Mr Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I intend placing the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill, which was finalised by the joint committee yesterday, on the Order Papers of the three Houses for a joint meeting on Tuesday, 21 June. After consultation the discussion on the Second Reading will probably also take place on Wednesday, Thursday and part of Friday.

Order! I shall ask the Secretary to read the first order of the day.

Order of the Day read.

Order! I have already asked hon members to co-operate by at least paying attention when the business of the day is being read out, either by the Chair or by the Secretary. I cannot allow these loud conversations, which are disturbing even to the Chair, while the Secretary is reading the first order of the day. Hon members must please co-operate in this regard.

Mr Speaker, I want to commence by saying that the NP has learned with regret of the three bomb explosions which took place yesterday in the Peninsula, and in particular of the explosion last night during a CP meeting in Sea Point. Once again we call on members of all population groups in this country to help us help the Government, so that we can eradicate this senseless violence of right-wing and left-wing radicals in the interests of the promotion of peace and security for all our communities in the RSA.

My colleague, the hon member for Edenvale, concluded the debate yesterday evening, and I shall not react to her because she acquitted herself so well of her task. She is quite capable of looking after herself. This morning I want to deal briefly with the utilisation of State funds and refer just fleetingly to the effect of the Budget.

Money matters and State expenditure have been politicised over the centuries. In most cases, in fact, it forms the basis of the whole political discussion.

The Official Opposition also has a major problem with this, namely how their policy will affect the economy of the country, or alternatively, how the economy of the country will accommodate their solutions. Another problem is how they will pay for their policy in monetary terms. Money must be earned, for how else can one make money? One must earn money by working for it. According to their policy the Whites must be isolated and that will mean that the Whites will have to work alone to earn money. They will therefore have to use White money to carry out their policy.

The utilisation of State funds again becomes an issue. We must take account of the present situation, and specifically we must look at CP propaganda which says that other groups are being benefited at the expense of the Whites. During the debate on the Supplementary Estimates the hon member for Roodepoort drew comparisons between pension benefits for Whites and Coloureds. In doing so he was politically motivated. During the debate on the Education Affairs (House of Assembly) Bill the hon member for Brits referred to standards and expenditure in education amongst the various population groups. What he did was politically motivated.

During the debate yesterday the hon member for Barberton referred to the costs of education and the lowering of standards. The Official Opposition does all that with political motives. What is their purpose? I think that is an important question. Their purpose is to incite the Whites emotionally with racism as the vehicle and State expenditure as the basis of their actions. The opposition certainly has the right to do so, but we notice that the complete picture, as usual, is not presented.

I should like to refer to State expenditure for Whites via the Administration: House of Assembly and specifically to welfare assistance to farmers. It is regrettable that this sort of assistance to farmers is necessary as a result of the drought. The fact remains that from 1 May 1985 to 31 January 1988, R3,98 million has been paid out in welfare assistance to White farmers. It was paid to 1 028 adults and 928 children in 9 magisterial districts, including Lichtenburg and Schweizer-Reneke. But not one word was said about this. I have not heard one word of thanks or any reference to this from CP speakers to show what the Government has done for Whites. A further appropriation this year for this same purpose amounted to R1,846 million.

I now come to White unemployed. From 1 September 1985 to 30 April 1988 an amount of R9,61 million was made available to 8 013 adults and 6 687 children. The Official Opposition, however, will have no problems with this; on the contrary, I think they will endorse it. We must also take a broader view of the situation relating to unemployment. Unemployment results in poverty. The granting of financial assistance therefore meets an important need of the unemployed person.

But people do not only have material needs. Financial assistance is therefore not the end of the matter. Regard must be had to the sum total of their existence if one is to provide a meaningful service to the unemployed. Consideration must be given to the social and emotional consequences of unemployment. I think the opposition would also endorse that. They do not answer, however. I therefore assume that they endorse that view as well.

The same argument surely applies to the other population groups too. The same argument surely applies to other people too. Apart from other considerations—important considerations—it is important that unemployment should be combatted. Strategic and emotional considerations are important in ensuring that calmness prevails amongst the population. We are speaking of the whole population.

What does the CP say about pensions to other population groups? They say they can be left to their own devices—according to Die Patriot of March 1987. As a result of that racist consideration they are consequently forced to say partition is the answer and they would have to ensure that they had complete partition if they won an election; otherwise they would be deceiving the voters.

That is what you people are doing!

That is why they are joining Eugêne Terre’Blanche in talking more and more of a White “volkstaat”. They are proclaiming a consummate form of partition, namely a White “volkstaat” for the votes of people, his people. They will have to establish that too; if not, they would again be deceiving the voters.

The big question is what they are going to do with the rest of South Africa when they have partitioned and excised the White “volkstaat”. What would they then do with the rest of the country? They would probably leave it at the mercy of the ANC and the left-wing radicals and all their supporters.

And the NP!

If it were their policy to leave other population groups to their fate, as they made apparent in their statement on pensions for people of colour, they would of necessity have to leave the rest of the country at the mercy of whoever is going to be sacrificed to.

They would not negotiate because that is not their policy. If they negotiate, they are deceiving the voters at the moment. Their behaviour in these extended committees of Parliament and in the President’s Council—the boycott campaigns and refusal to participate in discussions—are an example of this. Their answer is to denigrate certain leaders, destroy the confidence of the people, divide them and dissipate their powers, and that is done in the face of the greatest threat ever to confront South Africa. And then they talk of the lowering of standards!

It is amazing to listen to them talking tearfully and emotionally of the old so-called NP, even though some of those hon members were never members of the NP. Against this background I want to know which party really looks after the interests of the Whites in this country.

The CP!

Is this the party which is creating the environment for population groups and people to contribute in peace and progress to the gross national product or is it the party which advocates isolation and unnoticed, without any negotiation, is stealthily trying to isolate the White group and surround them with bitter hostility? We want to know their standpoint. They must answer us and clarify their standpoint on these matters.

Mr Speaker, with this I should like to support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, once again the hon member for De Aar has followed the typical pattern set by the Government speakers of trying to create the impression in the minds of the voters that the CP is a deceiving them, while his party staggers on under its new constitutional dispensation from one pot-hole to another. They are absolutely obsessed with telling the voters they must please not believe the CP. Their one passionate desire in life is to achieve this one objective, namely that the voters should please not believe the CP. Why not? It is because they know that the CP is the only party which has a solution for South Africa. [Interjections.] They know that the CP has the only solution for South Africa! [Interjections.] It is only the CP which has a solution for South Africa! [Interjections.]

That hon member’s speech is so typical. This year was ushered in by the speech of the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation in which he said (Hansard, 1988, col 97):

It is indeed too ridiculous for words—not what I said, but what the hon the Minister said. What he said is, in truth, too ridiculous for words.

You conjure them away!

No, Sir, what I want is for us to face the facts squarely. The hon the Minister maintains that the CP, in order to implement its policy, will have to shunt two million people out of South Africa annually for the next 12 or 15 years. In other words the CP will have to shunt between 24 and 30 million Blacks out of South Africa. That is what the hon the Minister says!

But I should like to ask the hon members to examine the facts. If the Black population of the Republic of South Africa and the six self-governing national states increases at the same rate between 1985 and the year 2000 as it increased between 1970 and 1985, there will only be 29 million Blacks in White South Africa and the six self-governing national states. There will not be as many as 30 million Blacks. There will only be 29 million Blacks.

Nevertheless, the hon the Minister maintains that the CP will have to shunt 30 million Blacks out over the next 15 years. We shall have to borrow a million people from who-knows-where to be able to accomplish what that hon Minister says! It is too ridiculous for words! He maintains we will have to shunt out two million people annually! There are not as many as two million Blacks to be shunted out! Now the hon members can understand why the NP is so anxious. Now the hon members can grasp why the NP is trying so assiduously to convince the voters that the CP is lying to them.

The hon the Minister comes to us with this grotesque tale. He maintains the CP will have to relocate two million people every year. There are not as many as two million people to be moved. Consequently, what happens? The voters laugh at them. The voters do not believe them any longer. That is the NP’s problem. It is their biggest headache.

Make it a million if you like!

Very well, let us make it a million, but let us first examine the facts.

There is something else the hon the Minister is not telling the voters. He is not taking into consideration that, since 1951, the Black population in the six self-governing states has increased at a considerably faster rate than the Black population in White South Africa.

That is not true!

It is true! This is a change that has taken place since 1951. Previously it was not the case. In 1951 it took place as a result of the purposeful actions of the NP. It did not take place by itself. It was deliberately and successfully brought about. Let us examine the latest census figures for 1985. I gather that the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation, like his predecessor, does not have a head for figures.

That much I do gather. This book is a little too thick, a man who has no head for figures, for him to pore over. [Interjections.] This population census, taken in 1985 and calculated since 1960, reveals that the Black population in White South Africa increased by 21,87% over the 25 year period from 1960 to 1986. Over the same 25 year period the population increase in the six Black self-governing states was 268%, as opposed to 21,87%. I challenge those hon members to dispute it. [Interjections.] Here it is! Come and dispute it! However they cannot do so because it is indisputably true. [Interjections.] Should I lay it upon the Table again? [Interjections.] It stands here for all to see. It is recorded in black and white. Those hon members cannot get round it. It was taken by the NP while we were still members of that party. We ourselves also had a share in it and assisted in accomplishing it, and we are proud of it.

The Black population increased by 268% in the self-governing states and by 21% in White South Africa. However the HSRC says that there was an underestimation of 20% in White South Africa and of 15% in the self-governing national states. Let us make provision for that. If an underestimation did occur, we must not err and should take it into consideration. If we take that underestimation into consideration and make provision for it, and then examine what took place in the 15 years between 1970 and 1985, we find that the Black population in the White area still increased by 22%. Over those 15 years, however, it increased by 112% in the six self-governing states.

Over the past 15 years, from 1970 to 1985, during half of which time the NP was no longer propagating and promoting the policy of separate development, and had thrown up its hands in despair and allowed matters to take their own course, the Black population still increased by 112% in their own states and by 22% in the White area.

I should like to say to the hon members that if in the next 15 years from 1985 to the year 2000, the period referred to by the hon the Minister, the population increase follows precisely the same tendency, the Black population in the self-governing states will increase by 112% from 7,9 million to 16,7 million. The Black population in the White area will increase by 22% from 9,9 million to 12,1 million. Therefore if these tendencies manifest themselves, 58% of the total Black population will be living in the self-governing states by the end of the century, and 42% in the White area. That is assuming that for half this period nothing is done to hasten this process. The hon members should realise by now that the CP is going to govern for two-thirds of that period and will promote this process. [Interjections.]

If, projecting the same tendencies, 58% of the Black population is already live in their own areas and 42% in the White area, surely this means that what is necessary is that a government should assume power in South Africa which has the courage of its convictions, which will not be dissuaded from its purpose by the outside world or by the liberals both inside and outside South Africa, which knows what is good for South Africa, and which will employ all the means at the State’s disposal to promote that policy vigorously, and to establish once again the prosperity, peace and happiness we once had in South Africa. [Interjections.]

At the moment we certainly do not have the peace they talk about. Where is that peace and wonderful prosperity? But we did experience these benefits when that policy was being propagated. For this reason I should like to tell the hon members that when the CP comes to power, and that time is not too distant, we shall promote that policy with all the power at our disposal. We are saying this today to the electorate as well as the hon members in this House. I should like to ask the hon members to pay close attention, because with our vigorous, dedicated and idealistically inspired promotion of this policy, not only 58%, but 65% or 70% of the Black people will be living in their own territories, and the Whites will inhabit their own country. This is the only way in which to establish peace and prosperity in South Africa. The maximum number of people in each population group must live within their own territories under their own governments. In other words, the policy of partition, as well as sovereignty and a fatherland for each nation in which it can govern itself, is important. Sovereignty and self-determination cannot be exercised from nowhere.

Where is White South Africa?

I shall tell the hon member. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Lichtenburg may proceed.

The hon members want to know where this White South Africa is. The answer is that it is where it has always been, in the same place it was when the hon members on that side of the House championed and fought for it. We lay no claim to the land of the Black people. Neither do we lay claim to the Transkei, Bophuthatswana or any other territory of the Black people; on the contrary, we are the only people in South Africa to have sold and transferred part of our own territory to other nations. Besides ourselves, there is no other nation in the world that has done likewise. We lay no claim to their land.

To what do you lay claim then?

I shall reply to the hon the Minister in due course. He will simply have to be patient. It is for this reason we maintain that, as a result of certain measures having been enforced in the past, the cornerstone and foundation has already been laid for fatherlands for the Coloureds and Indians. Our standpoint is quite clear: With the exception of those areas, the remainder is White South Africa. We did not steal an inch of this country. It was acquired and developed in an honourable way—by hard work and dedication. This is White South Africa, but we are nevertheless still prepared to allow better consolidation and expansion of the territories of the other nations to take place. However the days of handing over land free of charge have passed. There is one realistic way of accomplishing this, namely by way of exchange and purchase. There is no other way in which it can take place. The hon members, such as the hon member for Sasolburg, would now like to know who will divide and who will choose. Where on earth does that principle originate? Can a worker of the land ask the landowner who will divide and who will choose? That is nonsense. I should like the hon members to show me a Biblical reference stipulating that Israel should surrender its land. Where in the Bible can one find such a text? [Interjections.] This policy brought success to South Africa in the sense that each nation increasingly came into its own in its own country where it could feel secure. In 1951 only one third of the Blacks were living in their own countries and territories. As a result of the policy of separate development, that number increased to 52% in 1987. Moreover, although approximately half of the Blacks lived in their own territories in 1980 and the other half with us, there is the other very important phenomenon in the settlement of Blacks, namely that half of the Black population in White South Africa live in districts adjoining their own territories.

In other words, the natural phenomenon manifesting itself is that, in the first place, a Black person prefers to live and make a living in his own territory. That is his preference, and if he is unable to or it is not possible, he is going to live as close to his territory as possible. Only in the event of his being unable to find a livelihood there, does he move further away.

This is the reason for the phenomenon of a decrease in the numbers of Blacks in those parts of Natal falling outside KwaZulu between 1980 and 1985, while the numbers in KwaZulu itself increased by 36% during the same five years. During the five years between 1980 and 1985 the number of Blacks in the entire White South Africa increased by merely 2,7%. That is why I say that this 2,7% can be converted into a negative figure if one has a government with the resolve and know-how to do it. [Interjections.] That is all South Africa needs.

Measures!

Yes, measures, and I shall tell the hon members which measures. This is all South Africa needs, and South Africa is looking for it. That is why there is a growing swing to the CP in South Africa, and this is why the NP proffers their one despairing answer, which is: Let us tell the voters the CP is lying. [Interjections.] But the CP is not lying.

You say so!

Oh no, the CP does not lie. That hon the Minister spun the voters a yarn. The hon member for De Aar also spun a few yarns. The NP is always spinning yarns.

I understand that the hon the Minister apparently asked one of the committees for permission to obtain a recording of that speech—in my opinion he thinks it is his magnum opus—his greatest speech which was to have shaken South Africa—evidently in order to distribute it; and he did that despite its being an utter untruth. The nits in his hair hatched when he made that speech in Parliament [interjections.] It was unmitigated fabrication.

Order! I am not prepared to allow the hon members to speak of other hon members in such a disparaging way. The hon member must withdraw the words “the nits in his hair hatched”.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

I say that what South Africa needs is a government which will once again be able to promote this policy with vigour. There are a considerable number of measures which can, must and will be applied when the CP comes to power. The first measure we shall apply is that of physical planning to lay the foundation for the constitutional policy of South Africa. Physical planning will have to play a role in laying the foundation of the constitutional policy.

Secondly there is the question of urbanisation. No one disputes that urbanisation is in fact taking place. It is a world-wide phenomenon. The only control one can still exercise is in deciding where it should take place, and in channelling it.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning tells us that millions upon millions of hectares of land still have to be made available in the PWV area. I ask whether there are job opportunities in the PWV area. No, there are none. The hon the Minister says it is easy, but there are no job opportunities. I ask whether it is the most economical area in South Africa in which to settle people. No, it is the most expensive.

Nevertheless the hon the Minister intends to settle people in that very place. Why? Because the liberals and the enemies of South Africa want the policy of partition to fail by making the PWV area the cause of such failure.

I am saying that there is no reason why settlement should take place there. The CP will not allow it. When we come to power we shall abandon all the activities in which the NP is currently engaged. Urbanisation will also be planned in such a way that it will take place inside the Black and adjoining areas.

I should like to illustrate this by way of an example, namely that of Botshabelo. Surely that is an example of an urbanisation process which has taken place alongside a Black area and which has now been incorporated into a Black state. In this way a large number of Black people …

Are starving!

… who sell their labour in White areas and who make a decent and honourable living, are able to be governed by their own government. The hon member for Houghton will not approve of this. She is one of those who have dissuaded the NP from their purpose, and the hon members were too feeble to resist her. [Interjections.] I should merely like to tell this hon member that she should look out for the day the CP comes to power, for then she is going to find herself in trouble again. Then she is going to find herself in trouble again. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member will refer to an hon member as “an hon member”.

The hon member for Houghton, Sir.

Thank you. You do not shake your finger at me!

Whether the hon member refers to me as an hon member or not does not matter; I am ready for her. The day we come to power, we shall settle her hash. [Interjections.] Nothing will be left of her. [Interjections.] We shall not allow the hon member for Houghton and all the other propagandists of liberalism in the world …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order …

Really! We only have three minutes. Chris the exhibitionist!

Order! A point of order has been raised.

We only have three minutes left!

Keep talking! Take your time!

Order! The hon the Chief Whip of the CP is not in the Chair.

Mr Speaker, it is my contention that it is part of the Rules that one hon member may not threaten another. I think the hon member for Lichtenburg is threatening other members. [Interjections.]

Order! I will not permit hon members to usurp the function of the Chair while an hon member is submitting a point of order to the Chair. The Chair has not yet given its ruling.

I must say that the behaviour of the hon member for Lichtenburg was not entirely as one would wish, but I paid close attention to what he said and I think he actually said it in a good spirit. That is why I took no action, except to point out to the hon member that he should address other hon members in parliamentary language. At one stage I was concerned for the safety of the hon member for Sandton, but he also survived. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, just to put the matter beyond any doubt …

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the hon member whether he has ever heard of the economic factors that determine the location of industry and job opportunities.

Yes, I was referring to exactly that just now.

*Mr Speaker, I should like to tell the hon member that she must not think she can rattle us with the same kind of trivial propaganda with which she rattled the NP. We have seen through her. In all fondness I want to tell her that she should not bother; we shall not allow her to rattle us.

There is another measure a government can apply to bring peace to South Africa, namely the question of local government. One can apply it to assist in the promotion and implementation of one’s ethnic policy (volkerebeleid). A minute ago I told the hon members that it was clear that the Blacks preferred to live in their own territories. Hon members themselves know that there has never been a law stipulating that a Xhosa should go and live in the Transkei, a Tswana in Bophuthatswana and a South Sotho in QwaQwa. No such law exists, but 90% of the inhabitants of these countries are citizens of those countries, without anyone having said that it should be so. It is a natural phenomenon. This is the first important point.

The second important point is that those people prefer to live as closely as possible to their territories. That is why we maintain that it is necessary that preference in regard to job opportunities also be given to the citizens of the self-governing states in areas bordering these states, because it is a natural phenomenon that the citizens of these states prefer to work as close as possible to their own states. Preference should therefore be given to these citizens when inhabitants of those states are accommodated in White South Africa. This can be promoted by introducing local government for the citizens of these countries in the adjoining areas, and in this manner to link them to their states. This will facilitate the linking process and enable those states, under the supervision of the RSA Government, to supply certain services to those of their citizens who find themselves in White South Africa, and in this way facilitate the development of that nation as a nation, a unit and a political structure. [Time expired.]

Order! For Hansard purposes I should merely like to place on record that my earlier reference to the hon member for Sandton was meant light-heartedly, and that it shall be reported in Hansard in that sense.

Mr Speaker, I want to start by replying to the very first comment made by the hon member for Lichtenburg in his speech, namely that the only solution to South Africa’s problems would be to return a CP government to office. If one listens to CP speakers, one gets the impression that this is the ongoing theme with which they usually end their speeches—that if a CP government were to come into power, all South Africa’s difficulties and problems would disappear. It would be almost like the old classical dramas in which the hero usually found himself in terrible difficulties and then a deus ex machina appeared from nowhere and suddenly made everything easy for the hero in the drama and rescued him from all his difficulties.

The hon member even objects when an hon Minister of this Government says they are guilty of propagating an illusory policy. It is not a practical policy. I want to refer to only one aspect which the hon member mentioned here, the measures they are going to put into effect to ensure, as he said, that a majority occupation of each population group can be achieved in its own area.

He spoke of physical planning and of decent physical planning. If I remember correctly, that hon member was a Deputy Minister in the seventies and he knows how the Physical Planning Act was used to try to prevent people from coming to the cities in ever-increasing numbers. He knows what restrictions were imposed on factory owners in connection with the employment of Black workers in relation to the number of White workers in those factories. He knows that soon after the introduction of this Act, and soon after it was amended to provide that there had to be certain ratios of Black workers to White workers, exemptions already had to be granted in certain cases, and that the exemptions became more and more frequent.

During those years physical planning did not help to keep Black people and Black labour away from the cities. I say that physical planning will not help to keep Black people away from the PWV area and other large industrial areas, neither in today’s world, nor in the future.

It is a beautiful dream, but all these wonderful ideas of settling people near their homelands will not help at all. The hon member for Houghton was quite right when she asked the hon member for Lichtenburg whether he was not aware of the economic factors which draw people to the cities and industrial areas of South Africa. [Interjections.] Urbanisation will increase in South Africa. It will not decrease, because South Africa is growing economically. If we grow, there will be more employment opportunities, and more people will be employed.

It is strange that the hon member for Lichtenburg did not again refer to the economic growth rate of South Africa this morning. He knows that we are growing at a certain positive rate, and as we grow at that positive rate, more and more Black workers can be employed, because we simply do not have the White labour force to fill the posts that have to be filled.

He also knows that we have to train an increasing number of people of colour in technical fields to supply the future labour needs of this country. All these illusory thoughts about homeland ties and people being lured back to the homelands, will be controlled by economic factors over which the CP with its illusory policy will not be able to exercise any control.

The hon member asked a strange question here. He asked the hon member for Oudtshoorn where it was stated in the Bible that Israel should give its land away. I am not saying that it is stated in the Bible, but I know that today there is hardly a Jew left in Jerusalem, and this was Israel’s homeland. Although it is not stated in the Bible that Israel had to give up its homeland, it still happened.

Do they also have an NP Government?

The hon member also says that the territory we occupy at the moment is the White territory of South Africa. I want to ask the hon member whether he is aware that a large Black city like Soweto is also situated within the White territory of South Africa?

What does the Official Opposition plan to do with Soweto and other Black areas if they come into power? What are they going to do with those areas? The hon member said something else as well. He said that they were not going to give them more land. They would sell the land to them or exchange one piece of land for another. What is going to happen in Soweto? The CP objects strongly when the Government wants to grant property rights to Blacks there. What does the hon member for Lichtenburg suggest should become of Soweto? Are they going to sell the land to the Blacks or are they going to give it away?

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

No, Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan may resume his seat. I think he will get a turn to speak if he asks for it, because he is after all a Whip. He can reply to me then.

We get no answers to those questions we put to the Official Opposition and I do not believe we shall get answers to them very soon. Are they perhaps going to convert Soweto into a homeland? [Interjections.] I want the hon Leader of the Official Opposition to tell us whether they are going to convert Soweto into a homeland. If they are going to do that, are they going to sell the land to the Blacks? What are they going to do with Soweto?

For the hon members to sit there muttering serves no purpose. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had his chance on the numerous occasions he made speeches in this House. Yet he did not say what they would do with a Black city such as Soweto. [Interjections.]

In the meantime the hon member for Lichtenburg, the deputy leader of the CP, says that they will not give any more land away. If they come into office they will either sell or exchange it. I ask once again whether they are going to sell the land in Soweto to the Blacks. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has nothing whatsoever to say.

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

He can give a straightforward answer by simply saying yes or no. Then we will know where we stand with them. It will not happen, however. We do not get answers from that side of the House.

The Official Opposition seems to have come to the conclusion that if they criticise Government policy here and there, their task as the Official Opposition has been accomplished. They need not come forward with alternatives. They need not indicate how they are going to put those alternatives into practice. They appeal to something like the will to govern and the will to enforce measures. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon members of the Official Opposition that one cannot, even with the best intentions in the world, enforce measures which run counter to economic laws. [Interjections.] No government has ever managed to do it, nor will the Official Opposition manage to do it either.

One would have liked to have heard more about the idea which exists in right-wing circles at the moment of creating a national or country-wide Afrikaner foundation in order to unite the business and economic interests of the right-wing Afrikaner, a body similar to Assocom or the AHI. It seems to me that the only unifying factor here will be that everyone must hold right-wing Afrikaner opinions, and nothing more than that, because according to reports, an Afrikaner economic congress was held on Friday 10 June in the city hall in Verwoerdburg, and a continuation committee was elected and appointed to give effect to certain decisions.

[Inaudible.]

It seems that the hon member for Soutpansberg wants to reply to that. I should be very glad, Sir.

You said that it has already been held, but 25 June is next Saturday. [Interjections.]

I said 10 June. [Interjections.]

We are told that the Vereniging van Oranjewerkers apparently arranged the function, and next year—so they tell us—a people’s congress (volkskongres) will be arranged and the subject will be “On the road to our own economy”. [Interjections.] It seems to me that the chief aim will be an economy for the right-wing Afrikaners. [Interjections.] One would have liked to have heard more about this, because certain important decisions must have been taken in the closed meeting, not only on the principle of creating such a representative body, but also on their policies.

The hon member for Lichtenburg who is no longer here, and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition …

… who is quiet …

… actually share the same thoughts and philosophies with the people who arranged the meeting and who are going to arrange this people’s congress next year. I would guess that they have information on the decisions which were taken there as well as the policies for the economic future of this people’s state, and it would be good if speakers who are still going to take part in this debate could inform this House what kind of economic future they foresee.

Although the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said yesterday that he did not want to accept responsibility for all Prof Boshoff’s ideas, I see that this conference was also attended by an ex-member of this House, namely Mr Daan van der Merwe, and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is surely not going to tell me that he is going to dissociate himself from the ideas of Mr Daan van der Merwe. That is why I ask him—he surely owes it to this House—to give us information at some time or other about what is envisaged with this people’s congress and what ideas are going to emerge.

As I said just now, the hon members of the Official Opposition level a great deal of criticism, at Government policy, and certain intentions are expressed in their programme of principles. It would be interesting to see how those undertakings are going to be transformed into policies.

A comparison could be drawn, for example, between the ideas which will be expressed at this congress and the present economic policy, which has been labeled by the right-wingers as one of integration. Then one could perhaps get an idea of where those who determine the aims are going.

Instead, we listened again this morning to the hon member for Lichtenburg, the deputy leader of the Official Opposition and all we got was criticism of the Government. [Interjections.] There were no positive suggestions at all. Only criticism!

I see the hon member for Soutpansberg is getting ready to speak. [Interjections.] I should like to hear, when he stands up in a moment to make his speech, what his ideas are on the thoughts which were expressed by acknowledged economists such as Mr Daan van der Merwe and Dr Carel Boshoff. He must please tell us. [Interjections.]

What about Fred du Plessis?

Did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say that he dissociated himself from that idea?

No, I asked what Fred du Plessis had said. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition wants to know what Mr Fred du Plessis said. Let me tell him; then he will know. It seems that he has not read Mr Fred du Plessis’ speeches. Mr Fred du Plessis is opposed to the tax on insurance. [Interjections.] If I were a CP member who had become involved with such extreme right-wingers, such as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his members on that side have done, do hon members know what I would have done? I would have gone to speak to Mr Fred du Plessis immediately about a policy for my party. [Interjections.] I would have done it immediately. [Interjections.]

We have been wondering since the establishment of the CP in 1982 what political trends the CP would follow, so that we could differentiate clearly between the CP and the NP, and also between the CP and the far right-wingers. In the meantime the far right-wingers, that is, the HNP, the AWB and all the right-wing trade unions, have become involved and have been swallowed up by the CP.

The more progress is made on the road of rightwing politics, the clearer it becomes that they are subject to the same weaknesses from which the left-wing opposition suffered. The left-wing opposition also consists of all kinds of leftist elements—from just left of the Government to very far left. [Interjections.] It is the same with CP support. It consists of a conglomerate of people ranging from those who hold ideas which are just to the right of the Government’s to those which are ultra right—so far right that they are actually outside the practical politics of today. These people all stand under the CP banner, and so they are in exactly the same dilemma as the one in which the PFP finds itself, which accommodates organisations such as the Black Sash in its ranks. The Official Opposition has the same problems with the ultra right-wingers who are accommodated in its ranks.

Within those groups there are also the people who are exponents of the idea of the people’s state (volkstaat). I am not exactly sure what the idea of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is and whether he wants to continue with the old kind of apartheid or wants to accept the idea of the people’s state of the right-wingers who are within his ranks. [Interjections.] He must tell us. Up to now, however, we have not heard anything from him in this connection. He defends those people; he clutches them to his bosom. I can tell him that he will find himself in the same process of disintegration in which the left-wing parties have found themselves.

It is a fact that such a situation can lead to frustrations. One is beginning to see this in hon members of the opposition. It appears to me that this frustration sometimes turns into bitterness. One can see this very often in hon members of the Official Opposition. If I must mention examples, I should like to name the hon member for Potgietersrus, who makes one think of the refrain which churns for ever in the thoughts of the protagonist in Dalene Matthee’s Kringe in die Bos: “Die bloubokkie se gal sit in sy kop”. [Interjections.]

One can already consider the Government’s economic policy, which is being applied at present, to be a successful policy. The hon the Minister of Finance pointed out several of those successes in his speech yesterday. Those successes, which include a moderate growth rate, a decrease in the inflation rate, the restriction of and control over the increase in State expenditure and the cooling-off of the economy after the sharp upswing during the first quarter of this year, provide evidence that our monetary and fiscal authorities are successfully applying the policy they set themselves.

It is therefore my great pleasure, with reference to these successes, to wish the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and their staff well for the rest of the year. I am sure they will achieve the same level of success as that which they achieved in the first six months of the year. For that reason I am pleased to support this Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman, who has just sat down, devoted a large part of his speech to reaction to the speech made by the hon member for Lichtenburg, and I, too, wish to make a few remarks in this regard.

We in this House usually look forward to the entry of the hon member for Lichtenburg to the debate. He is a good speaker. He is also very efficient when attacking the NP. However, when he tries to defend or explain his own policy, he is particularly weak and inefficient. Today we saw another example of this. I want to say to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that his party, with all their fine-sounding words, is trying to avoid the realities of South Africa.

They talk about partition, but the fact remains that the economically active part of South Africa is indivisible. It is shared by Whites, Coloureds and Blacks. That part would not have been productive if that sharing had not existed. That is the key to prosperity in South Africa. Where a territory and an economy are shared, where an infrastructure and national security are shared, and where the future, generally, is shared, one shares power whether one likes it or not.

That is what the Government is doing.

The hon member’s party are going to do the same. They talk about partition, but one cannot have partition in the economically active parts of South Africa. They know this. [Interjections.] The fact is that they will also have to share power. Power will have to be shared in some way or another, whether this is recognised within the formal constitutional structures or not. This is something the CP will have to give thought to one of these days, just as it took the Government 40 years to bring itself to giving thought to the matter.

†There were three bomb attacks in the Peninsula yesterday. First of all I want to say that I am relieved that there was no loss of life, save for one which appeared to be self-inflicted. We are relieved that those were the circumstances.

Secondly, my colleagues and I will once again, repeatedly, condemn—without reservation at all—what we believe to be cowardly acts of terrorism. We will condemn them.

Thirdly, let me say that the perpetrators of these acts of terrorism may make the climate more difficult in which we have to try to solve our problems, but these people will not deter the people of this country as a whole from finding a way of living together in peace. No terrorist is going to stop us—with all our defects—from finding a way of living together in peace. We in this party believe the task of finding that way by means of negotiation and reconciliation is the most fundamental and urgent task facing this nation today.

The hon the Minister of Finance and his Government are going to have to deal with a whole range of issues which may not be financial issues, but which will impinge on the finances and the economic welfare of this country in the months which lie ahead. He is also going to turn his mind towards planning for the future and for future budgets.

I want to deal with one or two of these issues. Prior to doing so, however, I want to make a plea to this Government and to the hon the Minister for the forgotten people of the 1988 Budget. The forgotten people are our senior citizens who live on old age pensions.

I am not talking of the rich ones; I am talking of the ones of 72 years of age who live on the princely income of R218 per month. Those are the people I am talking about. Yes, I understand there is to be a once-off bonus in October. There have been once-off bonuses before. That is no compensation for the fact that inflation is eating away at the value of their very limited means and their standard of living.

Other people in the private sector are enjoying an increase in incomes of between 12% and 15% on average. Public servants get service notches, occupational differentiation, the elimination of accumulated backlogs and promotional increases. Senior citizens who have capital can invest in Granny bonus. These other people, however, get none of these things. Their incomes are not regulated by supply and demand, there are no service notches, there is no occupational differentiation and there is no money to invest in Granny bonds. This category of senior citizen is therefore the forgotten people of the 1988 Budget.

Added to this, through the authority of the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing, rent control is being phased out in a dramatic way right at the present time. There will be limited protection for existing tenants living in existing rent-controlled premises as they are phased out. However, when this process is phased out in the course of the next few years, some 40 000 rent-controlled residential units will become decontrolled. They will go onto the market to be let at normal supply and demand rentals.

This is going to create a tremendous problem for many old people in South Africa. It is going to create a tremendous pressure on the housing facilities that do exist for the aged people of South Africa. Housing for the aged in urban areas is going to become one of the most important socio-economic challenges to face us in the immediate future. I want to put it to the hon the Minister of Finance that he and the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing will have to put their heads together to meet this new, pressing challenge.

The problem can be solved, not by the State on its own, but by bringing together the funds of the authority of the State, the efforts of the community and the savings of individual citizens. The Government cannot continue to forget the senior citizens of South Africa. I am talking about people who do not have the money to invest in Granny bonds. Inflation is eating away at their standard of living at approximately 13% to 15% per annum. Their failure to get an increase over two years means that the standard of living of these old people has dropped by 30%! This is a staggering figure when one is living on the breadline.

In the past, when there was an increase, old-age pensions were increased in October. I put it to the hon the Minister of Finance that these increases should take place on 1 April next year. I do not see why other people should get increases in April, while old people always have to wait until 1 October. These increases should take place in April.

I would like to deal with one or two other factors that are going to affect our economy and finances. The first one is the conflict and the continuing instability in Southern Africa, and especially the conflict in Angola. There is a cost factor involved in this, in terms of lives, money, resources and economic dislocation. This Government should do everything in its power to bring this conflict to an end.

There have been some recent moves, largely in the diplomatic field, which have been encouraging. There have been discussions. There have also been other moves, largely in the military field, that have been ominous. Here I am referring to the Cubans arriving on the northern border of SWA/Namibia. What does distress me, though, is that the peace talks which started and looked so promising, could break down because of a disagreement on the venue! I find this quite staggering.

Obviously the Government must try to get a venue that is most suited to it, but for heaven’s sake, I urge the Government and the hon the State President, whether he wants to visit Brazzaville or not, not to let young men die while politicians quibble over a venue! That is the key factor. After all, the Vietnam War was ended at a conference in Paris. The Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan was negotiated in Geneva. I believe that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs should be prepared to go all the way to the moon if that is what is necessary to bring peace and stability to our people in Southern Africa.

Hear, hear!

A second issue that is going to crop up, quite obviously, is the whole issue of sanctions. This does not affect our internal consumer pressure or the economy related to that pressure. Indeed, a relatively closed economy will continue to look good if measured by short-term criteria. We have been experiencing that in South Africa. However, I do not think one should make the mistake of thinking that sanctions will not have an insidious and debilitating effect on our economy when we have a growing population, and a largely Third World population at that. We should not run away from that fact.

Let us consider the replacement of capital goods, the provision of infrastructure, investor confidence, technology, the rand currency value and overall economic growth. Because sanctions will make it more difficult to find a solution to our major political problems, we in this party believe—we demonstrate it day after day—that sanctions should be fought with all the skill at our command.

However, I must give this warning, that in combating the external imposition of sanctions, we should not have our attention distracted from the internal causes of sanctions. There are both external and internal causes. While we are fighting sanctions abroad, we should not disregard the important task of fighting discrimination and of eliminating inequality inside our own country.

Yes, in parts of the world, and especially in the USA, the sanctions campaign is developing a momentum of its own which has much more to do with the realities of American internal domestic politics than with the realities of South Africa. Yes, there is selective morality and political posturing, and at times there is downright hypocrisy, and yet there are many people abroad who still care. The reality is that the clamour for sanctions will only start waning when the majority of the Black citizens of our country, of their own volition, free from coercion from either side, openly show their support for the constitutional system which we have to evolve in our country. That task is inextricably bound up with sanctions and with our future economic and political welfare.

This brings me to the third point I wish to make to the hon the Minister. It is for this reason that I find the state of emergency so utterly distressing. It is totally counter-productive when it comes to solving the problems of South Africa.

When one listened the other day to the presentation by the Department of Information when the state of emergency was reimposed, one would have thought that the new security regulations were a triumph for democracy. That was what it sounded like. In reality, the new emergency regulations with their massive restrictions and their authoritarian powers are an admission of failure by this Government. It is admitting that it has failed to win the hearts and the minds of the ordinary citizens of South Africa. It is admitting that it has failed to find a means of governing this country by democracy. That is what it is. It is an admission, a self-indictment of the Government of its failure to achieve these things.

Of course the visible incidence of violence has been reduced, but can we honestly say to one another that these regulations have brought us any closer to a fundamental political solution? Does the Government really think that as a result of these restrictions Black citizens in the main are in a greater mood to negotiate and compromise on a new constitution? Does this Government really think that Black South Africans will see the coming local government elections as either being free or as fair when their organisations are banned, their leaders are restricted and the Press is muzzled?

Yes, the emergency regulations produce a semblance of peace, but it will be a brittle peace that comes from coercion, and not the real, deep peace that comes from consent.

The Government realises that there has to be power sharing. It says so. Yet, somehow or other it wishes to share power and keep power at the same time. This is the dilemma in which the Government finds itself. This is the fatal flaw in the Government’s constitutional thinking and in the present system. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning would appreciate this particular point, if he were listening.

I should like to pose a question. Given a country with a privileged racial minority in charge of the Government, will that Government be able to complete the process of fundamental change which is required socially, economically and politically, if it is dependent for its authority on an electorate drawn solely from that privileged racial minority? Will that cycle be completed if it relies only on the electorate drawn from that privileged minority? Will such an exclusive electorate permit a Government to phase out social exclusiveness, dilute economic privilege and shed its dominant political power?

I doubt it. In societies which have gone through this process of fundamental restructuring and reform, those who have benefited from the reform have been brought into the electoral process and power structure to reinforce and sustain and in a sense to recycle that process of reform, thereby ensuring that that reform is carried through to its logical conclusion. However, in this Government’s constitutional plan and thinking the people who have got the benefit of reform, if I may use that word, are given a modicum of power in own affairs while effectively being kept out of the power structure which determines the government of the day. This is the fatal flaw. Thus Coloureds and Indians, and to an extent Blacks in the homelands, are the beneficiaries of change, yet because of this Government’s racial, blinkered thinking, they are denied an opportunity of having an effective say in determining who will form the Government of this country. That, in this system, is reserved for Whites.

I want to put to the Government that what is needed at this time, is a quantum leap in Government thinking—if that is possible—away from race as the determining factor in the basic constitutional structure of this country. In fact, if that is not done, the reform process will not be completed. What is needed if the process of change is going to be completed, is for South Africans who are not White, not to be just given benefits or ancillary powers but that they be brought fundamentally into the decisive power structure of this country. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to react to some of the statements made by the hon member for Sea Point. He raised a number of issues, but I do not intend dealing with all of them. I think, however, it will only be proper if I thank the hon member for the particular stance he has taken in rejecting terrorism and violence. That is the stance that particular party has taken for a long time. I therefore do not join issue with them when they reject violence as a means of change in this country. I am glad, however, that a lot of people have deserted their party, having lacked the moral fibre to uphold those views here in Parliament. I refer to the previous leader of the PFP, as well as the Van Ecks, Gastrows and Cronjes.

As one concerned South African to another South African, I appeal to the hon member and his fellow party members please not to play into the hands of those people who use violence as a means of change by not rejecting it the way I think they should do. People are using them. I am not saying they are propagating or advocating violence, but that they are being used by people who do exactly that. I intend to elaborate on this issue when I deal with the aspect of negotiation and some of the remarks made by the hon member relating to the state of emergency.

I want to apologize to the hon member for Houghton that the hon the Minister of Law and Order cannot be present. I will on his behalf try to answer some of the questions posed by that hon member yesterday.

When we are talking about the state of emergency, and after having had the benefit of listening to both the hon members for Houghton and Sea Point, there is something lacking in their whole argument. They fail to echo or project the circumstances of the particular environment in which the state of emergency has been declared. We do not have to go back donkey’s years to establish what people are saying. What people have stated very recently in the magazine Work in Progress is public knowledge and a well-known fact. I quote from this publication:

This argument is continued in New Era of November 1987:

When one looks at what the preconditions are which the ANC set for negotiations, as was stated by them in The Star of 7 August 1987, one cannot but question how serious they are about negotiation. In that article they themselves, through Pallo Jordan, stated:

The hon the Minister of Law and Order stated recently in the President’s Council that the ANC had declared how they had moved forward in the creation of a mass revolutionary basis. No less a person than Joe Slovo said as recently as 2 May:

Which the church has recently done very effectively—

Those are the people who state that negotiation is their policy, but who also set these unreachable, almost untouchable preconditions.

*It is against this background that we have to consider the declaration of the state of emergency, against the background of people who have by no means renounced the use of force as a means to bring about revolutionary change in the country. It is therefore not just simply a question of blaming the Government; on the contrary, with a view to the special circumstances, if one accepts that the greatest responsibility of the Government is the safety of the country and its people one has also to accept that specific emergency powers must be vested in the State, and these are the emergency regulations to which the hon member referred with so much contempt yesterday.

The fact remains that when the emergency regulations are set out, those are the Queensberry Rules in terms of which the Government maintains the state of emergency. However, within what sort of framework does the ANC-SACP alliance operate? They operate within no framework. They operate in terms of no regulations at all. For that reason I want to express the opinion that the emergency regulations as announced during the state of emergency are a fantastic and responsible step with a view to the threat to the State as spelt out by the ANC-SACP themselves. During the course of my speech I am going to prove conclusively how within the framework of the emergency regulations and the courts we are maintaining a responsible opposition to this violent assault. I take it amiss of the former Official Opposition, the PFP, for maintaining that these are Draconian measures that it gives us so much pleasure to announce every now and then.

I want to deal with a further aspect. I want to reproach the hon member for Houghton. She is fond of referring to the indemnity clauses in the emergency regulations. She skipped over them again yesterday. We know that she and comrades-in-arms who make misuse of the PFP referred to those indemnity clauses “as a licence to kill”. They make the State and its security forces out to be a brutal bunch who have entered into a diabolical plot and who avoid any prosecution by means of the indemnity provisions. That is just not true. The hon member for Houghton often says tongue in cheek: “Yes, if they acted in good faith”. That is of course true but why does she not stand up and also spell out to the world that there have already been court cases against the State in respect of those regulations and that legal principles also hold good in this regard? I want to refer hon members to a case that was decided recently, in 1987, in the Witwatersrand Supreme Court, namely, the case of The State vs Loubser.

Mr Justice Strydom ruled expressly that any member of the security forces has to act directly in conformity with the regulations. There is therefore no general indemnity or general action. It must be an action within the framework of the regulation. Secondly, it must be done in good faith. The hon member can read the court case, and I think she will be doing South Africa a favour if she also blazons abroad what the parameters and the framework are in which we operate.

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

My time is limited. At the end of another ten minutes, if I have time available, I will take a question. The hon member does ask a lot of questions, I must say, and then I have to respond to them. I would therefore like her to wait a minute.

Yesterday the hon member made a number of remarks relating to detentions. I think what I am now doing will not convince the hon member, but I think it is only fit and proper that I respond to her in the sense that I have to place the arguments on record before this House.

I would once again like to refer the hon member to the Rabie Commission Report, where Lord McDermott is quoted, with approval, as having said:

Are we having a world war?

I would also like to quote from the Gardner Committee, where it was stated:

*Sir, this is the general point of departure in regard to the Government’s handling of matters regarding detentions. What is it that makes the circumstances in South Africa difficult? There are two factors with a direct influence. A man is arrested. He admits that he is a terrorist. He admits who his comrades-in-arms are. All the evidence is outside the country. He operates from outside the country, from a neighbouring state. There is not sufficient evidence to bring him to court because of his cruel actions.

The second point is that we all know that one of the greatest evils and cancers in the South African society today is intimidation. The complainant is afraid to identify an accused person because he is afraid that he will pay for that action with his life. These are the realities. One cannot compare these circumstances in South Africa with those in a Western democracy like Germany or America or wherever. I personally have come to the conclusion that in these circumstances in these times in which we live we cannot ensure the safety of the individual and the State if we do not have this legal remedy at our disposal.

In one of the cases presently under consideration 29 man-years have been devoted to the investigation, 4,5 million kilometres have been covered in the assembling of witnesses and so on, and 3 million photostats of documents have been submitted as exhibits in court. No democratic state dare shirk this responsibility that I have just mentioned. What are these few million kilometres, these 29 man-years and these 3 million documents when compared with the value of a democracy and a free system of justice? However, while we are involved in these processes, we cannot allow the State which is so valuable, democracy in the State and our democratic institutions like the courts to be undermined. It takes four of five years to finalise such a case from the investigatory up to the final stage.

One dare not allow these processes to take place before one’s eyes without taking any action, and for this reason we also take the step of making use of the legal expedient of detention.

†It has been stated that almost 26 000 people have been detained since the first declaration of the state of emergency. I would like to dispute that.

Those are the hon the Minister’s figures!

Those might be the hon the Minister’s figures, but the way in which the hon member for Houghton quotes them arouses suspicion that the hon the Minister is not applying his mind to the cases of the people who are being detained for longer than 30 days.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, the hon member did. She quoted the figure of 26 000 people and asked how it was possible for one Minister to attend to all these cases. She said: “We know that there are people who have been detained for longer than two years”.

For two years!

Yes, the hon member did say that.

Yes, I did.

Of course the hon member said that. Why is she arguing with me then? I am not going to be seduced by the hon member into … [Interjections] … arguing on this particular sidetrack.

You are too old for me! [Interjections.]

I want to defend the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] May I say that three things happened, for example, in the case where the applicant was Mr Vusi Kanyile.

Yes, he was detained for nearly two years.

The only reasonable inference is that the official acted mala fides or because of an ulterior motive or did not apply his mind to the matter. In other words, the Minister cannot act without discretion. He can be tested in court to determine whether he applied his mind to the matter, whether he acted in good faith or not and whether he had any ulterior motive.

How does one test that?

The hon member was asking what the criteria were. There are three criteria in terms of law. I cite again as example the case in which Vusi Kanyile was the applicant. The three criteria are: If in the opinion of the Minister it is necessary for the maintenance of public order or the safety of the public or the applicant himself or for the termination of the state of emergency.

*Those are the three criteria the hon the Minister considers.

In a case where Zwelathi Sisulu was the applicant, the judge found that that was precisely what the hon the Minister had done. In other words, the hon the Minister had given his attention to the matter. On behalf of the hon the Minister I want to testify here that he is giving his attention to this matter. This is in fact confirmed in respect of various cases which place an enormous work load on his shoulders. Instead of praising him for the concern which he demonstrates by firstly, in fact, giving his attention to this matter and secondly, doing everything in his power to process the cases of these people in such a way that they can be freed from prison and not be a burden to us in giving this hon member the opportunity to make speeches in this regard, he is criticised here.

†There are still two matters outstanding, which I would like to deal with. The hon member referred to the detentions at the Protea police station.

Yes, indeed.

The hon member for Houghton said “yes”.

*She is quick to say yes.

I have affidavits.

I should like to invite the hon member to make the affidavits in her possession available to us because the fact is that this matter is already being investigated.

†I believe the charge is common assault. Whether it is common assault or assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm, we do not approve of it. [Interjections.] The hon member knows that that is the hon the Minister’s approach and policy. Why does she not thank him for that? She only criticises him.

[Inaudible.]

The matter is already being considered and investigated and it is also being attended to by our head office.

†Finally, the hon member said that she had raised various issues with the hon the Minister and he had not responded to them.

*I want to refer her now to the Hansard of the hon the Minister and the speech he made in this House on 20 May. In that speech he replied to the hon member for Houghton in the following words:

I shall therefore inform the hon member as soon as I receive any further information regarding this matter.

That is what the hon the Minister told the hon member in this open House on 20 May.

[Inaudible.]

And now the hon member has seen fit to come along here and complain and spread gossip.

I think that we are dealing here with extremely serious matters. I have indicated that detentions are not matters we treat lightly, but they are nevertheless necessary. I have also indicated that given the circumstances and the atmosphere that are created, the declaration of the state of emergency was necessary. I have indicated further that the emergency regulations are the framework within which we operate.

In my opinion the PFP are walking willy-nilly into the trap and they are not succeeding in putting sufficient distance between themselves and the people who propagate violence, and therefore do not make the lifting of the state of emergency possible.

Mr Chairman, it is truly a privilege to follow on the hon the Deputy Minister. I have thoroughly enjoyed the “on-deronsies” between Aunt Helen, the hon member for Houghton, and the hon the Deputy Minister over the past year. I do not know whether I have learnt more from the hon the Deputy Minister listening to him in the House or jogging with him round Acacia Park in the early mornings before dawn. I have had the privilege to learn at first hand what Parliament is all about.

That explains it then!

I do not think the hon the State President could have picked anybody with a greater sense of humanity and firmness than the hon the Deputy Minister for the position that he now occupies. It is a true privilege to follow him.

A far greater problem for me was to participate in this debate which I have always regarded as an economic debate, while trying to analyse and criticise, if possible, the policy of the CP on economics and finance. Being a new member here, I did the obvious thing by reading the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition during the Budget Debate and trying to find out what their policy was. All I found in that speech was a breakdown of the relationship between the Church and the State. The second half of the speech was about politics and racism. I found nothing whatsoever to do with economics in his speech during that debate.

However, I knew that if it was not there, I would find it in the speech of the hon member for Lichtenburg, the deputy leader of the CP. Part of it was there. The hon member criticised the Government on the grounds that we did not give more money to the public servants, the teachers, the transport workers, the Post Office workers or the pensioners. He also criticised us because we did not give a bigger rebate to pensioners. On top of that he said that we taxed the people too heavily. He did not say where we would find all the money if we do not tax the people.

Then I read the speech of the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. I read something there that I could not understand. He said that South Africa’s foreign debt had grown because we had borrowed money to buy sports stadiums. I am still trying to work that one out.

However, when I read the speech of the hon member for Potgietersrus I got to the core of CP economic policy. He said that the only economic problem that we had in this country was that we had people in mixed areas. If we sent the Blacks and people of colour back to their homelands all our economic problems would disappear. I did not see any mention in his speech of the fact that the CP had said they were not prepared to invest one more cent in the homelands or the fact that they were not prepared to buy one more inch of land for those people. I do not know how he is going to do without the 6 million people of colour who work for us, but apparently all our economic problems will be settled when they go back to their homelands.

In my opinion one of the most important economic announcements in the debate was made by the hon member for Randfontein who said we could solve our problems if we could match the Americans in their independent information services. If we could find R2,5 billion we could set up an independent information service. I suppose Dr Eschel Rhoodie will be at the head of it now that he is out of jail and then all our problems will be at an end.

Giving up on Hansard, I went through all the failed propaganda that had been used against me and the NP in the CP’s failed election campaign in Germiston.

I actually came across a document which expounds the official policy of the CP as far as economics goes. It had all the usual claptrap and broad sweeping statements, but no facts. I was very interested to see that they believed in private enterprise as long as the big companies did not take over private enterprise. I did not see them in that document attack the problems of foreign exchange, inflation, foreign reserves and how we are going to fight sanctions and disinvestment, but part of their economic policy in South Africa is to give the pensioners and the public servants more money. That is part of their economic policy. I do not think there is a party in the world that says that is how they are going to control the economics of the country. It is frightening.

The hon member for Ermelo actually accused us—their English-speaking people, he said—of being prepared to do anything for a fast buck. He said:

They do not need a people. We do not need a nation, and fortunately perhaps for me—we do not need a homeland. I want to say that maybe we will sell our country for a fast buck, but they would sell anything for a fast vote.

However, if one really wants to get down to CP policy, I think one has to go back to the day when that learned economist Mr Terre’blanche, who has been welcomed by the hon leader of the CP into his party—his views and his followers have been welcomed—delivered his petition to a major, I believe, in the security forces. He was trying to reach our hon State President. At Voortrekkerhoogte he delivered a very, very important speech that day. In his speech he said that he did not believe in any privatisation whatsoever because according to him all the institutions in this country like Eskom and Iscor had been built up by the Afrikaner—this part I like—to give work to the Afrikaner, and he was not going to see those things being given away, and if they did, he warned the rest of the world that they would be taken back as soon as the CP came into power. Then, Mr Chairman, the penny dropped. I know what the CP’s economic policy is all about. The CP’s economic policy is Hitler’s National Socialism …

That is nonsense!

I think if one goes back to the conference they had this week in Verwoerdburg one will see that they say “dit is ons eie ekonomie vir ons eie mense op ons eie bodem”, and those are almost the exact words I found in reading about Germany’s National Socialism which they adopted in the 1930’s. If one looks very carefully into this one will see that the CP has been promising the people more money in order to get votes. They have said the trade unions must get more money, that the teachers, the pensioners and the public servants must all get more money and that taxes must be reduced. Then one thinks: If I am wrong about National Socialism, where are they going to get the money? The same place where Hitler got it. Hitler actually had a campaign against the big firms and the big shops and he tried to break them down. Hon members know what the tragic consequences of his actions were. However, the CP is going to do the same thing. One only has to think back to the speeches delivered in this House.

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis is always darkly saying: “What about taxing the mines? Why are they getting away with taxes?”, and the rest of his party is forever saying: “What about Anglo American and what about these monopolies that are being formed against us in this nation?” It is pure National Socialism, Mr Chairman.

When one looks at their policies, even if we accept their socialism, one comes to the mighty hand which I think the hon member for Kuruman mentioned today. There is the mighty hand of economics that makes nonsense out of their whole policy. If I remember my economics correctly, GNP—I am scared to say this in front of our Minister of Finance—was consumer spending plus investment plus Government spending. According to CP policy they are going to send all the “anderkleuriges” in this land back to their homelands, and by the way, that includes, they say, those who do not agree with their policies. I am one who does not agree with their policies, and there are many people like me in business. Are we going to leave this country and are we going to leave it to them?

If they take away most of the people who contribute towards the GNP in this country, how will they run the economy? If they send the 1,5 million miners out of this country, how will they run the mines? This does not mean that they will actually have a problem, because the man who will be their Deputy Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, has already said he is going to sanction all the people who sanction us. That means that we will not be able to export our gold and so on to the 87 countries to which we export them now, so the CP will not need an economy.

My time is up. [Interjections.] All I want to say is that the national socialism of the CP is a White policy and a black joke.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member said: “Now that Dr Rhoodie is out of jail.” I think this may be misinterpreted and it casts a reflection on a person outside this House. This implies that he was sentenced to imprisonment, and I do not think that is correct.

Order! Firstly, a point of order should be made as promptly as possible; an hon member should not wait until later. Secondly, the hon member for Germiston said nothing unparliamentary.

Mr Chairman, all I can say about the speech of the hon member for Germiston is that it was the biggest lot of trash uttered in the shortest time that I have heard here in a very long time. [Interjections.]

That’s NP policy!

Unfortunately the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is not here at the moment. I wanted to tell him as well as the hon the State President—I shall go ahead and say it—is that this House is aware that the worst enemy of the NP in this place is the hon member for Houghton. One could almost say that a traditional enmity exists between her and the hon the State President. For the first time I can remember here the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning today rushed to the aid of the hon member for Houghton when she did not need any, and he did so with a triviality which one did not expect of a person of his status, but rather from a participant in a high school debate or from a NP back-bencher. [Interjections.] However, it was reaction of a person who had been badly hurt. He was hurt by the effectiveness of the speech made by the hon member for Lichtenburg. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately the hon member for Kuruman has left.

He ran away!

Yes.

He wanted to know from me what I had to say about the economic people’s congress that was held or was going to be held. I just want to tell him that if members of our party want to do things they consider to be essential, and which they themselves identify as being so, they are free to do it. We do not tell them what they may or may not do. [Interjections.] This is not a CP congress, and the CP has nothing to do with the arrangements for that meeting. [Interjections.]

As far as those hon members are concerned, those who are sitting on that side, some of their present members who are still in their party—I think some are even in the Cabinet—and also some of those who are now members of the NDM, attended a Moonie congress in Greece a while ago. Does that mean that they are all Moonies now? [Interjections.]

I want to tell the former hon UP Senator that while he was still a member of the United Party the Sauer Commission of 1943, that had to address the NP colour problem, stated in the introductory paragraph of its report that the choice facing South Africa was that of integration or segregation. [Interjections.] That was the truth as it was stated at the time.

I would be pleased if the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament could stop twittering. I have something to say to him too.

Order! I think the hon Chief Whip of Parliament should in all fairness continue his conversation with another Whip outside the House.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Soutpansberg allowed to refer to the hon member for Kuruman as the “former UP Senator”? He ought to refer to him as an hon member.

Order! Under the circumstances I do not think I am going to give a ruling on that. The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

The hon Chief Whip of Parliament and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning are occupying themselves with trivial points of order today, which are merely intended to interrupt us. That is what this is all about.

I want to tell the former hon UP Senator that, as was stated in the Sauer Report of 1943, there are two choices, either integration or segregation. No third alternative has yet been added. That was the truth in 1943, the truth in 1948 and it is the truth in 1988. If the NP had been able to find a solution between those two extremes, they would have proclaimed it from the rooftops. But they do not have a solution.

We have the good UP men; you have the rejects.

The hon members for Sunday’s River and De Aar are whining about the gossiping and lies of the CP, and the disparagement of leaders is one of their recognised jeremiads. I want to tell them that it is not necessary for us to lie or to gossip; we simply tell the truth, and that is enough. We need not be disparaging because if we are speaking before an audience of certain hon Ministers, the reaction is either laughter or groans.

In respect of the truth I want to tell hon members that we are simply telling people the facts about the McCann situation. In addition we are merely recounting the facts in regard to Riaan Eksteen’s R600 000 cheque. We are merely conveying the facts in connection with the early retirement on pension of a Director-General of a department. We need not attach any interpretation to this; the general public is intelligent enough to do that for themselves.

Recently we have been watching with great concern the developments on the northern border of South West Africa. Rumours which reached us long ago were ultimately confirmed on approximately 9 June by the newspapers, radio and television. Consequently I think it is desirable for me to place on record the factual situation, as it was presented in the Press. I am quoting from The Citizen of Thursday, 19 June 1988:

The report continues:

A map of the Fifth Military Region also appears in the newspaper. This is the area immediately northwest of Calueque-Ruacana down to the sea, and past the railway line which runs from Namibe to Indungo. The Fifth Military Region was the region in which South Africa traditionally dominated. This is the region in which Operation Askari and Operation Protea were successfully carried out by South Africa. If we bear this in mind it is indeed an area which traditionally …

Against Swapo.

It makes no difference whether it was against Swapo or whoever it may have been against. There were no troops in that region. That is the point I want to make.

But it is still Angola.

Sir, that hon member says “it is still Angola”. What a meaningless remark that is!

Does the hon member want us to talk about Cuito Cuavale and all those places? But that is not the point. Nor do I want to discuss the military aspects of this situation, because there is a political aspect attached to it, and that is what we are going to address in the course of the next few minutes.

The logical conclusion is that there are thousands of Cuban troops mustered and sophisticated hardware stockpiled in an area which has now either been evacuated or abandoned by South Africa. This reminds one of the remark made by Major Wynand du Toit when he was addressing an NP function, or a school function, and was critical of our military tactics of attacking and then withdrawing, and in this process revealing certain aspects of strategy, striking power and weaponry to the enemy. However I am merely saying this in passing.

What we are dealing with here is the worst aspect of all—this is the whole point—that this is taking place while South Africa is seated round a conference table with Swapo, Cuba and the Angolans.

Do you not like peace?

The issue here is peace negotiations which are taking place while one is, with open eyes, allowing the enemy to penetrate and dig itself in in a region it had not previously occupied. That is the issue.

That was before the time!

What is more, one does not tell one’s own people. What other power does that? What regional power does such senseless, absolutely incomprehensible things as to sit around a conference table while troops are moving into a region which the power concerned had dominated and in which they had not been before? This Government did this in London and subsequently, while it was telling the people that this was taking place it went and held a further round of talks in Brazzaville.

I want to know how the Government is going to get those Cubans out of that region. What is going to happen if the peace talks do not succeed? [Interjections.]

With measures!

This Government has forgotten the lesson of 1976. In 1976 the South African troops had penetrated as far as Luanda, and then they left. The present hon Minister of Foreign Affairs sat in the dining-room of this Parliament and boasted that he had been responsible for getting those troops out. That gave South Africa’s image in Africa a setback which took 12 years to restore. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for De Aar is making a great many interjections. The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

Now, quite suddenly, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying that there must not be any losers, or words to that effect, when peace comes in Angola. Those were not his ipsissima verba, but that is the tenor of his standpoint.

Is that what is behind this? Are they going to allow thousands of troops to move into a region which used to be dominated by South Africa so that they are then able to tell the world that there are no losers? Is that what this is all about? I want to tell them that they are fast asleep; they are children in politics if they think that people can be allowed to move troops into a region for a period of time, occupy positions evacuated by them, and that those troops will have a picnic there, move out again and say “Bye, bye blackbird.”!

The Russians are always making mischief in an American presidential election year. They are always making all kinds of clever moves. I want to ask the hon gentlemen …

What is your solution?

I shall tell the hon member what my solution is. These will be my last words. [Interjections.]

The Russians have now withdrawn from Afghanistan. That Russian withdrawal is not a victory for them; it is a considerable loss to them. Does the hon the Minister of Defence think the Russians will allow themselves to lose face in two areas of the world in the same year?

If they think that they are children in the sphere of international politics. They may perhaps do so, but they will not do so with any loss of face. South Africa will have to pay the price for that.

What is your solution?

The hon member wants to know what my solution is. My solution is that one should sit down at a conference table and talk about peace. If, during that period, the enemy begins to allow troops to move into a region, one rises from that conference table and refuses to participate in further discussions until such time as the troops have been withdrawn to where they were before the conference began. That is how a regional power should act. That is how a government, that wishes to negotiate from a position of strength, should act.

If the Government is still in any way prepared to sit down around a conference table, they must insist that the troops withdraw from the Fifth Military Region. If that does not happen they must not even try to negotiate any further on peace in Angola. That is what the CP says. That is what we expect from this Government. If the Government follows the CP’s advice they will prove that they are a regional power because then they will be able to negotiate from a position of strength. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, with reference to what the hon member for Soutpansberg has just said, I should like to commence my speech with a quotation. Colonel David Galula said: “A revolutionary war is 20% military action and 80% political”. All I want to say is that the situation in Angola is not as simple as the hon member for Soutpansberg tries to make out.

It is in the interests of South Africa—in fact, the whole of Southern Africa—that there should be peace in that region. Peace can only be attained through negotiation. There is no other way. The South African Government cannot renounce its responsibility in this connection. I just want to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg that the NP Government does not go weak at the knees when troups are shifted round the Fifth Military Region. The NP Government will counter every adventurous maneouvre which poses a threat to Owambo or South Africa with the same determination and efficiency it has shown over the past 20 years. [Interjections.]

Precisely! By implication that is what transpired here this morning. A few troups have been shifted round in the south-west of Angola and the CP becomes panic-stricken. To read certain newspaper reports one would swear that the Cubans were on the point of conquering the whole world! No, Sir, South Africa’s security forces have a proven record of efficiency. They are in complete control of the present situation which is unfolding in Angola.

I have reason to suppose that the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence will take part in the debate later.

Oh, what a fiasco!

He will be able to react fully to the statements of the hon member for Soutpansberg.

I just want to refer to the conduct of the hon member for Lichtenburg. The hon member was in a fighting mood this morning, but I got the impression that he was not fighting with the NP. He was intent on convincing Professor Carel Boshoff and company of the credibility of the CP’s partition policy. He did everything he could to persuade Professor Boshoff and company to dispense with the idea of secession. I shall leave it there, however.

I also just want to say in passing that the hon member for Lichtenburg has developed a habit of coming here to fight on Friday mornings, after which he usually heads for the airport. He is never here when his questions are replied to, specifically by the hon the Minister of Finance.

I need not expand on this statement. Perhaps with the exception of the hon member for Claremont, every hon member of this House will acknowledge that there is a revolutionary onslaught against South Africa. That is a fact.

Everybody knows too that the instigator of that revolution is the Soviet Union. That is why I also want to associate myself with the dissatisfaction expressed by previous speakers in regard to the conduct of Archbishop Tutu in Russia when he thanked them for the way they were helping people here in their fight against apartheid.

I know of only two occasions when Russia has come to the assistance of people in South Africa. The first occasion was when they helped the Boers in the war against England at the end of the last century. That is certainly not the reason why Archbishop Tutu thanked Russia.

The second example to which I want to refer is that the Soviet Union is financing the revolutionary efforts of the ANC and physically supplying them with weapons too. By thanking them for this, Archbishop Tutu is not only associating himself with the ideology of the ANC, but is also expressing solidarity with their methods, and I do not think he can be regarded as an apostle of peace any longer in South Africa.

I think the South African voters can thank their lucky stars that there is an NP Government in power at present, because if a PFP government had been in power, or even a CP government, the revolutionaries would long since have taken over the country. [Interjections.] I do not have to motivate my statements about the PFP; they are self-evident. I should however like to motivate my statement about the CP.

A thorough knowledge of the nature of the revolutionary onslaught is a prerequisite for effectively combatting it, but public statements by the CP spokesmen display an ignorance of the nature of this onslaught, which moreover makes effective action impossible. I shall refer to this later.

In contrast, the NP policy is nothing but an effective counter-revolutionary strategy. This effective counter-revolutionary strategy consists mainly of three phases. The first one is the effective utilisation of Security Forces, internally as well as outside the country’s borders. In this regard I want to make just two remarks.

Thanks to the initiative taken by the NP Government, the ANC failed hopelessly in its aims to take over this country before Christmas 1986. Thanks to the initiatives taken by the NP Government, Swapo and the ANC have tried in vain for 20 years to win a revolutionary war. In my view the NP has an outstanding record as far as this aspect of counter-revolutionary strategy is concerned.

There is a second facet, namely good government. By this it is understood that the masses, who are the real target of the revolutionary onslaught, must be convinced that what the status quo offers is better than anything the revolutionaries have to offer. There is not a single authority on counter-revolutionary strategy who does not agree with me that a revolution is really concerned with what goes on in the hearts and the minds of the masses. I shall mention only one source, namely Understanding Revolution in South Africa. The writer, Woodward, says the following:

The CP’s spokesmen, and specifically the hon member for Ermelo, have referred derisively to this struggle for “the hearts and the minds of the masses”. He says there is no such thing. If anyone says that a revolution is not a struggle to win “the hearts and the minds of the masses”, he will not succeed, because in the process he will lose the struggle against the revolutionary onslaught.

Regional services councils are a mechanism with which to win the hearts and the minds of the masses, but the CP has declared war on the regional services councils.

The principal function of regional service councils is to uplift under-developed regions. That is a method of winning the hearts and minds of the people, but the CP says it will destroy them. In this way one is playing directly into the hands of the revolutionary onslaught.

The third facet of NP policy as an effective counter-revolutionary strategy is political participation for all citizens at all levels of government. At the beginning of my speech I referred to the quotation from Colonel Galula. I also want to quote what President Woodrow Wilson said at the beginning of the century.

In other words, if one wants to succeed in winning the revolutionary onslaught, one must also address the political factor. That is what the NP is doing. The only population group which still does not have meaningful political participation at the first level of government is the Black South African citizens. Black people outside the national states have full political participation on the third tier. They are also being involved in the second tier of government and the only tier on which they are not involved is the first tier of government. That is precisely what the NP is endeavouring to bring about in its efforts to implement a counter-revolutionary strategy. It wants to ensure participation at the first tier and in such a manner that domination is eliminated.

The CP asks continuously how power is to be divided up and domination eliminated at the same time. In this respect the NP has also furnished practical proof. On the third tier of government power is being shared with Black people within the structure of regional services councils in such a way that one group does not dominate another group. In other words, what is being done on the third tier of government can also be done on the first.

For many years the NP has shared power with Black people within the framework of multilateral ministers’ conferences and it has not led to domination. One need therefore not ask how it is done. The NP has already given proof in practice that it can be done in a limited way and that it must be further extended.

I want to conclude with one remark. I think, taking everything into account, and with a view to the struggle which has now developed in rightwing ranks as to the practicability of the CP’s policy, it is obvious that it is only the policy of the NP as a counter-revolutionary strategy which can ensure political participation on the first tier and at the same time make peaceful co-existence possible in the country.

I should like to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Dr Geldenhuys must please forgive me if I do not respond to him in detail. It was interesting to listen to the way in which the hon member defined revolution. It makes it very clear that our suspicions are correct and well-founded that the Government is less and less able to distinguish between threats against the State of South Africa on the one hand, and threats to the NP on the other. Once one gets into the hearts and minds game, I suggest the hon member consider whether that is not more democracy than revolution. I will leave it at that.

Today a week ago the state of emergency was reproclaimed for the third year. One very substantial section of those regulations was titled “The Media Emergency Regulations”. For those hon members who have not yet seen them, we have now received six separate documents. It is very interesting to see that at this stage, except for the hon the State President, there are four hon Ministers of State who are involved in the application of emergency rules. One wonders how many more are going to end up administering their departments and running their jobs by way of emergency regulations, rather than parliamentary law before we come to the end of this tragic stage of our existence.

For a sensible analysis of these media regulations in particular, I think one must ask what the main requirements are for a good journalist, a good newspaper or good media in general in order properly to fulfil their purpose in a civilised society. I would suggest that their purpose is to report truthfully, accurately and comprehensively, to inform the public, to give perspective and to stimulate debate. That is about as close as I can come to a description of what the role of the media is all about.

One would expect that a government that respects democracy will encourage the media in its country to fulfil its purpose in terms of these requirements that I have stated. However, the tragic truth is that these media regulations that are now being proclaimed have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth. They do absolutely nothing to promote the truth. They do nothing to promote information to the public properly. In fact, there is not even a suggestion in the wording of these media regulations that it is their aim to promote the media in the correct conduct of its functions. All the grounds upon which the responsible Minister can take action in terms of these regulations, and every action that he is empowered to take, have to do with the suppression of news, and not with the dissemination of news.

It is also clear that these media regulations have nothing directly to do with political violence. Not that one would expect regulations dealing with the media to do so, but I make this point because the prevention of violence is constantly used by members of the Government in justification for the enactment and application of regulations such as these. Instead the regulations deal with information, with news, with the expression of views and with debate. The implication is clear, namely that the Government believes it will curb political violence by suppressing political information and political debate—that is, if one allows that the Government has any bona fide reason and motivation for applying these regulations. The Government believes it will curb political violence by suppressing political information and political debate. I want to say straight out that only a fool can believe that this approach will work in the long term, and I doubt whether it can even work in the short term. [Interjections.] Furthermore, the regulations do not deal with illegal or criminal acts. If this were the case, the regulations would be superfluous, because there are a myriad of laws in common law and statute law and even emergency powers that allow the Government to deal with illegal or criminal acts.

I want to ask when last an editor, a journalist or a newspaper has been charged in a court of law for promoting violence or revolution or anarchy through the columns of his newspaper. More specifically, there seems to be no indication or plan on the part of the Government to bring a criminal charge, in terms of any of these possible offences, against any of the publications or the editors against whom the Government has already taken action in terms of the media regulations. There seems to be no intention whatsoever to charge any of these so-called offenders for promoting violence, for creating a revolutionary climate and for promoting revolution in this country.

Therefore, the purpose of the regulations has to be something else, and in my view that purpose is to create a sufficiently claustrophobic political atmosphere so that Government propaganda can work effectively. Not only is counter-propaganda threatened by these regulations, but factual information is also threatened. Factual news is being suppressed by these regulations. There is no stipulation, no wording in the regulations that suggests that if news is factual it should therefore be allowed.

The Government has come to rely so heavily on its own propaganda, showered upon an ill-informed and unsuspecting public, that objective facts about what is happening in this country have now become a threat to the Government.

The regulations, to a very substantial degree, represent an assault on the truth. Look at the instances so far where the hon the Minister has taken action in terms of the regulations, particularly in respect of the Weekly Mail. I have referred to that before. The complaints were not against inaccuracy. The complaints were against factual information. I suggest further that anybody who doubts the validity of my statement should look at some of the prohibitions built into the regulations. Look at the prohibition against blank spaces in the newspapers, which does nothing more than to draw attention to the effect of the regulations. I ask the Government: Do they want people not to know about the existence of the media regulations? What rubbish!

The Government, in another respect, is presently considering expelling representatives of the BBC from South Africa as retribution for screening a biased film. There are ways of fighting bias, and I would suggest to the Government that one should fight bias with the facts and by setting an example of encouraging and promoting factual information. In both these instances, however, the media emergency regulations embody the failure of the Government to use these two very powerful tools against bias, because they suppress factual news and they represent the Government’s heavy reliance on its own bias. I would warn the Government against expelling the BBC from South Africa, because they must remember that if bias was a justification for expulsion, SABC-TV would be kicked out of every country on earth. [Interjections.]

Let there be no doubt about what these regulations do to Press freedom. Any freedom which can be removed so easily with so little procedural requirement, and by the decision of one person, is no longer freedom. Let there be no doubt about what has been done by the regulations to Press freedom in this country. Let there further be no doubt that if the media regulations were ever to be used to their fullest potential, there would be nothing left of Press freedom in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I will not react directly to the hon member for Green Point or his one-eyed view of media regulations. I believe my time can be more gainfully employed by addressing positive issues concerning our economy.

The annual report of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange for the end of February 1988 is a document from a close study of which all hon members, and especially critics of the Government, could well benefit. The executive president, Mr Tony Norton, in his president’s review, gives a most balanced and objective picture of the past year, of developments in our economy and of certain aspects of economic and tax reform. The positive view taken by the JSE of the prospects of South Africa, of its economy and of the free enterprise system—of which the Stock Exchange is a very integral part—is most heartening and, I believe, should make many financial critics bite their tongues or re-examine their stance. The confidence of the JSE is not merely confined to one of rhetoric, but has found concrete expansion and expression in major new investments of their own.

I believe congratulations are due to the JSE in this their 100th year of service to the country. Their motto “Dictum meum pactum”—my word is my bond—is stronger than ever, just like the NP.

The comment by Mr Norton that it is gratifying to find that their confidence has not been misplaced in that the hon the State President in January this year gave determined and positive support for important new economic initiatives is testimony of the success of these initiatives.

He stated further that these initiatives are not only important for their economic content, but also for the implications they have for society as a whole. The JSE believes that they provide the basic platform on which a future responsible free enterprise nation can be built. They further believe that the role of the reformer is never an easy one and that the hon the State President deserves every encouragement and congratulation for his initiatives on both the political and economic fronts.

These are indeed encouraging words from one of the top business leaders in our country and are most welcome after the blatantly biased and misguided criticism from certain other financial commentators and from opposition parties in this House.

The JSE report reveals some interesting statistics particularly as regards new listings and the creation of new equity capital during a year which I think will always be remembered as the year of the listings boom. The year produced more than 200 new listings, representing an increase of nearly 40% in the listed companies in South Africa. I think that is quite an achievement. The fact that approximately 40% of these new listings were in the highly successful Development Capital market sector was a further important feature.

New issues and rights issue activity raising some R7 billion of new capital proves that despite the handicaps we face from a low rate of national savings and certain tax constraints which are presently under review and have been reported on by the Margo Commission, such as taxation of dividends, the JSE has still fulfilled its basic purpose of raising risk capital for industry to develop and for the creation of job opportunities even from the relative youth in the case of the DCM companies.

During the year new equity capital totalling R12 billion was raised of which R7 billion, as mentioned, was in respect of new issues and the balance of R5 billion in respect of rights issues of already listed companies. Driven back as we are as a nation on our internal capital formation resources, one of the problems identified as causing abnormal movements in foreign markets, perhaps in South Africa particularly in October 1987, has been the fact that increasing investment power has been concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. With those players able to have an abnormal influence on the market, the entry of new entrepreneurs with new listings and capital is a most welcome trend.

Also worthy of mention is the forecast that was made during the first half of last year that growth in industrial earnings and dividends would be slow during 1988. This now appears to have been way off beam. Figures released by quoted companies over the past six months reflect spectacular profits and growth. Of a cross-section of 160 operating groups in the industrial sector the average percentage increase in earnings per share was 63%, and the average increase in dividends was 45%. So much for the policy of disinformation of the CP and the PFP in this House that the South African economy is in tatters because of Government mismanagement! I believe the contrary appears to be the case.

The strategy introduced in the main Budget for 1987-88 on 3 June last year, endorsed by the hon the State President in his Opening Address this year and reinforced by the hon the Minister of Finance, appears to have borne fruit. The continuing steady growth rate in the GDP of 2,6% for the 12 months to December 1987 and the latest figures show us that we are well on our way to our target of 3%. In addition there is the continuing decline in the inflation rate—it was 13,3% for the first quarter of 1988—and this in spite of the warnings of the prophets of doom that it would soon be as high as 20%.

An improvement in the balance of payments surplus and an increase in the rate of employment should, except for the totally negative, give confidence that we are on course and that economic prospects for the future—medium to long term—are good. I believe that the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the Department of Finance deserve our congratulations and encouragement.

Teachers have been fighting for additional pay. Since the beginning of February of this year, the Teachers’ Federal Council—which represents White teachers in South Africa—has issued seven public statements on the question of salaries received by educators. The hon the Minister of National Education, who is responsible for policy and financing, has been engaged in continuous negotiations and discussions. In highlighting the high priority given to education in the Government’s decision-making process and the rectification of the backlog in the salaries of educators, I believe, no stone has been left unturned. The announcement has been made that teachers’ salaries will be adjusted, but exact details have not yet been released. I believe that to date the TFC has handled the situation in a most responsible manner, as befits a professional body.

Today I learned with dismay of an action ostensibly promoted by the teaching profession in Natal through their professional body, the Natal Teachers’ Society, in conjunction with the parent-teacher action group which is a very limited group. A letter is at present being handed out in most English-medium schools in Natal by certain teachers to each pupil personally. I would like to read this letter to hon members. It reads as follows:

It was signed on behalf of the teachers by Mr P Londal, the president of the NTS.

The letter the children must return, is addressed to the hon the State President and reads as follows:

It continues in that vein. I have every sympathy with the problems experienced by the teaching profession and the now-proven salary backlog, as well as certain shortcomings in conditions of service, but I believe that the action taken at present is inappropriate and perhaps even irresponsible in the light of negotiations between their representative body, the TFC, and the hon the Minister. This unilateral action is not only unprofessional but may well prove to be to the detriment of education in Natal. [Interjections.]

Even more disturbing is the fact that certain parents have expressed the fear that if they do not sign and return this letter of petition, their child will be victimised. I have greater faith than that in the teachers of Natal in particular and the profession in general, and I hope that the highly emotional climate which has been engineered by the NTS with the backing of certain unnamed politicians does not result in my faith being misplaced. [Interjections.]

My advice to parents who receive this misguided letter of petition is to consign it to the wastepaper basket, as that is certainly where it belongs.

I am advised that reaction from parents yesterday has been one of angry rejection, so much so that the NTS later requested that publicity given to the matter by The Daily News should be withdrawn and not to be published.

With these words I have pleasure in supporting the Bill before us.

Mr Chairman, it a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South and I would like to comment on one or two points that he has made. I also wish to convey my congratulations to the JSE on achieving its centenary. One must recognise and take note of the important role that this institution plays in providing facilities to meet the requirements of the financial market-place.

I noted with considerable interest, too, the hon member’s reference to teachers’ salaries. We are all very much aware of the attitude of the teaching profession to their salary structures and I do not think there is any hon member in this House who does not feel inwardly that teachers have real justification for the feelings that they are now expressing.

I do not want to refer to the letter that was quoted by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South, but may I say that, in my opinion, it is indicative of the very serious situation in the education profession at the present time. I know that the hon the Minister is obviously giving this matter a lot of thought, but I feel that it is essential that we give this matter priority consideration.

I want to deal with a comment that the hon member for Soutpansberg made in regard to the military situation in Angola. I am sorry that he is not here. Here again I do feel that this is not the place to discuss the military situation in Angola. We know it is a very sensitive issue and there must be no suggestion of pressures being put on those responsible for taking decisions at top level which one might possibly regret at a later stage. I do hope that we will hear no more, at this stage in regard to the build-up of Cuban troops in Angola.

You want to practise ostrich politics!

The hon member Dr Geldenhuys made several interesting points in his speech, but I just want to point out to him too with regard to the manner in which he extolled the virtues of the regional services councils that while one accepts them without qualification in the urban areas, I must again express—as I have done in the past—my total opposition to the extension of regional services councils into the agricultural sectors of the rural areas. I do so on the grounds that there is no justification for the agricultural sector to pay levies for services they do not receive. Where they do receive certain services, let them pay for them, but as a matter of principle there is no justification for levies being paid by any sector of the community that does not derive direct benefits therefrom.

The speeches that have been made during this debate makes one realise that many members in this Chamber do not appreciate the full extent and the seriousness of the pressures that are being applied against this country. We spend so much time listening to the political encounters between the NP and the CP, but when one looks at it from these benches one cannot get away from the fact that these encounters are avoiding the realities of the overall political situation in this country. Quite frankly, unless we address these problems in a more practical manner the external pressures as well as the internal pressures will continue to build up. We must realise that no one group will be able to decide on the ultimate political future of this country without bringing in and negotiating with other race groups, and unless we do that, any attempts that are being made now will come to nought.

It was interesting today to hear from the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament that the National Council Bill will be tabled in Parliament soon. One readily accepts this and one looks forward to it being debated here, but I want to say that if it is going to be successful, Mr Chairman, there will have to have a total involvement not only of all the sectors of the tricameral Parliament but also of the Black communities themselves.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, before proceedings were suspended I was making a few comments in regard to the proposed National Council Bill, and the need, as I see it, for Black people to participate.

It is in this context that I wish publicly to appeal in this House to the Chief Minister of KwaZulu—I appeal to him as a Natalian—to give favourable consideration to participating in the National Council in spite of his misgivings and of any possible deficiencies inherent in the legislation. I would appeal to him in the light of the National Council’s potential to form the base from which Black participation in the parliamentary structure can be broadened. I am satisfied that this is a genuine attempt on the part of the Government to bring Blacks into the decision-making process of Parliament.

The question of internal and external pressures is a matter, I believe, of which we tend to lose sight. One cannot lightly sweep aside the internal pressures that have manifested themselves in recent months, and while one condemns these actions out of hand one must also take note of the signals that accompany them. As I have said earlier, it is absolutely essential that we harness the goodwill, and there is an enormous amount of goodwill, between the Blacks and the Whites and the other race groups. We must not look to the state of emergency to solve political problems.

The hon member for Sea Point referred earlier to external pressures. I also want to associate myself with some of his remarks. We must not underestimate here as well the antagonism and the hatred that have been generated against this country. I wonder if we really have a true appreciation of the significance of last week’s Wembley performance and of the BBC’s recent activities. I was somewhat shocked to receive a telephone call from overseas indicating absolute disgust at the manner in which these events had been broadcast over radio and television in Great Britain.

It goes to show though that those who support us outside this country are extremely perturbed that they can no longer continue to stand up and be counted when events relative to this country come to the fore. I do submit that it is absolutely imperative that we maintain the open channels of communication with the outside world. I would appeal too that we must not let our politicians and Cabinet Ministers underrate the effect that external pressures are having on this country’s economy.

On the other hand I wish once again to refer to what I can only term the irresponsible antics of Archbishop Tutu. [Interjections.] I find them absolutely abhorrent, and his recent outbursts in Moscow and the United States are to be deprecated in the strongest terms. I would warn this gentleman that he is treading very close to the line of hypocrisy. [Interjections.] I would ask him again as an Anglican what he hopes to achieve. Is it his intention to destroy the economy of this country for the purpose of creating unmanageable unemployment and chaos? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mooi River will excuse me if I do not react to him fully. I just want to refer to one aspect which he raised at the end of his speech, namely that we should not rely on the state of emergency to solve South Africa’s political problems. I think that hon member has a slight misconception in regard to the state of emergency. The point is that the state of emergency has not been established to solve political problems, but to enable the people of South Africa to have peaceful negotiations and dialogue with one another about the political future of South Africa. It would be irresponsible of any government worthy of the name to do away with those circumstances in which dialogue and negotiations in South Africa can take place, and by so doing terminate the dialogue.

As far as the hon members of the Official Opposition are concerned, I find it very interesting that the hon member for Lichtenburg, who is not present here at the moment, said in his speech that they would establish local authorities in the Black urban areas of White South Africa, as they refer to it, which could then integrate with the national states of the Black states, and that those governments would, under the supervision of the South African Government, then be able to furnish certain services in those urban areas.

We have heard so many statements in this House on the part of the Official Opposition about the application and levying of taxes and so forth, that this afternoon I should like someone to make it very clear to me—I see the hon member for Barberton is here—how the tax revenue from those Black residential areas is going to be applied. How are they going to divide it in order to enable the national states to discharge their obligations in these residential areas and vice versa? How are they going to apply the tax revenue to make what they advocate practicable? [Interjections.]

I then come to the hon member for Soutpansberg, whom I honestly think made one of the most irresponsible speeches in this House in view of the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself on the borders of South West Africa. [Interjections.] I believe the time has arrived for that party to ask itself whether it has become so subservient to its foolish chase after political power in South Africa, which it will not achieve in any event, that it does not care to what extent it harms South Africa’s image in the outside world, and harms South Africa’s security services in respect of the people in this country. [Interjections.]

This afternoon I want to make it very clear that it is this Government’s responsibility to ensure that the best solution is found to the problems in South West Africa and Angola. It is also the point of departure of this Government that if it is not necessary to sacrifice our son’s lives in securing that solution, we should inevitably follow the path that will protect our son’s lives. [Interjections.]

The third leg of my argument is that it is also a fact that South Africa will not allow itself to be blackmailed, as that party has on occasion implied in its mouthpiece the Patriot. Nor will we allow ourselves to be placed in a position by the CP in which we will take irresponsible decisions with regard to South Africa’s interests. [Interjections.]

During the past few weeks one has listened to very interesting debates in this House. I am certain in my mind that this Government is in good hands and that this country is in the hands of people who act in a very balanced way and look after the interests of South Africa.

The second impression is that South Africa’s prosperity rests on three pillars, namely development, security and communications. It should not be difficult for even the most acrimonious political opponent of this Government to defend the necessity of development in many areas—constitutional, social and economical—in the national economy. It is not a new principle that we are building into our constitution. It is in fact a principle which had already been strongly established in Dr Verwoerd’s era when he moved away from the concept of apartheid and spoke about separate development.

Separate development in South Africa has gained so much momentum that inevitably new priorities have come into existence in the national economy. The more advanced community that we have to deal with today has different expectations and different needs to those of the communities of three decades ago. Those needs must be dealt with, and those expectations must be satisfied in a meaningful way. In order to do that, it would be necessary to pay attention to the second pillar of the national economy and to maintain it by ensuring stability in South Africa. Stability cannot exist if the social order is threatened. Not only do the security services protect lives and properties, but they also offer a very important contribution to the maintenance of faith in the ability of the RSA to remain intact in the face of the onslaught of communist-inspired aggressors who want to overthrow the order in this country by force.

The security services also have a second very important contribution to make, namely to inspire the people of the RSA through their actions to participate in security activities in our country. This afternoon I want to make it very clear to our right-wing friends that if the day should arrive when we are tempted to partition the security situation in South Africa among Blacks and Whites, we would be destroying stability, order and peace in this country. I want to make an earnest appeal to those hon members this afternoon: When we talk about the SA Defence Force and the SA Police, we must not try to partition the security forces of South Africa in the process. We will not be doing South Africa or the Forces a favour. The only thing we would achieve by doing so would be to play into the hands of those people who would like to see disunity in South Africa’s security services.

Not one of us can be secure as long as race or colour are linked to security. Not one of us can be secure if the motives of the security forces are constantly being questioned, as the hon members of the PFP have a habit of doing.

The third pillar on which the prosperity of South Africa rests, is communications. I want to dwell on this point for a moment. With a view to the future I want to break a lance for the Bureau for Information on this occasion. Taking into consideration the financial and economic situation of South Africa, and the tremendous pressure being brought to bear on available capital by legitimate claims, I want to make an appeal this afternoon that more means should be made available to the Bureau for Information to enable them to perform their extensive task. Just as South Africa must take note of the dangers which the stockpiling of arms on our borders constitute for the Republic and take positive action, we also cannot ignore the danger malicious propaganda constitutes for the prosperity of the Republic.

The present budget of R31,626 million is not sufficient to counteract this danger. Because of its multicultural composition South Africa has greater communications problems than most other countries in the world. The result is that many positive aspects of the positive and constructive dialogue which takes place in the community about the development of South Africa go to waste because we do not succeed in addressing the population in the idiom they understand. The result is the creation of a communications vacuum, which is being exploited very effectively by malicious individuals and organisations.

Just as every government has a responsibility to ensure that the physical safety of its citizens is maintained, it also has a responsibility to ensure that good relations are not eroded by false propaganda. We cannot simply leave this task in the hands of the conventional Press and sympathetic journalists. The hostile organisations receive financial aid to such an extent that it should really not be expected of the conventional Press to attempt to wage the struggle alone.

If the question were to be put to me whether it would be fair for the State to become involved to a greater extent in communication activities, which are striving to normalise relations in South Africa, my reply would be in the affirmative, because the State has a duty to keep its citizens informed of its intentions and objectives.

When an Act has been passed in this Parliament, it is not an Act of a political party. It is then an Act of the Government or the State of South Africa, and then the State is entitled to inform its citizens about the contents and scope of that Act. If the CP and the PFP want to complain about that, they can go ahead and do so. This afternoon I want to tell them that those parties make no small contribution to the stirring up of emotions which constitute a danger to South Africa’s security and stability.

This Government has, by a mandate of the voters, been committed to safeguarding South Africa. For as long as the opposition, from a propaganda point of view, sides with those who directly, or because of their political philosophies, want to bring South Africa to its knees, the Government will be forced to take steps to counteract those activities. I want to thank the Government this afternoon, on behalf of the majority of voters whom I represent, for every step they take to normalise our society.

We believe in the orderly freedom which has been built on the protection of group rights. I believe that every person should have the same opportunities to improve their living conditions. At the same time I believe that we in South Africa can definitely not afford to develop a parasitical mentality (voëlent-mentaliteit). We shall have to work for whatever we want to achieve. We shall have to work for the normal and improved economic, social and constitutional conditions that we should all like to see, and will have to understand each other. We should free our people from the chains of suspicion, intolerance and fear that bind them.

As Government it is our task to spell out objectives for South Africa. Those objectives are not only on one level. That is why I want to ask that we constantly keep a watchful eye on them in order to achieve the utmost efficiency.

I make an appeal for a vital South Africa, which can flourish on the total ability of all its people. I make an appeal for a South Africa that is free of its yoke of hatred and suspicion, because I believe that in a spirit of freedom—responsible freedom—we can lead and maintain this country as a regional power at the same peak at which it is at present, in spite of the attempts of the Official Opposition to destroy it. We shall then be able to play our legitimate role in the world with greater effectiveness.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to rise after the hon member for Durbanville. I want to thank him for the good, balanced speech which he made here this afternoon. Once more this is proof of the quality and balance which hon members on this side of the House exhibit. They are able to put their case responsibly. I do not wish to go into this any further but I shall deal with some points in my speech.

†I would also like to thank the hon member for Mooi River for his comments on the speech of the hon member for Soutpansberg. I agree with him that the hon member for Soutpansberg was dealing with the security of our country in a very irresponsible manner.

*I have received an apology to explain the hon member for Soutpansberg’s departure. I am sorry that he cannot be here because I should have liked to exchange a few ideas with the hon member. Hon members of his party could convey them to him. What struck me was the measure of anxiety and dismay among the Official Opposition while the hon member for Soutpansberg was speaking here this morning. Their knees were knocking literally and figuratively. Their unconcealed fear and panic because of movements of hostile troops in Southern Angola were very obvious.

We observed this in sharp contrast to the calmness and positive spirit of the NP members’ wives who have recently returned from that area. I note no fear or panic among them; on the contrary, they have returned with an image of calmness and confidence. They have returned with faith in our security forces. This provides a glaring contrast with the uproar we have heard from the Official Opposition.

In my reply to the hon member for Soutpansberg I want to start where I left off in the discussion of the Defence Vote. I stated that the CP, in terms of its defence policy, could not be trusted with the security of South Africa and its people.

Hear, hear!

This again emerged clearly in the hon member for Soutpansberg’s speech this morning. He dealt recklessly with the security of our country in his speech. The hon member’s speech was a flagrant motion of no confidence in the preparedness and capability of the SA Defence Force.

It was disgraceful!

The hon member for Soutpansberg suggested in an inept way that we had not learned the lessons of 1976 and that we were sitting very cosily with Swapo about the negotiating table. The hon member knows as well as I do that Swapo at no stage participated in the negotiations which have taken place so far.

The hon member further alleged that we were not attuned to Russian strategy and that the hon the Minister of Defence and the hon the State President had taken clumsy political decisions in the Cabinet. Does the hon member realise in what an insensitive way he has dealt with the serious security matters of our country in public here? Surely this supports my statement that we cannot trust them with the security of our country.

What are the facts? The public and hon members of the CP were properly and thoroughly informed on the movements of hostile troops as well as the adventures of the Cubans in Angola. The movements of these troops were monitored every step of the way. The Government and the SA Defence Force are fully aware of what is happening there.

In this regard I want to confirm what the Chief of the SA Defence Force said, namely that there was no cause for panic. Has there ever been cause for panic as a result of what is occurring on our borders? Where is the panic coming from now? We are prepared for any eventuality. I shall not be so reckless as the hon member for Soutpansberg was here today, however, by spelling out everything in which we are involved so that the man in the street and even the enemy would know our exact intentions. [Interjections.]

Concerning the so-called political decision to which the hon member referred, I want to assure him that the Government—unlike the Official Opposition—acts responsibly as regards the interests of South Africa, South West Africa and the subcontinent. We have a responsibility because we have to negotiate and bring about peace and stability in Southern Africa. This morning the hon member Dr Geldenhuys—I thank him for his speech—referred to the 80%:20% solution. Hon members know this so why do they make such a fuss?

I now want to tell hon members why South Africa has not yet acted against the Cubans. I want to ask the hon member for Soutpansberg today—because he insinuated this—whether he wishes to become involved in a large-scale conventional war with the Cubans in Angola today. Does he want to do this? Does he want to become involved in a war on foreign soil with Cubans?

The hon member referred to the operations codenamed Reindeer and Askari. He knows as well as I, however, that those operations were conducted against Swapo terrorists and not against Cubans.

Today South Africa is careful not to be caught with its pants down in consultations and discussions which take place. We on this side of the House have the fullest confidence in the hon the Ministers of Defence and of Foreign Affairs and those who assist them and believe that they will serve the interests of South Africa and of Southern Africa to the full in any discussions with anybody, wherever they may take place, and those hon members need not worry about that; we shall make ourselves heard there. [Interjections.]

The standpoint of South Africa has been stated clearly and repeatedly. It does not adopt an aggressive and provocative attitude. South Africa seeks peace; we do not seek conflict. The need in our subcontinent is for political settlements rather than for escalating conflict. It must have been very clear to the hon member for Soutpansberg that sensitive negotiations were in progress. [Interjections.] The people of Angola should not be subjected to greater misery than is the case at present. This is a tragedy which is taking place in Southern Africa. The withdrawal of the Cubans is specifically the most important and the first item on the agenda of all talks which are taking place. We are not insensitive to this and we shall know what to do about it.

Our own position is as follows. The SA Defence Force serves the security interests of South Africa at all levels. The SA Defence Force is a State instrument and this Defence Force has a history of preparedness. This is the case again now. We are prepared for any eventuality. Our men have had the training and have the equipment but above all—I think this is most important of all—also the will which makes it possible to entrust our security interests on the border to them.

The hon member said this morning that we had lost prestige in Africa after 1976. Africa and the entire world know that our soldiers are loyal and their equipment formidable in serving South Africa and its interests. We should be grateful for the skilled way in which our soldiers have acted. We should not be discouraged as hon members of the CP are at present. They are in the process of causing a psychosis of despondency and panic to develop among our people outside.

The SA Defence Force is prepared for Fidel Castro’s possible escapades but we are serious about peace and stability and that is why we are not the aggressor.

I find it extremely reprehensible that the hon member for Soutpansberg dragged in the name of Major Wynand du Toit here this morning in a totally irrelevant way. I do not wish to take that argument any further but I do want to tell the hon member that Major Du Toit is an honourable officer of the SA Defence Force. I find it reprehensible that hon members on the other side of the House had to drag in his name too for the sake of making a little political capital out of somebody.

Shame! Shame!

I think it is a shame, Sir. [Interjections.] Those hon members are playing with the integrity of an honourable soldier who at another time and in another place served South Africa splendidly and continues to do so. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to permit hon members to shout at one another across the floor. Hon members are to refrain from this. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Sir, my appeal to all hon members of this House, including hon members of the Official Opposition, is to remain calm in the current circumstances. There is no cause for panic as we observed among hon members of the Official Opposition this morning. There is sufficient confidence in our Defence Force and security forces—the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order spelt this out here this morning—to be able to handle every conflict and threat. I want to add that matters can escalate in future, nevertheless I wish to request hon members to be considerate and assist in not inflaming people unnecessarily in connection with security action for the sake of short-term politicking. I really hope my appeal will not pass unheeded.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence will forgive me if I do not follow him in debating points against the hon member for Soutpansberg. I want instead to focus attention once again on the need for negotiation in South Africa, and in particular the need to create the right climate for negotiation in this country.

The reimposition of the state of emergency last week in even harsher terms has come as a stark reminder to people in South Africa of the deep divisions which still exist, and which manifest themselves in a grim situation of tension and unrest throughout the country. We in Natal in particular, despite partial news black-outs and various impediments placed by the Government on the public’s right to know, know that there is still widespread unrest, murders and all the elements of insecurity, dissatisfaction and unrest which threaten to tear this country apart. Against this scenario, all responsible South Africans should realize that the need to negotiate is an urgent one indeed and, as I say, the need to create the right climate for these negotiations is of vital importance to us at this time. We talk of negotiation, but it is important for us to realize that negotiation must at no time be prescriptive. To go to a negotiation table with a prescriptive attitude is quite clearly an exercise in futility. Unfortunately, the Government’s track record in this regard is very bad indeed. All previous attempts which this Government has made at negotiation have in fact been prescriptive and their attitude one of Nat policy straight down the line—take it, or leave it, that or nothing. That has been the attitude of the Government till now.

We are concerned to ask at this point in time, particularly as we hear that very soon we are going to be discussing further legislation relating to negotiation in this country, whether there is a change of heart on the part of the Government in its efforts to sponsor further attempts at negotiation. Is there perhaps going to be a different mood? I must confess that I have grave doubts in this regard, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.

Certainly our experience in Natal does not encourage optimism, and the current attitude of the Nat MPs from the Province of Natal indicate little change from the old prescriptive attitudes of the past. I refer particularly to Natal, because the most recent attempt at achieving a negotiated settlement, albeit on a regional basis, took place in Natal in the form of the Natal Indaba and the proposals which flowed from that indaba.

I must say that the summary rejection of those proposals by the hon the Leader of the NP in Natal within 48 hours after the proposals had been made public was bad enough. The fact that there has still been no official response to the proposals on the part of the central Government, although there has been a response from the KwaZulu government and the provincial administration, has not helped either towards creating a climate for negotiation in that province.

However, I believe the most destructive aspect in relation to the Natal Indaba has been the concerted and continuing attempts by Natal Nationalist MPs to denigrate the indaba, those who participated in it and those who sponsored it. This attitude is emphasised weekly in this House right up to the present time when these same members on the Government benches from the Province of Natal are blatantly advocating a policy of prescriptiveness in regard to reform as evidenced by their attitude to the indaba and those who participated in it. In their view the indaba cannot be acceptable, because the proposals do not fall within the prescription of NP policy. That has been their attitude from the start. [Interjections.]

No better example of this can be found than the speech made two weeks ago in this House by the hon member for Umhlatuzana, in which he gave fulsome praise to the creed of separate development and racial grouping and attacked those, including Inkatha, who do not subscribe to this creed. Instead of subscribing to this creed, these are the people who subscribe to a democratic non-racial South Africa. The theme followed by that hon member on that occasion merely echoed the theme followed in previous debates by other Natal Nationalist members of Parliament and was not dissimilar to the theme of the original rejection of the indaba proposals by the hon the Leader of the NP in Natal.

Therefore, when one thinks in terms of a negotiated settlement of South Africa’s problems one must again ask what the Government is going to do about the climate for negotiation. One must ask in particular what the Government is going to do about what is probably the most “verkrampte” element of its caucus, namely the Natal NP members of Parliament. [Interjections.] It is these people who are obsessed with compartmentalised group thinking. If we go into negotiations on that basis there is no hope of those negotiations succeeding.

In his speech two weeks ago, the hon member for Umhlatuzana dealt with the whole attitude of Inkatha. I quote from his speech:

He went on to say:

He is very keen on giving warnings on every occasion. [Interjections.]

He continues, and I quote:

He says, and I quote:

He then went on to quote from the official Inkatha policy. He used this quotation of one of the aspects referred to in the policy, and I quote:

He took this as meaning that there could be no meeting-point whatsoever between the NP and Inkatha in Natal. He went on to suggest that the Chief Minister of KwaZulu, Chief Minister Buthelezi, should look at the situation and should realise that unless he subscribed to a situation which recognised group thinking and moved away from looking towards a democratic, non-racial South Africa, there could be no meeting between the two organisations. He says, and I quote:

It is interesting to note what sort of barometer this approach by the NP in its alleged quest for negotiated settlement provides. I quote from an extract of a response by Chief Minister Buthelezi to the speech made by the hon member:

He continues:

Quite clearly, when one looks at this example, one realises that comments like those of the hon member for Umhlatuzana have already had the effect of fouling the climate of negotiation, even among moderate Black groups in South Africa. What he has succeeded in doing, is to alienate even those who have been in the forefront of taking initiatives to provide a negotiated and peaceful settlement for South Africa. His attitude, which reflects the attitude of his party in Natal, is arrogant and provocative and it is highly damaging to the climate of negotiation in South Africa. I want to say that he and his ilk show themselves to be no more than a precious little tribe, so much in the minority, but having the impertinence to believe that they can prescribe to others and rule the roost over the majority in South Africa. He has another think coming if he believes he can continue to do that.

What do you believe?

I believe it is an attitude which I find totally repugnant, which the majority of people in South Africa find totally repugnant and I believe that if the Government is sincere in its attempt to negotiate, it must reject this sort of attitude on the part of its members.

Order! May I remind hon members that in terms of Rule 89 of the Standing Rules only those members whose names appear on the list handed to the Chair may participate in the debate.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to say a few words about what the hon member for Berea had to say. I do want to point out to the hon member that we know we have problems with negotiations, but we are negotiating instead of throwing in the towel. I think there is a very clear distinction.

Another matter that is very clear—and the hon member will grant me this—is that the most important element for a suitable climate for negotiation is peace and calm in a community. As long as people are being intimidated by an activist group there is no possibility of creating a favourable climate for negotiation.

It is strange to hear this hon member say that the NP always prescribes what must be negotiated, while their friends sitting alongside them over there say that the NP does not prescribe, that the NP, in fact, does not have a policy. Here we have our opposition camps contradicting each other on the same subject. The one lot say we prescribe and the other lot say we have no plan. Those two aspects are quite irreconcilable.

No principles!

Yes, those confused viewpoints are indicative of a lack of principles.

In our own newspapers today we even find the accusation that our party is not purposefully set on a course and that we are not really engaged in reform. If we look at the speech of the hon the State President during the discussion of his Vote, I think it will be seen that this allegation is simply not true. This allegation is founded on the CP’s determined efforts to whip up emotions against us by dwelling on the worst side of human nature. They play on the voters’ fears, conceit and selfishness, on everything which is bad in human nature, and having done that, they say the NP is inconsistent. But we find the greatest inconsistency of all when the CP talks about partition. Then one listens to inconsistencies such as we have never heard before, and I should like to illustrate this.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, in his own inimitable way, propounded two directly conflicting viewpoints. I should like to say more about this. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition devoted the whole of the first part of his speech in the no-confidence debate to boasting of how they were gaining support amongst the blue-collar workers. He said the reason why they were gaining ground was because they protected the blue-collar worker’s rights and his job. Against whom are they protecting him? Against what are they protecting him? From the context it is, after all, quite clear that they say they are protecting the blue-collar worker’s job by not allowing persons of colour to do it. How does one protect that other than through job reservation?

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also said in the same speech that they did not advocate White supremacy. If one unilaterally protects the jobs of one’s own community against infiltration by other groups, can one say one does not advocate White supremacy?

The protection of Whites is surely …

Order! I do not see the name of the hon member for Bethal on the list of speakers. The hon member for Heilbron may proceed.

Since the hon member for Bethal has raised this aspect, I should like to know where the Official Opposition stands on the subject of job reservation. Why do they not talk about it? Why do they not tell the voters explicitly that they are in favour of job reservation or that they are not in favour of it? The reason they shy away from it is very clearly because they know that they will have to tell the truth one way or the other, and then the voters will catch them out. They dare not tell that truth, because they are too busy trying to canvass for votes in an unfair way by shying away from being specific. [Interjections.]

In another speech by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition he said again that they would give the Black man the right to become independent. However, if he wanted to remain a part of South Africa and did not want to take independence, they would tell him that he would have no constitutional rights within South Africa. The question that arises here, and which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will have to answer, is a twofold one. In the first place, how does he reconcile this principle with his standpoint on no White supremacy? Why does he not say then that his is a policy of White supremacy? Then we would all know what we are talking about. What is he afraid of?

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is a very clever man for whom I have very great respect. He is a man who makes a study of his subjects and who has already made highly technical speeches here on constitutional development and constitutional models. I ask him in which of those models he has mentioned here do we find that after partition the people on the same side of that dividing line do not all have the franchise in that area? But he says that they will tell the Blacks that they can have their freedom, but that in South Africa the CP remains the boss. That means only the Whites will have the franchise there.

How does one reconcile that with a policy of no White supremacy? No matter how sorry I may feel about having to say this, it nevertheless remains a distortion of the truth and he is deviating from his own political models.

I also want to remind the House of how vociferous those hon members are when we say that their partition policy means that the Blacks must be removed completely from so-called White South Africa. I should like to draw their attention to an information document they used last year during the election. It is an oblong pamphlet for which I am most grateful to them. In the pamphlet they ask what the partition policy means, and give the following reply:

“Separated from others” can only mean that all the others will have to go. What else can it mean? However, if we ask them today if that is their standpoint, they say we must not be ridiculous. How does one reconcile these standpoints? Then they say that we are inconsistent! Is theirs not inconsistency of the highest order? I am sure that if one distributed 22 pieces of paper amongst the hon members of the CP and asked them each to write down a definition of partition without consulting one another, one would get 23 different definitions back from them. [Interjections.] One hon member would even have two opinions about it!

A further example of those hon members’ inconsistency is that in the same debate they do not even all hold the same point of view. I refer to the debate on the amending Bill on minerals few evenings ago when the hon member for Bethal delivered a deafening tirade on the infringement of farmers’ rights by the main-frame stoping method in coal-mining. He had an awful lot to say and made such an impression on me that I thought I had read the Bill incorrectly.

After the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology had talked to them across the floor of the House for about an hour, the hon member said they were not opposed to the Bill, but they did not want it passed at this stage. What sort of inconsistency is that? How can one come to terms with oneself? How can one live with oneself? One must either have a standpoint or apologise and admit one’s ignorance. One cannot first argue against legislation and then say one does not want it passed!

Please go and read my speech!

If we could manage to show the voters exactly how confused that party is, they would never get another seat in this House.

Mr Chairman, it is a very pleasant privilege to follow the hon member for Heilbron. I had the privilege of serving with him on the Joint Committee on Finance and I can assure hon members that no measure which could possibly affect farmers comes before this committee without receiving the very careful attention of the hon member for Heilbron. If I were a farmer in his constituency, I would rest assured that my interests were being protected in a very thorough way by my MP. [Interjections.]

One of the unpleasant realities of this House is the reality that we on this side of the House have to enter into discussion and debate with an Official Opposition like the CP. The reason why I am saying that it is unpleasant is that I think the younger generation in particular out there expect it of us as politicians to work at the expectations of creating a great new future in South Africa.

They expect a peaceful future in which all people’s expectations can be fulfilled. They do not expect us to concern ourselves with a debate on how to go back into the past, on how to polarise South Africa further and on how to incite feelings of hatred.

We as politicians have a responsibility to speak with an eye to the future and not to conduct discussions such as those of the Official Opposition, who give young people no hope for the future but merely indicate how to go back into the past. Even if this is an unpleasant reality, we are up to it because it is our duty to unmask the Official Opposition for what its members really are and to bring them to book.

Unfortunately it is difficult always to establish in this House what the Official Opposition’s real standpoints are because they definitely present an image here which cannot be reconciled with the gossip and the pamphlets and the rumours which they disseminate among the public outside. That is why we frequently have to examine that gossip and those pamphlets to establish what the Official Opposition is doing. One example of this is what the Official Opposition would really like to see happen in the sphere of organised trade and industry and specifically in the Afrikaans community and the AHI. Although the CP loudly proclaims that it is in no way involved in the possibility of a split, it is a fact that advertisements of every possible right-wing business circle which is to be established are published in the official mouthpiece of the CP, the Patriot, and as the official mouthpiece the Patriot gives its blessing to right-wing people who are involved in these actions. I shall quote from the Patriot of 10 June 1988. In the main editorial column on page 6, under the headline “Weer skeuring”, this aspect is discussed and the following is said inter alia with reference to what they foresee will happen:

In view of what is said here, and what it implies, I should like to examine the conceit and the arrogance which may be deduced from what the CP is dishing up to us in this statement.

The first piece of conceited arrogance which we may deduce from this is the CP approach that only it is right. The standpoint of nobody else in South Africa has any merit; only the CP is right. In this way its members also tell us that, regardless of what an organisation may decide and regardless of the majority standpoint, it is that 4% or 5% which breaks away and splits—we should always remember this—which is right. What an arrogant standpoint always to believe that, regardless of the majority standpoints of one’s own people, it is the CP which is right. In nearly every organisation in which there has been a split, or in which CP members have broken away, it has been a small minority which one could almost overlook which has broken away, but the CP says we have to remember that it is those people who are right …

That is like the APK!

… and that the split occurred as a result of left-wing infiltrators.

It is important for us to tell one another that the CP is insulting the intelligence of our own people when it says this. The CP is telling us that 98% of Afrikaners who did not want a split and wished to remain in an organisation and continue in it are the ones who are wrong and stupid—only the 2% or 3% who break away are right.

A second piece of conceited arrogance which may be deduced from this CP statement is its interpretation of history. Probably the most splendid aspect of the Afrikaner’s history is the fact that he resisted imperialism and the splendour of which we may be proud in our history is that the Afrikaner frequently said that we were not prepared to accept foreign domination. We were not willing to be part of imperialism. We wanted to break away from imperialism in search of an own independence and an own identity. That is the noble aspect of our history. The aspect about which we may hang our heads and of which we may be less proud takes the form of occasions when Afrikaner rose against Afrikaner. This is not something of which we may be proud and this is something which one should not repeat.

Like Driesie’s vision!

Now the CP comes with its actions which have nothing to do with breaking away from imperialism or with acquiring an own independence but are concerned only with Afrikaner against Afrikaner, fraternal quarrels and polarisation, and now they want to elevate this …

Driesie’s vision!

… and also to say that breaking away from the AHI for instance is something as fine and splendid as the Great Trek. This is overweening arrogance which we must reject. [Interjections.]

Another aspect of arrogance which we my deduce from the CP is their members’ approach that they can manage on their own in South Africa; it is an approach of “we’ll go it alone”. If they are not satisfied with the voice of the majority in the economic sphere or with what the majority of Afrikaners say in the cultural or political sphere, they want to go their own way and go it alone in South Africa.

We owe it to the people of South Africa to say that no group in South Africa can hew out a future for itself on its own in this country. Every single group in South Africa, including the Afrikaner, is dependent upon the contributions of all other groups to ensure that South Africa can be preserved.

Another conceited and arrogant aspect of the CP is to be deduced from its approach that it is a party for the Afrikaner and also for those English-speaking people who are prepared to associate with it. [Interjections.] I want to say that this is an arrogant, conceited and insulting approach to the English-speaking people of South Africa. Anyone who still wishes to read Shakespeare and listen to his plays, who has eggs and bacon for breakfast, who listens to bagpipe music, who drinks gin and tonic or enjoys cucumber sandwiches is irrelevant to the CP. No, this person has to disintegrate entirely, abandon his own identity and associate with the Afrikaner in order to be of importance to them. [Interjections.]

I think it is important too that we as Afrikaners should say that we have an enormous appreciation for the way in which the English-speaking people in South Africa have enriched and given us more depth and finish in many respects in which we could grow through our contact with them.

The last aspect that I want to mention is the CP arrogance of speaking about splits in all organisations. I do not like the word “split”. Neither do I like the word “splintering”. I think the apt word to which we should refer is “purifying” because what has taken place every time those people have left us has been a purifying process. [Interjections.] It has placed us in a position to be better, more polished and purer and to be able to enter a future in which there is hope for all in this country and not only for a chosen group which places itself on a pedestal.

Mr Chairman, I just want to tell that hon member that the fact that one expounds a certain programme of principles and wishes to sell it to the voters, is a right which one has as a political party in this country, and we grant the hon member that same right which we claim for ourselves. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I should just like to remind him that it has very often been the small groups in South African politics which have broken away, splintered off or, if he prefers to put it this way, purified themselves, that have ultimately come to enjoy the support of the majority. [Interjections.] I might just remind hon members about Gen Hertzog in 1912 and 1914, and Dr Malan in 1933. That is a pattern of history which has repeated itself in South Africa. [Interjections.] Do hon members know why? It happens because those people who have ostensibly broken away, have remained true to the established traditional policy of the Republic of South Africa, namely the policy of separate freedoms, which Gen Smuts once again gave expression to in his well-known speech in 1917 and which has formed the basis of South Africa for 300 years. Everyone comes back to that policy, unless they wish to proceed with integration and become integrationists.

I just want to come back to the hon the Deputy Minister. First of all we want to tell him that we have the fullest confidence in the SA Defence Force. The Official Opposition is simply saying that it does not have any confidence in the hon the Minister of Defence and the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence. [Interjections.] We should like them—I am pleased that the hon the State President is here—to take their cue from what he did when he was Minister of Defence. It was due to his will and dedication that the people of South Africa threw their weight behind the Defence Force. He was eminently successful in doing that. [Interjections.]

In these sensitive times, and in the situation in which we find ourselves at present, we expect of the political heads of this country to at least try to take all the people along with them. We in this party represent and articulate the feelings of a significant percentage of the people, and the hon the Deputy Minister ought not to make the sort of remarks that he made a few weeks ago, and again today.

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

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

Order! There are too many hon members who want to take part in the debate simultaneously. Only the hon member for Brakpan is meant to be speaking. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, we want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that we are completely calm. My party is not sowing panic. He must not tell us, however, that we may not do what his own SABC does at seven o’clock and eight o’clock every morning, when they tell us how many Cuban troops there are on the border. He must not tell us that we cannot say things in Parliament which appear in the newspapers, or is Parliament being pushed aside to such an extent that this morning’s news cannot be debated here? Is that the hon the Deputy Minister’s standpoint? [Interjections.]

Furthermore, the hon member for Soutpansberg said nothing more than that the Government knew that the Cubans were massing north of the border. Whilst the Government knew those things, it went to sit ever so shyly and humbly around the conference tables in London and Brazzaville. [Interjections.] My party says the Government should have said that the Cuban troops should first withdraw before it would go and sit around a conference table with them. [Interjections.] That is all!

The hon member spoke about Major Du Toit. I want to know who it was who dragged Major Du Toit into politics. Who used him at political meetings? [Interjections.] Would the hon the State President have allowed it when he was still Minister of Defence? Would he have allowed this person, who is so precious to us all, to be dragged onto political platforms? [Interjections.] Those hon members should simply examine their own consciences and go and speak to their own people about this. That is the sort of thing they are doing.

The hon member for Umlazi said, inter alia, that the plans of the CP would not work. It is strange that these very same plans have worked for the past 300 years. It is not the horse of separate freedoms that has become worn out. [Interjections.] It is its riders. The horse is still alive and kicking, but its riders have become paralysed and faint-hearted in the face of certain so-called realities. This has caused the horse to throw its rider. [Interjections.] It is strange that the NP has won one election after another and remained in power on the strength of this policy. One could, perhaps, understand it being possible to renounce that policy, but how one can then poke fun at that policy is beyond me. Fun is being poked at the linkage policy which the House debated so enthusiastically and which it embraced in 1981-82. It reminds me of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. They smite their breasts and say: ”We have renounced apartheid. I thank you that I am no longer like the tax collector in the CP. I have torn my robes. I have made my offerings. I have renounced the sin of apartheid, and I am no longer like those tax collectors in the CP”. [Interjections.] Or is it like the case of Tyll Eulenspiegel?—“ Die mense hou nie van my nie, maar ek maak daarna”. That is the situation in which they find themselves, Sir. [Interjections.]

It is being said that our plans will not work. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to allow the hon member for Brakpan to be shouted down.

The Government says our plans will not work. But what about its own plans? We are at present in the third year of a state of emergency. The rand is losing its value. The hon the Minister of Finance should also go overseas like us ordinary people and buy something there with a rand.

What were you doing overseas?

I was overseas during the last Easter weekend. [Interjections.] May I not go? Is the hon the Minister forbidding me to go, just as he forbade Fred du Plessis to criticise him? [Interjections.]

Compared to a year ago, the rand no longer has any value abroad in relation to the lira, the dollar, the German mark or the British pound. We heard that the other day on the news. The value of the rand is dropping steadily. [Interjections.] The new dispensation is down and out. The Government says its plans are working.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives swam his way out of the Cabinet. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates is provisionally no longer a member of the Cabinet, pending an investigation into certain alleged irregularities. McCann, who is submitting a R4,7 million plan to the Government, says that the credibility of the Government as an agent for change, is worthless.

That is what the Government is so proud of. That is the policy the Government is trying to sell to South Africa. Then they talk about our policy! Why must they make use of animated figures such as chameleons and owls to sell their policy to the people? Is that not a terrible indictment of the NP?

There is a cloud hanging over the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has had a number of his tail feathers plucked out, as has their hon Transvaal leader. He suffered a set-back during the 1987 election, and he suffered a further set-back during the by-elections this year. A journalist in an English newspaper said the following about this wonderful new policy of theirs:

That is the answer. How can the Government arrange things, by way of consensus and the absence of domination, so that one group will not dominate another? [Interjections.]

They talk about distortions and say that we are distorting the policy of the NP. Kindly allow me to mention that for every distorted argument they mention, we, in turn, can mention many other instances of distortion on their part, such as the example which the hon the Minister of National Education mentioned with reference to the speech my friend the hon member for Pietersburg made the other day. When he presented the 1961 manifesto of the NP and said that they had asked at that time for a White Parliament rather than a multi-coloured Parliament, the hon the Minister said it was a distortion of the policy because the opposition parties of the day had not ensured that there would be self-determination, that own affairs would be developed, and so on.

I now just want to read to hon members what Sir De Villiers Graaff said in 1961. He spoke about the three foundations of the UP, and I quote (Hansard: Assembly, 1961, col 7560):

1. (1) Readiness to share the fruits of Western civilization with those members of the nonWhite races who have already shown us that they are able to share with us responsibility for the future development of South Africa …
   Surely that is precisely the NP policy of today. [Interjections.]
2. (2) the maintenance of White leadership in the interest of all groups and (3) consultation on all possible occasions, with a measure of participation in the machinery of government for these non-White races.

That is precisely the policy of the NP. There it is; the policy of Sir De Villiers Graaff of 1961 is the policy of the NP in 1988. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is the same policy as the NP policy of 1988.

Then we come to Dr Steytler. The hon the leader of the House says that those parties did not have certain non-negotiables like the ones that exist now. That was a non-negotiable of Sir De Villiers Graaff. Furthermore, Dr Steytler said the following (Hansard: Assembly, 1961, col 4612):

To Dr Steytler, that was a non-negotiable matter of principle. The hon the Leader of the House, however, says that those parties did not have any non-negotiables.

In conclusion, I want to comment on the continual indictment against the CP that we are engaging in national socialism. There is not a party, a people or a country that has suffered as much as the NP, the Afrikaner people and South Africa, because we were doomed as a result of the events of 1939 and 1945. We were tarred with the brush of national socialism. Even now, the NP is still in the process of removing that tremendous burden from its shoulders. Tarring the NP with the brush of Nazism was not done in the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sundays River mentioned that the CP associated itself with national socialism. He said we were not doing South Africa a favour by fighting the NP. The CP is going to take over the reins of government one day.

Stop dreaming, man!

That will be the day!

We shall then have to shake off this millstone which the NP has placed around our necks. Up to now, the NP has not succeeded in shaking this burden off its shoulders. [Interjections.] If the PFP wish to wreck one of the NP’s measures, or if they want it to make waves abroad, all they need do is say it is a Nazi measure. Then the rest of the world will know that the Nazi government of South Africa is once again concerned with its idea of a Nazi police state. That is a burden which the NP has not been able to shake off to this very day.

However, the NP persists in doing it to the alternative government of this country. [Interjections.] The NP is doing precisely the same as Gen Smuts’ party did in 1947-48. He said the banks would run dry. He said one would hear the echoing footsteps of the unemployed in the streets. He said there would be chaos. Those were the stories the United Party spread about the NP in 1947. The NP is now doing precisely the same thing.

The CP will not allow the NP to get away with this sort of propaganda; it is a consequence of the panic with which they are now being overtaken. I want to tell the hon the Minister in his absence that he still remains the hon the Leader of the House. He still remains our favourite in the “State President stakes”, but he simply must remain calm. He must not panic.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan made one very big mistake and that was to think that the CP was the alternative government. No, Sir, the CP is only the alternative government until such time as Eugéne Terre’Blanche and the AWB take over the CP.

The NP did not lay the burden of national socialism on the shoulders of the CP. The CP did this itself when its members refused to distance themselves from the AWB. That is where the hon member’s comparison of the NP with the 1948 situation founders because Dr D F Malan had the inner strength and courage to distance himself openly from national socialism, which functioned under the banner of the Ossewabrandwag. We are still awaiting CP reaction.

Earlier today the hon member for Kuruman referred to a passage from Dalene Matthee’s Kringe in ’n Bos and said that “die bloubokkie se gal in sy kop sit”. It is very clear that he did this in reference to Opposition backbenchers. That bile is situated a lot further forward! So let us leave the bile where it is.

I should like to turn to the hon member for Green Point. Today, as always, he took the alternative media under his wing. I think I am summarising it correctly in saying that the hon member’s theme was that, according to him, the freedom of the Press had suffered in South Africa. He said that the emergency measures which were made applicable to the Press were aimed at the suppression of political standpoints in this country. He added that they were aimed at the suppression of facts. He said in addition that this was for the protection of the NP—not of the State. He made this statement without a single reference to the emergency measures.

This side of the House has repeatedly expressed favourable opinions on the freedom of the Press and said that such freedom is part of the Western way of life. It is one of the cornerstones of Western values. Nevertheless I told the hon member for Green Point on a previous occasion that every right had its limits. Surely only Adam had unlimited rights and that was only until Eve appeared on the scene. [Interjections.] The values from which freedom of speech and the freedom of the Press derive their essence and origin are specifically those values which are being attacked and destroyed by the very media which this hon member is protecting.

If we look at the regulations on the media, we find that there are basically three aspects which are dealt with. The issue involved is that emergency measures on the media are aimed at countering the promotion of revolution in this country. Steps may be taken if there is a systematic and continuous publication of material which has the following objectives: ”… (which) promote revolution or uprisings”; “promote unrest”; “promote the breaking down of public order”; “stir up hatred and hostility”. The issue is furthermore that the regulations are aimed at preventing the destruction of democracy and promoting the survival and further development and broadening of democracy in this country. Measures are also provided in respect of people who, by means of continuous publication, wish to impede elections and counter free participation in elections.

The regulations also deal with the destruction of a free economy.

Without differentiating between a registered political party and anybody else!

I want it placed on record that the hon member has a great deal to say, but in a moment I want a straight “yes” or “no” to a question. He was afraid to do so last time. He must remember that he is in a talkative mood now.

The regulations deal with the destruction of a free economy; they deal with people who propagate boycotts, unlawful strikes and stayaway campaigns. Now we get to the question of what prompts people to do this. The hon member is aware of this. We refer again to what the editor of South, one of the publications against which steps have been taken, himself admitted in an interview with The Sunday Tribune—

He continues—

I say today that the political objectives he is striving for include the promotion of the ANC. He says—

Therefore it is only the law which opposes public promotion of ANC objectives.

On a further occasion the hon member for Green Point shied away from replying to a relevant question. [Interjections.] If he does not want to answer it, his fellow party members must do so. It is a very simple question. I presented what the media were actually being prohibited from doing by these emergency regulations.

That is a false story. You are not representing the actual situation!

I now wish to quote from my speech of 19 May in the Budget Debate. A very simple question was put on their policy which he did not wish to answer. I shall quote as follows:

No!

I shall quote further:

The hon member then replied:

Here the hon member uses a full sentence after he had made five interjections earlier in the speech and also in the form of full sentences. Nevertheless we could not extract a simple “yes” or “no” from him.

I said “no”.

The hon member now says “no”, he has no objection to it.

Sir, I want to ask the hon member for Sundays River a question. I say “no”, I do not wish to be involved with such publications. I want to ask the hon member, however, what is preventing him and his Government, if such offences are being committed, from charging those people in a court and finding them guilty.

Sir, that is the next point I should like to make. That is the objection which the hon member raised. According to him these people could be charged in terms of the laws of the country. The hon member knows, however, that the role which these media play is that of cowards. They merely prepare the way and are involved in creating a climate in a subtle way. The hon member—-if I recall correctly—or a kindred spirit of his even accused the SABC of creating a climate. The hon member therefore knows what it is to create a climate. How does one charge a person who at one stage, in a while and then again later creates a climate in a subtle way? Surely the hon member knows that we would be wasting money on endless litigation until the end of time. The hon member should also know, or enquire, what the extent of evidence would have to be which would have to be submitted to a court to place those specific standpoints in the right perspective. This Government is not fighting shy of its responsibilities. This Government is in the best position to judge what the best community is which should be structured in South Africa in the interests of everyone in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, as I was sitting here, my mind went back to an occasion when I was a very small child in a very distant place. One day I was walking home from school late in the afternoon when I came across what was apparently a demonstration but which ended in a complete brawl between a gang of Nazi’s who were walking down a street—I can quote hon members the name of the street, because I remember it to this day—and another gang of communists who were also in the street. I stood in a doorway until this whole battle was over and then went back home. I told my grandfather about this fight and wanted to know from him who was right and who was wrong. His answer was: “Neither, because we are not on either side. Neither is good for you”. I thought to myself today that I am in fact older now than my grandfather was then, but I actually have to give the same advice to my children. It is remarkable how this situation actually develops. When one listens to parts of the debate in this House, one can only say to oneself that one cannot be right if one is ultra-right and that one cannot be right if one is ultra-left. There is another way and that is the way we should follow.

I want to speak specifically—I did not intend telling that story—about disinvestment, because of the threatening Dellums legislation and also because of what is developing in the USA. We cannot ignore that fact. We are obviously against it and I think the whole House is against it. I also think the bulk of the people of South Africa, irrespective of race, colour or creed are against it. However, that may not be enough to stop people from passing that law if they want to pass it for their own particular purposes in order to achieve what they want to do.

I would like to recommend to the hon the Minister, if he has not yet seen it, a very good analysis prepared by a particular group of stockbrokers on the foreign holdings in South African mining shares in particular in order to look at the magnitude of the problem which one faces in relation to the disinvestment possibilities which exist in that regard. I do not have the time to quote it, but I recommend it to anyone. It is a good piece of work and it shows a true picture.

The question now arises what we should actually do about this situation. There are a number of things that I should like to suggest. Firstly, I think we should all appreciate that the next few months before the presidential election are going to be a very delicate time for us, because there are people sympathetically disposed towards voting against this Bill in the USA, but who would be stampeded into voting the wrong way if the wrong thing happened in South Africa. Therefore we must be very careful not to be provoked, because there are people who will want to provoke action, which will cause those people to vote the other way. When one knows somebody is going to provoke one, one should not fall for it. Perhaps I am the best person to give that advice in this House.

Secondly, I would like to make another suggestion. The resources which will be required if there were to be a massive disinvestment action, are very substantial, as these studies have shown. One of the things we can do, is to do what has been done in the USA and the UK, namely to change the law in respect of companies being able to buy their own shares. Many of the companies in which people want to disinvest their shares, have substantial cash resources and could buy their own shares. It would in the long term be beneficial to the shareholders of those companies, to the companies themselves and to the country as a whole. The shareholding numbers would decrease, the dividends to be distributed would increase and it would be a way out of the dilemma. I would like to appeal to the authorities to consider changing the law to enable this to be done not only to enable such shares to be absorbed in South Africa but also to enable the companies themselves to do so. I would like to commend this to the hon the Minister and his hon colleagues. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Yeoville for his positive contribution. I assume that the hon the Minister will answer him in due course.

As newcomers we have come to the end of our second parliamentary session. I think I speak on behalf of all of us when I say that we can look back on a period which has significantly enriched our experience. Through our experience here in Parliament, and through service to our voters, we have had the satisfaction of discovering that we can do something for our voters and achieve something positive on occasion. Money being the most important concern, we would like to thank the hon the Minister, because in the process we have also learned to appreciate those fine words “Thank you”. Because we have been able to do so, we can in all sincerity say “thank you” to the hon the Minister for what he is doing. I also thank him on behalf of my constituency, which was hit hard by the floods, for the allocation in the Additional Appropriation to assist our unfortunate farmers. On behalf of the Free State I also thank him for the additional allocation to enable us to restore our roads and make them fit to drive on after the heavy rains.

In the process one sometimes has to contend with dissatisfaction. I think the hon the Minister is probably confronted with this every day. I therefore apologise for the farmers who allowed a sense of dissatisfaction, which some hon members of the Official Opposition also display in their politics, to prevail. It does, however, strengthen us considerably. I assume that the hon the Minister has also had this experience.

After the disaster I wrote numerous letters of sympathy to farmers. In one such letter to one of my right-wing friends, a farmer, I said I was sorry about the dam that had broken and his fences which had washed away. My letter was returned to me without a “thank you”.

I received a letter in return without a single word of thanks. It said: “Where will I get labourers to repair my fences? You have allowed all the labourers to move to the towns where they do very little work and draw a lot of unemployment insurance.” Ironically enough, this was the same week that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition told his voters prior to the Randfontein by-election that the Afrikaners must now learn to do their own work.

That is another thing I have experienced during my time in Parliament, namely this dualism of the Official Opposition. I also want to tell hon members about the wonderful definition they have in my constituency for the abbreviation “KP”. They say it stands for “Kubus Party”, because the “KP” grew as quickly as the kubus culture and will dry up and disappear just as quickly as the sour milk on which it fed. The hon the Minister of Finance is rapidly drying up the sour milk in the ranks of the CP.

I have also had other experiences during the past year. I remember the day when as a study group we travelled by bus through Crossroads. It was one morning after heavy rain. That afternoon we had lunch with the Crossroads management board. One comes out a changed person. One is overwhelmed by the realisation of the enormous socio-economic challenges facing this Government, but one is also grateful for the energetic and efficient manner in which this Government accepts these challenges. I had the same feeling of awareness when I visited Bangahung and Botshabelo outside Bloemfontein near my own constituency, and saw all the work the Government had done there, assisted, too, by private developers.

I have also had other experiences with my colleagues in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. It has enriched my life considerably to know that one can co-operate with these people and suffer no ill-effects. I have also gained an insight into their lives. I talked to a member of the House of Representatives who said to me: “Do you know, Sir, I cannot even go to my own church? When I walk into my church, the minister immediately changes his sermon and refers to Judas.” Yesterday the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to traitors. Do we know how difficult life is for these people who have chosen the path of peace and moderation in this country?

I was also a member of a group of our MPs that was addressed by a Black leader, a so-called moderate from the township, one of the so-called silent majority. He gave us an insight into his life and his experiences over the past two years; for instance, his children had to change school five times as a result of intimidation. Are we aware of these things? Are we sufficiently informed? Yesterday the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition inveighed against Archbishop Tutu. I share his sentiments, but my question is: What have the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party done to strengthen the voice of the moderates, the silent majority? Or has he tried to smother it?

In this connection I refer to an article in the Patriot of 10 June, under the heading “Kontak lei tot Verskerpte Nuwe Kleurgevoel by Blankes”. I quote:

This article ends on a crescendo, and I quote:

I think the columnist associated himself with an article by Mr Terre’Blanche a few years ago in which he wrote: “Haat diegene wat Kleurling- en Indiër-omroepers in jul kele afdruk. Haat diegene wat sê julle moet nie haat nie. Afrika is ’n land van haat.” The fruits of this are the sort of letter the hon member for Springs quoted here yesterday, which says that civil war is inevitable.

I sent this letter to a few hon members of the Official Opposition, not to crow about this, but just because I like those hon members. I am referring to the hon members for Middelburg and Delmas. I like them as people and that is why I sent them this letter in the hope that they would stand up in their own party and say that the tiger they had by the tail would devour them. That tiger will not only devour them, but our whole country too. [Interjections.]

The voice of the silent majority asks if we know what is happening in the townships. It also points an accusing finger at our Afrikaans-language newspapers and asks if they are fully aware of what is going on in our Black residential areas and if their news is not sometimes second-hand news. It asks if the electorate are informed and says that the battle for the future of South Africa will to a large extent be decided in the townships.

Do we realise that by the year 2000, 60% of the management and executive posts will be controlled by Black people and that 85% of other office posts will be filled by Black people? Mr Leon Louw, of the Free Market Foundation contends:

A member of the labour movement maintains that it is too late for the free market system, because the workers are demanding a socialist system. It is not the hon member for Carleton-ville who said that, but his counterpart, Cyril Ramaphosa. History has taught us, however, that there is no inevitability, but that there are many examples of governments and people who were unable to read the trends in time and take pro-active steps.

Today we can tell this Government: “Well done! We have taken pro-active steps.” This Government’s economic initiatives have struck a major blow for the White man, because it has meant that the moderate Black man in the townships can lift up his head and say that he too is a citizen and can participate and negotiate his own future. That man can say now that there is security for him and a future within the free-market system. I think we must propagate this free-market system much more vigorously. A few years ago we had a most successful “Green Heritage Year”. What about a “Free Market Foundation year”?

Recently Anglo American allocated 250 000 shares to its workers. Pick ’n Pay issued 11% workers shares and is prepared to push this up to 50%. That gives hope to the Black man and to us as well.

Let me conclude. We must look with new vision at South Africa, not through fear-tinted spectacles. [Time expired.)

Mr Chairman, I want at the outset to refer to individual matters with which I did not have the time to deal fully at the start of this debate.

In the first place, hon members will remember that I made an announcement during my Budget Speech that a levy on heavy motor vehicles would be introduced in pursuance of studies made by the CSIR. In those studies they came to the conclusion that heavy vehicles did not make a fair contribution towards the repair of damage which they caused to roads, and that it was high time that we recovered something in respect of this damage which they cause from them in some way or other.

We expect to obtain more or less R200 million from that source this year. The matter is rather involved. A task group has been appointed under the chairmanship of the Deputy Director-General of Finance, Dr Arnold Pretorius. The provinces were also represented on this task group. They have completed their investigation and have worked out a few scenarios. We have made a choice, and this matter will now be dealt with as swiftly as possible at provincial level.

As far as formulae for own affairs are concerned, we wanted very much to comply with the requirements of the Constitution. Section 84(a) of the Constitution states that the formulae for the calculation of own affairs amounts shall be arranged by way of an Act of Parliament. However, it is a fact that these formulae are extremely difficult to compile. There are also certain variables which have an effect and make it difficult to establish such formulae finally in legislation. In the case of national education, for example, there are no fewer than 30 various reports and bases on which norms and standards are calculated.

We have come a long way with the legal men and we have battled with them and, in the long run, we came to the conclusion that we would not be able to get past the section in the Constitution by, for example, tabling the formulae only once. However, we shall not be able to avoid simply tabling them either. It will too much of a rigmarole to embody them in a separate law and, according to these people, it is actually a question of impossibility. For that reason we will content ourselves with the arrangement that we have at the moment until such time—hopefully early next year—as we are able to amend that section in the Constitution so that we can have an arrangement in terms of which we will able to comply with the provisions of the Constitution notwithstanding the practical implications of this matter.

I wish to report briefly to hon members that, as usual, we had an IMF delegation here this year consisting of four very highly esteemed economists with a very technical orientation and wide experience because they have been doing the same work that they did here in various other countries. They had comprehensive discussions and made analyses of our economy and policies and, without pre-empting the eventual report, I am very grateful to be able to inform hon members that their interim report which was critical in certain respects, was very useful and, as a whole, very positive and very supportive of various important aspects of our fiscal and monetary policy. I just wanted to make those remarks at the outset as far as certain of these formal matters are concerned.

I want to express a hearty word of thanks to hon members who participated in this debate which, in my opinion, was actually a very singular debate. If we count up the total time devoted to finances and to the Budget, I really do not know whether we will be able to make up a full 20 minutes with all the snippets from the tapes. Other matters, therefore, dominated the scene completely, and therefore I shall also have to react in respect of those matters in my reply. At least something was said about finances here and there which gave me the opportunity to prepare a reply in that regard.

A considerable number of kind remarks were addressed to my hon Deputy Minister, myself and to our officials. I thank hon members for that. I want to associate myself with that by expressing my wholehearted thanks to my hon Deputy Minister and our officers and advisers. We have too few people to assist us to do our work properly. The people we do have are highly expert people, and we drive them into the ground with the burden that we place on their shoulders. However, I have never heard them complain. Hon members need only come along to see which lights in the Hendrik Verwoerd building are often the last to be turned off at night. The same thing holds good for Pretoria. We lean heavily on them and we thank them for their dedicated service.

This debate has been characterised by a few interesting aspects, one of which I have already referred to. From the nature of my work it is not possible for me to be in this House as often as I would like to be. Therefore, I did not have the advantage of having been able to form a complete impression in regard to what has taken place here. The reason for that is that in the crises that we have experienced and in these difficult times that we are still experiencing, we are quietly engaged in bringing about drastic changes and reformations in our financial management. Some of these things eventually see the light of day and, once the end product has been reached, hon members can rest assured that an enormous amount of work will lie behind this matter.

Our department is one that has to be managed from day to day. There is no way in which one can delegate the work completely because it is too sensitive politically. A man, who moreover came from Lichtenburg, approached me from the polling booth in my constituency and said that that was the first time that he had voted in Florida. He said he had voted for me and that he now wanted to shake the hand that he had always felt in his pocket over the years. That is true. Every day we have our hand in the pocket of every person in this country. This is a singular department and I am sketching these matters purely as a background.

When one is again present during a debate such as this and experiences a concentration of political debate, one is able to form specific impressions. I was struck once again by the remarkable performance of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. It was a remarkable performance. I am still waiting for a vision. He had an opportunity here to tell us what they were really going to do with South Africa if they took over the Government, as the hon member for Lichtenburg told us they were in fact going to do.

What is the vision of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for South Africa? Where is his workable plan? I am going to content myself with this remark, because I want to come back just now to the details of what he said.

Instead of standing up in this House like a statesman and telling us which way South Africa has to go and the direction in which he believes he wants and is able to take South Africa, he saw fit to react to comments on a matter raised by an extremely capable backbencher for whom I, in my simplicity, see an outstanding future in politics.

This statesman of the Official Opposition then came along and did what his footsoldiers should have done. He took up the sword against a backbencher. Is that then the most important task that the man who sees himself as the future leader in South Africa can take upon himself in the final political debate of this year? It is remarkable, absolutely remarkable, Sir!

You are too proud to talk to a backbencher!

Tell us where you are going.

We shall deal with that further just now.

There is another general matter that I should like to mention briefly. Mention was made here of all sorts of products that appear on people’s tables and so forth. South Africa is not a boycott country. We have our trade preferences. We have people with whom we trade and whom we know use our products. We have people with whom we trade whom we know send those products further on, but we are not a boycott country.

We do not have an official boycott policy, and it is quite possible that a product Or two can find its way to South Africa from behind the Iron Curtain, but that does not mean that we trade with them.

The implication is that if we have to set up machinery to keep those products out of the country, we will in fact be a boycott country. While I agree completely with the hon member for Yeoville that we should not trade with the devil, I also want to say that we surely cannot spend the taxpayers’ money on a system to make absolutely sure that none of his products find their way to South Africa. It is really not a feasibility either.

Another matter that was raised here repeatedly and which is an exciting aspect of our economy is the growing role of the informal sector. This is a slumbering giant in South Africa which has a direct influence on many of the policies we are considering. Our taxation system has to fit in with it. Our assistance to the small business sector must fit in with it, including a whole series of other aspects.

When one considers the policy guidelines spelt out by the hon the State President on several occasions, and also by our other colleagues here, as the policy of the Government, it becomes very clear that we are seeking as far as possible to promote this great slumbering giant which is even going to have a beneficial effect on employment.

Earlier this year the hon the State President spoke about a redefinition of the task of the IDC, the decisive role of the SBDC, and so forth, and when one puts all these things together and one considers the eventual role privatisation is going to play—a part of that goal is to promote shareholding down to the lowest level and to establish the free enterprise system—one begins to get a picture of the comprehensive whole which we are planning in South Africa on the part of a responsible Government.

Another matter that was raised here, was that no matter how much we want it, decentralisation is not the full answer as far as urbanisation is concerned and that there are various aspects to urbanisation; that urbanisation is not simply a question of metropolises but also new areas that have to be better populated as well as the further development of existing towns. These things are all part of that process.

However, in the past, we did not have enough money. In spite of the fact that over the past three years we have spent R2 billion or more on decentralisation, we really do not have the capability in the political sense to bring about a total reversal of the urbanisation process as it is so often dealt with in this House. Decentralisation is not simply a question of the availability of money. One has to have an entrepreneur, a management body with the necessary expertise which will be prepared to run an undertaking in the decentralised area. Various other aspects are also of importance in this regard. One must therefore not have a one-sided view of the matter but a total understanding of the dynamics and the problems of our economy in South Africa.

I want to express my appreciation to hon members—I am thinking here of speeches that we heard towards the end of the debate, for example that of the hon member for Smithfield and many others—for the extremely responsible and sensitive way in which they acquitted themselves of their task. I do not have the time to do justice to the individual speeches of hon members and will therefore try here and there to give them their due. A number of hon members apologised for their absence because of other commitments they had to meet.

I want to refer to the hon member for Vasco who made his usual solid contribution. I want to thank him for his review of the fiscal and monetary policy we have applied thus far during the year. The hon member also discussed the effect of this policy, and I want to thank him for the knowledgeable way in which he did so. I am also grateful to him for replying to the arguments of the hon member for Barberton in connection with the appointment of two commissions. I really think the hon member for Barberton should make certain of his facts before he attaches all kinds of political connotations to the changing of decisions while in actual fact that was not so at all. I thank the hon member for Vasco for having rapped the hon member for Barberton over the knuckles.

The hon member for Jeppe, who unfortunately could not be here, asked me a specific question in regard to the outflow of money when people emigrate. There are very strict international measures controlling the yield for an investment in a country. By means of the financial rand system which the Government introduced in September 1985 in view of the debt standstill, one is able to keep a person’s capital assets in the country. That is what the financial rand system does. If a foreigner negotiates a financial rand transaction, money does not leave the country. I have heard people say many times that with the financial rand system money leaves the country. However, the position is precisely the opposite. One sometimes has to struggle to bring these facts home to “stuffy” people. It is rather difficult. [Interjections.] I hear this sort of comment in circles which take notice of the poor arithmetic that one so often finds in the Patriot.

The simple truth is that financial rand transactions take place without money leaving the country. The yield from these transactions goes out via the commercial rand. In this stage our balance of payments position is not so weak that it is necessary for us to think of a system which will bring us into conflict with the rest of the world.

†The hon member for Wynberg mentioned fewer brackets in our tax table. I can give him the assurance that we have looked into this very carefully. A lot of study is still being conducted in this regard and it will receive top priority shortly. When the Budget was being drawn up, we looked into that question but we could not afford it at the time. It will go hand in hand with a considerable sacrifice of revenue and we will have to advance further with the redistribution of the taxload so as to enable us to lighten the income tax burden before we can implement fewer brackets. However, that is certainly a very attractive option.

I should like to thank the hon member for Yeoville for a considerable number of constructive remarks and should like to start with the last point he mentioned.

It is certainly an extraordinary step, but I will refer that to a highly technical working group immediately—it is working on various aspects of sanctions per se—and I will definitely ask them to give it top priority. The chairman of the working group and the man in charge is the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works. I will ask them to look at it and to give us a specialist opinion. It is a multidiscipline committee, and trade and industry are certainly involved.

I would also like to get hold of a copy of that broker’s analysis. I have had some inputs, but not the one that he was referring to, and I shall certainly look at that too.

The hon member mentioned some ideals that he had formulated for South Africa, and I have no quarrel with them. Then he said that we should tell the public of South Africa what was in store for them and what sacrifices were to be made. That touches upon a line of argument followed by the hon member for Barberton as well.

At this stage let me say only this to the hon member for Yeoville. We have a moving target. It is not that easy to assess the effects of our current international situation, but I think we are now arriving at some firmer information and details. As far as our handling of the situation is concerned, we plan—we shall talk about this at a later stage—to have two different aspects of this issue studied in great depth shortly, and we shall come forward with the required results as soon as we can.

It is a well-known fact—we admit it—that our having become a capital export country has put a lid on our growth potential, because it is a severe constraint as far as our balance of payments’ current account is concerned. I shall deal with that more fully in a moment.

The hon member asked me who was winning, the hon the State President and I or our colleagues, and he referred specifically to the question of whether we would be achieving our targets. I have often argued in this House that the question of budgeting is like negotiating rapids. When we decide subsequently to incur certain additional expenditure, we will have weighed up very carefully the pros and cons of the expenditure and the service that needs to be addressed.

He asked who would win. All I can say is that under the leadership of the hon the State President, all of us are trying to make South Africa win. We are working in the interests of South Africa, and if those interests demand that we deviate as far as Budget figures are concerned, then we will do so in those very interests.

But you must keep an eye on that …

We certainly do.

They will spend your money, and you won’t know it!

I have received the apologies of the hon member for Sea Point. In his absence, let me say that we on this side also look forward to the day when there will be representatives of all the population groups in South Africa defending our Constitution. That will take a long time, however, because, as the hon the State President so aptly put it, there is only one solution for us, and that is to govern ourselves into new dispensations, because the maintenance of stability and security are of paramount importance in the process of doing something which without doubt will be a first in Africa.

In the process we are determined not to repeat our own mistakes, but we are equally determined not to repeat the mistakes of Africa, and we shall therefore go about this in a circumspect manner. We shall arrive at a stage at which we might not have the full answer to our constitutional challenges, but—this will be terribly exciting—at which we shall be able to say that we have found a direction which will take us very much closer to a solution.

From that point of view, I agree with the hon member for Sea Point that if that situation obtains in South Africa, we shall be in a much better position to rationalise and normalise our international situation. I think that the debate starting next week will be a major step and a potentially very important one in this regard. The hon member for Mooi River very aptly also coincided with that in the invitation he extended.

I want to thank the hon member for Pietermaritzburg-South for his contribution but I want to support his point that from this floor we convey a message of congratulations to the Johannesburg Stock Exchange too, not only for their 100 years of good service to this country, but also for the fact that they have committed themselves as a platform to a future South Africa based on the free enterprise system. I think it is a tremendous challenge—an exciting one—that they have set for themselves.

*Mr Chairman, I want briefly to try to react to hon members of the Official Opposition. I want to do so by way of a specific theme. That theme for replying to the hon members of the Official Opposition was given to us by the hon member for Soutpansberg, who is not here now. He said: We only speak the truth—the “we” he was referring to being the CP. The hon member for Soutpansberg said they only speak the truth. In his absence we thank him for having given us a theme for our reply to their contributions.

The hon member for Soutpansberg made a fatal mistake in his own contribution. If he is going to repeat that fatal mistake—which has been rectified for him in the meantime—he is going to be guilty of telling a lie. We trust, of course, that he is not going to do so. The hon the Deputy Minister of Defence replied to the hon member for Soutpansberg. Swapo was not involved. Swapo was not involved in any of the discussions that have taken place up to the present. The hon member for Soutpansberg, being the specialist of the Official Opposition in the sphere on which he spoke, ought surely to have known that. I wonder on how many platforms he has already made that statement but, worse still, I wonder whether his hon colleagues will see to it that he does not say it on any platform again—that he does not repeat it again. [Interjections.]

I say this because it is our experience that we have to assist the CP in this House with certain of the so-called facts which they either use here or include in their pamphlets, and that when we have proved to them unequivocally that something is wrong and untrue, only a short while later the same thing appears in the Patriot and in their pamphlets. I request them on the one hand to thank the hon member for Soutpansberg for the theme but on the other hand to ensure that he sticks to the truth.

I have a note here indicating that unfortunately the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has to leave. I want to ask him a question with reference to what he said in regard to regional services councils. I want to clear up something with him. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that regional services councils amounted to centralisation. Regional services councils represent the utmost in decentralisation that is possible in any region because its name is a regional services council and not a local authority. The region referred to by regional services councils is, after all, composed of various local authorities. How can he tell us now that it is a centralisation action when we want to have certain matters handled on a regional basis and establish certain sources of income and render certain services, for example by way of transport, sewage farms and similar matters which serve the whole region?

How then?

He asks how then!

But you are centralising from the local authorities!

No, it is a regional services council which renders services that can only be rendered on a regional basis. The interesting fact is that I asked for the information today and it would appear that CPs are serving on most of the regional services councils that are functioning most successfully in the Transvaal. We are very grateful for that fact. I do not want to blame him for that and I want to take my hat off to those members of the CP who are making a contribution in that way. I think that those members of those regional services councils are discovering the true facts about regional services councils.

I do not want to give him a lecture but regional services councils do not simply render services on a regional basis. Regional services councils also have an economic purpose in mind. I just want to remind the hon member that a greater balance is brought into regional development by way of regional services councils. The actual costs of, for example, commuting must be brought home to specific regions, such as metropolitan areas, so that money from the exchequer can be spent in underdeveloped regions.

It is not necessary for me to argue with the CP in regard to our aims with a view to the development of underdeveloped areas. That is after all their policy as well. However, this is apparently an aspect of regional services councils of which the hon member was not aware.

I should like to put a question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He talks about centralisation. He says that not all appointments take place by means of elections from the bottom up. He says some are appointed from the top down. May I ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition what he means by that? Does he mean that the franchise is influenced by appointments that are made in regional services councils? Is that what he means?

But I stated that some chairmen are appointed.

He is therefore implying that appointments that are made from the top down in regional services councils can influence the voting balance in regional services councils. Is that what he means, because that is how I interpret his remarks?

I did not say that, but it may be so.

No, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition adopted a standpoint in regard to regional services councils. Now he tells me that it may be so. I do not wish to cross-examine him; I am just making an honest effort to understand what he means. He says that not all appointments take place by elections from the bottom up. He says some of them are appointed from the top down. It is a question here of majorities and so forth.

I want to repeat my question. Can he please just indicate to me whether by that he meant that the voting balance can be disturbed by appointments which are made from the top down in the regional services councils?

That is not what is stated there!

That is not what is stated there!

Now he says that that is not what is stated there. The hon member for Pietersburg is telling him what to say. I want to read to hon members what is stated here. I quote from the unrevised copy of Hansard. He says here, and I quote him verbatim:

He goes on to say, and I quote:

All true!

All true? Therefore, when he says here “by a majority of votes” his concern is that the appointments that are made from above can influence the majority of votes.

That is your own deduction!

But that is only logical! I want to repeat my question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Will he please just give me an indication whether I understood him correctly in what he had to say here? [Interjections.] Do hon members see now what is happening here? The answer that I want from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is surely not of earth-shattering importance. Surely he can just tell me whether the logical deduction I arrive at from what he said, namely that appointments from the top down can influence the voting power, is the correct deduction.

You are not conducting a class now!

That is all I want to know.

Make your own speech!

The hon member for Pietersburg says I must make my own speech. [Interjections.] I shall tell hon members why the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not want to answer my question. He does not have a clue in regard to what goes on in regional services councils! He knows nothing about it! Nevertheless, he stands up here and talks about regional services councils. I wonder at how many places he has already done so. I wonder at how many places he is still going to do so!

He talks about regional services councils as being centralised bodies in which the majority can be manipulated by appointments from the top. He is saying, therefore, that Whites can be in the minority in regional services councils and that decisions in regard to the budget can be taken against the interests of the Whites.

That is correct!

The hon member for Pietersburg has now come to his aid and has said yes, that is correct. I now have it right. The simple truth is that the voting power in regional services councils is determined by the purchase of services from the regional services councils and not by way of a majority. [Interjections.] Yes, that is a completely different concept of voting. The maximum weight a local authority can have is 50%. Every city council is given voting weight according to the services that it buys.

[Inaudible.]

No, now the hon members knows it. If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had known it he could have said no to my question earlier on. [Interjections.]

What are we dealing with here? We are dealing here with a leader of an opposition who is so obsessed with colour that he pays no attention to the facts. He incites people’s feelings against RSCs on the grounds of totally wrong impressions. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows virtually nothing about numbers and yet he is totally obsessed with numbers.

I told him the other day that it required a very special kind of leadership to engage in consensus politics because our salvation in South Africa does not lie in the politics of numbers but in consensus politics. Then, one day he replied to me and, as it happened, I was here to hear him. He asked me then how I had arrived at the conclusion that numbers did not play a role in the election of people. It is not a question of representative bodies. That is not where consensus works. Consensus works the closer one comes to the executive authority. However, the examples he mentioned stop just this side of the executive authority—that was when he was supposed to have destroyed me with his reply. [Interjections.]

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

I shall reply to that question in a moment, once the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has left.

We now have two examples here. Firstly, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not understand the RSCs … [Interjections] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has to catch a plane; we can excuse him.

The simple truth is that we have two cases here where the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition understands nothing other than a majority of votes. He did not understand it in regard to consensus politics and he also did not understand it in regard to RSCs. I just want to tell the hon member for Pietersburg that the fact that he had to come to the aid of his leader in such a way was a pathetic exhibition. He can now ask his question.

Mr Chairman, if the regional services councils are carried through to their logical conclusion—in other words, if the redistribution of wealth has taken place—I just want to ask the hon the Minister whether it is not true that the other peoples will have a majority in such regional services council, and also as far as voting power is concerned? [Interjections.]

I do not know how to reply to that question.

No, you cannot!

The hon member for Barberton says I cannot. Let me first reply to him and then I shall come back to that stupid question.

The hon member for Barberton measures the set-back South Africa is experiencing now because of the lower rand against how much more his overseas travel is costing him. [Interjections.] That was what he told me. He told us a great tale of woe about the fallen rand, and he told me that I should try going overseas in the way ordinary people do and then I would find out what it cost.

Is the hon member totally unaware of the struggle that we are having in regard to exports and imports? Is he totally unaware of the role which the value of the rand plays in that respect in order to give us a surplus on the current account of the balance of payments? As far as our exports are concerned, we are not only fighting against sanctions and boycotts, we are also fighting a price war abroad. We are starting to win that struggle as a result of the stability which we have effected in the movement of the rand. There is a downward movement on the part of the rand. That is quite logical because there is a higher inflation rate in South Africa and there are specific political views in connection with South Africa, and for those reasons the rand is moving downward. Our reserves also have a specific influence in this regard. However, the hon member only feels the pain in his pocket when he travels abroad. He is not aware of the struggle that we are waging. That is a fat cat approach, and nothing else.

The hon member for Pietersburg wanted to know whether Blacks would not be in the majority on the RSCs once the redistribution had been completed.

In respect of voting power!

In respect of voting power? The voting power in a regional services council is controlled on two levels, namely that of representation in the council itself where no local authority can have more than 50% of the voting power and, in the second place, in the executive committee or management committee where no local authority can have more than two representatives. That ratio is determined by the number of services one buys. The hon member now contends that Black people are going to buy more services.

But surely that is correct!

Good Heavens, Sir! When is that going to take place, if ever? [Interjections.]

The problem which that hon member is referring to is one of his own making. [Interjections.] Hon members on that side of the House are forgetting a cardinal principle of regional services councils. Regional services councils came into being because the establishment of light and heavy industries around Black residential areas is a slow process, chiefly because there is no chance at all of their being able to have a tax basis as far as central urban areas are concerned. That is why regional services councils came into being. I can use the distribution of funds as an example. For example, an enormous project in the middle of Pretoria is going to be financed by a regional services council. Do hon members regard that as a strengthening of the voting power of Black people? The hon member’s standpoint is completely wrong.

There are other local authorities as well!

Sir, I think we must leave the matter at that. The hon member is sitting there laughing but no local authority can have more than 50% of the votes. We shall make an analysis of local authorities in every regional services council and see whether the hon member will continue to feel so happy about his point of view.

I want now to make a remark in pursuance of what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had to say. He said that the NP did not have the answers. When we reached the stage in the implementation of the policy which hon members still support, and in terms of what has been achieved, we still support, we realised that this policy did not have all the answers to all the situations in South Africa. The NP began to realise that it could no longer change the environment but that it would have to change its policy in order to achieve its goal. The CPs leapt backwards, and today they are standing at precisely that same point. They decided that no matter what the circumstances were, the answer had to remain the same and the environment had to change, come what might. I want to put it categorically to hon members on that side of the House that the constitutional environment with all its physical characteristics has been changed to the maximum in South Africa. For that reason the circumstances of today require different answers. One cannot continue to cling to the same answers that obtained in 1948. If the point is reached where one no longer has all the answers—even though the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says there has to be a tree—but then in spite of everything one kicks against the pricks in order to change the environment, one will find oneself in a dead-end street and without any more answers. The NP has taken account of the realities and is seeking answers for an environment which it interprets as being an unchanging reality.

Now you are just giving up!

We are not giving up. That brings me to the hon member for Lichtenburg. The way in which words are played with is unbelievable. That is precisely what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does. When it suits him, he talks about a Black majority; when it suits him differently, he talks about Black nations. When it suits them, he and the hon member for Lichtenburg talk about numbers; when it suits them differently, they talk about percentages.

I just want to point out this one aspect to hon members. Let us consider for a moment the argument of the hon member for Lichtenburg in regard to the question of the numbers in KwaZulu. We can also analyse all the other things that he had to say here this morning. I shall comment just now in regard to the percentages he mentioned.

When he says that about 60% or 80% of Blacks are going to live in Black areas, and still more after a few years, it sounds particularly impressive until one converts the percentage that is going to remain in White South Africa into numbers. One then has the actual situation in perspective. One also realises then why he speaks of percentages in order to lead people along that path because, when one looks at the reality of the people remaining behind, one sees that this dream of partition, this dream of White-by-night is only just a dream. One realises then what the implications are of what the hon member for Ermelo said when he said that a person will vote where he lives.

At the end of the day one can come to only one conclusion, as the hon member for Umlazi so succinctly put it, namely that the deserters had deserted the party. They tell people privately—I heard this from the lips of a minister of religion—that all they have to do is take over the Government. They know that they will not be able to achieve all these other things. However, all they have to do is take over the Government because they say that we have no will and no plans, and that after all we have done! That is what they tell people.

In regard to these very impressive figures, taken on percentages, which the hon member for Lichtenburg mentioned here this morning, there is one cardinal fact which he omits and that is that the growth in the number of Black people living in the Black areas did not come about as a result of migration to those areas. That was not the reason for it. It has resulted from the most dramatic period of consolidation and the declaration of large areas as Black areas with a number of Black people already living there. The Black areas which existed prior to 1948 and 1951 were small Black areas accommodating only a small number of people. Besides those, the NP proclaimed large areas in which Blacks were already living. However, the hon member was absolutely silent in that regard.

He was personally responsible for the declaration of a large Black area accommodating 100 000 Blacks in the North Eastern Transvaal. So he knows what the reason was for the drastic increases in the percentages which he boasts so much about. [Interjections.]

The question arises immediately whether our future salvation lies along the way of migration or whether it lies along the way of that time in which in his opinion we made such good progress; when, in other words, we made more land available with more Black people living there. Is that the road we have to follow? It is the withholding of facts of that sort which gives our electorate a completely different picture and which causes the electorate to have a completely false impression about these things.

I want to come to the hon member for Barberton. I want to tell him that he said a terrible thing here. I do not know whether he can leave it like that in Hansard. His words were:

We are not blunting the moderate upswing. We are making a moderate upswing out of a too sharp upswing. That is after all what we are always saying. [Interjections.] We are preventing the economy from overheating in order to prolong the graph of economic growth. We are therefore taking the peak out of the graph. Secondly, we can, of course, revitalise the economy once again. If we see that it is falling too low, we can of course remove certain measures. I want to say in all fondness that I do not understand the hon member in this regard. [Interjections.]

I also have a very serious problem in regard to something else the hon member did. This Prof Swart whom he quoted was presented by the hon member in a way that was completely out of context. I want to tell him again that I do not think that that was worthy of him. He used an extract from a technical and scientific document quite selectively in order to create the impression that every taxpayer maintains up to 35 fully subsidised health patients.

No, that is not so!

Well then, the hon member must correct his Hansard. The impression is created here that every taxpayer has to carry that number of people. That is the impression that has been created.

No!

Well then, the hon member must choose his words better, because that is the note that I made and that is what I have here. I got hold of that document by Prof Swart and that is nothing like the perspective he gave. Prof Swart made a study in this regard and, by the way, he also included the First World requirements. That perspective is not included in the hon member’s quotation at all.

The hon member also said—I want to deal with this briefly—that we cannot retain First World standards and bring Third World people up to First World level because our economy cannot afford it. The simple truth is that as the economy is growing at the moment, because it has a ceiling as a result of the fact that we are a capital-exporting country, we could not reach that level even if we wanted to. That is not possible. With the growth rate of 2,3% that we are allowed at the moment we cannot maintain First World standards for everyone in this country as far as per capita spending is concerned. That is the simple truth.

The reason for this is that in the past, in the classical economy of South Africa prior to the debt standstill and financial sanctions, we only called a halt when our current account stood at minus R3 billion or minus R4 billion. Everything below the line was financed by means of capital inflow. That capital inflow is no longer there. We have now to call a halt when our current account is in the positive position of R3 billion per annum so as to ensure that when we turn we are going to be able to turn on the positive side of that line.

The question that arises here is this—and I want to put this point specifically to the hon member for Barberton. If the CP take over the government and what Prof Boshoff predicts happens to South Africa, does he think that South Africa will ever again become a capital-importing country? [Interjections.] The hon member cannot answer that. I do not blame him because the answer is an absolute no.

South Africa is a capital-exporting country at the moment.

Of course South Africa is a capital-exporting country. Why? [Interjections.]

The National Government!

The hon member for Brakpan is helping me. It is to a very large extent as a result of the policy of the National Party Government. I received a call this morning confirming the potential influence of this American legislation. We are not a bunch of hares which run away as soon as we see a hound, but there are realities that we have to consider. The hon member for Brakpan who is so vociferous in regard to the economy, is part of the group of far-rightists who announce from platforms: “We will go it alone.” [Interjections.] “To the devil with the outside world!” They tell South Africa that we can stand alone in the world. [Interjections.]

I just want to tell them this so that they will know. South Africa has an open economy. More than 60% of our GDP is represented by imports and exports. In other words, every cent of that money goes through a foreign bank. Either the foreign bank handles the money when one pays for one’s imports or else they handle the money when one’s exports are paid for.

The simple truth is that if South Africa does not at some time or other extricate itself from the bottleneck of being a capital-exporting country, and a stage is reached where confiscation takes place those hon members will, in terms of their policy have to close the doors of this country. We have friends who have confidence in this State President to carry through his reform on such a basis that the moderate people in this country will shortly be able to tell the outside world with one voice to keep their hands off us. It is an achievement that those friends of ours have thus far been able to keep our country’s doors open. If one has an obstinate government, as the CP’s will be, this country will be brought to its knees because it will not be able either to export or import. That is the truth. Even Prof Boshoff envisages this. The people of South Africa must start hearing these truths.

If we with our policy of reform are treated internationally in the way we are, what chance have they got? If this were to happen to them, what would they do with South Africa? What then will they do with the South Africa which will then be sitting here like a small closed laager? This country cannot afford a CP government. No wonder that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said here yesterday—never in my life will I forget his gestures—that Prof Boshoff was rightist, conservative and on the right, or words to that effect. In other words, he distanced himself a little from Prof Boshoff yesterday. By implication he came a trifle closer to the NP. I do not know why this should be so but perhaps he has been given guidance to get away from these stupidities.

I wanted in conclusion to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition another question—unfortunately, I have to ask it of him in his absence—whether he has ever left anything in a stronger position than that in which he found it. Has he ever left a movement or a body in a stronger position than that in which he found it? The reply to that is no. It appears to me that this is what is happening now in the rightist ranks, because I wrote in my notebook yesterday: “Hy kap vir Carel”. He is therefore not even in a position to unite the rightists. In fact, they are in the process of breaking away from each other. He distances himself from them but he wants to unite South Africa! A leader who cannot unite South Africa does not have any hope at all of extricating South Africa from this severe economic situation. The leadership we need is the leadership that we are getting today from this hon State President …

Hear, hear!

… because the leadership that South Africa needs is to unite the people of South Africa as far as possible and not to divide them as far as possible. That is the goal that this hon State President has set himself.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.