are numerous places providing training. In America they fall under the Department of National Education.

Who?

The chiropractors. When I was the Minister of Health and Welfare, I requested the HSRC to give me an analysis of all the documents they could obtain on chiropractors and to establish whether their training was worthwhile. Their summary was that it comprised matriculation plus a six-year course. They mentioned the following training centres: Logan College of Chiropractic, Los Angeles College of Chiropractic, New York Chiropractic College, North Western College of Chiropractic and the Texas College of Chiropractic. At the end they said there were 14 more which had since …

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

No, I am not answering now. The hon member must excuse me as I want to try to finish and have a few more things I wish to say. Surely the hon member spoke the other evening.

They continue:

The hon member for Pietersburg should listen to this now as he launched such a long jeremiad on the unscientific nature of the course. Here the HSRC, which conducted the investigation, says the course which was submitted to them, as well as the colleges offering it, the accredited colleges falling under the Department of National Education of America, is actually equal to matriculation plus six years’ post-school training. [Interjections.] The HSRC does not say whether this is adequate but merely gives the state of affairs.

Why does the hon member wish to disparage that course? He says they should be able to become chiropractors only after taking a medical course but why do they require surgery? We have sufficient surgeons in the country; surely we do not require a chiropractic surgeon in addition.

I wish to state clearly that the other evening I said the hon member for Durban Central had spoken after the hon member for Parktown. That was incorrect. He followed the hon member for Swellendam. He said precisely the same today as the other evening, however, so I shall not repeat it now.

I have a leading article from the British Medical Journal here. This whole matter can easily degenerate into a doctor-versus-chiro-practor wrangle because I could use this article to indicate that there are sometimes complaints in connection with the training of doctors. Nevertheless it would be of no advantage to us to say everyone should beware of doctors because they kill people just as we would not benefit by saying people should beware of chiropractors. Let us move away from that attitude. Accept my bona fides today. I have never been to a chiropractor but surely there is in truth room for justice and decency in our country. The hon member for Durban Central raised a few interesting points until he came up with that fiddle on my attitude to the House. [Interjections.] He and the hon member for Durban Point indicated that a place could be arranged for these people. The Minister is still at the controls and that council will now have the opportunity of negotiating with an institution or institutions which will have to indicate what courses they can offer for chiropractors. I cannot say at this stage who the lecturers will be. Surely they will not hale someone off the streets to lecture in anatomy if he is not at least qualified to do so. Surely one will not use a “bergie” to lecture in physiology. Properly trained lecturers will be used for this.

How does one control training undergone overseas?

Look at what is happening at Potchefstroom where they are training fine young men—I forget the name of the course. Before a person is permitted to do physical exercise, one is subjected to tests and one’s blood pressure is taken. These people are all over—also in Cape Town. They are not physiotherapists but they receive special training at the University of Potchefstroom. They apply all the tests; they monitor a man’s heart before he is permitted to do cycling excercises to lose weight. I myself have been inclined to go to them but I do not have the opportunity because I cannot get Parliament to agree to this legislation. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I wish to request hon members that we cease playing people off against one another. Let us give these two councils the opportunity of discussing it with each other; perhaps they can solve the matter. We shall not solve it here by egging on doctors and chiropractors in turn. Let us accept that the Minister will hold a watching brief in the case and exercise proper control.

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

I have the greatest appreciation for that hon member’s questions; he puts very intelligent ones. It is just not the right time to put one now. [Interjections.]